I think there’s a lot of armchair simplification going on here. Easy to call investors dumb but it’s probably a bit more complex.

AI might not get better than where it is now but if it does, it has the power to be a societally transformative tech which means there is a boatload of money to be made. (Consider early investors in Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and even the much derided Bitcoin.)

Then consider that until incredibly recently, the Turing test was the yardstick for intelligence. We now have to move that goalpost after what was preciously unthinkable happened.

And in the limited time with AI, we’ve seen scientific discoveries, terrifying advancements in war and more.

Heck, even if AI gets better at code (not unreasonable, sets of problems with defined goals/outputs etc, even if it gets parts wrong shrinking a dev team of obscenely well paid engineers to maybe a handful of supervisory roles… Well, like Wu Tang said, Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

Tl;dr: huge possibilities, even if there’s a small chance of an almost infinite payout, that’s a risk well worth taking.

Birds are super good for the environment, take a quick google!

Squirrels on the other hand, are an invasive species in much of the world.

In my home province squirrels make it pretty hard for some of our local trees etc.

Poll showing Harris winning: c/politics needs this!

Pot showing Harris behind anywhere: get this fascist garbage out of c/politics!

lolololol, I finally get it, you have no idea what you’re talking about, not just in regards to campaign staff or risk management, but about the actual damned movement! Your entire understanding of literally every point which you’ve brought up isn’t based in reality but rather how you’d like things to be. If it wasn’t so depressing it’d be impressive.

I feel dumber for having been in this conversation.

The premise of the Uncommitted Movement is to protest in the primary election by voting uncommitted, but not in the general election. It’s in the name. Anyone involved in the movement or advocating for it will explain this. It’s public knowledge.

Your source is basically “I feel this way!” Like what, you think the word uncommitted actually secretly means committed Democrat voter regardless? Is this the “people are saying” style of fact gathering???

Do you literally not understand that the movement leaders are actively trying to negotiate with the Harris team now? Goodness gracious.

Elected politicians are supposed to listen to their constituents.

You’re at the point where you’re either purposefully or wildly ignorantly misunderstanding what the word listen means. They’re not saying she needs to actively hear what they are saying, they mean it in the sense of “she needs to acquiesce to our demands.” That’s what listening to our demands/needs means in a political context. Just… Wow kid, wow.

the publicly stated premise

lol, the publicly stated premise that, as far as you’ve been able to show, only exists in a speech that wasn’t given? Neat publicly stated premise.

Good heavens, this is what I get for assuming people are worth engaging with. I mean, the misinformation you’re spreading is useful but like, I don’t want to be a party to lying to people.

You might look at an interview NPR did with one of the leaders where they have this interesting exchange:

SIMON: I mean, reading between the lines, it sounds as if your support is conditional upon some of your demands being met or reassessing your position.

ALAWIEH: I am an individual. As an individual faced with a binary choice between Trump and Kamala Harris on a ticket, I will circle Kamala Harris. But I’m also a movement leader…

SIMON: Yeah.

ALAWIEH: …Among movement leaders here. I can’t go to those folks and say, hey, I think Vice President Harris will feel differently. They need to see a plan because in this moment, saying thoughts and prayers, saying feelings, does not cut it.

In other words, if Kamala does not change course on Gaza, the uncommitted movement as a movement does not look like it will support her.

I’m pretty done with this.

That being said, it is flattering to see you borrowing my syntax, even though you’ve used at best/at worst less elegantly it has somewhat improved your style. So that’s nice.

Your source for a policy position is “many delegates say”? Seriously?

And even that comes with a “but” clause.

Really?

It was never their intention to contest the DNC ticket in the general election.

Okay, I’ll bite. Beyond the speech, what is your source for this?

Or do you literally not understand the strategic point of marking those ballots uncommitted?

Jesus, the self righteousness of ignorance, it’s impressive.

Race has nothing to do with the fact that the movement she represents has explicitly argued against the Democratic nominee and the **only **place where that position changes was to be the speech.

Just… Wow kid, wow.

Kid, the entire point of the article is that things are not will/won’t happen. It’s that there are a range of probabilities.

This nonsense of claiming the person representing a movement explicitly about withholding support for the Democrat nominee has the exact same risk of deviation from the other speakers is, at best, foolish.

Then ignoring that movement and saying I’m only seeing a risk because of her race is either impressively dumb or disingenuous. I’m not sure which is worse.

The rational or adult way to look at the issue is to think about the probability of an event vs the rewards of the action. That’s a conversation worth having. Your position would be worth respect if you could have the sanity to admit “sure, there’s a chance that she’d go off script but here’s what I think are the odds, rewards and costs.” That’s a reasonable discussion. What you are doing is just saying over and over again that there is zero risk and any notion of such risk is racist.

That’s just petulant child shit.

As you grow up, hopefully you’ll learn that things that you assume will happen, may not happen and vice versa. Part of being an adult is learning to think about that sort of uncertainty, it’s tricky but a worthwhile excercise.

Clearly you need to re-read the article.

Your argument’s application of risk is targeted to her and her movement selectively as if they have some kind of known inherent risk when they do not.

lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?

This version of the person your argument is about is invented for your argument.

YES! AND THAT’S THE POINT! I don’t know this person, you don’t know this person. We have both invented possible versions. Except you seem unable to realize that there is a chance, however small, that your version is incorrect and that there are risks associated.

Look, I do forget my own privilege. A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so. Making things binary (yes/no) is easy but not a very good way of looking at the world. Here’s an article that kind of outlines probabilistic thinking in fairly simple terms, it might help:

https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking

A news site like Mother Jones is a legitimate way to communicate with the public in the year 2024.

Come on. A movement doesn’t announce serious policy change via a single interview to a news site.

Just to demonstrate this conversation is worth having, after you’ve read the article, can you explain what you think probabilistic thinking is?

And after all that, I am still voting for Jill Stein donald trump. :)

Wild and well put, thanks!

It’s a revealed preference. And your preference is to help trump, which is absolutely your right. As is enjoying ice cream while a child runs into traffic.

I haven’t bullied you, called a stooge, russian, troll or anything of the sort. I have called your simplistic and nonsense opinion childish which seems appropriate.

I haven’t “spun” an analogy (how would one even do that?) Though you seem to realize how accurate it is as you’ve refused to articulate why it doesn’t apply other than that it highlights the moral abdication of your choices.

The folks who fought for democracy probably wanted even more progressive candidates but, thank heavens they, unlike you, realized the importance and consequence of their votes.

Voting should be about advocating for the future we want, not settling for what feels safe or easy.

And the future that you want is one where trump wins the presidency. Otherwise you would act differently.

Now, if a trump presidency won’t affect you that much, makes sense. I get that. I personally won’t be harmed. But, I know others will be. So this is important.

Still waiting for an explanation of why the analogy doesn’t hold up rather than just “I DON’T LIKE IT!”

Twenty months? You mean almost two years? No one is throwing away their career for the thirty seconds it would take to escort them off stage.

Except she’s had a long career, probably making a better living, working for Deloitte. Seriously, 2 years is nothing in politics. She has many back ups and promoting this cause may be important to her. You are making a wildly large assumption in deciding that a life in Congressional politics is going to be this woman’s lifelong career. And frankly, using a giant national event to grab headlines in the name of a cause isn’t a terrible way to make a name for yourself. (Consider how much of the republican party leadership actually got their start in the tea party, which was at the time a similarly anti-establishment group.)

That’s the thing. This person is a relatively unknown, there are potential benefits (or someone could see plausible benefits) to going off script and that’s inherently risky.

Consider that State legislators occasionally straight up switch parties during legislative sessions.

This idea that she or anyone in her position would seriously plot to do this is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up.

I am not claiming that she was plotting to do this, I am saying there was a risk that she could have.

Another way to think about it, they had metal detectors at the DNC. Now, if I were to claim that someone was planning to shoot up the DNC, that would be an extraordinary claim and would require evidence. But, like me, the DNC understands the difference between a potential risk and a known danger. The metal detectors, like stopping this speech, are there to prevent a potential risk, despite the odds being fairly slim.

Your argument wants there to be a secret speech for her to go off script to.

No, you are misunderstanding. My argument is that there is a **risk **of such and that’s an unforced error. It’s the same risk averse strategic approach that Harris has adopted to great success thus far.

They said the DNC did not ask to see the speech.

Yeah, because the thing someone promises to say is not what they were concerned about. Pretty simple.

I really don’t know how to break this down any more clearly for you. But I will say it’s very strange to be like “it’s important to nominate Harris, so we’re going to tell people in this one leaked speech rather than say, using any of our social media or web presence which, y’know, are how we generally try to disseminate information directly to people.”

So that principle is “I won’t be affected so screw everyone else who will be!” ?

Voting should be about advocating for the future we want

And the future your preferences reveal is one governed by a trump administration.

Just because the analogy tries to guilt me into conformity doesn’t mean I should abandon my values

Again, please explain the difference between your position and the analogy. If you would continue to eat the ice cream because the ice cream would make you feel good and you’re not that child or that child’s parents, just say so. Empathy isn’t something with which everyone is blessed and while that’s not ideal, it’s life.

Pretending that just because one doesn’t vote for democrats, MUST be enabling Trump, is childish and not a position worthy of respect.

Really? The trumpian “I’m rubber, you’re glue” style of rhetoric?

I think though, you’re missing the point of the earlier example so I’ll simplify by labelling.

You want to eat some ice cream. (That’s voting third party.) As you’re about to take a bite, a small child runs into the road (this is the consequences of a trump victory, say more dead Palestineans, no chance to mitigate climate change etc.) Now, you are the closest “adult.” Sure, the kid’s parents (the rest of America) should be there to stop this from happening so you can just enjoy your ice cream. Unfortunately, saving the child requires dropping the ice cream.

That’s kind of the scenario. Now, legally, I don’t think you would be liable for choosing the ice cream over saving the child. But, morally… Well, I’m just curious as to whether the answer is still “meh, screw 'em, I’d like my ice cream.” or how the analogy doesn’t apply.

To be a responsible member of a democratic society, it is important to consider, appreciate and acknowledge the choices of our votes.

It just seems wild to put your entire argument as “there is no way a state member of Congress who has been in office for all of 20 months would go off script in support of a cause which she feels is super important.” Especially to heartily endorse Kamala, a position which the uncommitted movement has (as far as I can tell) kept fairly quiet, not even bothering to publish on their website. (Yes, we have this super important message about the election but it’s not on us to present that message anywhere if we don’t get our way with a speaker!"

Even if I think the odds are the script would go fine, it’s a silly risk and would be an insane unforced error.

Wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.

Voting a third party is fine as long as you understand you are enabling trump

Nope. If I wanted to vote for Trump, I’d vote for Trump. Like almost half of the country is doing.

Pretending your choices don’t have consequences is childish and not a position worthy of respect.

If you see a toddler running into traffic and you don’t stop them, sure you didn’t make it happen but you are still responsible. Similarly, if you understand the pain that trump will cause and you don’t help stop it, that’s on you.

It’s your choice but be adult enough to admit the consequences of your choice.

It really seems like you are asserting things without regard for evidence or observable reality. You can’t just say “there’s no risk of deviating from the speech.” That’s a very bold assertion made entirely without evidence!

The Uncommitted Movement do not need to indirectly communicate with the DNC via their website.

Yes, they kind of do. That’s the thing. It is very strange to have a “movement” say they are going to make a significant strategic decision but only if they are able to do it live and on primetime. That works for WWE and reality television but not politics. And it is a strategic switch that seems to only exist in this one copy of a speech, not on the website or anything where you would expect to see a significant policy switch.

The same mechanisms as anybody the DNC works with.

Yes, except those speakers have all been part of groups that are enthusiastically and vocally for Harris.

Again, you have this group that have been pretty anti-establishment then promising they are going to radically shift gears and are now going to be vocal for Harris? Seems off.

The Democrats need high voter turnout to win. Swing state elections this year could be determined by younger, unlikely voters. Many younger, unlikely voters care about Palestine. So it is critical they know the Democratic Party’s ticket is in the interest of Palestine.

You should look at the swing state data! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/10/us/elections/times-siena-poll-likely-electorate-crosstabs.html - For the “blue wall” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/17/us/elections/times-siena-poll-likely-electorate-crosstabs.html - For the interesting possible swings (Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina.)

In both, you can see that Harris leads or is close with 65+ (a group that is twice the size of the younger voters and votes reliably.)

Nate Silver also broke down the math pretty well in an aptly titled post “Your friends are not a representative sample of public opinion”

Let’s do some math here. About 51 percent of the country voted for Biden in 2020. Of that 51 percent, 14 percent say they don’t plan to vote for Biden this time in the head-to-head matchup against Trump. Of those, 13 percent list Gaza or something related as their top issue. And of that 13 percent, 49 percent4 are more sympathetic to Palestine than to Israel (and only 17 percent are more sympathetic to Israel; the rest are in the both/neither camp). So we get:

.51 * .14 * .13 * .49 = .005

That is, 0.5 percent of the American electorate are 2020 Biden voters who say they’ll withdraw their vote from Biden because he’s too far to their right on Israel.

(https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-representative)

You might also look at how the issue fits in with the broader public, where even a third of Democrats oppose a ceasefire if Hamas does not release the hostages (the ones they haven’t murdered yet): https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49384-majorities-support-a-ceasefire-in-gaza

Like I said, huge risk with marginal upside. Even if the odds are against it, the outcome could be disastrous. Think about Russian Roulette with a 1/100 chance, sure the odds are in your favour but would you play that game for a nickel?