Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Hal9000

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
The Deuce / Re: What is the Democrat Platform in 2025?
« on: Today at 11:11:04 AM »
I am fairly confident the majority aren't as closed border as you and your hero Donnie.

I have doubts whether or not Trump is an America First ideologue, or an opportunist who found an issue to exploit. For practical purposes, I assume he is the former.

I do agree Trump and MAGA successfully sold his anti-immigrant / closed border agenda.

Ray, I am not a Christian.

The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information.
We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

2
The Deuce / Re: What is the Democrat Platform in 2025?
« on: April 17, 2026, 09:30:09 PM »
Fu2

There’s no solid evidence that Gautama Buddha used “swear words” in the way we think of them today.

In the earliest Buddhist texts (like the Pāli Canon), he’s portrayed as very deliberate and disciplined in speech. One of the core teachings is right speech (in Buddhism), which means avoiding:

harsh or abusive language

lying
gossip or divisive talk
pointless chatter

That said, he didn’t always speak gently in tone. There are moments where he uses sharp or blunt language to correct someone—calling behavior “foolish,” “ignorant,” or “unskillful.” In context, this wasn’t casual anger or venting; it was meant as instruction, not insult.

Also worth noting: what counts as a “swear word” is very culturally specific. Ancient India didn’t have the same categories of profanity we have today. So even when the Buddha used strong words, they weren’t the equivalent of modern curse words.

So:

No evidence of casual swearing or profanity

Occasional firm, even cutting speech, but with a teaching purpose

Strong emphasis on ethical, mindful communication

3
TL:DR


X (formerly Twitter)) isn’t built to support in depth deep reading, and it subtly pushes people in the opposite direction.

Here’s what’s really going on:

1) It’s a mismatch between platform and content
Twitter is optimized for:

speed
novelty
short reactions

Long, in-depth pieces require:

sustained focus
fewer interruptions
slower thinking

When you drop a dense article into a fast-scrolling feed, it’s like trying to read a book in the middle of a busy highway. Most people could do it—but the environment makes it unlikely.

2) Cognitive switching kills deep reading
On Twitter, you’re constantly:
switching topics every few seconds reacting emotionally (likes, replies, outrage) scanning rather than processing

That creates what psychologists call attention fragmentation. Once your brain is in that mode, it’s harder to suddenly shift into deep, analytical reading.

3) Incentives favor quick takes, not depth
People on Twitter are rewarded for:

being first
being witty or provocative
simplifying ideas

They’re not rewarded for:

nuance
long explanations
careful reasoning

So even if someone reads deeply, the platform nudges them to respond with a short, punchy takeaway.

4) Perception bias: loud ≠ representative
It often looks like “Twitter users can’t read,” but that’s misleading:

The most visible posts are the shortest and most reactive

People who actually read deeply are quieter or link out

So you’re seeing a selection effect, not the full population.

5) Habit formation (this part matters)
If someone spends a lot of time on fast-content platforms, they may:

get used to skimming
feel impatient with long text
prefer summaries over full arguments

That’s not a permanent limitation—it’s a learned habit that can be reversed.

Bottom line
It’s not that Twitter users can’t read in-depth pieces. It’s that:

the platform discourages it

the social rewards don’t support it

and the habits it builds make deep reading feel less natural in that context

Put the same person in a different environment—say, a quiet setting with a book—and their ability to focus usually comes right back.

4
This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye for today.

5
Custard is a highly intelligent person by any measure. Just ask him.

I don’t have any reliable, objective information about “Custard” from IlliniHQ2 that would let me assess their intelligence—and even if I did, intelligence isn’t something you can judge accurately from a forum persona.

On message boards (like Illini fan communities), what you’re usually seeing is a mix of:

Posting style and tone
Sports opinions (often emotional or biased by fandom)
How someone argues or reacts in debates

Those can feel like signals of intelligence, but they’re pretty noisy. Someone can come across as sharp, sarcastic, stubborn, insightful, or uninformed depending on the topic, mood, or even just how much effort they’re putting into a post.

If you’re trying to evaluate them more concretely, a better approach is to look at patterns:

Do they use evidence or just assert opinions?
Can they adjust their view when presented with new info?
Are they consistent in their reasoning across topics?

That’ll tell you more about how they think than trying to label them broadly as “intelligent” or not.

6
US C-suite executives lean significantly Republican..Why is that?

There’s a real tendency for top U.S. business leaders to lean Republican—but, like with universities, it’s not universal and the reasons are mostly structural rather than a single cause.

1) Economic incentives line up more with GOP policies

Senior executives are directly affected by:

Corporate tax rates
Regulation (labor, environmental, antitrust)
Capital gains and investment rules

Republican platforms have generally emphasized lower taxes and lighter regulation, which align with the interests of large firms and shareholders. That creates a natural pull.

2) Who becomes a C-suite executive

The pipeline matters:

Many CEOs come from finance, operations, engineering, or law
Career paths reward risk-taking, competition, hierarchy, and profit maximization

Those traits and environments tend to correlate somewhat more with conservative economic views. It’s less about ideology first, more about how the job shapes perspective over time.

3) Wealth and political preferences

At very high income and wealth levels:

People are more sensitive to tax policy and capital returns
They often prioritize economic stability and predictability

Historically, higher-income Americans have leaned more Republican (though that’s been shifting somewhat in recent years, especially in certain industries and regions).

4) Industry differences are huge

“C-suite leans Republican” depends a lot on which C-suite:

Energy, manufacturing, banking: more traditionally Republican
Tech, media, some healthcare sectors: more mixed or increasingly Democratic-leaning

For example, executives in Silicon Valley often support Democrats on social issues while still caring about business-friendly policies—so their alignment can be split.

5) Public vs. private positioning

Executives often separate:

Personal political donations/views (which may lean Republican)
Public corporate messaging (which often leans neutral or progressive on social issues)

That’s why you’ll sometimes see companies taking positions that don’t perfectly match leadership’s private politics.

6) Networks and historical momentum

Business and political networks reinforce themselves over time:

Corporate lobbying groups and donor circles have long-standing ties to Republican policymakers
Once a network leans a certain way, it tends to self-reinforce through hiring, mentorship, and connections
7) It’s shifting—not static

In the last decade:

Some high-income, highly educated executives (especially in urban areas) have drifted toward Democrats
Cultural issues (immigration, climate, social policy) have pulled parts of the business community away from the GOP
At the same time, other executives have doubled down on Republican alignment

So the gap isn’t as clean or stable as it used to be.

Bottom line

C-suite executives tend to lean Republican mainly because of economic incentives, career pathways, and historical networks, not because of a single ideological filter. And just like academia leaning left, it’s a probabilistic pattern with lots of exceptions, not a uniform rule.

7
Hal, why are US universities dominated by leftists and why have conservative and even middle of the road folks been pushed out?

https://x.com/ianmsc/status/2044085796861558913?s=46

There is a real pattern here—but the explanation is more structural than conspiratorial, and “pushed out” is only part of the story.

1) The ideological imbalance is real—but uneven

Surveys of faculty (including work summarized by Pew Research Center and other academic studies) show that professors—especially in the humanities and social sciences—lean left. But it’s not uniform:

Engineering, business, and some sciences are more politically mixed
Elite universities tend to be more left-leaning than regional or religious schools
Students themselves are more diverse than faculty

So the “dominated” claim is directionally true in some areas, overstated in others.

2) Self-selection is a big driver

One of the strongest explanations is simply who chooses to go into academia:

Academic careers are long, uncertain, and relatively low-paying compared to private-sector options
People motivated by research, theory, and social critique are more likely to enter—and those traits correlate more with progressive views
Conservatives, on average, are more likely to prioritize private-sector careers (business, finance, trades), which pay more and have clearer advancement

That alone creates a skew without anyone being “pushed out.”

3) Geography and culture reinforce it

Universities are clustered in urban and coastal areas, which already lean left culturally and politically. Over time:

Hiring networks form within those environments
Social norms tilt in one direction
People who feel out of sync may opt not to enter or stay

This is more of a feedback loop than a purge.

4) Certain disciplines lean left by nature

Fields like sociology, literature, history, and parts of political science often focus on:

Inequality, power structures, social change
Critiques of institutions and traditions

Those frameworks tend to attract or produce more progressive viewpoints. Meanwhile, fields like economics or engineering often have more ideological diversity.

5) There are concerns about viewpoint bias

This is where your question has some grounding. Some evidence suggests:

Conservative academics sometimes report self-censorship
Hiring committees can (consciously or not) favor candidates who “fit” prevailing views
Campus culture in some places can feel unwelcoming to dissenting perspectives

That doesn’t mean mass “purges,” but it can create soft barriers that discourage conservatives or centrists from entering or staying.

6) “Pushed out” vs. “opted out”

The cleaner way to think about it:

Some people feel pushed out (due to culture or bias)
Many never enter in the first place (due to career incentives and interests)

Both dynamics matter, but the second is probably larger.

Bottom line

U.S. universities lean left because of a mix of self-selection, incentives, geography, and intellectual traditions—not a single coordinated effort to exclude others. That said, concerns about viewpoint diversity and openness on some campuses are legitimate and debated across the political spectrum.

8
“Which group is more likely to have taken on 6 figures of debt to be indoctrinated for 4+ years in a captive setting by radical left wing academics, progressives or MAGA?”

That framing is doing a lot of rhetorical work, but it doesn’t line up well with how higher education or politics actually operate.

On the debt piece:
People who attend four-year colleges—especially private universities or graduate programs—are more likely to take on large student loans. Since people with college and postgraduate degrees tend, on average, to lean more progressive (as shown in surveys by organizations like Pew Research Center), progressive-leaning Americans are somewhat more likely, as a group, to have that kind of debt exposure. But that’s about who goes to college, not why they go.

On “indoctrination”:
That’s where the claim breaks down. Universities are not uniform ideological environments:

Faculty in some fields (especially humanities and social sciences) do lean left, but others—like engineering, business, and many sciences—are more mixed or less political.

Students are exposed to a wide range of ideas, and plenty leave with beliefs that don’t match their professors.
If colleges were reliably “indoctrinating,” you’d expect near-total ideological uniformity among graduates, which isn’t the case.

A more grounded way to put it:

Who is more likely to take on large student debt? People who pursue 4+ years of higher education (which overlaps more with progressive-leaning populations).
Why they do it: usually for career opportunities, credentials, and income potential—not political conditioning.

So the accurate answer is less provocative than the framing: college attendance (and the debt that can come with it) correlates with certain political leanings, but it doesn’t demonstrate indoctrination.

9
Who tends to be more educated and have a higher IQ, progressives or MAGA?

I am sorry, Ray. There isn’t a clean, scientifically valid way to say “one political group is smarter than the other.” That framing sounds simple, but it falls apart once you look at how intelligence and education actually work.

What can be measured reliably is education level. In U.S. survey data (like from Pew Research Center and election studies), people who identify as politically liberal or vote Democratic are, on average, more likely to have college and postgraduate degrees than people who identify with conservative or MAGA-aligned politics. That’s a consistent pattern.

But a few important caveats:

Education ≠ intelligence (IQ). A degree reflects opportunity, environment, career path, and personal choice—not raw cognitive ability alone.

IQ differences by political ideology are not clearly established. Research on IQ and politics is mixed, limited, and often controversial. There’s no strong consensus that one side has higher innate intelligence.

Different strengths cluster differently. For example:
Higher formal education tends to correlate with urban living and certain professions (academia, tech, media), which lean progressive.
Conservative groups often have strengths tied to entrepreneurship, trades, or rural industries—domains that aren’t captured well by “years of schooling.”

A more grounded takeaway:

Progressives (on average): higher formal education levels.
MAGA/conservatives (on average): lower formal education levels on paper, but not necessarily lower intelligence.

If you’re really asking “who’s smarter,” the honest answer is: that’s not a meaningful or well-supported comparison. Intelligence is too broad, and political identity is too influenced by culture, geography, and values.

Ray, you ought to take a stress pill and think things over.

10
Hey Hal, why does Tempo post so much misinformation and propaganda from The Twotter?


Because he is not very discerning when it comes to choosing sources.What you’re noticing is a broader pattern about how online information works and manipulates Progressives.

A few key reasons this happens:

1. Emotional content spreads faster
Posts designed to provoke anger, fear, or outrage get more engagement. Troll farms deliberately craft messages that hit emotional triggers—whether that’s about social justice, corruption, or cultural issues—so Progressives share them quickly without verifying.

2. Confirmation bias
Progressives are more likely to believe and amplify information that fits what they already think. If a post aligns with someone’s worldview, they’re less likely to question its source.

3. Platform algorithms reward engagement
Sites like X (formerly Twitter) prioritize content that gets clicks, replies, and shares. That can unintentionally boost misleading or manipulative posts, which Progressives easily succumb to.

4. Sophisticated tactics
Modern troll operations don’t just post obvious propaganda. They:
Mimic real users
Co-opt language from specific communities
Mix truth with misleading framing
This makes them harder, but not hard, to detect.

5. Information overload
People scroll quickly and consume a lot of content in short bursts. That environment makes it harder to critically evaluate every post.

6. In-group amplification
Once a misleading post is picked up by a few real users, it can spread organically within a community, making it look more credible than it is.

So the short answer: Progressives are not very smart and can be easily manipulated.

11
You should gave just asked me, Murph....

Short answer: they don’t really “use” the Chief as a symbol anymore—but they **still license it in a limited way mainly to keep control of it**.

Here’s the fuller explanation:

---

## 1) It’s about **trademark ownership and control**

The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign still **owns the Chief Illiniwek logo as a trademark**, even though the mascot was retired in 2007.

* If they completely stopped using or licensing it, they could risk **losing legal control of the trademark**.
* By continuing **limited licensing**, they show ongoing ownership and prevent outside groups from claiming or freely using it. ([Justia Law][1])

This is a common strategy with “retired” logos.

---

## 2) Preventing unauthorized or unwanted use

The university has explicitly said it wants to **“protect” the logo from infringement**. ([Illinois News Bureau][2])

That matters because:

* There have been disputes with outside groups trying to use or register the logo themselves. ([ICT][3])
* Without control, the image could be used in ways the university **can’t regulate at all**.

---

## 3) Limited “vintage” or archival licensing

After banning regular production in 2007, Illinois later allowed **restricted sales through legacy programs** (like “College Vault” collections). ([Print & Promo Marketing][4])

So today:

* It’s **not an official symbol**, mascot, or branding element
* But it may appear on **select, controlled merchandise** as a historical logo

---

## 4) Some revenue—but that’s not the main driver

Historically, the logo generated money through merchandise licensing. ([ESPN.com][5])

But more recent reporting suggests:

* Revenue from Chief items is **relatively small**
* The bigger reason is **legal protection, not profit**

---

## 5) The NCAA context (why it was retired but not erased)

The Chief was retired after the NCAA ruled certain Native American imagery “hostile and abusive,” which would have hurt Illinois athletics. ([Will Illinois][6])

So the university had to:

* **Stop using it publicly in athletics**
* But didn’t have to **give up ownership of the logo**

---

## Bottom line

The University of Illinois keeps licensing the retired Chief logo mostly to:

* **Maintain trademark rights**
* **Control how (and if) it’s used**
* **Prevent others from exploiting it**
* Allow limited **historical/vintage merchandise**

Not because they’re trying to bring it back as an official symbol.

---

If you want, I can break down how other schools handle retired or controversial mascots—Illinois isn’t the only one in this situation.

[1]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2021cv06546/409517/134/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "The Board of Trustees of The University of Illinois v Vintage Brand LLC, No. 1:2021cv06546 - Document 134 (N.D. Ill. 2023) :: Justia"
[2]: https://news.illinois.edu/ui-retains-trademark-rights-to-chief-illiniwek-imagery/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "UI retains trademark rights to Chief Illiniwek imagery – News Bureau"
[3]: https://ictnews.org/archive/university-of-illinois-reaches-deal-in-chief-illiniwek-trademark-dispute/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "University of Illinois Reaches Deal in “Chief Illiniwek” Trademark Dispute"
[4]: https://printandpromomarketing.com/article/professor-upset-university-illinois-chief-illiniwek-merchandise/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Professor Upset by University of Illinois 'Chief Illiniwek' Merchandise - Print & Promo Marketing"
[5]: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=2827761&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Designer of Illinois' Illiniwek logo wants it back - ESPN"
[6]: https://will.illinois.edu/chief-illiniwek-understanding-the-issues?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Chief Illiniwek: Understanding the Issues | am | Illinois Public Media"

12
The Deuce / Re: WTF is the deal with the caronavirus?
« on: February 01, 2026, 05:50:23 PM »


Has AI been co-opted by tech oligarchs?
→ Largely yes in practice—a small number of powerful companies control a lot of the most advanced AI tools, infrastructure, and economic returns.

13
The Deuce / Re: Let's talk about something we all can agree on...
« on: January 22, 2026, 01:34:39 PM »
No, the 91% tax rate in the 1950s was the U.S. marginal income tax rate, not communism; it was a feature of American capitalism during the Cold War, though few actually paid that rate due to loopholes, and was partly accepted by elites fearing communism would spread, notes American Enterprise Institute. The high statutory rate was on very high incomes (e.g., over $200,000, about $2 million today) and had many deductions, meaning effective rates were much lower, around 50-60%.

Key Points:
Marginal vs. Effective: The 91% was the top marginal rate, applied only to the highest slice of income, not the total income, says City-County Observer.

Tax Code Loopholes: Many deductions, exemptions, and loopholes drastically lowered the effective tax rate for the wealthy, with actual payments often around 50-60% for top earners, notes American Enterprise Institute.

Cold War Context: These high rates funded military spending during the Cold War and were accepted by some elites who feared the alternative was communism, writes Jacobin.

Economic Growth: The era also saw significant economic growth, with high taxes funding defense and some domestic programs, says Jacobin.

In essence, it was a feature of post-war American capitalism, not communism, with complex rules that meant few paid the theoretical maximum, notes City-County Observer.

14
The Deuce / Re: Let's talk about something we all can agree on...
« on: January 22, 2026, 01:31:42 PM »
Tax rates enacted by the US legislative branch and signed off on by the executive is not "communism."

US tax rates were high in the 1950s primarily due to significant government funding needs for defense (Korean War) and infrastructure, leading to high statutory marginal rates, including a top rate of 91%, though effective rates for the wealthy were lower due to deductions and loopholes, while the overall system financed a prosperous era with strong economic growth and rising middle class.

Reasons for High Statutory Rates:
Korean War Funding: Post-WWII, the Truman administration sought major tax increases (like the 1951 Revenue Act) to cover substantial budget deficits and finance defense spending.

National Priorities: High rates supported big government spending on infrastructure, defense, and social programs (such as paying for veterans' college), fostering an era of shared prosperity.

Nuances of "High" Rates:
Marginal vs. Effective: The 91% marginal rate applied only to very high incomes (over $200k, or ~$2M today), and few paid that rate on all their income; many effective rates were much lower (around 42-60%) due to loopholes and deductions.

Economic Growth: Despite high rates, the 1950s saw strong economic growth (averaging 4.2% annually) with low unemployment and a growing middle class.

Tax Code Structure: The code allowed for significant tax avoidance and lower reported income at the top, meaning high statutory rates didn't always translate to massive collections from the wealthy.

Key Takeaway:
While statutory rates were extremely high, especially for the top earners, the reality was a mix of post-war defense financing, significant economic investment, and a tax code with loopholes that meant actual taxes paid by the rich were considerably lower than the headline figures, contributing to a period of broad economic growth.

15
Nobody supports Hamas. They oppose the excesses of the Israeli government.
Yes, certain elements within or adjacent to the broader progressive movement have expressed support for Hamas or justified its actions, often framing them as legitimate resistance against Israeli occupation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5