Yea I think they’re gonna freak out upon seeing this ballot.

I think you missed the first sentence I wrote:

The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods.

Maybe explaining what you think that means would clear up confusion?

I can see a bit of strategic voting happening.

Yes, approval voting is indeed susceptible to strategies including burial, which leads to a “chicken dilemma”.

The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods. The method of determining winner from those ballots varies, and some are clearly worse.

For instance, if a candidate would beat all others 1-on-1 (Condorcet winner), then should a decent method always select that candidate as winner? RCV doesn’t do that.

Other methods also fail.

This nice table compares voting methods by a wide range of properties. I don’t think it hurts to make a more informed decision before backing a method that will be difficult to change. The US got stuck with FPTP through inadequate research, and it’d be great not to repeat that mistake.

While rated voting methods fail the Condorcet winner criterion, by rating instead of ranking candidates they satisfy another set of criteria also worth considering.

Among ranked voting methods, ranked pairs seems most compelling to me. Among rated voting methods, approval seems pretty good (and extremely simple).

we are criticizing how that simplified model is abused without considering the other variables and applied to policy-making. does that make sense?

That indeed makes more sense: it only fits short-run predictions. It justifies short-run policies.

Longer term policies need a different justification: you’re definitely right there.

I think economists have a name for mistaking short- & long-run effects (something to do with equilibrium), but the course was too long ago for me to recall.

Maybe go SI with day as base unit & SI prefixes? Eg, deciday, centiday, milliday.

Gift from ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamians love 12 & base 60. They also liked 7. Those numbers recur in their mythology.

Americans have a weird fixation with 💯. Where Americans might use percentages, I’ve seen Japanese plot values in [0, 1] (ie, pure proportions).

See i.e. the Laffer curve.

That’s a bit reductive, too. I recall economists arguing the Laffer curve is valid & the US is on the low tax-rate side of the optimal tax rate, and that was decades ago. They’ll show the deadweight loss of taxes & also point out its regulatory uses to correct market failures.

It’s also not a recent development. The field is broad and includes leftists & Marxists applying the same methods to study different problems.

Nope you are misreading the situation. Both graphs show the inflation rate with unemployment rate,

Don’t believe I am, and I wrote the same. Please read it carefully.

If the charts were of different data axes

Didn’t suggest this either.

The plot on the right states in US, 1970s onward, ie, different points in time. Sure, inflation rate & unemployment rate changed in the US over time. Do you know what else changed in the US over time? Absolutely anything.

Scientific prediction requires control: it cannot make accurate predictions when relevant variables are left uncontrolled. Take for instance the ideal gas law. When temperature is constant, we can reasonably predict volume & pressure to vary inversely for ideal gases. If temperature is at least known, then we can still make a prediction (a function of temperature). However, if temperature is uncontrolled, no prediction is possible. Models only fit the conditions they’re designed to model.

As mentioned before, economic models typically expect ceteris paribus (all other relevant variables held constant). The article you linked states the Phillips curve models economy only in the short-run. The US economy over a span of years doesn’t satisfy any of those conditions. Therefore, the model doesn’t apply.

Attempting to refute a model by applying it to situations it doesn’t claim to model is a strawman.

economics is how it takes “people are rational actors” as an axiom

It doesn’t, though. Maybe it’s assumed in models for simplification. Other sciences assume ideal conditions (eg, frictionless media, conservative forces, quasistatic processes in introductory physics) for simplification.

Behavioral economists have won Nobel prizes for studying departures from actor rationality. They’re aware perfect rationality is a simplification.

The fact that so many people can be convinced to vote against their economic best interests by supporting the GOP

They’d also refer to information asymmetry.

Going off what I recall from econ 101 decades ago, the graph on the right violates ceteris paribus: it looks like a historical plot of inflation rate with unemployment rate. The attempted refutation of the Phillips curve looks like a strawman.

Other sciences would also be unsurprised their models don’t model longitudinal observations that fail to control other variables over time.

Edit: clarification of strawman

I don’t continue reading

Seems like willful illiteracy & incomplete evidence fallacy. There was literally all the resources on the internet & a quick search to check hastily drawn conclusions before posting them.

Did they forgot the part where they pull down their pants & bend over face down, ass up? That’s crucial.

retain our Constitutional right

That’s a confused understanding of the government’s founding principles. Thomas Pain wrote

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect – that of taking rights away.

As radical as it may sound, the government is founded on the principle that fundamental rights are inherent & irrevocable (ie, inalienable). Laws don’t create them, though they may unjustly breach them. That’s why protest is justified & no government can legitimately remove that right no matter how much it claims it can.

Maybe it makes no difference in practice, but I get the feeling those earlier thinkers would have made better protesters.

Imperial measurements that are not integers are displayed in fractions.

Often, they’re not: look at packaging labels especially in grocery stores. Engineers use decimals regardless of unit.

Weight scales in the US don’t mark 1⁄3.

Quarter & third likely show up for verbal ease/brevity of naming: saying 250 grams is a bit of mouthful & unlikely for naming anything. I suspect if Americans used metric, they might still use fractions to refer to burgers by weight/mass in kg (like drugs!).

In metrics, fractions are rarely used.

Also convention. Nothing prevents 1⁄3 kg, 1⁄4 kg, and I’d expect to see 1⁄3 kg more often than 0.3̅ kg if rounding were avoided.

In metric, Americans still would get this wrong, because they don’t understand fractions despite using them. Or are you suggesting everyone would get the order of 1⁄3 kg & 1⁄4 kg wrong?

Pretty sure fractions are pure math & not metric or imperial.

Americans do be dumb AF, though.

a filter on lemmy.ml

Good ol’ lemmy.ml protecting our virgin eyes from terrifying words lest our fragile psyches break into an inconsolable mess. And lemmy is censorship resistant.

I like these better than that reddit bullshit.

Calling my opponent a “dickhead” at the end (ad hominem)

Unless that insult is a premise in an argument that concludes the opponent’s claims can be disregarded, it’s just an insult & not ad hominem.

A fallacy doesn’t make an argument wrong.

It doesn’t imply the conclusion is false. It almost always indicates an invalid argument.

calling it by name isn’t a magic spell that forces someone to throw in the towel

It’s a call for them to correct the fallacy by presenting a valid argument. Throwing the towel is a natural consequence when they can’t come up with one (possibly because there isn’t one).

Complaining when an argument is identified as invalid doesn’t correct the faulty reasoning presented.

Fallacy accusations.

No one needs to waste their time with someone else’s invalid reasoning.

Some of them being also kind of subjective.

Logicians & philosophers would disagree. Fallacies clarify identifying common reasoning errors & save effort overexplaining clearly documented problems.

Was this a valid example or was it a strawman?

Strawman means claiming to refute an argument by instead refuting a misrepresentation of it. Unclear how a question about examples would arise there unless the definition wasn’t understood.

Appeal to fallacies

I’ve seen this misused. An argument from fallacy is a claim that the conclusion of a fallacious argument is false because of the fallacy.

Claiming an argument is invalid (therefore not worth serious consideration until corrected) due to fallacy is not an instance.

Your belief that I don’t understand these ideas or haven’t encountered them is incorrect.

It’s more an observation that your position isn’t justified well.

I’m saying that a free society must not equally allow every possible expression, and that anything invoking and glorifying Nazism in specific is beyond the pale and must be stopped, including violently when necessary.

You are talking about weakening legal integrity of fundamental rights & committing violence against nonaggressors (violence against peaceful expression is never necessary): that’s flat out illiberal & incompatible with free society. Worst of all, you’ve failed to demonstrate any of it is necessary or sufficient to safeguard the fundamental rights free society stands for: basic logic indicates it does the opposite. Moreover, historical record discredits your position & shows such approaches when attempted are easily abused by authorities, harm society, and end up failing: you remain conveniently mute on this.

Claiming to have heard & understood it all before doesn’t mean your position now isn’t broken & muddled. “Defeating” illiberal movements in ways that end up defeating free society is incompetent advocacy. I think you’re mistaking fighting fascism (even at the expense of fundamental freedoms that define free society) with defending free society.

Anyone who seriously cares about free society needs to oppose illiberalism from your direction, too. I do. Your illiberalism is more insidious than overt fascism, because someone might mistake yours for progressive.

The only positive is there’s a better chance of reasoning with misguided people trying to do the right thing than someone who definitely wants to end free society.

they instead exploit the willingness of others to do so (like you’re insisting on here) because it drags them into unproductive conversations and creates feuds (like we’re doing here)

No, this disagreement is real. I cannot support recklessly subverting fundamental rights to score cheap “wins” that ultimately result in loss. Committing to a free society requires integrity to defend all of it consistently.

It’s seems to me your “solution” adds to the problem. It’s possible to oppose it, oppose facism, & argue for a better solution.

Moreover, it seems to me you’re falling for their game. Testing integrity by trying to provoke society to weaken its legal protections enough to punish offensive exercise of fundamental rights is a classic challenge illiberals pose to lure society to attack free society.

authoritarian, but that word means something different to everyone

Advocating for unnecessary limits on liberties is objectively illiberal. Weakening integrity of legal protections for fundamental rights increases their vulnerability to abuse by authorities, which is a step toward authoritarianism.

My original comment about paradox of intolerance is something that person needed to hear.

But it’s wrong, your reasoning is unsound, and no one has to agree with it. Your logic isn’t compelling.

Germany being the example

Germany is not a great example. Do their restrictions inhibit the rise of abhorrent movements? People still speak & assemble privately. Neo-nazis are still around. AfD continues gaining with its intimations of ethnofascism skirting barely within legal limits. German laws seem ineffective at deterring the rise of far-right extremism, which looks hardly any different in the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, Germany has internet patrols penalizing vitriol, insults, & satirical images of politicians showing fake quotes & live police suppressing pro-Palestinian protests as anti-semitic. So, German laws seem effective at helping authorities stifle & penalize online criticism. At least when authorities (following eerily similar rationalizations in the US & Germany) try to suppress pro-Palestinian protests, protesters in the US have firmer legal claims to defend their rights.

intellectual charity

The Principle of Charity means interpreting your words in their truest, likeliest meaning favoring the validity of your argument. It doesn’t mean just letting you have the argument.

If you don’t want to justify your claims convincingly, that’s fine. I’m still going to tell everyone who reads this why I think a free, democratic society deserves better than the deeply broken idea you’re pushing.

While I wish you well, too, you and the rest who endorse that thinking seem sorely misguided, and I wish you would think better.