Message from @possumsquat93
Discord ID: 502945182006902796
You participated, you lost
The system worked, it did not go your way
your examples make no sense
If we have a contest for say, a cash prize, and you win, and I start bitching about it, I'm just being a sore loser, no?
It's childish behaviour. I knew the results could = my loss
and you didnt explain the extent of this hypothetical contest
I agreed to lose as well as win
It doesn't matter, it's just a contest
and taking it way off topic
It's 100% on topic. Do you know what an election is?
A contest
When you vote, you accept Trump winning implicitly
That is one of the results of the election
You willingly take part knowing that you are participating in a process that could elect Trump
and your contest example only helps my point
Ergo now that Trump has won, you should have already accepted it
What, that you're a sore loser?
im done you cant see it im dopne explaining it you dont want to se it fine but i tried
No, you've made a series of circular statements and then get mad when I use different examples to explain flaws with that reasoning beyond it simply being circular
no im getting frustrated becuase you are turning this into symantic debate and a circular debate and use some of the wtf examples ive ever seen but its fine agree to disagree
I havent turned this into a semantic debate in the slightest, and I'd love if you could point to where I used a circular argument
Voting for a third party can also be useful in the long run. Winning just 5% of the electorate secures public funding for the next election.
Crypto racist has a nice ring to it.
They're not really crypto-, though.
But it sounds cool
hey guys you know the 4 square political test?
does anybody else feel like it should be working on atleast 3-4 dimensions
sorta asking after discussion with right wing friend who in a geo-political aspect ends up being put as authoritarian typically, but on a personal level is very libertarian
over-complicating needlessly isn't worth a damn, but all the same the test(s) itself misses finer points of ones viewpoints
Might be a matter of changing the questions rather than the layout.
there's sapply for 3 dimensions
and 8values is 4 dimensions
8 values doesnt illustrate my political leaning via hypercubes tho
well... yeah, we can't perceive hypercubes
Maybe you can't
D:
):
Yeah, these tests aren't really that good. I think the majority are actually made to be push-polls. Furthermore it's really not obvious that political orientation should exist on any reasonable dimensional space.
Seems to me that you can directly measure the dimensionality of a political test by measuring the independence/orthogonality/correlation between questions.
OK. How do you define orthogonality?
Perpendicular
It's just the collinearity between responses to the test questions.