|
I mean, I don't exactly have much trust in the New York Times or CNN either Like, do you trust your union to fight for you? You probably don't have a union, so no. Do you trust your local news station? Not if it's owned by Sinclair. Do you trust either major political party? loving hell no. A comparative ranking of trust in various American institutions is going to run into the problem that Americans have essentially zero trust in most of their institutions right now. You're comparing a bunch of very slight differences at the bottom end of the scale. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 24, 2018 |
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
And for good reason, as Twilight of the Elites expounds on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:lol, no. They'll hobble along as the minority party they are of white urbanites who want to feel good about their station in life. Pod Save America et al. will be dead though Inshallah. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
I posted a picture on Facebook of an absentee ballot with a link to a DSA voter guide, and within 10 minutes Facebook removed the post for violating their Community Guidelines. Meanwhile, I see mountains of far right conspiracy garbage posted everyday by my chud relatives with impunity. I sure am glad there are so many technocrat liberals waiting for the day SV algorithms save us all. EDIT: I also crossposted it to Instagram, which has yet to take down the post. Great job, FB 
Euphoriaphone fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Euphoriaphone posted:I posted a picture on Facebook of an absentee ballot with a link to a DSA voter guide, and within 10 minutes Facebook removed the post for violating their Community Guidelines. Meanwhile, I see mountains of far right conspiracy garbage posted everyday by my chud relatives with impunity. I sure am glad there are so many technocrat liberals waiting for the day SV algorithms save us all. I don’t disagree with the spirit of your post, but in many places it’s illegal to do this, and that is likely why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
I would like to extend an invitation to so my fellow Thunderdomers to hop on over to the C-SPAM authoritarians thread where we have been discussing why the Democratic leadership sucks so badly from some pretty interesting angles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Yeah if it was a filled-out ballot you shouldn't be publishing that - even if it's your own. That's frowned upon and often / usually illegal, for good reason. If it was a blank ballot though, then yeah gently caress FB, and of course posting the voter guide should not be a violation in any case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah if it was a filled-out ballot you shouldn't be publishing that - even if it's your own. That's frowned upon and often / usually illegal, for good reason. Depending on the state it doesn't matter whether it's filled out or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, I don't exactly have much trust in the New York Times or CNN either Is that so? I can trust people/organizations without agreeing with them, but that's just me personally. Their respective editorial slants tend to be fully poo poo-tier, but that doesn't mean they aren't trustworthy. It simply means you need to be a critical reader of whatever they put out and look for bias and how it may affect your perception of the facts they present. And it's quite alright to be pissed off at them for that, but it doesn't mean they aren't trustworthy. Getting the facts wrong entirely is a different matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Is that so? I can trust people/organizations without agreeing with them, but that's just me personally. Nuance? In 2018? Are you a time traveler?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Is that so? I can trust people/organizations without agreeing with them, but that's just me personally. Having to constantly cast a critical eye on their articles because you're afraid they'll mislead you with some biased bullcrap if you let your attention wander a bit sounds a lot like distrust to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
No one answering that poll is going to lawyer it up with  "well technically I trust / have confidence in the press / FBI / whatever to suck poo poo" you goons 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Is that so? I can trust people/organizations without agreeing with them, but that's just me personally. "Sure you need to constantly need to make sure they're not subtly misrepresenting whatever they're reporting on because they're biased, but that doesn't mean you can't trust them"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
this guy's vicious https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/status/1054149816152932353
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
that’s not how the npc meme works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 09:41
|
|
|
That dude owns. And unsurprisingly you have a whole bunch of hashtag resisters in the comments going "well actually".
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:that’s not how the npc meme works. It was originally made to target hashtag resisters (even if the alt-right doesn't understand the difference between them and the left) and still kind of fitting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That dude owns. Given his views on same-sex marriage, not really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1055208706298658816?s=19 "My party is bad" is an impressive strategy. Remember though its dorks like us on the internet saying Democrats are lame that is actually hurting the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
love how democratic pols hate their own base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
Radish posted:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1055208706298658816?s=19 Because deep down, you're ONE OF THOSE CRAZY DEMOCRATS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Radish posted:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1055208706298658816?s=19 Campaigns like this, and the useless centrist dems who defend them, demonstrate such a contempt for the regular voter, such an explicit assumption that they are all morons. It's like "shhh, let them trash the democrats or vote with the republicans, because that way they will convince the rubes to vote them and we will get a majority to control the agenda in the senate." As if people don't know what is at stake here. As if people the people who care enough about the supreme court to be swayed by Manchin's vote for Kavanaugh don't also know that a democratic majority may be able to block those nominations. Or as if the people who are ok with their local democrats but think national democrats are crazy leftists aren't aware of who gets to be the majority leader. Republicans are far more sophisticated than democrats on this (regardless of how much the average well educated lib likes to mock them): there's a reason republicans have picked Pelosi and Schumer as targets for their ads regardless of location, because their point is clearly "it doesn't matter if you like this conservative democrat, if congress/senate flips, here's who's going to dictate the rules." Meanwhile, centrists keep punching left and going "if you don't say anything we may get these rubes to put Pelosi as the speaker and Schumer as the majority leader, and then we can get our agenda regardless of Manchin/McCaskill, etc" when it's obvious that Republicans have seen this coming a mile away and are prepared for that argument. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Campaigns like this, and the useless centrist dems who defend them, demonstrate such a contempt for the regular voter, such an explicit assumption that they are all morons. Yeah exactly. This kind of idiotic triangulation is insulting to Democratic and Republican voters alike. Like conservative voters are so stupid they will vote for the Democrat that will hand over the power of the Senate to the party that, at least in theory, is going to stop the things their conservative Democrat says she is pushing for. It's like when Doug Jones was wavering in his Kavanaugh vote despite specifically running on a pro choice agenda. Anyone in Alabama that gives a poo poo about putting a conservative on the bench is already voting against him. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Is that so? I can trust people/organizations without agreeing with them, but that's just me personally. I mean, by this standard something like RT is also trustworthy. Selectively choosing facts that support a preferred narrative (and ignoring or downplaying things that are inconvenient) is effectively not much different from what you're seemingly deeming "untrustworthy." Publications like WaPo/NYTimes or whatever are particularly dangerous because they have a reputation as being "serious" in a way that stuff like FOX or whatever isn't. No one - likely even including most conservatives themselves - is under the illusion that FOX News isn't a pro-conservative outlet, but many people are under the illusion that something like the Washington Post is relatively "unbiased."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:No one - likely even including most conservatives themselves - is under the illusion that FOX News isn't a pro-conservative outlet, but many people are under the illusion that something like the Washington Post is relatively "unbiased."  no in fact most FOX viewers convince themselves that FOX is the only unbiased network precisely because it does little more than reassure them that every thought, every bias, every bigoted inclination they've had in their entire life is 100% correct. Right-wing media doesn't challenge its consumers at all, by design, because to conservatives that's the same thing as being fair and balanced, and allows them to think they're just "pro-reality".
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:
I mean admittedly this is basically the reason so many squishy liberals love things like Vox or PSA. Arguably this isn’t a partisan thing and is more of a human thing, in that everyone is subject to extreme confirmation bias and what does it for you is based on your preconceived notions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That dude owns. And unsurprisingly you have a whole bunch of hashtag resisters in the comments going "well actually". He's actually a pretty bad bigot who spent like 20 tweets lecturing a white guy that he was a lovely ally because he "only" taught lower income inner city kids during the day and went back to his suburbs at night. "You're not a real ally until you live in a slum along side the rest of us!" -a guy who is going to accomplish absolutely nothing btw this doesn't make his poo poo about the #Resistance types any less true. It just means he's not going to accomplish anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
My primary issue with Swan is that he defended Nate Parker, which is lol worthy. I also heard he has interesting opinions about gay people but I have no proof of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:
I mean, my dad's side of the family, minus my dad, are typical southern fundamentalist Christian Republicans, and they think FOX is conservative; they just think conservative is correct. edit: Like there's a distinction here (though I'm not sure how important it is) between "thinking a media source reflects an ideology that you think is correct" and "having an ideology yet thinking a media source is somehow objective and ideology-free" (which could describe the way many liberals view certain media, like the Washington Post or whatever). Liberals, or at least a certain subset of them, seem kind of unique in the way they sometimes specifically value the idea of media that is "objective/unbiased" and not explicitly liberal-aligned. Like a liberal might say "I like reading/watching (insert liberal media like DailyKos or Rachel Maddow or whatever), but I also sometimes read/watch (insert media they perceive as "unbiased") to just get the facts." Of course, in reality this "unbiased" media actually reflects an ideology, and the perception of it being unbiased is actually pretty dangerous because it results in a bunch of people thinking "at least I know I'm getting Just The Facts from this source." Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing: Nate Silver tries but FiveThirtyEight should have lost all credibility after 2016. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Why, specifically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
People are bad at understanding how probability works. If an unlikely results occurs, they feel anyone who said said result was unlikely is a hack and fraud forever. Especially if they had a strong emotional investment in the unlikely result not occuring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Why, specifically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Apropos of nothing: Huh? His was the only outfit that gave Trump a decent chance of pulling an upset victory. Everyone else was predicting Hillary >99%, while Nate was saying "hey guys a 1-in-3 chance plays out more often than people expect" for which he was derisively nicknamed "Shook Nate" in D&D (really if anyone's prognostications should lose credibility after 2016...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
I think Nate should be discredited as a pundit but his math work seems legitimate, admittedly speaking as a layman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Frightening Knight posted:I think Nate should be discredited as a pundit but his math work seems legitimate, admittedly speaking as a layman.  Kilroy posted:2015, actually, with the "Trump's 6 stages of Doom" article, which was recognizable as rubbish even at the time, and without the benefit of hindsight. I remember a bunch of goons  posting that article at me when I said that Donald Trump was almost certainly going to win the GOP nomination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Frightening Knight posted:I think Nate should be discredited as a pundit but his math work seems legitimate, admittedly speaking as a layman. his math's alright but he's also a huuuuuge coward when it comes to his predictive models. anyone who runs three separate models and only reports the accuracy of the one of the three that is closest to accurate in the aftermath? you are better off slaughtering your own goat to read the entrails, there's about as much analytical rigor involved
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:2015, actually, with the "Trump's 6 stages of Doom" article, which was recognizable as rubbish even at the time, and without the benefit of hindsight. Yeah his punditry can be pretty bad, that doesn't mean his numbers aren't good (in fact in his post mortem of that piece he specifically acknowledged that he ignored what the polls were saying because he didn't want to believe Trump could be the nominee). But yeah that piece was stupid as hell, not just for the probabilities pulled out of his rear end, but for the way he assumed they were all independent even though they obviously weren't (for example Stages 1 and 2 were "other candidates take attention away" and "polling doesn't translate to votes" while Stage 3 was "bad performance in Iowa or New Hampshire", but obviously Stage 3 depends on what happened earlier: if he's still soaking up all the attention and polling intention translates to voting intention then he's set to do very well in the first primaries isn't he). Also obviously if he does well in the first 3 stages and picks up support as candidates drop out (Stage 4) then he will be winning a lot of delegates (Stage 5). And if he picks up a majority of delegates in the first 5 stages, then he doesn't have to worry about Stage 6 (brokered convention/ratfucking)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:his math's alright but he's also a huuuuuge coward when it comes to his predictive models. anyone who runs three separate models and only reports the accuracy of the one of the three that is closest to accurate in the aftermath? Interesting. I would sincerely love to know more, but I doubt I would understand the math involved sadly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Nate cannot handle baseball statistics and anybody at all is relying on him to predict the election. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 22:28
|
|
