|
the Alaska island thing is dumb and reminds me of a clip of some dude that kinda thought islands floated on water. people are just stupid as gently caress. also they probably just dont have the personality/ mentality to take the info they learn from school and apply it.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
funny thing, a post about the Bin Laden TikTok stuff just popped up on my tumblr dash (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 06:20
|
|
|
"look at what people are saying on TikTok" has to be the least interesting topic of discussion possible. Insipid beyond all recognition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
Avocado toast but now millennials are allowed to participate
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 06:38
|
|
|
Perhaps the youths on tiktok would enjoy the works of Dr. Noam Chomsky.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 07:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1724940242744954967 Just look at the actual poll itself. While it doesn't directly say how many Republicans were polled vs how many Democrats, one of the questions it asks is whether the respondent will vote in the Dem primary or the GOP primary, which is probably a pretty good proxy for respondents' party ID. And on that question, the GOP led by 6 points, so it's fair to say there were more Republicans than Democrats in that poll. With that in mind, it's not very surprising that Trump led Biden by 6 points in the poll. As for the other matchups, the poll actually pulled a trick that the tweet doesn't tell us about. It didn't actually ask about "Donald Trump" vs "Kamala Harris", it asked about "Republican Donald Trump" vs "Democrat Kamala Harris". Same for the rest - it put their party ID right next to their names, ensuring that in the case of candidates with less name recognition, people would fall back to their standard partisan positions instead of answering "Don't Know" or "Don't Care".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 07:44
|
|
|
The tricky thing with interpreting polls is you have to scrutinize not just the top line numbers like sample size and margin of error, but you also really have to think about the implications of methodology. Looking at the top line numbers in the Fox News poll, we get a margin of error of 3.0 for the total sample. Not too bad. But the MOE for sub groups is always going to be larger. For example, the MOE for. Black respondents (any age any gender, and any party affiliation) is 9.0. so we know those estimates are probably going to be farther off from the true value than the full sample. But you also have to remember that all these numbers rely on assumptions based on the idea that your sample is truly random. The farther off the sample is from a true random sample the more skepticism we have to give all these numbers. This is where methodology comes into play. if your sample of Black people is not representative of the actual black population, you can increase the sample size to 10,000 and you still will have an estimate and a margin of error that is off in ways that you won't be able to predict. You can use weighting to compensate if your sample over represents certain racial groups, but it's harder to compensate for bias from variables that are not known. In other words, it's easier to correct the problem if you oversample white voters than it is if your sampling methodology gives you a non-random sample of black voters. Those sources of bias are harder to quantify and typically unknown so they don't get adjusted for. So if you're doing a cell phone survey and 95% of people hang up on you that remaining 5% is unlikely to be representative. So we should be skeptical of the already-unimpressive 9.0 margin of error for black voters in this poll unless Fox has done some truly outstanding polling that nobody else has figured out. Now take 100 polls using that same methodology and analyze the results together. The results will tell you that the margin of error is much smaller, giving you a better confidence in your overall estimate. But its an unfounded confidence, because if those hundred polls are all taken using that same methodology that is unrepresentative, that estimated margin of error still isn't the true margin of error. It, along with your estimate will be off in ways you can't predict. If you knew all the ways that your sample was different from the true population, you could theoretically compensate, but the critical information you would need to do that is held by the 95% of people that hung up on you. That's not to say that this poll is necessarily off by a huge amount, or that pulling methodology as a whole is fatally flawed. But I think the fact that we're frequently surprised by the discrepancy between poll results and election results indicates that the polling methodology is frequently yielding unrepresentative samples even in so-called gold standard polls. I think this still isn't a solved problem in the field. If it was 538 would be making a lot more correct calls than they actually do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 09:20
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Avocado toast but now millennials are allowed to participate “It’s anti-Semitic to read Osama Bin Laden’s letter!” Meanwhile the leadership of the Democratic party of the United States is hanging out at a pro-apartheid rally with noted far-right bigot and anti-Semite John Hagee which said much worse things about Jews far more recently and is still, you know, alive. The whole OBL letter will have a much greater impact on people that love to talk poo poo about “kids these days” than the zoomers themselves, just like everything else. BUUNNI fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 09:52
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:“It’s anti-Semitic to read Osama Bin Laden’s letter!” Meanwhile the president of the United States is hanging out at a pro-apartheid rally with noted far-right bigot and anti-Semite John Hagee which said much worse things about Jews far more recently and is still, you know, alive. Ok millenial
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:“It’s anti-Semitic to read Osama Bin Laden’s letter!” I think I found where the anger is coming from, you seem to be upset at something that no one here actually said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I think I found where the anger is coming from, you seem to be upset at something that no one here actually said. When I posted about Russian payments to TikTok influencers they brought up the Biden campaign as a complete non sequitur/whataboutism argument I didn't bother engaging with. Got Diamond Joe on the mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:“It’s anti-Semitic to read Osama Bin Laden’s letter!” Meanwhile the president of the United States is hanging out at a pro-apartheid rally with noted far-right bigot and anti-Semite John Hagee which said much worse things about Jews far more recently and is still, you know, alive. Do you still truly believe there's no difference between reading the letter and reading the letter out loud on tiktok, saying that he actually had a good point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Bwee posted:Do you still truly believe there's no difference between reading the letter and reading the letter out loud on tiktok, saying that he actually had a good point? He had a lot of points, some of which were good, and some of which were bad. Osama bin Laden contained multitudes, like all of us. He certainly wasn’t a stupid person, and it’s definitely worth reading his letter from a historical perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Bwee posted:Do you still truly believe there's no difference between reading the letter and reading the letter out loud on tiktok, saying that he actually had a good point? Again, the impact that this trend will have on old people that are afraid of the US losing hegemonic status and say poo poo about “kids these days” is much higher than the impact on young people themselves. Tiny Timbs posted:When I posted about Russian payments to TikTok influencers they brought up the Biden campaign as a complete non sequitur/whataboutism argument I didn't bother engaging with. Got Diamond Joe on the mind. Ah yes, if you’re disillusioned by the US you just consumed Russian propaganda. But we definitely shouldn’t have any issues with Dem leaders and pastor John Hagee at the march for Israel Rally. E: Edited due to a factual error BUUNNI fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Whose re-reg are you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:Again, the impact that this trend will have on old people that are afraid of the US losing hegemonic status and say poo poo about “kids these days” is much higher than the impact on young people themselves. Biden wasn't even in the country when the march for Israel rally happened. Not sure how he shared a stage with John Hagee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
selec posted:He had a lot of points, some of which were good, and some of which were bad. Osama bin Laden contained multitudes, like all of us. He certainly wasn’t a stupid person, and it’s definitely worth reading his letter from a historical perspective. In conclusion, Bin Laden is a man of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Biden wasn't even in the country when the march for Israel rally happened. Not sure how he shared a stage with John Hagee. Clearly my media literacy has failed me and I wrongly assumed Dem leadership would include Biden. I was wrong. It’s Sen. Schumer, Rep. Jeffreys, and others, Diamond Joe was not at the pro-apartheid rally. Mea culpa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
selec posted:He had a lot of points, some of which were good, and some of which were bad. Osama bin Laden contained multitudes, like all of us. He certainly wasn’t a stupid person, and it’s definitely worth reading his letter from a historical perspective. Why praise the points of a heinous person when you can gather the same points from other people? Especially when the others don't have a lot of other horrendous views and don't plan/carry out atrocious acts? Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
Also when the good points (America is a colonialist empire) are underscored by "because America is run by the Jews"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
https://x.com/HeerJeet/status/1725392874492035517?s=20 Whole thing was bullshit astroturf guys Just exploiting "dumb zoomer" bias
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Why praise the points of a heinous person when you can gather the same points from other people who don't plan/carry out atrocious acts? Because ultimately learning history isn’t the anodyne pursuit of personal virtue and avoidance of samizdat. In fact, the samizdat is where a lot of the interesting detail lurks. I think people find the bin Laden letter interesting because it’s much more nuanced than the discussion and rhetoric around 9/11 was from our own alleged thought leaders. It offers a much more compelling narrative than “they hate us for our freedoms”. This doesn’t mean you gotta agree with every last point, but it does tend to complicate the understanding people have about the US and our history as the hegemon. It makes more sense, and offers more meaningful detail and explicative value than a lot of people got in school or just from what floats around our cultural aether. If people discovering this source and finding it enlightening pisses people off, don’t blame OBL or TikTok, blame a propaganda narrative that gets fed to the nation that is so thin and easily cast away the moment a contemporary primary source arrives that is from a different perspective than the one being offered up gets a little renewed interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
N/m
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:“It’s anti-Semitic to read Osama Bin Laden’s letter!” ... Nobody said this. Edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
selec posted:Because ultimately learning history isn’t the anodyne pursuit of personal virtue and avoidance of samizdat. In fact, the samizdat is where a lot of the interesting detail lurks. I think you misunderstood my point. I'm talking about how people are spreading the word about American imperialism/Middle Eastern policies/etc by praising things stated by Bin Laden. I was not saying "don't read and learn from Bin Laden's letter". For an easy analogy, I would never say something like "well, I was reading the bible and it was talking about how we shouldn't murder each other, and that's a really good point". Even though I've read the bible and wouldn't argue that it shouldn't be read, I also think it's filled with a lot of atrocious poo poo and don't want to promote it as something that has good, moral stances. I would instead make that point without relying on something I find abhorrent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:https://x.com/HeerJeet/status/1725392874492035517?s=20  The whole article on this is great: Washington Post posted:How Osama bin Laden’s ‘Letter to America’ reached millions online The people who pearl clutched about this and the editors at The Guardian are dumb as dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
It’s basically guaranteed that whenever the US legislature gets mad enough to try to ban TikTok they’re going to use that as evidence as to why kids need to be protected from that evil app.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:01
|
|
|
Reading through the ethics report on Santos and I am trying to figure out what he spent ~$4,600 on at Hermes. It looks like it is mostly women's handbags in that range, but he didn't give it as a gift to anyone and obviously doesn't wear one in public. Maybe it was one single purchase of a whole lot of $280 ties with pictures of horses on them. It's also kind of hilarious how low he was willing to go to steal. Literally stealing $4.99 once to make an Onlyfans purchase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Reading through the ethics report on Santos and I am trying to figure out what he spent ~$4,600 on at Hermes. He bought a handbag for himself, or at least for Kitara Ravache.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I think you misunderstood my point. I'm talking about how people are spreading the word about American imperialism/Middle Eastern policies/etc by praising things stated by Bin Laden. I was not saying "don't read and learn from Bin Laden's letter". Ultimately the primary source has value because it’s tied to a historical actor who made an outsize impact based on the rhetoric that is explained in the text. A personal sense of abhorrence is fine, but that’s not really useful in evaluating a source for its meaningful explicative value. It’s like getting pissed that the Communist Manifesto is popular because “hey: I own a factory! Are you calling me an exploiter?!” There’s a whole lot of historical context and the rhetorical content matters, because it explains how the larger forces at play are influenced by the rhetoric the document contains. Going to look for a more palatable alternative source is just silly, IMO. It just coddles the reader, and any student of history who was taking a serious look at the run-up and aftermath of 9/11, or just the larger history of the US in the region, would spend plenty of time with this document. OBL captures a lot of widely-held sentiment in the document, it’s not like he was a lone weirdo with anachronistic or marginal views, within the context he lived in. And it’s certainly not like our rhetorical figures of note were in any way psychologically or even functionally capable of offering up a succinct, honest interpretation of this letter that Americans would get the same understanding of if they’d read those people interpreting the letter for their audiences. Tom Friedman, Jon Chait, Matt Yglesias, Dick Cheney, or Maureen Dowd were never going to and just as importantly did not have the ability to be honest interlocutors for a worldview like this. Who did? People like Chris Hedges maybe, but nobody wanted to listen to him then or now, but even so-called intellectual titans line Hitchens were turned into drooling morons by their inability to get out of their jingo foxholes after 9/11. The horse’s mouth is a far better source than people who cannot, and even if they could (which I assert they constitutionally were unfit to) explain a letter like this in a way that dealt honestly with the context from which it emerged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
The Republican chairman of the House Ethics committee has filed a resolution to expel George Santos from congress. It was just filed a few minutes ago and officially sets up another vote to expel him. Most of the Democrats who voted "present" on the previous expulsion bill because they were waiting on the ethics committee report say they will now vote to expel him. That makes it very likely that he will be the first person to be expelled from congress who did not join the confederacy or commit treason/accept bribes from a foreign power. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1725530590856790137 quote:House Ethics chairman files resolution to expel Rep. George Santos from Congress
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
selec posted:Ultimately the primary source has value because it’s tied to a historical actor who made an outsize impact based on the rhetoric that is explained in the text. Once again nobody has said there is issues with just reading what he wrote. Nobody has denied primary sources are a good thing. Why people keep arguing against that point I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might have historical value, properly contextualized in a class about the holocaust or how european politics evolved between the 19th and 20th centuries. YOu wouldn't hand it to an 18 year old and say "Hey kid, here's the book they don't want you to read". It's insane to suggest that that document is a valuable historical perspective outside of the context of islamist movements of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The truth in it is intended to launder the lies, and I don't like that people in the online campist left are suddenly handing it to ISIS because it owns western aligned interests. socialsecurity posted:Once again nobody has said there is issues with just reading what he wrote. Nobody has denied primary sources are a good thing. Why people keep arguing against that point I have no idea. Motte-and-bailey. "People should read OBLs letter to get an accurate perspective on the history of the middle east" is indefensible, so you retreat to, "it's a document with historical value (that its historical value is orthagonal to its intent and message well...)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
The longest straight line created by nature is the east coast of Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Once again nobody has said there is issues with just reading what he wrote. Nobody has denied primary sources are a good thing. Why people keep arguing against that point I have no idea. The Guardian does seem to have issues with people just reading what he wrote because they decided to pull the content down in response to people doing that, and then talking about what they read. Maybe nobody here has that issue, but it’s difficult to say that the idea that people can read this didn’t upset anyone, because Guardian decided to take it down after more than a decade in response to people reading it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
selec posted:The Guardian does seem to have issues with people just reading what he wrote because they decided to pull the content down in response to people doing that, and then talking about what they read. Maybe nobody here has that issue, but it’s difficult to say that the idea that people can read this didn’t upset anyone, because Guardian decided to take it down after more than a decade in response to people reading it. Sure nobody here is The Guardian, when you quote a person saying something entirely different then argue something the Guardian did without even mentioning the Guardian sure feels like you are just strawmanning them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
selec posted:Ultimately the primary source has value because it’s tied to a historical actor who made an outsize impact based on the rhetoric that is explained in the text. Okay, now I'm a little confused on what you mean by "primary source". By primary, do you mean that as an originating source for an ideal/point? If so, you can easily look at lots of historical figures before Bin Laden's letter was written (or even his rise to power) that would make the same points about the US. If you mean something else by "primary", feel free to clarify what you mean by that and by "alternative source"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
selec posted:The Guardian does seem to have issues with people just reading what he wrote because they decided to pull the content down in response to people doing that, and then talking about what they read. Maybe nobody here has that issue, but it’s difficult to say that the idea that people can read this didn’t upset anyone, because Guardian decided to take it down after more than a decade in response to people reading it. That said I don't think their problem is with people reading the letter, it's with people using their website as a source to view the letter and then using it in political advocacy. You can dispute whether that's their call to make, but that's the call they're making, not "people shouldn't read this;" if they believed that they probably wouldn't have kept the letter up on their website for 21 years. The competing definitions of "read" to mean "study the contents of and interpret" versus "recite aloud for an audience" are causing confusion here, although the distinction is so simple and obvious I don't really understand how. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Sure nobody here is The Guardian, when you quote a person saying something entirely different then argue something the Guardian did without even mentioning the Guardian sure feels like you are just strawmanning them. Wasn’t my intent, but I do think conflating this letter with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion like some folks have done here is a rhetorical feint towards that idea. This document is not like the Protocols, and holds a different kind of historical value. Comparing it to the Protocols feels like an attempt to push it into a tiny box with other documents that people feel safe avoiding. The Protocols had a long history as a forgery, and was constructed specifically to prop up a lie; the OBL letter includes lies, but is constructed specifically to explain an action. The Protocols were designed as a transmission within a cultural understanding of antisemetism—the intended audience is other antisemites, and thus contains and creates a worldview that is reified by the document itself being read by other antisemites. This OBL letter is of an entirely different nature: it is intended to be cross-cultural explanation, pointed at an audience of people who the writer knows does not agree with him, who have been targeted specifically by him for violence. The Protocols are also presenting a historical narrative that no historian even begins to approach as being meaningfully tied to actual events, whereas a lot of the historical context in the letter isn’t really disputed that way. One is also of dubious authorship which sought to conceal its origins, whereas the other is a letter intended to be viewed as the creation of the author who wished to be known as the author. They’re just very different kinds of writing and I think it’s intellectually facile to compare them, whatever the rhetorical comparison is, and I think attempts to put them in the same rhetorical space occludes more than it reveals any similarity about them. Edit: I think the guardian hosed up a traffic-generation opportunity. They should’ve kept the letter up and built up analysis around it, maybe had several reaction pieces to it, or done some good journalism and created a version that allows you to hover over each section and display the historical context for any given claim. I don’t think it’s politically possible to do this in a Western nation right now because of the extremely high torque level of rhetoric around this stuff right now, but intellectually that would’ve been a much more interesting approach, and more honest. That we don’t have an intellectual culture capable of tolerating that (because of the cultural power of certain political tendencies) says a lot more about us than it does the letter itself. selec fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
It's been months, but Budweiser is firing their head of marketing after their American sales plummeted following a promotion with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney that sparked a conservative boycott. https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1725358098729083143 quote:Anheuser-Busch exec steps down after Bud Light sales slump following Dylan Mulvaney controversy
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:39
|
|