Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

This is exactly what's fueling the feedback loop between the alt-right and regressive left, each is busy labeling each other (and anyone who dares to disagree with them) as being basically Hitler, rather than addressing harmful ideas or opinions. It's a tactic designed to shut down dissent and otherize people, to create clear divisions between the Good People (i.e. "us") and the Bad People (i.e. "them") rather than eliminating genuinely harmful behaviors.

And yet, here you are. Labeling people on both extremes of the political spectrum as Uncivil Enemies of Reason and Free Speech (i.e. Bad People) while emphasizing your own status as an Independent Champion of Liberty Who Don't Need No Political Identity (i.e. one of the Good People). The Prongs are bad, only the Bend is good! All hail the Great Horseshoe!

Yet because FD has not claimed any label of their own, FD cannot be said to be demolishing alt right and progressives for the benefit of their third position tribe

Yes, but I think everyone agrees that there are some limits to separating an opinion from the person expressing it. Let's say, for example, that there's a guy with a habit of telling absolutely everyone---very calmly and politely---that he wishes them to die in the most horrifying way imaginable. One might argue that merely wishing for the death of everyone in the world does not make him a deplorable person---merely a person with some pretty deplorable thoughts in his head. But then again, if he decides to share his deplorable thoughts with the world, wilfully and persistently, what does that make him?

Gregarious and boring

[mainiac]

It's not about tribes, it's what in the highly technical language of dispute resolution is called a "position".

Folly's position: These women are destructive and need to be punished as a deterrent
Mainiacs position: Folly is horrible and people like Folly lead to underreporting

Now if we were dispute resolutin' we would take these positions apart, try to get at the motives of both participants and see what outcomes are possible.  These could include negative outcomes like the Toad banning everyone.  This could involve one side or the other caving to peer pressure and turning the disagreement into hidden resentment they will carry into other things.  I think the most likely outcome is "agree to disagree" with Folly and Mainiac both lodging their protests and then getting tired of things.  It's even conceivable that a positive outcome might happen where the participants change their views to make themselves happier.  Note that this is not the same thing as the participants agreeing.  It's possible to learn and be better off without agreeing.

But we dont see any dispute resolution.  Instead we see a new positional statement.  And this just leads to me adopting a position of my own and then we have a new disagreement:

RPG's and FD's position: Mainiac is disrespectful and his attitude is why these problems aren't solved
Mainiac's position in the new argument: No, your attitude is why these problems aren't solved (creative, ain't I? )

And the most likely route from here is turtles all the way down.

[RedKing]

I obviously missed the shitshow, but I'd have to say I'm with mainiac on this one. I'm tired of treating people with horrible opinions like "normal people with unfortunate opinions whom deserve civility and whom we should expend all our efforts to convince with sound logic of the folly (see what I did there) of their ways".

Fuck that noise. And fuck those people. Were circumstances reversed, there would be no olive branch, no patient understanding offered from that quarter.

This is why I'm not a Democrat. Democrats are perpetually the guy in the movie who, after he's beaten the villain, spares him and starts to walk away while the villain props himself up on one elbow and shoots him in the back.

[mainiac]

I've changed my mind.  I was wrong.

[TheBiggerFish]

...what just happened

[Rolan7]

Comedy

[mainiac]

...what just happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyX4pFtZRE

[smjjames]

...what just happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyX4pFtZRE

Why does Youtube seem to randomly have the captions option unavailable? Really should be available ALL THE TIME.

Anyways, while the media (and 538 to an extent) keep touting that Clintons lead is widening in the national polls, I keep seeing polls which come out with either a very close race or Trump is winning by a percentage point or two. So, I'm just wondering what's up with those that are diverging and showing a close race nationally vs those that are showing a wide (and sometimes double digit) lead for Clinton.

I think this is going to end up being more competitive than people seem to be making it out to be.

[Sergarr]

...what just happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyX4pFtZRE

Why does Youtube seem to randomly have the captions option unavailable? Really should be available ALL THE TIME.

Anyways, while the media (and 538 to an extent) keep touting that Clintons lead is widening in the national polls, I keep seeing polls which come out with either a very close race or Trump is winning by a percentage point or two. So, I'm just wondering what's up with those that are diverging and showing a close race nationally vs those that are showing a wide (and sometimes double digit) lead for Clinton.

I think this is going to end up being more competitive than people seem to be making it out to be.

Alternatively, we've having a Romney 2012 moment again, where their campaign believed that they were winning according to all their totally unskewed polls up until they suddenly lost the election.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Anyways, while the media (and 538 to an extent) keep touting that Clintons lead is widening in the national polls, I keep seeing polls which come out with either a very close race or Trump is winning by a percentage point or two. So, I'm just wondering what's up with those that are diverging and showing a close race nationally vs those that are showing a wide (and sometimes double digit) lead for Clinton.

Plenty of polls are very unrepresentative of what's going on, to the extent that they aren't even worth considering.

Take the typical example, you just hand a bunch of people papers that they can mark Trump or Clinton on. This is alright for a lot of people, but the election counts all voters, including the people who are voting for Johnson/McMuffin or haven't decided yet. The poll then forces them to make a split decision that they don't actually back up.

You can see it all here. When the actual election happens it's entirely likely that something will happen to these numbers. They may surge, for either Clinton or Trump. It's also possible the polls will end up representing how the vote actually goes.

Don't get me wrong, Trump can still win. It's just unlikely that he can win. I'd make some hyperbolic comparison about how Trump could only do worse if he came out as a rapist, but that basically happened and it didn't dip us below this point. Fact is, it seems like in a Presidential election if you've got the nom your minimum chance of victory will always be 10%.

It still basically can't be going any better for Clinton. When she's got 49% of voters and Trump has 43% (with Johnson stealing about 5%), that's a big fucking deal. By definition, it's not "close" because in the only way of measuring we can see that it isn't close. If every undecided in the country decides to ride the Trump Train that doesn't make it "closer than we think", it's just an unlikely event.

[RedKing]

...what just happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyX4pFtZRE

My gods....the raw power. I'm tempted to heartily endorse Hillary, just to see what would happen.

[smjjames]

...what just happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyX4pFtZRE

Why does Youtube seem to randomly have the captions option unavailable? Really should be available ALL THE TIME.

Anyways, while the media (and 538 to an extent) keep touting that Clintons lead is widening in the national polls, I keep seeing polls which come out with either a very close race or Trump is winning by a percentage point or two. So, I'm just wondering what's up with those that are diverging and showing a close race nationally vs those that are showing a wide (and sometimes double digit) lead for Clinton.

I think this is going to end up being more competitive than people seem to be making it out to be.

Alternatively, we've having a Romney 2012 moment again, where their campaign believed that they were winning according to all their totally unskewed polls up until they suddenly lost the election.

It's possible, yes, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls , although the divergence this time seems to be greater.

@MSH, True, the people who are undecided or for McMullin and being forced to make a split decision affects things.

[RedKing]

Early voting has started in NC, and people are waiting up to 4 hours (mostly in minority neighborhoods), despite (or perhaps because of) Republican attempts to curtail early voting. I'm hoping this presages a resounding electoral defeat for the Republicans in just 16 days' time.

[mainiac]

Fact is, it seems like in a Presidential election if you've got the nom your minimum chance of victory will always be 10%.

The odds that Trump wins include the odds that the polls are way off at this moment.  To illustrate, imagine there were only two possibilities:

A) The polls are off in Trump's favor, Trump is losing by 12 points, not 7, and has only a 1% chance of making a 12 point comeback (because Hillary Clinton is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy)
B) The polls are off in Clinton's favor, Trump is losing by 2 points, not 7, and has a 30% chance of closing that 2 point gap

Now we dont know which of these it is.  So we split the difference and say that Trumps odds are 15.5%.

But then the election comes and we discover that one of the following things is true:

A) The polls skewed Trump, being deplorable makes you unelectable.  It turns out that you only have a 1% chance of winning if you are Trump
B) The polls skewed Clinton, being deplorable doesn't matter.  It turns out a Trump like candidate was competitive all along.

Do you see what I'm getting at?  The 538 forecast of 12.6% chance that Trump wins includes the odds that the poll is wrong.  It's not evidence that Trump candidates can run, it's just awareness that polling errors happen.  After the election happens we will know if there was a polling error.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Early voting has started in NC, and people are waiting up to 4 hours (mostly in minority neighborhoods), despite (or perhaps because of) Republican attempts to curtail early voting. I'm hoping this presages a resounding electoral defeat for the Republicans in just 16 days' time.

I haven't gone yet, is early voting open on weekends?