ADVERTISEMENT

Elections have meaning.

Things like “gamergate” are important things for “politically astute” Americans to know. Thank goodness I learned all about it on The WC.

And that bubble is why conservatives do not believe racism and sexism are still happening. It seems only liberals knew of gamergate, knew of the power Milo, Bannon, Miller had as well.
 
And that bubble is why conservatives do not believe racism and sexism are still happening. It seems only liberals knew of gamergate, knew of the power Milo, Bannon, Miller had as well.

I disagree that conservatives don’t believe racism and sexism are still happening. I think they get sick of the ism name calling game every time the other side disagrees with their opinion.
 
And that bubble is why conservatives do not believe racism and sexism are still happening. It seems only liberals knew of gamergate, knew of the power Milo, Bannon, Miller had as well.
Only some liberals know about that stuff. What proportion of Democrats do you think know anything about “Gamergate?” If it’s more than 15% I’d be surprised. If it’s 10% of Americans, I’d be shocked. I’ve googled “Gamergate awareness poll” and can’t find a poll, but find pages of links to sites I’ve mostly not heard of. Mostly gamer sites. I think this might be one of those things that seems very important to some small portion of Americans, but not to most. For example, there was a recent controversy concerning the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON) which I was well aware of, but I wouldn’t presume most Americans were. I suspect only small percentage would even know that the Navy has a MCPON.
 
Only some liberals know about that stuff. What proportion of Democrats do you think know anything about “Gamergate?” If it’s more than 15% I’d be surprised. If it’s 10% of Americans, I’d be shocked. I’ve googled “Gamergate awareness poll” and can’t find a poll, but find pages of links to sites I’ve mostly not heard of. Mostly gamer sites. I think this might be one of those things that seems very important to some small portion of Americans, but not to most. For example, there was a recent controversy concerning the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON) which I was well aware of, but I wouldn’t presume most Americans were. I suspect only small percentage would even know that the Navy has a MCPON.

I do not know what percentage knew of it. But a quick Google finds articles covering it in WaPo, BBC, NPR, Newsweek, Vox, Slate, CBS, NBC. And that was just a very quick look and looking for 2014 bylines.

I think it was covered, but I will steal from Douglass Adam's, it was covered in a "Somebody else's problem field". People seeing a story about sexism in gaming tuned the rest out. There was no need to proceed further.

I think this explains a lot of our political disagreements. Even if news covers something, we are more likely to tune in if it is something we car about. I think that explains not just gamergate. Let's look at Antifa, conservative press knows conservatives will tune in on the word "mob" . That isn't likely to get me to click or stay tuned, but it is for many conservatives here. The words racism or sexism is probably more likely to get a liberal to stay put through a commercial break than a conservative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiede and iu_a_att
I do not know what percentage knew of it. But a quick Google finds articles covering it in WaPo, BBC, NPR, Newsweek, Vox, Slate, CBS, NBC. And that was just a very quick look and looking for 2014 bylines.

I think it was covered, but I will steal from Douglass Adam's, it was covered in a "Somebody else's problem field". People seeing a story about sexism in gaming tuned the rest out. There was no need to proceed further.

I think this explains a lot of our political disagreements. Even if news covers something, we are more likely to tune in if it is something we car about. I think that explains not just gamergate. Let's look at Antifa, conservative press knows conservatives will tune in on the word "mob" . That isn't likely to get me to click or stay tuned, but it is for many conservatives here. The words racism or sexism is probably more likely to get a liberal to stay put through a commercial break than a conservative.
I am very worried about the way Trump and the Trumpians are trying to elevate Antifa into some kind of threat to public safety. It looks like they are setting up a pretext for governmental repression and violence directed at their political opponents.
 
I am very worried about the way Trump and the Trumpians are trying to elevate Antifa into some kind of threat to public safety. It looks like they are setting up a pretext for governmental repression and violence directed at their political opponents.

While not impossible, I do not think this is such a grand design. Liberals and conservatives think differently. Conservatives value order more, so using a mob just plays well for them. Conservatives value sameness more, so liberals are more likely to note "others" being mistreated.

I post links like this often. We just have different values, or rate some values higher than others. It tends to be that conservatives reject links like that. It does not appear they value research into political differences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiede
While not impossible, I do not think this is such a grand design. Liberals and conservatives think differently. Conservatives value order more, so using a mob just plays well for them. Conservatives value sameness more, so liberals are more likely to note "others" being mistreated.

I post links like this often. We just have different values, or rate some values higher than others. It tends to be that conservatives reject links like that. It does not appear they value research into political differences.
I think you understate how abnormal the current situation is becoming. Trump and Trumpism are a totally abnormal occurrence in American politics. Add to this the totally unprecedented changes taking place globally (environmental change, technological change, political change, demographic change).

I was watching a thing on the weather channel last night about the aftermath of Hurricane Michael. They were discussing why so many people decided to stay in the path of such a terrible hurricane. The talking head mentioned what he called the "normalcy bias".
The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a belief people hold when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare themselves for disasters, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. About 70% of people reportedly display normalcy bias in disasters.[1]

Journalist Amanda Ripley identified common response patterns of people in disasters and found that there are three phases of response: Denial, Deliberation and the Decisive Moment. The faster people can get through the Denial and Deliberation phase, the quicker they will reach the Decisive Moment and begin to take action.

The normalcy bias can manifest itself in various disasters, ranging from car crashes to world-historical events. It is hypothesized that the normalcy bias may be caused by the way the brain processes new information. Stress slows information processing, and when the brain cannot find an acceptable response to a situation, it fixates on a single and sometimes default solution. This single resolution can result in unnecessary injury or death in disaster situations. The lack of preparation for disasters often leads to inadequate shelter, supplies, and evacuation plans. Thus, normalcy bias can cause people to drastically underestimate the effects of the disaster and assume that everything will be all right. The negative effects of normalcy bias can be combatted through the four stages of disaster response: preparation, warning, impact, and aftermath.

Normalcy bias has also been called analysis paralysis, the ostrich effect,[2] and by first responders, the negative panic.[3] The opposite of normalcy bias is overreaction, or worst-case scenario bias,[4][5] in which small deviations from normality are dealt with as signals of an impending catastrophe.​
 
While not impossible, I do not think this is such a grand design. Liberals and conservatives think differently. Conservatives value order more, so using a mob just plays well for them. Conservatives value sameness more, so liberals are more likely to note "others" being mistreated.

I post links like this often. We just have different values, or rate some values higher than others. It tends to be that conservatives reject links like that. It does not appear they value research into political differences.
I'm less concerned by those tendencies than the eagerness of Trump supporters to believe whatever stupid thing that Orange Julius Caesar tells them. Thus we have Trump supporters living in fear of nonexistent Democratic mobs that aren't marauding about the country engaged in violence against them.

We have a large group of feeble minded people who are highly motivated to vote based on utter nonsense. That seems like a problem to me.
 
I'm less concerned by those tendencies than the eagerness of Trump supporters to believe whatever stupid thing that Orange Julius Caesar tells them. Thus we have Trump supporters living in fear of nonexistent Democratic mobs that aren't marauding about the country engaged in violence against them.

We have a large group of feeble minded people who are highly motivated to vote based on utter nonsense. That seems like a problem to me.
Going back to one of the debates in 2016, Trump mentioned worsening crime. I was critical of that here, and presented the usual crime stats. Some of our conservative friends argued the numbers were irrelevant, people felt crime was worse so crime was worse.

Or go to AGW, some conservatives have a gut feeling it is not happening so they dispute any evidence to the contrary.

And it ties in to another point, I have seen you, goat, myself, and other liberals attacked for long posts by some of the conservatives. They want to post a soundbite opinion as fact. We have reached a world where any opinion is equal to researched fact. The dumbest flat earther's "the world is flat" post is treated by far too many as equal to a Neil deGrasse Tyson book on the earth being round.

I don't know how to combat that.
 
Conservatives value sameness more,

Hilarious!

5a8eda59391d941c008b4639-960-720.jpg


I just had to do this marv because I i see researchers as one thing and research as another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa and herrli
While not impossible, I do not think this is such a grand design. Liberals and conservatives think differently. Conservatives value order more, so using a mob just plays well for them. Conservatives value sameness more, so liberals are more likely to note "others" being mistreated.

I post links like this often. We just have different values, or rate some values higher than others. It tends to be that conservatives reject links like that. It does not appear they value research into political differences.
I read that link before and just don’t relate to the very first thing about fear. Fear is not in anyway a factor in me becoming a conservative. Someone would have to tell me what I’m afraid of because I don’t what it is.

I agree with that part about angry kids who steal are likely to be liberals that are left-leaning economically. That strikes me as a bingo. ;)
 
It doesn't go all to one side, but in most years, it favors red states a bit. For example, in 2012, red states had 587K people per vote, while blue states had 619K. When certain high-population states switched to red in 2016 (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan), that gap narrowed to be statistically insignificant, 604K to 607K. That's pretty much the pattern. If the Republican wins, the numbers are very close, and if the Democrat wins, there is a noticeable gap that favors the red states. The last time the gap favored the blue states was 1992, when Clinton won low-pop states like Montana and West Virginia, but lost Florida.

All that said, I obviously wasn't promoting the idea that there is some kind of huge partisan advantage built in. I do think the numbers prove the GOP has a very minor advantage in the Electoral College, but "minor" is the operative word there. That advantage can clearly be overcome, as evidenced by eight years of President Obama.

But even when you ignore partisan considerations, it's worth recognizing that the disparity does exist, if for no other reason than to ask ourselves, is there really a good reason that a Vermonter has three-and-a-half times the voting power of a Texan when it comes to electing our primary national leader?

The answer is: Yes, it makes sense! Why, because without the EC densely populated areas would elect the Pres every 4 yrs. of course the Dems wouldlike it because they would always win. But of course everyone knows that. The Founding Fathers argued this point. Some will point out that in those days smaller populated states wanted to protect slavery by having the EC. However, the same principle applies today.
 
The answer is: Yes, it makes sense! Why, because without the EC densely populated areas would elect the Pres every 4 yrs. of course the Dems wouldlike it because they would always win. But of course everyone knows that. The Founding Fathers argued this point. Some will point out that in those days smaller populated states wanted to protect slavery by having the EC. However, the same principle applies today.
But Rockfish said it is only about the southern states wanting to maintain slavery,that position at the convention was large but the argument was larger. Rhode Island ,Vermont, and New Hampshire, weighed in during the debate.
 
Last edited:
And that bubble is why conservatives do not believe racism and sexism are still happening. It seems only liberals knew of gamergate, knew of the power Milo, Bannon, Miller had as well.
What would we do without you?? How would we function?? OMG I’m so relieved!

LMFAO
 
Mo just has "alternate" facts, Marvin...like whites are a minority in Santa Monica. He's not worried about things like Gamergate because it doesn't bother him. So, don't hold your breath waiting for any of those pesky regular facts. :rolleyes:

I get this place exists to keep politics off of the main sports boards. But the main boards here are like sports boards everywhere, "we rock, you suck". The first thing people do when they come here is continue that posting style. Frankly I did not like that style when I lived on the basketball forum, it gets boring reading page after page of "we rock, you suck".

Most of us old timers were broken of that by Buzz. The signal to noise ratio here has grown terrible, just as bad as everywhere else on the internet. We are just doomed not to have anyplace where people want to think, and be challenged.
 
I get this place exists to keep politics off of the main sports boards. But the main boards here are like sports boards everywhere, "we rock, you suck". The first thing people do when they come here is continue that posting style. Frankly I did not like that style when I lived on the basketball forum, it gets boring reading page after page of "we rock, you suck".

Most of us old timers were broken of that by Buzz. The signal to noise ratio here has grown terrible, just as bad as everywhere else on the internet. We are just doomed not to have anyplace where people want to think, and be challenged.
I have “posting style”. I kind of like the sound of that.
 
I get this place exists to keep politics off of the main sports boards. But the main boards here are like sports boards everywhere, "we rock, you suck". The first thing people do when they come here is continue that posting style. Frankly I did not like that style when I lived on the basketball forum, it gets boring reading page after page of "we rock, you suck".

Most of us old timers were broken of that by Buzz. The signal to noise ratio here has grown terrible, just as bad as everywhere else on the internet. We are just doomed not to have anyplace where people want to think, and be challenged.

"We rock, you suck" has always been standard faire in political discussions. The difference is that we used to get that message across with arguments. Now many of us do that with name calling, insults and various other ad hominems.
 
Before you have a stroke, Rockport, let me just tell you, and you'll have to trust me on this, liberals don't hate Vietnam vets and they aren't hellbent on ruining the United States of America. In fact, to the contrary, they're trying to save it from extinction.

By the way, as you may know, Trump wants us to return to the glorious 1950s. You know what happened next, right? That's right--the Vietnam War. You don't really want to fight that again, do you?
The problem is most Vietnam Veterans don't agree with you. You need to win elections.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT