The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

[Kepler]

Yeah he is going to end up like Bobby Fischer walking the streets mumbling to himself...

Bobby started out nuts.

 

[Kepler]

Nate silver losing his mind still

https://twitter.com/marlownyc/status...316784644?s=21

OK I'm going to preface this by saying I love Nate and I overidentify with him in an unhealthy way because with just a couple tiny tweaks in my early career, I would have been Nate Silver. I was there, in the perfect spot, and wanting it -- I just didn't have the guts to try while he did.

And, he appears to be utterly swimming in the highest quality tang (albeit the wrong flavor) so... MASSIVE UNCONTROLLABLE SELF-RAGE-DIRECTED ENVY!!!

While that tweet is absolutely horribly phrased, and while Silver has been playing in this arena for long enough to know to never, ever, ever say it that way, there is a way to interpret what he is saying without him being insane, and indeed without even attributing the opinion to him that the tweet seems to suggest.

I don't know the full context, but I can imagine a much less experienced public debater saying something like (1) there are opinions which aren't allowed to be expressed in a debate, and (2) that's destructive, because bad decisions can be super costly like, for example (3) the Iraq occupation.

If that's what he means then I'll hear the man out. That's with me being 100% behind full remote schooling. But I'm willing to listen.

Now, Nate deserves the sh-tstorm his tweet will no doubt provoke for making such a rookie mistake in framing and phrasing. It will follow him forever and, hey, you do the crime do the time. But just let me say it's possible it's not nearly as crazy or ridiculous a sentiment as it sounds. If he's saying "don't shout people down in a public forum" then I am there with him, while also being in total disagreement with the take that remote schooling is a bad decision.

End of proxy apology. Now I'm going to crawl off to bed and regret my cowardice for the rest of life I'm not crying you're crying.

 

[unofan]

I'll go one further and tell people to stop caring about things people put on Twitter. Just stop. The nature of the beast is clickbait. You cannot get a fully formed thought out in 140 characters (or whatever the limit is these days). And it's entirely driven by posts that will anger you to get you to react.

If none of us had seen Silver's tweet, would we be worse off? Was there any important info in there that we'd miss? Of course not.

Even when the former occupant of the White House was using it, did any of his tweets ever really matter or was he just acting like a pro wrestler stoking the crowd (in both directions)?

 

[SJHovey]

I'll go one further and tell people to stop caring about things people put on Twitter. Just stop. The nature of the beast is clickbait. You cannot get a fully formed thought out in 140 characters (or whatever the limit is these days). And it's entirely driven by posts that will anger you to get you to react.

If none of us had seen Silver's tweet, would we be worse off? Was there any important info in there that we'd miss? Of course not.

Even when the former occupant of the White House was using it, did any of his tweets ever really matter or was he just acting like a pro wrestler stoking the crowd (in both directions)?

In my opinion, it's even worse than that. I think that platforms like twitter are substantially contributing to, if not outright driving, a dehumanization that is rapidly developing in our society.

Now, I will admit, I have almost a non-existent presence on social media. I've never had a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok or any similar account, and really have no intention of doing so. My entire exposure to twitter and the like comes from places like this, where posters link to individual tweets, friends who text me or email me links, or links provided in more mainstream media.

But the other day I was reading a story on CNN.com or MSNBC or some such place and the story was about a woman in California who recently died from Covid. She apparently had been a prosecutor or something, but her real claim to fame was that she was pretty vocal against mask mandates, vaccine mandates and the like, and apparently was not vaccinated. The story I was reading was about what happened to her twitter and facebook accounts after her death, and the story had a link to her twitter account, which I then clicked.

I'll be honest, I was pretty shocked. I guess I expected that there might be a handful of tweets mocking her and maybe a few more saying something to the effect that she should have gotten herself vaccinated, but the cruelty and breadth of that cruelty was something to behold. It was literally hundreds of tweets running the gamut from openly celebrating her death to mockery to even shots at her family.

But there were a couple of things that made it even more disturbing. First, her husband was clearly reading the account, because there was at least one tweet from him, midstream, correcting something that someone had tweeted. Second, there was really no effort at all made by anyone suggesting that, yeah, she probably made a mistake not getting the shots, but openly celebrating a person's death may be taking things a bit too far. When someone even dared to suggest such a thought, they were immediately twitter-raped.

Third, the woman is dead. No, I don't think she is in heaven or hell reading these tweets, learning her lesson. She's in a box somewhere, or turned to dust. Thus, the effort at cruelty and mockery really isn't directed at her, but at her friends and family, which is pretty inhumane, imho.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad I'm old. I can probably tolerate this another 20 years, but with the trajectory we're on, I wouldn't want to go beyond that.

Just my two cents.

 

[rufus]

In my opinion, it's even worse than that. I think that platforms like twitter are substantially contributing to, if not outright driving, a dehumanization that is rapidly developing in our society.

Now, I will admit, I have almost a non-existent presence on social media. I've never had a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok or any similar account, and really have no intention of doing so. My entire exposure to twitter and the like comes from places like this, where posters link to individual tweets, friends who text me or email me links, or links provided in more mainstream media.

But the other day I was reading a story on CNN.com or MSNBC or some such place and the story was about a woman in California who recently died from Covid. She apparently had been a prosecutor or something, but her real claim to fame was that she was pretty vocal against mask mandates, vaccine mandates and the like, and apparently was not vaccinated. The story I was reading was about what happened to her twitter and facebook accounts after her death, and the story had a link to her twitter account, which I then clicked.

I'll be honest, I was pretty shocked. I guess I expected that there might be a handful of tweets mocking her and maybe a few more saying something to the effect that she should have gotten herself vaccinated, but the cruelty of breadth of that cruelty was something to behold. It was literally hundreds of tweets running the gamut from openly celebrating her death to mockery to even shots at her family.

But there were a couple of things that made it even more disturbing. First, her husband was clearly reading the account, because there was at least one tweet from him, midstream, correcting something that someone had tweeted. Second, there was really no effort at all made by anyone suggesting that, yeah, she probably made a mistake not getting the shots, but openly celebrating a person's death may be taking things a bit too far. When someone even dared to suggest such a thought, they were immediately twitter-raped.

Third, the woman is dead. No, I don't think she is in heaven or hell reading these tweets, learning her lesson. She's in a box somewhere, or turned to dust. Thus, the effort at cruelty and mockery really isn't directed at her, but at her friends and family, which is pretty inhumane, imho.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad I'm old. I can probably tolerate this another 20 years, but with the trajectory we're on, I wouldn't want to go beyond that.

Just my two cents.

And yet, when politicians or pundits from the party you support do the same thing in the press or on tv, it just elicits a shoulder shrug from you.

" What can ya do, bothsides."

 

[burd]

Add to both those posts the fact that the algorithms that are used to control the way we access and consume most online media simply turns up the burner over which we are all stewing in our own juices.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

I'll go one further and tell people to stop caring about things people put on Twitter. Just stop. The nature of the beast is clickbait. You cannot get a fully formed thought out in 140 characters (or whatever the limit is these days). And it's entirely driven by posts that will anger you to get you to react.

If none of us had seen Silver's tweet, would we be worse off? Was there any important info in there that we'd miss? Of course not.

Even when the former occupant of the White House was using it, did any of his tweets ever really matter or was he just acting like a pro wrestler stoking the crowd (in both directions)?

I know a few in academia who find it useful, but generally their discussions are multiple threads, links to papers, and mostly just discourse on research where no one is aiming for a gotcha moment. Plus, it’s low profile enough that nothing will get brigaded and no one is looking to become an online celebrity/ambassador/whatnot.

Nate Silver doesn’t have that. He’s the prominent politics statistician guy. He’s made his life doing it at the forefront. The problem is that about two months into the pandemic he got sick of quarantines and lockdowns and decided since epidemiology uses numbers that he was also an expert in that. Maybe I’m generalizing, but for the longest time his brand was “here are the stats, this is the story, and this is how and why it’s the story.” Now it’s pretty clear, at least with Covid, that he comes at it from the opposite angle of “here’s my opinion and here’s a stat that backs it up.” And it’s lead him to some weird arguments. It was either Covid or election related, but in 2020 he started asking people to list their gut feeling about the outcome of a topic and then began to make projections off of that. When he got called out in it, he said that in the absence of data this was the next best thing. Bizarre behavior. Here was Mr Stats, King of Sample Errors and Poll Weighting, defending intuition as a data source.

Anyway, I kind of forgot where I was going with that. He used to be a guy who didn’t need hot takes for engagement, but that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore.

As an aside, is 538 slowly dying? The amount of new stories appears to be lessening. I figure the political cycle should keep it around since elections alone can cover about three years of content at a time, but their sports, econ, and science have been lacking.

 

[Handyman]

You can beat the algorithm (at least some of them) but you have to be proactive about it.

And while SM may be throwing gasoline on the fire, the dehumanization has been going on forever and it is na?ve to believe otherwise. The difference is before most people ignored it or weren't exposed to it on an hourly basis but the second one side of the political spectrum weaponized it it went into overdrive. The Pandemic was the final straw...Facebook basically became Faux News on steroids.

It sucks that lady is dead (I read that story as well and almost posted it here) but I have zero empathy for people who use their position of power to put others in harms way and she did. I would never post on a dead person's twitter about it but I would comment on an article written about her. No one made her turn a disease into a political fight she chose to do that on her own. Her and her kind have prolonged this disease and fanned the flames. To me she is no better than a drunk driver or a drug dealer and they get no empathy from me either. (their families do and hers does as well) Those aren't new opinions either BTW I have been hearing stuff like that my whole life.

If you want to blame it on anything blame it on 9/11 not SM. That is where things really took a turn. America became binary after that. Black or White. Yes or No. With Us or Against Us. Don't support the war? TRAITOR! Don't think Bush is a great leader? COMMUNIST TRAITOR!! Don't want to blow every Muslim to Kingdom Come? SOCIALIST MARXIST ALLAH LOVING TRAITOR!!!! And that was before Facebook and Twitter were even a thing. Since then it has been a slow descent into madness. One side embraced the darkest portions of the electorate when Obama won, then they put a troll in the White House and all hell broke loose. (we all took the bait)

As for Silver he is probably just up his own azz at this point not too big of a deal. He became the media darling and milked that for as long as he could and now no one really takes his opinions seriously because there are people who do the exact same analysis he does but do it better. (Silver is the PWR of Election Analysis) That is a bit deflating so he is putting out weird hot takes to stay in the discussion. It is lame but not pretty cliche. As we get closer to November he will clickbait some more but be a bit more vague about it since he will be trying to forward traffic to his site.

 

[Handyman]

I know a few in academia who find it useful, but generally their discussions are multiple threads, links to papers, and mostly just discourse on research where no one is aiming for a gotcha moment. Plus, it’s low profile enough that nothing will get brigaded and no one is looking to become an online celebrity/ambassador/whatnot.

Nate Silver doesn’t have that. He’s the prominent politics statistician guy. He’s made his life doing it at the forefront. The problem is that about two months into the pandemic he got sick of quarantines and lockdowns and decided since epidemiology uses numbers that he was also an expert in that. Maybe I’m generalizing, but for the longest time his brand was “here are the stats, this is the story, and this is how and why it’s the story.” Now it’s pretty clear, at least with Covid, that he comes at it from the opposite angle of “here’s my opinion and here’s a stat that backs it up.” And it’s lead him to some weird arguments. It was either Covid or election related, but in 2020 he started asking people to list their gut feeling about the outcome of a topic and then began to make projections off of that. When he got called out in it, he said that in the absence of data this was the next best thing. Bizarre behavior. Here was Mr Stats, King of Sample Errors and Poll Weighting, defending intuition as a data source.

Anyway, I kind of forgot where I was going with that. He used to be a guy who didn’t need hot takes for engagement, but that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore.

As an aside, is 538 slowly dying? The amount of new stories appears to be lessening. I figure the political cycle should keep it around since elections alone can cover about three years of content at a time, but their sports, econ, and science have been lacking.

Silver is like those formerly relevant people that end up on Faux News or crap shows like Joe Rogan. They will do anything to feel like they matter still.

 

[unofan]

You can beat the algorithm (at least some of them) but you have to be proactive about it.

And what percentage of the population is proactive about anything? 5%? 10 at most?

And while SM may be throwing gasoline on the fire, the dehumanization has been going on forever and it is na?ve to believe otherwise. The difference is before most people ignored it or weren't exposed to it on an hourly basis but the second one side of the political spectrum weaponized it it went into overdrive. The Pandemic was the final straw...Facebook basically became Faux News on steroids.

The difference is everything is now (inter)national and every tiny little thing that would normally be a back page story in the small town gazette now gets beaten to death in the name of clickthroughs, eyeballs and the almighty ad revenue. Murdoch and Fox News may have permanently harmed traditional journalism (though in a way CNN unintentionally paved that path by creating the 24- hour news cycle), but social media clearly has been a net negative to mankind. While there's no putting that genie back in the bottle, it's incumbent on those of us who can recognize it to not give in.

Even George Takei is starting to annoy the crap out of me even though I agree with him more often than not, because he's gone full Sicatoka and is just asking questions while linking to some random AITA or other clickbait article, often with his staff adding a random unnecessary pithy comment to justify it as original content. I mean, good for him for earning money, but it's still not any better than most other social media presences.

I'll just say this, and this thought has been percolating in my head for awhile and this is just presenting an opportunity to throw it out there. I've noticed over the last 6 months to a year or so that this board is getting far more acerbic than it used to be (outside of obvious trolls, which have thankfully diminished) and it seems to be strongly correlated with increased links to Twitter. Thankfully no one on here appears to use Facebook as a primary news source, but I'm telling you Twitter is no better. And I'm asking those of you who use it regularly to just take a moment to consider how you're using it, and what you gain from it. Because if it's just the sense of outrage over the latest comment from a dumbass GOP official, however justified that outrage may be, that isn't healthy.

 

[SJHovey]

Another reason I lay more of the blame on SM as opposed to a specific event like 9/11 or the pandemic or the elections of Obama or Trump or whatever is that I personally believe some of the caustic and inhumane nature of the SM communications is enabled by the distance and possible anonymity of SM.

As I was reading the stream of tweets, I thought to myself, "if you were standing in front of this woman's husband, children and other family members, would you make that comment?"

I would hope not, at least for most of them. However, I'll admit that public, face to face discourse is getting a bit rougher too.

But with social media, you can be a half a globe away and make that comment, and the readers may have no idea who you are without a few weeks of super-sleuthing.

I don't think I've ever posted this before, but my personal policy on this board is to never write and submit something that I'd be embarrassed to have my 80+ year old mother read. I don't think she even knows this site exists, but if she discovered it, it wouldn't take long for her to figure out which poster is her son. I've had family members and friends come up to me and comment that they read something I posted here and it shocked me to know they even were aware of the site, but also reminded me that when using your real name, those who know you are going to figure out pretty quickly it's you.

 

[rufus]

As I was reading the stream of tweets, I thought to myself, "if you were standing in front of this woman's husband, children and other family members, would you make that comment?"

A lot of Republicans would. And have.

And you just turn a blind eye to it, never say a word.

 

[Handyman]

And what percentage of the population is proactive about anything? 5%? 10 at most?

Oh no...probably 1%. The collective laziness of people is fucking astounding. I was more commenting for people around here who might like SM but not know they can beat the system.

Plus a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism will always help. Along with being lazy people are just too willing to believe anything.

As for the rest of your post, I 100% agree with everything you are saying. Hell I notice it about myself. I just dont know if there is any going back at this point. (and yeah Takei sucks)

 

[dxmnkd316]

Even George Takei is starting to annoy the crap out of me even though I agree with him more often than not, because he's gone full Sicatoka and is just asking questions while linking to some random AITA or other clickbait article, often with his staff adding a random unnecessary pithy comment to justify it as original content. I mean, good for him for earning money, but it's still not any better than most other social media presences.

Absolutely. I've dumped most of these accounts because they're so useless and, honestly, are just click vultures who feed on other people's content and stories. Ick.

I'll just say this, and this thought has been percolating in my head for awhile and this is just presenting an opportunity to throw it out there. I've noticed over the last 6 months to a year or so that this board is getting far more acerbic than it used to be (outside of obvious trolls, which have thankfully diminished) and it seems to be strongly correlated with increased links to Twitter. Thankfully no one on here appears to use Facebook as a primary news source, but I'm telling you Twitter is no better. And I'm asking those of you who use it regularly to just take a moment to consider how you're using it, and what you gain from it. Because if it's just the sense of outrage over the latest comment from a dumbass GOP official, however justified that outrage may be, that isn't healthy.

My twitter feed has drastically changed in the last six months. I've unfollowed a lot of provocateur accounts. Let's call them the Krassenteins (though, I've never actually followed them). I have, OTOH, followed intelligent accounts like theophite (who might be one of the five smartest people I've come across) and several others who actually take the time to challenge conventions, call out non-data-based conclusions, etc. They engage in thoughtful debate often and back it up with receipts. They do take the time to dunk on someone from time to time, sometimes spectacularly, but it's not their MO.

My general rule of thumb is a twitter account is less worth a follow on both ends of the follower count spectrum. A person with 100 followers is probably not worth following. A person with a million is also not worth following, generally. There's a sweet spot somewhere between 1,000 and 100,000, likely near 10k. That's just a broad filter, you still have to cultivate your list.

To your overall point though, I think we would be better without it even if I would not.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

I started purging my troll-oriented and talking heads follows a couple of years ago. I dumped Asha Rangappa after I felt she was getting too sensational, but still follow Molly McKew for just the right amount of my gubmint-mandated "Russia Bad" fix. ;-)

I also have any and all mentions of AOC blocked from my Twitter feed, because she makes me feel too many positive thoughts about socialism.

 

[Swansong]

I'm a big Takai fan but yeah, his feed is all "look at what this asshole said". Meh.

 

[Kepler]

My general rule of thumb is a twitter account is less worth a follow on both ends of the follower count spectrum. A person with 100 followers is probably not worth following. A person with a million is also not worth following, generally. There's a sweet spot somewhere between 1,000 and 100,000, likely near 10k. That's just a broad filter, you still have to cultivate your list.

This works for music and writers, too.

 

[Handyman]

I started purging my troll-oriented and talking heads follows a couple of years ago. I dumped Asha Rangappa after I felt she was getting too sensational, but still follow Molly McKew for just the right amount of my gubmint-mandated "Russia Bad" fix. ;-)

I also have any and all mentions of AOC blocked from my Twitter feed, because she makes me feel too many positive thoughts about socialism.

The problem I have is a lot of the people I stopped following still showed up in my feed...so now I just scroll by people like Asha. The nice thing about most clickbait is the headlines lack such creativity they are easier to spot than a Putin Bot. Two words into the tweet and I just scroll on by.

I would never block mentions of AOC because of how much she triggers Right Wing Twitter :^)

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

I would never block mentions of AOC because of how much she triggers Right Wing Twitter :^)

I'm annoyed that I ended up on her mailing & texting lists after I donated to one of the Texas power failure charity drives last winter, which she must've backed.

 

[Handyman]

I donate to enough liberal causes that my email is inundated. I will say this the liberals know how to beg!