The 2016 US American Election Thread

[jammies]

Personally I just wish the mods had tools that let them limit certain people from posting more than a half-dozen times or so a day. Not a banning, but a bit of a muzzling to prevent trolls from taking over conversations with loud noises and barking.

That would have solved the Gaudreauvertime issues in FoI too. Some people just can't be trusted not to try to make it all about themselves.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yup because all US media is biased so depending on what side you believe in, it gets drilled into your head on a daily basis year after year. In 2016 we've reached the extreme.

It's not just the media. Cable networks are simply servicing demand. People want to have their underlying preconceptions reinforced, not challenged. We've advanced to the point where it's relatively easy to live a bespoke life - you can pick a community full of people who look like you, share economic status with you, and look at the world the same way you do. It's a side effect of societal progress completely outpacing evolutionary biology.

https://www.amazon.ca/Big-Sort-Clust.../dp/0547237723

People are increasingly doing this, because as psychological studies have repeatedly shown, people usually don't like intellectual challenge even if they say they do. It's biological - a proposition that's easy to agree with without much consideration actually causes pleasure at the level of brain chemistry, while propositions that you have to consider for a bit before coming to a conclusion cause discomfort.

That's only part of the explanation - more broadly, people are simply disposed to organize themselves into tribes, which again is a product of evolutionary psychology. We're the only species of animal that, by and large, is able to co-operate by forming bonds with other members of the species besides those who are genetically related to us. The way we do it is by creating a unifying tribal system, be it religion or political ideology or sports fandom or what have you.

The "choose your own version of reality" news channels are a symptom, not a cause. You can't fix the way people are.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If we're being honest, really, both sides think they're entitled to their own facts (Bernie supporters certainly did).

False equivalency is false.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Not that this is gonna shock anyone even slightly.

Nope. I mean he basically has a fringe media outfit running his campaign... doesn't surprise me in the least that we'd see them try to parlay his monstrosity of a candidacy into some extremist niche version of Fox News.

If it gets off the ground I suspect it will fail. It'll just be carving off a slice of an ever shrinking pie.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not just the media. Cable networks are simply servicing demand. People want to have their underlying preconceptions reinforced, not challenged. We've advanced to the point where it's relatively easy to live a bespoke life - you can pick a community full of people who look like you, share economic status with you, and look at the world the same way you do. It's a side effect of societal progress completely outpacing evolutionary biology.

https://www.amazon.ca/Big-Sort-Clust.../dp/0547237723

People are increasingly doing this, because as psychological studies have repeatedly shown, people usually don't like intellectual challenge even if they say they do. It's biological - a proposition that's easy to agree with without much consideration actually causes pleasure at the level of brain chemistry, while propositions that you have to consider for a bit before coming to a conclusion cause discomfort.

That's only part of the explanation - more broadly, people are simply disposed to organize themselves into tribes, which again is a product of evolutionary psychology. We're the only species of animal that, by and large, is able to co-operate by forming bonds with other members of the species besides those who are genetically related to us. The way we do it is by creating a unifying tribal system, be it religion or political ideology or sports fandom or what have you.

The "choose your own version of reality" news channels are a symptom, not a cause. You can't fix the way people are.

I think talk radio is even worse than cable tv. Americans spend a lot of their time in their cars. Your point meshes with my point earlier that many people just stay in their towns (their tribe) and now technology has left them behind.

Like the argument over NAFTA. NAFTA was good for the states as a whole. If you live in a big city, products are now cheaper. If you live in a small town, your factory is gone.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Even now I bet you most Americans have no idea about any of the specifics of NAFTA. They clearly don't about TPP, 70% either don't know or haven't read anything about it. I also hear so much blame on job losses because of trade deals, but very little due to the biggest cause by far which is technology and automation. Even China is losing manufacturing jobs to automation now. Better to blame bad trade deals because you can blame specific individuals instead of technology, where it's a lot harder to single someone out for blame.

[photon]

The idea of The Big Sort is huge in the online world as well. Because so many things are driven by advertising dollars (which is necessary otherwise these sites wouldn't be able to provide the service at all), maximizing advertising dollars is important and part of that is getting people to stick around on a site longer.

Even without the advertising drive, wanting to show people stuff they'll like and read is just a natural assumption that developers and service providers have, but assumptions can create biases, unintended or otherwise.

So what you see in your Facebook feed and advertising depends greatly on what you've liked in the past, so even just by liking things you're sorting yourself into groupings that only show you things that reinforce your beliefs. There's been lots of funny articles where people tried liking the opposite of their usual likes for a time to see the changes.

And this happens with tons of online services.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The "choose your own version of reality" news channels are a symptom, not a cause. You can't fix the way people are.

That is a problem that has been exacerbated by the de-regulation of the telecommunications industry under President Clinton, the triangulator.

The BBC was respected by both sides of the Brexit debate.

Corporate governance is part of the problem too.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Gozer

False equivalency is false.

Read the next sentence; I explicitly said there was no equivalency, because one side's "own facts" are by and large more in tune with reality than the other. It's a matter of degrees.

Originally Posted by photon

So what you see in your Facebook feed and advertising depends greatly on what you've liked in the past, so even just by liking things you're sorting yourself into groupings that only show you things that reinforce your beliefs. There's been lots of funny articles where people tried liking the opposite of their usual likes for a time to see the changes.

Definitely true, but hell, forget Facebook - Twitter's entire model of operation is premised on curating a feed full of people whose views you like, while blocking or ignoring people who say things you don't want to hear. You can even use previously generated block lists to filter out people you've never heard of and never will, based on their preferences being different from yours.

[photon]

Video of Trump supporter saying Hillary needs to be taken out.

The twitterer's comment: "The @FBI visited my house when I said there would be protests at the convention. If I said this, I'd be in jail."

https://twitter.com/deray/status/788038683958112256

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by dobbles

So, a little info about me... I like to surf this thread during the week to kill time at work. (I know many on CP are the same) On the weekends I will check CP to see if anything noteworthy has happened but don't take the time to read threads like this. I would rather be spending time with my kids than reading on here.

So last weekend this thread went from like 20 to 40 pages while I was gone. But it made sense. there was the debate Sunday night and a lot of info dropped regarding Trumps women problems. So it made for a long read Monday morning, but I felt it was worth it.

Fast forward to today. Here I am going through 10 to 15 pages of posts again. But something is different. I have made it to page 61 and given up. The trolling of illuminaughty is too much for me. And I see this as a prime example of where CP's moderation team should be more aggressive. Perhaps this fellow hasn't broken any rules and insulted people. But he is quite clearly just trolling and has no intentions of having a legitimate discussion. He brings no value to the thread and causes people like me to just stop participating.

Maybe something productive has happened in the next 7 pages, but I doubt it. Can't see this guy as any less annoying than buster.

Thanked for bringing this to light. Its so beyond obvious that Illuminighty is trolling. Him saying he's trying to foster discussion is completely misleading.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Like the argument over NAFTA. NAFTA was good for the states as a whole. If you live in a big city, products are now cheaper. If you live in a small town, your factory is gone.

Your comment reminded me of this (long read);
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Read the next sentence; I explicitly said there was no equivalency, because one side's "own facts" are by and large more in tune with reality than the other. It's a matter of degrees.

My apologies.
I thought you were making a 'golden mean' argument, where both extremes are equally wrong and the middle ground is right. My bad.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by jammies

Personally I just wish the mods had tools that let them limit certain people from posting more than a half-dozen times or so a day. Not a banning, but a bit of a muzzling to prevent trolls from taking over conversations with loud noises and barking.

That would have solved the Gaudreauvertime issues in FoI too. Some people just can't be trusted not to try to make it all about themselves.

Muzzling can't be the answer.

Until a poster steps over the line and gets banned for violating the terms of the site, restricting their ability to contribute (however you view that contribution) is contrary to pretty much everything we value about freedom of speech.

Let them have their posts. You can't control how they choose to act, but you can control how you choose to react to it.

Put them on ignore, or scroll along.

[FlamesAddiction]

From a people-watching perspective, I find crazy interesting. I come across those weird conspiracy sites occasionally and always wonder who actually falls for that stuff. It's like responding to those Nigerian email scams or clicking the link to find out "why millionaires hate him" or to turn your computer into a money making machine. Some people will believe anything put in front of them if it allows them to escape from the mundane.

Anyway, I have to go. I just received an email and if I don't send it to 20 friends, then something bad might happen.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Muzzling can't be the answer.

Until a poster steps over the line and gets banned for violating the terms of the site, restricting their ability to contribute (however you view that contribution) is contrary to pretty much everything we value about freedom of speech.

Let them have their posts. You can't control how they choose to act, but you can control how you choose to react to it.

Put them on ignore, or scroll along.

Muzzling in the face of absolute stupidity? I think that is warranted.

Let's take Buster or Illuminighty one step further. Suppose a poster started spamming these boards with the following, in every other post:
"naosdufasdbf f andfafasdf asd"
"asdfbais auiasunf sa fisadf uasiudbf "
"ahdfa uf ias udfia ui sdbeiu sd u"

Would you prefer that this person kept posting, but the rest of the board members "Put them on ignore, or scroll along?" In effect, this is what guys like Buster and Illuminigthy do.

You rightly expect to have a certain level of standard especially with a private board like CP. For goshsakes, this isnt 4chan.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Muzzling in the face of absolute stupidity? I think that is warranted.

Let's take Buster or Illuminighty one step further. Suppose a poster started spamming these boards with the following, in every other post:
"naosdufasdbf f andfafasdf asd"
"asdfbais auiasunf sa fisadf uasiudbf "
"ahdfa uf ias udfia ui sdbeiu sd u"

Would you prefer that this person kept posting, but the rest of the board members "Put them on ignore, or scroll along?" In effect, this is what guys like Buster and Illuminigthy do.

You rightly expect to have a certain level of standard especially with a private board like CP. For goshsakes, this isnt 4chan.

Who becomes the arbiter of what constitutes a stupid post?

If they posted in that manner they would get quickly banned.

The standard of quality is the responsibility of the entire board, not just certain posters with dissenting viewpoints. Those who continually encourage or antagonize the "trolls" are as destructive to the quality of conversation as the troll themselves.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I guess we'll see how good at trolling Illiminaughty is. Say what you will about Buster but he sure did know exactly how to provoke the response. Illiminaughty so far appears a little too one note, so he'll probably fade out of here pretty quickly.

[ernie]

Not going to quote someone but feel the need to put this in. The one study I alluded to a number of pages back regarding gender bias and wage gap.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1

In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.

And many other studies show similar things. This includes biases in hiring male applicants that are underqualified vs the qualified female applicant. Hiring male applicants preferentially into longer hour positions etc etc. And while taking time away from work does play into future earnings it has been shown that such reasoning can't account for the final 10-15% of the wage gap. The wage gap exists. The gender bias exists. It is real. And there is a reason why the big companies do guard against it by making sure female employees are receiving similar performance grades compared to males. But not every company is a large company that makes sure this is happening and guards against the biases. As such, in the end over the entire hiring market the bias and inequality is present. Not as prevalent as it was but it is still present. Present in quite subtle but substantive ways.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by dobbles

So, a little info about me... I like to surf this thread during the week to kill time at work. (I know many on CP are the same) On the weekends I will check CP to see if anything noteworthy has happened but don't take the time to read threads like this. I would rather be spending time with my kids than reading on here.

So last weekend this thread went from like 20 to 40 pages while I was gone. But it made sense. there was the debate Sunday night and a lot of info dropped regarding Trumps women problems. So it made for a long read Monday morning, but I felt it was worth it.

Fast forward to today. Here I am going through 10 to 15 pages of posts again. But something is different. I have made it to page 61 and given up. The trolling of illuminaughty is too much for me. And I see this as a prime example of where CP's moderation team should be more aggressive. Perhaps this fellow hasn't broken any rules and insulted people. But he is quite clearly just trolling and has no intentions of having a legitimate discussion. He brings no value to the thread and causes people like me to just stop participating.

Maybe something productive has happened in the next 7 pages, but I doubt it. Can't see this guy as any less annoying than buster.

Its a thread about the american election and debates occur. You whine that there are to many debate posts and it takes to much time to find the posts you enjoy to read - get over yourself.

Hit the ignore button, reply to the rests of the posts and you will enjoy the thread again.