Some interesting studyage from good ole pew.
Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:
- 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
- 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
- 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
- 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
- 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics
Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.
Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.
Personally, I almost never ignore anyone for ideological reasons. You can't argue with someone you can't read responses from.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Slartibartfast on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:03AM
I'm a member of an old-skool BBS (telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com) that's been around since the 80's. On it, we have (shockingly) the ability to set up "enemies:" people with whom you have decided you neither wish to communicate, nor read the posts of. As a rule, the folks who are most often "enemies" are conservatives, yes, but of the rabid-and-irrational sort. There are PITA liberals, yes, but the folks willing to really throw mud around are the conspiracy-subscribing (e.g., Michelle Obama is really male -- honest!), government-hating, conservatives. So I'm not sure if this is more of a liberals-are-less-tolerant, or liberals-just-don't-want-to-see-an-overabundance-of-noise, or some-of-the-fringe-of-the-right-wing-are-truly-hard-to-deal-with... or a combination of all of the above. Or, more succinctly, "correlation isn't causation." Not sure how I'd design a test to rationalize the numbers, but I'd certainly be interested in the results were one able to be concocted.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by buswolley on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:36AM
I'd start with random sampling.
Seriously, the kinds of people that go to BBS in 2015 are not representative of anyone.
But, I still have fond memories of my BBS adventures in the 90's. :)
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:57AM
> Seriously, the kinds of people that go to BBS in 2015 are not representative of anyone.
Not mention a BBS named i-scabbs. Ewwww, gross.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:13AM
As a libertarian I think this post shows a bit of a liberal streak in your perspective, or tells us something about that bbs. I personally don't think either traditional party really beats the other in their ability to make public statements that are frustratingly stupid or batshit insane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:09AM
What is insanity?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:31AM
Repetition with the expectation of different outcome. Like voting (R) or (D).
(Score: 1) by beernutz on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:26PM
People keep repeating that this is the definition of insanity, but actually it is the definition of practice. The more you do something, the better you get at it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mr. Slippery on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:14PM
Not if you do it exactly the same way every time. That's the old joke about twenty years of experience versus one year of experience twenty times.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:30PM
The more you fail, the better a failure you become?
(Score: 2) by Aighearach on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:22AM
They repeat it because it is AA/NA party-line propaganda.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:14AM
"Practice doesn't make perfect. *Perfect* practice makes perfect." -- Charlie Lau
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by sjames on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:45AM
From what I have seen, the GOP and especially Tea Party 'conservatives' are far more likely to spout nonsense that an elementary school textbook can easily correct. Not political opinion, but claims of fact that are trivially disproven. Further, they will not budge from that position (that is, can not be educated). There is little reason to listen to that drivel.
It isn't EXCLUSIVE to the right, but it certainly seems more prevalent there.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:27PM
There's a reason for that: The right-wing is driven in large part by a particular sort of religious belief. Once you've planted the idea that something completely nuts is absolutely true (e.g. crossing the Red Sea, or almost everything in the Book of Revelations), and that it is the paramount of virtue to refuse to question it in any way, it's a lot easier to ignore what's staring you in the face and treat is as a "test of faith".
When liberals go off into nutjob land, it's usually towards the "question everything" end of the spectrum. You get comments about objective reality being an illusion (frequently shortly after an LSD-induced experience), which means that they won't so much discredit what we know about reality as claim that reality is incomplete in some critical way. That mindset gets people believing that "alternative medicine" actually works, but doesn't get them believing that vaccines don't, for example.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:52PM
When liberals go off into nutjob land, it's usually towards the "question everything" end of the spectrum. ... That mindset gets people believing that "alternative medicine" actually works, but doesn't get them believing that vaccines don't, for example.
It's not just liberals I've found that buy into the alternative medicine BS, there's tons of conservatives who do too. It seems to correlate with education and wealth: if they have more than a high-school diploma and they're at least middle class, they're more likely to buy into that crap. I've seen it with my ex-wife and her friends, and she's a raging conservative in many ways. Same with the vaccines: she believes the whole autism thing there too.
From what I can tell, this stuff is simply based on faith, and complete ignorance of science, plus a healthy dose of gullibility. These "alternative medicine" practitioners are con artists who convince people (and many have convinced themselves) that this stuff will cure all their ailments, but of course there's a big cost because it isn't cheap, it isn't covered by insurance (for good reason), and they want you to keep coming back every week for "adjustments". They'll also swear up and down that there is a scientific basis for it, even though there is none (or only a pseudoscientific basis, like water molecules having "memory"). So people who are prone to believing personal anecdotes over objective data and studies will buy into it because their friend swears "it made me feel better!" and the practitioner sounds educated and swears this stuff is real, and they simply can't believe the practitioner is lying or just plain wrong.
What's really disturbing is that it isn't just us dumb Americans buying into this multi-billion dollar industry of scams, it's all over the western world, from Australia to Germany and Denmark, so our poor education system isn't the sole culprit.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:22PM
The thing with alternative medicines, as I see it, is that many minor diseases are rooted in psychological problems, like stress etc. To me, alternative medicine is a lot like self-hypnosis tailored to people who don't believe in hypnosis. (AFAIK, self-hypnosis is proven to work for stress-problems etc.)
I still feel bad about spending any dime for "alternative medicines", but since read doctors are afaik not allows to subscribe placebo, the sugar-pills are at least normally not harmful and can help patients to feel better. Also, normal doctors usually don't have/take their time for an extensive talk with the patient. But this is an important factor for the perceived well-being of the patients.
Of course, once it comes to series diseases, relying on alternative medicines becomes right-out dangerous.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by cayenne8 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:32PM
Depends on what you mean by alternative medicines.
There are some ways that would help a person....for instance, EATING the right foodstuffs. If you eat mostly natural veggies, some good proteins and fats....you can stave off obesity, diabetes and in some cases, they're showing folks have been actually reversing arterial clogging problems.
There are many things that can be helped and reversed without a pill, but just changing lifestyle to more of what the human body was evolved to consume and do (exercise).
It isn't as substitute for stage 4 cancer tx, or the need for emergency surgery, but it can help cure some of the ails caused BY modern day life and the food supply so many of us use.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:48PM
There are some ways that would help a person....for instance, EATING the right foodstuffs. If you eat mostly natural veggies, some good proteins and fats....you can stave off obesity, diabetes and in some cases, they're showing folks have been actually reversing arterial clogging problems.
That's not "alternative medicine", that's nutrition. Yes, it is unfortunate that a lot of regular MDs don't address nutritional problems at all, but that doesn't make nutrition a fringe pseudoscience, there are plenty of nutritionists within the "regular medicine" camp. It just so happens that a lot of alt-med practitioners have adopted nutrition advisement as part of their practice because it plays into the whole "holistic" idea.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:45PM
Also, normal doctors usually don't have/take their time for an extensive talk with the patient. But this is an important factor for the perceived well-being of the patients.
I've heard this complaint before, but the problem is, doctors are short on time, and they are not counselors. If you need counseling, there are people who do that.
But yes, most alternative medicine is nothing more than feel-good placebos. People who testify to a positive result to it are people who could have done the same just seeing a counselor or taking up a hobby, something to improve their mental well-being.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:21AM
I just had a serious episode because the doctor would not listen and insisted that his numbers on a chart trumped my experience of treatment (and my habit of reading the literature). Hopefully this scared him enough to pay attention next time I wave around peer-reviewed research that he's evidently not aware of and didn't want to hear about.
As to the nominal topic, it's my general experience that conservatives will argue you blue, but liberals will shout you down.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:24PM
Yeah, unfortunately doctors are not all the same, or completely up-to-date on the latest research. They're basically technicians, if you compare it to the engineering world where you have physicists doing basic research, engineers designing practical things with that scientific knowledge, and technicians who do the legwork in operating and repairing the technology. Some technicians are a lot better than others at actually understanding what's going on with the technology and keeping up with (and having proper respect for) what their physicist and engineer peers are doing than others.
It sounds like you need a new doctor if this one didn't want to hear about peer-reviewed research and thinks he knows everything based on what he was taught ages ago. The field of medicine is constantly changing due to new research which adds to medical knowledge and also new treatments that become available, and someone who isn't open to that really isn't a good doctor. This isn't all that uncommon with doctors unfortunately; a lot of them really don't have the mindset of true scientists at all, they just do what they're familiar with, so their knowledge may be very dated. For instance, some surgeons want to just do surgery the way they've always done it, cutting people wide open, because that's how they did it in 1970, and they don't want to bother learning new laproscopic techniques which cause far less scarring and trauma. So it really pays to shop around for doctors to make sure you're getting a good one, and to get second opinions.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:51PM
Don't have a lot of affordable choice. He's a young guy, and still full of medical school rather than experience. Problem is they seem to come out of school thinking what they were taught is all there is to know. Blindness between specialties often astounds me as well. I've had to take up reading the Journal of Endocrinology in sheer self-defense (I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis) and have found that very little of even the basics in that field have filtered into general practice. (At an educated guess, about half the ailments presented in older people are actually due to mild hypothyroidism, as is much of what is diagnosed as simply due to age or as a psychiatric issue. How much better to treat the underlying cause, rather than cocktail the symptoms with much-riskier drugs?)
As to doctor arrogance, a few years ago it was noted that about 10% of thyroid patients still don't feel well even under 'correct' treatment; there's a great deal of data on this. The article in JEnd. concluded that "we need to revisit how we're handling these patients". Fair enough. But the same data was written up in the JAMA with the conclusion, I quote: "...but we don't believe that patients know what they feel."
Human surgery has progressed as you say (been a long time since I've heard of any opting for more-invasive when laproscopic is available), but the most basic veterinary surgery is going the wrong way -- used to be a spay required a one-inch incision and was minimally-invasive (and not inclined to surgery-related complications), and any older vet can competently do this. But with today's young vets I'm seeing zippers half the length of the animal, like they needed to root around in there with both hands (and a concomitant upsurge in post-op complications). Have these people never heard of the spay hook, invented nearly 100 years ago?!!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 19 2015, @06:04PM
That's weird about spaying. Have you seen that a lot, or is it possible that's just the work of a few bad vets? I've got a cat who was a stray, and was already spayed when we captured her as a kitten (probably an escaped cat, she was about 6 months old at the time), and it was really hard to tell if she'd been spayed or not, as there just wasn't much of a scar, so I guess whoever did it knew what they were doing.
As for thyroid treatment, you're probably right about that. Unfortunately there are quite a few somewhat-common ailments that modern medical science hasn't really gotten a good handle on just yet. I think the whole gluten thing is one of them. While there are a lot of people who have jumped on the gluten-free (GF) bandwagon thinking they have that problem, it has only been relatively recently discovered how many people suffer from FODMAP intolerance, where they can't handle FODMAP-containing foods in quantity (and FODMAPs include gluten), but they do not have Crohn's disease or Celiac disease, the diseases which have been known about for a long time, so these people would suffer from various problems that doctors couldn't determine the cause of and would attribute to psychosomatic problems instead. Now we're learning the patients (a lot of them) really did have something wrong all along.
We just don't know everything about the human body yet, and we're learning more all the time (there was an article just today about a new ultrasound treatment for Alzheimer's; too bad it's too late for Terry Pratchet), so any doctor who thinks he knows everything because he learned it in med school really has the wrong attitude, and I'm surprised they don't brainwash that whole idea out of them right from the onset because it's a terrible attitude in a field that's constantly advancing. This isn't like bridge-building, where progress is relatively slow, or worse, road-building where nothing's really changed in decades.
As for endocrinology and general practice, is it not possible for you to simply see an endocrinologist for all these problems? That's really the whole reason we have specialists, because there's no way for GPs to be experts on everything (plus, they're the lowest-paid doctors).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:13PM
Most of the animals I've seen that went through one of these gung-ho spay clinics had that zipper long as your hand. And neuters that opened the scrotum -- which in dogs often won't heal (should go through the adjacent sheath instead). I'd never seen such hideous surgery until about 20 years ago, and the first time it was from a vet who'd trained somewhere like Pakistan. [I'm a pro dog trainer, so I probably notice this stuff more than most.]
FODMAP? [goes off, looks it up] Oh, what we used to call fructose intolerance, mostly seen as diarrhea after drinking a lot of soda. That's been known at least since I was a biochemistry major, 40 years ago. Tho I see from the Wiki that it's a broader category of carb compounds than that. Presumably due to a defective or absent enzyme, in other words, genetic (tho I'd posit that its lack is probably the older trait, as we've been evolving toward a broader diet. So much for the notion that we evolved to eat fruit, given that fructose is just fruit sugar.)
On that note, Irritable Bowel Syndrome has become one of my pet peeves as a garbage-can diagnosis. It should =always= be first investigated as acute-phase Hashimoto's (cyclic IBS is *definitive*, but find a GP who knows that!), then if that proves negative, as celiac or similar disorders. Meanwhile, the worst thing a GP can do is prescribe the usual -- dietary fibre, which is almost certain to contain the very compounds that are most likely to irritate! (And is liable to produce GERD to boot: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/gerdacid-reflux/heartburn-cured/ [proteinpower.com] Dr.Eades gets my endorsement for grokking biochem, which a lot of 'em don't seem to or we wouldn't have today's diet/cholesterol recommendations in the first place.)
Did see an endo in CA, but being low-income, the state paid for that. (I came armed with a bunch of JEnd. printouts, which helped.) Don't have that sort of program here in MT. :(
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:51PM
> To me, alternative medicine is a lot like self-hypnosis tailored to people who don't believe in hypnosis.
That is generally called the placebo effect.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jdccdevel on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:39PM
It's interesting that you use the "Crossing the Red Sea" example, since that has been shown to have a probable basis in fact.
Many scientists now believe Moses used his knowledge of the wind [latimes.com] and tides tides in the Gulf of Suez [dailymail.co.uk] to help the his people escape from Egypt.
Given the right combination of tides and wind, the gulf of Suez can be "dry" for hours at a time at low tide, which is long enough to walk across. When the water returns though, it is supposed to be very sudden. Since the water levels in the gulf were supposedly higher in biblical times, even the "Walls of Water" description of the returning tide could be accurate.
Apparently, people living in the area have known about the phenomenon for thousands of years, but it's fairly rare, and the Egyptian soldiers wouldn't have been familiar with the phenomena. As such, the army could easily have been caught unaware by the returning water.
Divine intervention is therefore not required, but it's not as poetic to say that "Moses knew the area, and used the incoming tide to kill the Egyptian army".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:05PM
Even if you buy that, you have to believe this in order for the Exodus to be considered truth:
- A group of over 1 million people to wander in the desert for 40 years and leave not one scrap of garbage at any site they are recorded as having been in the same source of information as the whole crossing the Red Sea bit.
- No Egyptian scribe would have thought to write down something about the episode of hundreds of thousands of slaves escaping and killing a pharoah in the process.
- Nobody among the other literate peoples in the area at the time when this was supposed to have happened (Hittites and Sumerians) took notice of hundreds of thousands of people suddenly showing up in the Sinai, and a few decades later mercilessly massacring thousands of residents of Canaan.
- All the scholars that have tried to prove the Exodus happened are lying about a complete lack of external evidence for the event.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:47PM
I have some questions about this. First, are you sure about that number (1 million)? I was under the impression that the numbers were more like in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, at most. Second, how sure are we that not a "scrap of garbage" has been left behind. While I will take at face value your assertion that none has been found, I have questions about whether exhaustive searches have yet been carried out. Remember that many of these sites are in geopolitically "sensitive" areas, where the locals are not really enthused with the notion of finding evidence of the presence of ancient Israelites. How easy would it be to overlook such evidence if the locals weren't particularly interested in finding it? Finally, how complete is our knowledge of ancient Egypt around the time frame of the alleged exodus? Is it possible that there are as yet undiscovered pharaonic tombs out in the Egyptian desert which could shed light on an Israelite exodus? I am genuinely curious about these questions? Do we have any archaeologists amongst our readers who could shed light on these?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:21PM
The 1 million number comes from the fact that in the book of Numbers, the population of Israelites is supposed to have been a bit over 600,000 adult men. A population that large would have also included a similar number of women, and probably at least 1 child per adult couple, bringing that number to 1.8 million. Which is well over 1 million people.
This [rationalwiki.org] gives a fairly good rundown of the arguments for and against. Scholars have come down quite solidly in the "against" column.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:36AM
Very interesting, but (and I take no stance on the factuality of the Exodus) it does neglect the fact that the Egyptians DID occasionally purge history, or try to (eg. there seems to have been some official effort to purge away pharaoh Akhenaten). I'm also thinking there may be a fundamental error (possibly with a mis-transcription that predates all translations) with regard to the number of people, given the lifespans reported in Genesis -- if that's off by the probable factor of ten, why not the same with regard to headcounts??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:17PM
Its a pretty well-known fact by this point that "Red Sea" as a translation for "Yam Suph" is incorrect. The correct translation is "Sea of Reeds" which is a totally different location, far shorter, and far more shallow. The Sea of Reeds is also a location where it is very possible and not an impossibly crazy idea for the tides and winds to provide a dry crossing point, unlike the Red Sea.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by strength_of_10_men on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:50PM
As a sample of one, I can tell you that I've told friends and families to stop sending me chain emails that are exactly what the parent describes. Does this count as being intolerant or just being tired of trying to debunk each and every email? I just got tired of it and told them to stop.
It might be my confirmation bias, but I find that while my dad (a rabid conservative) and his friend often make and pass bogus emails, I get almost none of the same kind of things from my liberal friends. So it just follows that conservatives are seen as more tolerant just by the fact that they're not being baited as often.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:32PM
Perhaps. If you say so. But, that observation, true or not, is irrelevant to the article. The article is about unforgiving, uncompromising liberals who will unfriend your ass in a heartbeat because you don't agree with their agenda.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:04PM
Or it could be that the sort of people who get unfriended are over represented in the GOP camp.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:11PM
I don't agree with you typically but I have never blocked you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:51PM
Ditto here, Sir Anonymous Coward. AC often posts irrelevant, inane, stupid, off topic, and/or simply insane posts. Yet, AC sometimes posts VERY insightful and informative posts. The most annoying "user" on SN or /. can also be the brightest, wittiest, most insightful poster in an entire discussion. That's why I look at ALL THE POSTS in a discussion.
So, uhhh, while I'm talking to you, AC, what ARE your political views?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:18PM
AC you are replying to here.
It would be fair to say they are rather different then yours. I do agree with you at times, but I can feel you are a bit out of touch with what others experience.
I would not classify myself as any of the organized groups as I feel all of them (R's, D's, and L's) are placing way to much emphasis on wedge issues. All they want is to divide us on stupid little things (Gay marriage, abortion, etc.) then focus on the things the federal government should be focusing on.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:25AM
[plaintively] Is there a way to subscribe to your newsletter??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:25PM
except for the fact that the article isn't about that at all, or anything even remotely similar to what you describe.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:46PM
Maybe we aren't reading the same article. http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/12/main-findings-10/ [pewinternet.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:17PM
if you read
10% ...because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
9% ...because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
8% ...because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
5% ...because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
4% ...because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics
as
[100%] because you don't agree with their agenda.
then nothing i or anyone says will ever get through to you.
(Score: 2) by E_NOENT on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:33AM
+1 for any iscabbs alumni around here. "(DOC) Daves Own Version of Citadel" ftw.
I'm not in the business... I *am* the business.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:28PM
Interesting? Yes, I suppose so. I'm glad you didn't say it was surprising. Conservatives can smile in your face, tell you that you're a worthless asshole, and tell you that they still love you - all in the same breath. Liberals can hate me for any number of reasons, and they will always hate me. There is no forgiveness, no forgetting, no mercy. I disagree with gay marriage, and there are liberals who have told me that I should just die because of it. Hey, I'm more or less conservative. Some guy tells me he's gay, I'm gonna tell him, I don't swing that way, I disapprove of it, and he ought to think about changing his life. But, I'll buy him a coffee while I'm preaching, I'll work beside him, ride beside him (motorcycles or horses), whatever. I'm not HATING the man because he's a peter puffer, I simply disapprove.
Now, let's hear it from any liberals who can accept my attitude, and still respect and/or like me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:54PM
So I'm supposed to accept your attitude and still respect you even if you tell a black guy that you disapprove of him being free, and you think we should go back to slavery or at least Jim Crow laws?
When you treat people like second-class citizens, you deserve their scorn and disrespect.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:14PM
But he'll *ride* next to the black guy, even off to drop him off at his master's cotton form, and explain why he deserves to get paid for work while "the blacks" don't.
Just different rights for different peoples, the way god intended it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:35PM
You're not hating, you're simply judgmental, condescending, and claim to be giving charity, when in reality what you want is submission and subservience to your will. You're basically admitting you're a bully and if someone disagrees with you and you force your beliefs on them and will make sure you let them know they are worth less than you until they change their ways. Seems like you're doing a lot of mental acrobatics to find a way to justify treating others wrong.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:58PM
I don't swing that way, I disapprove of it, and he ought to think about changing his life.
What a great example of conservative tolerance!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:12PM
Conservatives can smile in your face, tell you that you're a worthless asshole, and tell you that they still love you - all in the same breath.
Am I missing something?
What is so great about being a such a stunningly hypocritical bald-face liar?
Is that satire? Are you pulling a Poe's Law? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by t-3 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:43PM
Disagreeing with someone about how they live their life != hate. Forgiveness is a major (if anything, the most important) christian virtue, but that doesn't make the concept invalid. If you hate someone just because you don't see eye to eye, that makes YOU a bad person.
Example: Kid joins a gang. Parents find out, don't like it, disapprove and disagree with it, but still love the kid. There's nothing hypocritical or wrong about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:38PM
> Disagreeing with someone about how they live their life != hate.
If you think that calling someone a "worthless asshole" is not hate, then our definitions of the word are so far apart that there will never be any agreement. In fact, I will go so far as to say that anyone who says something like that and has convinced themselves that they are not hating is engaging in self-deception in order to preserve their perception of themselves as a good person.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:56AM
It's definitely a hateful thing to say, a rude and mean-spirited statement. But saying it does not mean you hate someone. Criticism and hate are all too often confused, but they are not the same thing at all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:43PM
liberals-just-don't-want-to-see-an-overabundance-of-noise
I think this is a big part of it right here. The conspiracy-subscribing wacko conservatives simply are not rational people, so anyone who is rational is going to grow tired of seeing their drivel. With other people, you can at least have some sort of civil, intelligent discourse, but with these conservatives, you can't, because everything to them is basically a religious matter. They believe that Obama is a communist Muslim and the literal antichrist because someone told them, and there is nothing you can say which will change their minds. Unlike rational people who look at evidence and will change their opinion based on facts when necessary, these people will not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:06AM
that's because conservatives can't figure out how to block people..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:09AM
Ha! The moderates are worse.
Moderates don't even know how to take a stand against anything or anyone.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:12AM
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:19AM
Neutral chaotic or neutral lawful. Be specif man!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:36AM
it's those damn neutrons
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:41AM
A damn Neutron walks into a bar and order a double scotch. Barman: “What is the damn matter?”. Neutron: “Not the damn matter, the damn anti-matter”.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:04AM
Amusingly the conservative-liberal spectrum makes a sort of x across the neutral alignment plane in attitude but not necessarily action. Like this:
Lawful liberals slant good (socialist, organized common good), chaotic liberals slant evil (fascist, forcing others to be a certain way).
Lawful conservatives slant evil (totalitarian, complete control), chaotic conservatives slant good (libertarian, laissez faire).
In RPG terms good and evil are not necessarily good or bad. Good is merely group oriented, evil is is individual oriented. Looking at it this way everyone seems to be right about the other side, which makes sense as to why bright minds can be of such differing opinions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:04AM
"Liberal" and "Fascist" are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Don't believe me? Look them up.
A word you need to learn: Anarchist. [google.com]
"Conservative" and "Totalitarian" aren't anywhere near each other either.
Another word you need to learn: Reactionary. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [globalpossibilities.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:14AM
That is the sound of yet another post going over gweg's head.
Totalitarianism is the epitome of conservative. It takes conservative values to their extremes, which is the point of the exercise. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Anarchy doesn't have anything to do with it either. Fascism is an appropriate term to use in context of culture.
Now put down the coolaid and walk away.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:05PM
Yikes, totalitarianism is not the epitome of conservatism. Totalitarianism is an extremely specific political system. Conservatism is a huge range of views. For example, you can be financially conservative but exclude religion from government.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:44PM
Thus the range used of which one extreme end is being discussed.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:10PM
Totalitarianism is the epitome of conservative. It takes conservative values to their extremes, which is the point of the exercise. Don't believe me? Look it up.
I know you are an AC but your views are accepted wisdom on the Prog side so lemme demolish em here.
That is the heart of Conservatism. Care to explain how in the wide wide world of sports you get totalitarianism out of that?
On the other hand, you guys worshiped the ground the Italian Fascists walked on, American Progs eager to sit at their feet and learn. You loved Germany too right up to the exact day they attacked Stalin, and the love was mutual. Gobbels learned his dark arts from an American Progressive in the FDR camp.
If you guys want to debate lets go, but you don't get to debate strawmen you set up, you have to actually engage our actual ideas.... or do your usual banhammer thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:21PM
> [Quotes part of the american declaration of independence]
> That is the heart of Conservatism.
So only Americans can be conservative.
The thing about the declaration of independence is that is an inherently liberal document. Much like the Bible.
Look at who wrote it -- People who were uprooting the status quo. Conservationism is about conserving the status quo.
The fact that declaration of independence is now part of the status quo makes for a great existential trip.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:02PM
So only Americans can be conservative.
I'm sticking to using words in their generally accepted meaning, at least in the U.S. The Enemy has the 'Commanding Heights of the Culture' and part of that is the power to define the words. They intentionally use it to make many ideas difficult to express.
Most of the rest of the world uses 'Liberal' to mean what we call 'Conservative' here in the U.S. because they befouled 'Progressive' and 'Socialist', Stalin befouled 'Communist' for 'em, He Who Must Not Be Named befouled 'Fascist' and that left them in a bit of a branding problem. They solved it by stealing 'Liberal' and have now befouled it to the point many of them are now trying to rebrand back to Progressive again since most who remember the earlier use are now dead.
But I'd take your original trollish gambit and raise. :) I'd say that anyone can be Conservative anywhere. But only Conservatives (who are also American Citizens of course) are entitled to be called Americans. I draw the two great warring philosophies as 'Progressive' vs 'American' seeing as a Progressive shares none of the foundational ideas of America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:38PM
> The Enemy
WTF?
> But only Conservatives (who are also American Citizens of course) are entitled to be called Americans.
Wow. That you think such a statement is meaningful really tells us where you are at.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:33PM
lol. Thats why most conservatives are racists and bigots, and use the law whenever they can to force their bigoted views on everyone (ie, Jim Crow laws, etc) right? Because the core of conservatism is that all men are created equal? And of course, "men" means "women" aren't included, which is why conservatives are typically fine with misogyny ("It says in the Bible that women are to be subservient to men!").
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:51PM
Jim Crow, Bull Conner, George Wallace, Bob Byrd.... what is the common threads here? Democrats.
Every Klansman that ever wore a hood back when it wasn't a joke was a Democrat. LBJ didn't change his mind from his days of fillibustering Civil Rights legislation; he just changed tactics. Of course that meant a lot of previous history needed revising and airbrushing but again, he was on the side that perfected those dark arts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:26PM
Nevermind that what democrats stood for back then was populous state control and little else. Burn them strawmen right on the crucifixion fire! Throw some nascar fuel on it for good measure!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:43PM
> Every Klansman that ever wore a hood back when it wasn't a joke was a Democrat.
I doubt that was strictly true. But even if it is, I doubt your sincerity. Seriously.
Posts like that are what get people like you deservedly unfriended.
Why?
Because it is a lie masquerading as a technical truth.
The passage of the civil rights act fractured the democratic party such that all the racist white conservatives in the party left for the republican party. That exodus was the tipping point for when the two parties began to line up ideologically with liberal and conservative politics. Strom Thurmond is the classic example, The CRA was enacted July 2nd, 1964 and Thurmond switched to the republican party two months later.
Nowadays it is pretty well understood that being in the republican party does not mean a person is racist, but if they are racist it is practically certain that they are a republican.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:28PM
The passage of the civil rights act fractured the democratic party such that all the racist white conservatives in the party left for the republican party.
Nice theory. Reality would like to disagree. This is the "Nixon's Southern Strategy" lie. But it IS a lie. Clear your mind and see if you can learn something today.
Tricky Dick Nixon was many things, political naif has never been listed as one of his many sins. Southern racists (and hell, I'm Southern so lets be blunt and to a close approximation just simplify to White Southerners) of the the 1960s had been hating Republicans for a century. The joke about preferring a 'yeller dog over a Republican' wasn't funny back then, it was a simple statement of fact. Nixon knew this. So, examine the playfield (Wiki has the details) and riddle me this: What possible strategy could Nixon have used to convince a Southern racist voter to pick a progressive/liberal Republican California Governor over George Wallace running on the Dixicrat ticket?
No, voting records are clear, the Solid South remained Democrat as long as it remained racist. We are only now, at long last, finally removing most of the taint from statewide and local offices. But it is happening due to migration into the Sun Belt and as the old racists finally just die off, not because they ever decided to start voting Republican in large numbers. Don't be confused by the 1980 and 1984 Presidential results, they are the outlier; Reagan was so compelling a candidate and his opponents so repellent he carried a LOT of states Republicans had no business winning under normal circumstances. Look at Senate and Congressional strength by Party to see a more accurate reflection of Party loyalties during the period.
..if they are racist it is practically certain that they are a republican.
Only in the NewSpeak where racist has been redefined as anyone opposed to Progressive policies and where Robert "Exalted Cyclops" Byrd, Rev. Sharpton isn't a racist, Eric Holder isn't a racist, President "Granny was Typical White Person" Obama isn't a racist, Jimmy "I hate Jews" Carter isn't a racist, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:35PM
> But it IS a lie. Clear your mind and see if you can learn something today.
Calling it a lie and then offering only sophistry without even a citation, much less a citation from an unbiased source, is not going to learn me anything today. But I do recognize that your rant gives you comfort. So I guess I learned that you know how to self-sooth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:06PM
Party names are a red herring. The Republican party in the early 20th century was quite progressive, while the Democrat party was pretty conservative. Back then, the "Democrats" you speak of would be "Republicans" today because the parties have traded platforms. [livescience.com]
Bringing party names, especially from half a century or longer ago, up does nothing to counter the statement that "Conservatives are racists, bigots, and misogynists."
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:19PM
If you guys want to debate lets go, but you don't get to debate strawmen you set up, you have to actually engage our actual ideas.... or do your usual banhammer thing.
Not going to do it! But more for the fact that you quote the heart of liberalism as epitomized in the Declaration of Independence, as conservative? This is not an actual idea, it is a complete misunderstanding. Liberals are in favor of Liberty! See how the two words even look the same? America is a liberal country founded on liberal ideals as the result of the bourgeois revolution. If you hate liberals, you hate America! Why do you hate America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:18PM
I thought it was a simple operation.
(Score: 1) by Oakenshield on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:48PM
As hard as I try, I cannot read this without hearing it in my head in a Branniganesque voice. Along with a Kif sigh,
(Score: 5, Funny) by Ezber Bozmak on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:32AM
that's because conservatives can't figure out how to block people..
Is that the modern version of having your VCR constantly blinking 12:00?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Nerdfest on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:03PM
No, that is "Sent from my iPhone".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:22PM
Nah, that's elitist signaling. They could turn it off, they just like advertising they can afford an iphone.
Now the people who still send messages tagged with "sent from my blackberry" those people are digital grampas.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mojo chan on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:45PM
We used to call them Midnight Flashers, and they usually couldn't work out why.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:12AM
Conservationsists might not, they spend a lot of time out doors, not cleaning windows
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:42PM
No it's not because of that. This study isn't the first of its kind, and the thing it glosses over that others have covered is really important. Conservatives are far less likely to have social media friends who post different views in the first place. So much so that it completely dwarfs this unfriending gap.
"But wait" I can almost hear you thinking, "How is that possible since every liberal with a conservative friend on facebook is a conservative with a liberal friend on facebook?" The distinction comes in the form of those who regularly post opinionated political statements, versus those that just have opinions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:10AM
"Liberals", the stringent ones, are likely to be young douchebags. Young'uns are dumbasses, by definition - it's the law of nature. So... janrinok, take a break. Let the other suckas do their time on SN.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:39PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by calzone on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:12AM
It's because the vast majority of conservatives who post political opinions _often_ tend to post incredibly ridiculous, or paranoid, or often outright offensive, stuff.
Their best content will be Drudge stuff, Fox News stuff, and Breitbart stuff. It only goes downhill from there. I'm not even touching on the religiously inclined stuff they'll post.
Time to leave Soylent News [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:53AM
Look the Peter Thiel seastead story is going to be good
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:14AM
How many people who are labelled conservatives have you sat down for an honest drink with?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by skater on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:17PM
Here's the thing about social media: People say things on there that they would never say in real life. Politics, religion, etc. All of those topics that are usually in the "tread carefully" sector in face-to-face conversations are FAIR GAME on the internet. It's quite an eye opener about people you think you know.
I've blocked a few conservative people in my news feeds, and I'm not really even liberal; I'm moderate. I just get sick of insane rantings from some of them who refuse to listen to reason, and for whatever reason these tend to be conservatives. For example, some of the wingtip people still refuse to believe Obama was born in Hawaii. If you try to debate it with them rationally, with facts, they just dismiss them and claim you can't believe everything you read on the internet (apparently unaware of the concept of irony). It gets old reading this kind of nutcase ranting, so I block it. If a liberal did it, I'd block them, too. I just don't need insanity in my life. I haven't blocked the more moderate, sane conservatives or liberals in my feed even though I disagree with them from time to time.
And, yes, I've sat around the campfire with these people, conservatives and liberals, and we had great conversations on many topics. I still consider them friends. I just don't want to hear them with the filter off. I'm guessing they probably wouldn't want to hear me with the filter off, either - they just haven't figured that out because I rarely post anything to my Facebook account, let alone a rant about politics or religion or one of other other "dangerous" topics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:50PM
I can attest that conservative people who don't realize I'm not (I'm a clean-cut white guy, so I can appear to be conservative to someone who isn't paying attention) will frequently say things that could very easily offend liberal folks. I have met many conservatives (and some libertarians) that routinely use racial slurs, advocate genocide, fantasize about murdering political opponents, and support the beating of women and children by their husbands or fathers.
That's why I know full well that the sentiment at the root of much of the conservative hatred and fear of Barack Obama comes down to "N-----s are coming to take what's left of my money and land". A lot of them believe the reason they've become much poorer between the 1950's and now has to do with Lyndon Johnson's civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by albert on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:26PM
I hadn't thought of that one, but it could be at least part of the explanation. Correctness does not depend on being inoffensive.
Suppose it is correct. Would you still deny it due to being an unpalatable idea?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:14PM
No. In my universe, the unpalatable ideas are those that involve killing a lot of people who aren't trying to kill me.
I should mention that there's absolutely no evidence that that assertion is true, and two very very good alternate explanations:
1. Farms became too productive per acre, driving down the price of agricultural products. As a result, lots of formerly independent family homesteads were unable to make ends meet and lost their land to foreclosure. this paper [crbtrader.com] gives a good explanation and some very good graphs. The thing is, the only thing an individual farmer can do in that situation to try to recover is produce more, but that drives prices even lower. This has devastated rural areas where the primary (or often only) export was farm produce.
2. Manufacturing that used to be the core of some small town economies has mostly moved overseas. This has a lot to do with the fact that Americans, as bad off as many are, are far less desperate than workers in China, Costa Rica, Bangladesh, and quite a few other places. As you can imagine, when the plant leaves town, a lot of the money leaves town with it.
None of those forces have anything to do with welfare programs or civil rights, but because they coincided with the Civil Rights Movement conservatives trying to play on racism for votes were able to sell the story that it was caused by black people taking rural white people's money, and that's been a firm belief in those areas ever since.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:38PM
I'm told those kinds of people are called "SJW"s. Oh wait, no, thats only if its specifically targeted to white people, or males, or heterosexuals. My bad.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:52PM
Many.
One conservative guy I know has trouble thinking. He'll spout off "facts" that are obviously wrong, then advocate a solution that may or may not make sense even if he was right about the information. For example, that illegal immigrants are a problem, and the solution is to build a big wall on the US-Mexico border and man it with 300,000 border guards. I asked him who was going to pay for all those guards? He hadn't thought of that part. For another example, only yesterday he claimed that gasoline engines are as or more efficient than electric motors.
Several others I know are big on moral hazard. They see mooching everywhere, think that while Romney shouldn't have said that 47% of the people are moochers, he was right.
Another conservative friend hoped that The Matrix would get me to see that the world could be merely a facade, a veneer. Yes, observable reality might be a big front on whatever actual reality is, which according to him was all explained in the Bible of course. He also advocates privatizing our entire highway system, and charging tolls on every block. I pointed out that there would be considerable overhead involved in assessing and collecting the tolls, but that didn't faze him. Nor did the loss of privacy bother him, in fact he thought that a good thing, help stop criminals from getting away. Curious at how far this went, I asked him if the fire and police departments should also be privatized. He hesitated, then conceded that privatizing the police might be a Bad Idea.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Marand on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:13PM
Curious at how far this went, I asked him if the fire and police departments should also be privatized. He hesitated, then conceded that privatizing the police might be a Bad Idea.
Bullshit! When Detroit privatised their police force, they got Robocop. What sort of person wouldn't want a Robocop?! Communists types, that's what.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:52PM
I assume you think those people are good. OK, well in that case Mexico is hurt by losing them. This makes Mexico more of an unstable mess, which in turn makes even more people want to leave. (The alternative is that they are NOT good, in which case we don't want them.)
How do you feel about people dying in the desert, getting mangled on the death train ("El tren de la muerte" or "La Bestia"), and being abused by human trafficing? Some even end up being forced (literally, not just by poverty) into prostitution. This happens because such problems are not certain, and there is always hope to get across safely. Eliminating that hope would stop these problems. In other words, people won't actually die (like they do today) if they know that death would be certain. South Korea has a solution. East Germany had a backwards-facing solution. Both feature(d) automated systems that kill without human intervention. South Korea's is quite modern and amazing. Besides the old land mines, they have robot gun turrets that just don't care: it moves, it gets shot.
Any risk that is neither 0% nor 100% will cause death (and misery like enslavement). The closer it is to being just barely tolerable to a typical immigrant, the more death (etc.) it will cause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:23PM
Well, I can't speak for bzipitidoo, but I think many (most?) of them are desperate to find work, even if it means crossing the border illegally. And, before you go off ranting about "them illegals taking our jobs", I would remind you that many of them end up working as migrant farm workers or other low-wage service jobs. How many Americans do you know of who aspire to make a career out of that kind of work?
I don't like it at all, which is why I support setting up a guest worker program, so they don't have to make a dangerous illegal crossing of the border. It would actually solve a whole lot of problems with the current mess at the border.
We have to kill the patient to save the patient? Seriously? Clearly, your compassionate inner core has a rather rough, prickly exterior. Look, this may seem bizarre to you, but the time to panic about the border is not when people are jumping fences to get in to the country but when they are jumping fences to get out. While we do need to get control of our southern border, killing anything that moves in the no man's land between USA and Mexico is not the answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:46PM
Actual thing said to me by a conservative in New Hampshire..."Yeah Atlantic City was alright until all the wrong people with dark skin moved in" I had never met this person before, he assumed since I was white I was racist. OTOH I have conservative friends with whom I vehemently disagree, who while otherwise good people, won't believe you if you give them proof that their article they shared was factually incorrect, for example the story about the EPA coming for your BBQs...which was just a 15K grant to fund a college project. I get tired of moving goalposts every time I can rationally contradict a position. It's this absolute refusal to allow for anything other than ideological absolutism that I tend to find disagreeable. If you can show me a rational, well-reasoned position that can be backed up, I'll change my views. Try explaining to someone invested in supply-side economics that it's literally a failure in every way and it's essentially a religion you're fighting against. Heck even Pres. G W Bush understood that demand side economics wins every time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:59PM
> How many people who are labelled conservatives have you sat down for an honest drink with?
What is it with the fixation on "having a beer" with someone?
Obama has even claimed to brew his own beer in the whitehouse. Like the guy has time for that.
It is such a weird political meme.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:19AM
It's because the vast majority of conservatives who post political opinions _often_ tend to post incredibly ridiculous, or paranoid, or often outright offensive, stuff.
Spoken like somebody that's already chosen a "side" and looking at it with an "us vs. them" mentality. Truth is, there's plenty of fanatical nutcases on both sides, because extremism isn't something that only occurs in one specific group; it's a human thing and can show up anywhere. People just tend to ignore or miss that once they've chosen a team and put their blinders on.
It's not really surprising that TFS (with the rather trollish headline) would elicit reactions that attempt to rationalise away the data with "well, you see, it's still a conservative's fault because . . ." though. Buzzard likes his arguments, and this was a good way to get one.
What I found more interesting than potential arguments, though, was the part about users expressing surprise at learning other users' political leanings weren't what they expected. "Liberal" "very liberal" and "very conservative" users were the most frequently surprised, while "conservative" and "moderate" less so. It makes sense at the extreme ends, but I didn't expect the disparity in (non-extreme) liberal and conservative; I expected those percentages to be closer, just like most of the other numbers presented (friending, liking, etc. tended to put the milder cons/libs at similar percentages)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:34PM
Spoken like somebody that's already chosen a "side" and looking at it with an "us vs. them" mentality. Truth is, there's plenty of fanatical nutcases on both sides
Ah, "Them and US" !
Reading this in the UK, it seems that your USA-centric definitions of liberal and conservative are somewhat different from what those words mean in the UK (where they are actually names of political parties). Here is is more Tories versus Socialists, and being "liberal" is more an attitude of mind that either a Tory or a Socialist might or might not possess, even though there is a separate "Liberal Democratic" party which tends to attract nutters and is not necessarily liberal.
I was brought up in a very socialist family. My grandfather would even sit down if he heard the National Anthem play, even if he were already standing up. Everything was "Them and Us", everything was regarded with massive doses of cynisism and intolerance even with no basis whatsoever. They would jump to join in with anything that sounded socialist, and condemn by reflex anything that sounded not socialist. I grew up fairly cynical, but I got sick of the totally negative attitude of my family. Unfortunately posts here and in other forums sometimes remind me of it.
So for a time thought I was a conservative, and I expect some of you guys would rate me as one. That was until I met some real conservatives, where I saw exactly the same approaches but from the opposite direction. Such people (on both sides) tend to worship political "Heros" (Churchill, Ghandi, Thatcher, Kennedy, Mandela are common examples); it's always a warning sign I loathed Mrs Thatcher, to the extent that I even created a website criticising her. But I also loathed Tony Bliar.
Occasionally, rarely, I have known somone who actually speaks rationally about politics and the world in general. It rarely aligns with the "thinking" any of the political parties on offer though.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Marand on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:51PM
in USA contexts, liberal and conservative usually just means "Democrat" or "Republican", and that's usually all that people care about. That's probably what was being implied in TFA, though I don't recall if it specified. Other parties are practically nonexistent, so if your views are remotely liberal you get lumped into the Democrat camp by the Republicans, and vice-versa. Rather than form opinions of one's own, people just resort to political tribalism. Sounds a lot like your Tories vs. Socialists story, in fact, including the automatic dismissal of anything from the "opposing team".
Lately I've been seeing more people try to add a second dimension to it, so instead of it being pure liberal<->conservative, you've got liberal<->conservative and authoritarian<->libertarian (non-party sense). I don't know if it will stick, but I find this interesting because it seems like some of the the nastiest people on either side also have a heavy authoritarian bent, so it's like two sides of the same coin.
You don't really see the stories as much here, because US-conservative bashing is more popular (more "us vs them" tribalism), but there's a growing contingent of authoritarian extremists on the US-liberal side that's just as nutty as the US-conservative extremists, just in its own way. We've got a generation of extreme "liberals" coming out of schools now that seem to be obsessed with censorship, political correctness, and thoughtcrime; any perceived slight gets attacked in a mob-like fashion until the target gives in, all in the name of tolerance. It's an amazingly intolerant form of tolerance, and may result in some frightening lawmaking in the future when those people start taking office.
Occasionally, rarely, I have known somone who actually speaks rationally about politics and the world in general. It rarely aligns with the "thinking" any of the political parties on offer though.
I understand that completely. I don't really think of myself as being in either group, and I avoid getting into political conversations because it's hard to talk about it to someone stuck in the tribal mindset. I form my own opinions rather than worry about what a party thinks, which means I find myself at odds with both groups, and it's just easier to stay away from it. Especially since my opinions tend to have an anti-authoritarian slant, which doesn't play well with the extremes of either side.
I made an exception today because there was a bit too much groupthink going on, but really, life's too short to waste arguing about politics. (Especially true with relatives)
---
Finally, a short comment about your remark about political hero worship that didn't quite fit with the rest of my reply. I think that's part cult of personality, part appeal to authority. It's easier to convince oneself of "rightness" if you can pick out charismatic or historically significant leaders to idolise. It's not politics-specific though; a subset of Apple fans treated Jobs as a religious icon, and sports fans often raise individual players to similar status. We're probably just wired to have a predisposition toward doing it, maybe some leftover survival shortcut or something.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:33AM
Of course you consider conservative opinions to be ridiculous. That's kind of the point of the study: tolerance from the liberal side is lacking.
FWIW I have no dog in this fight. I count myself in the libertarian camp, which means that liberals classify me as a conservative and vice versa.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:43AM
That's kind of the point of the study: tolerance from the liberal side is lacking.
Alternatively, the conservative side may give people more reasons to be intolerant. It's a fallacious leap of logic to presume that because liberals exhibit more intolerance, they are inherently more prone to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:53PM
> Alternatively, the conservative side may give people more reasons to be intolerant.
Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo. That often works out to defending some really atrocious things like denying gays the right to marry and that poor people are poor because they are lazy. The only regularly expressed equivalent to the claim is the aggrieved white male christians that liberals are discriminating against them which is just isn't even close to being on the same level.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by albert on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:05PM
You haven't noticed the SJWs? That is hard-core liberal, and it sure is intolerant.
You haven't noticed the college speech restrictions? This is intolerance. I could count on one hand the places where this would be non-liberal.
Even when conservatives are being intolerant, the liberals respond with hypocritical intolerance. For example, an amazingly well-qualified person was harassed into leaving Mozilla over his personal political activity outside of work. Oh, you don't like intolerance... but you're being intolerant. He on the other hand was perfectly willing to be tolerant at work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:43PM
"Tolerance" does not mean being tolerant of every insane, delusional belief out there that gets constantly spewed as fact. Tolerating different opinions, sure, but opinions are not opinions when they are directly contrary to verifiable, known facts - thats when they become "delusions" and outside of the scope of needing to be tolerated under "tolerance".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:42PM
> He on the other hand was perfectly willing to be tolerant at work.
Do you subscribe to the idea that people are fully conscious of all their actions and motivations?
That bias is something that people are able to turn on and off at will?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:28AM
You haven't noticed the college speech restrictions? This is intolerance. I could count on one hand the places where this would be non-liberal.
You keep using that word "liberalism". I don't think it means what you think it means.
For example, an amazingly well-qualified person was harassed into leaving Mozilla over his personal political activity outside of work. Oh, you don't like intolerance... but you're being intolerant. He on the other hand was perfectly willing to be tolerant at work.
That is not a liberal position.
Personally, I'm a liberal and I strongly oppose the prosecution of Mr Eich. If someone has to fear losing their job for saying the inappropriate things, then they'll self-censor which is counter-productive to the liberal ideology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:20AM
Alternatively, maybe conservatives just express that intolerance in different ways. For instance the legions of US Republicans who think Obama is a socialist Kenyan, and is at the same time both muslim and a disciple of reverend Wright's nominally Christian views. A lot of those people are from evangelist sects and may be just as intolerant but consider it their religious duty to persuade you of their vision no matter how much they may consider your opinions anathema. Perhaps since those opinions are so often contra-factual, engaging to defend them helps reinforce their beliefs as a sort of personal affirmation, and avoid introspection over the validity of their opinions and "facts".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by goody on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:11PM
This is the whole problem with the word "tolerance" and the way conservatives have perverted the word the last decade. Tolerance used to mean have an open mind towards different customs, accepting other religions, races, cultures, etc. and considering reasonable, viable alternative ideas and opinions. Conservatives have adopted the victim mentality they accused liberals of for years and now if you don't listen to or accept ridiculous positions and arguments like whether people walked with dinosaurs, climatologists are Marxists, or Obama is Communist/Muslim/Kenyan/atheist/gay-loving, you're intolerant. I expect things will get worse in the next few decades as demographics shift in the US and the number of white conservative older males declines, and we'll hear how conservative values and conservatives themselves are "endangered" and in need of preservation due to intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:41PM
It seems like a common practice for the oppressors to co-opt the language of the oppressed without any of the meaning that originally defined that language. I think it might be part of the process of accepting and internalizing the message. Sure, from the outside it seems both clueless and selfish. But maybe its the practical application of the aphorism "if you can't beat them, join them." Look how conservatives absolutely love to righteously denounce overt bigotry nowadays whether it is against the disempowered or the privileged. That is a form of progress. Imperfect progress sure, but humanity is imperfect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:20PM
Where? When? Could you provide a few examples, please?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:32PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/sean-hannity-cliven-bundy-fox-news_n_5206516.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Sarah-Palin-Donald-Sterling-atrocious-un-American/2014/05/07/id/570074/ [newsmax.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:12PM
They only denounce it when its against the privileged, often while simultaneously being bigoted against the disempowered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @06:55AM
That's it!
It seems like a common practice for the oppressors to co-opt the language of the oppressed without any of the meaning that originally defined that language.
SJWs are the true conservatives, trying to stand up for the rights of every individual to not be oppressed by dickish racist misogynist fallopian tube rapers! Here's to the fight on the side of right!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:39PM
"or often outright offensive, stuff."
You are, of course, entitled to be offended. What's funny is, when the offended party ASSumes that the fact that he IS offended should bother me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by buswolley on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:17AM
Wait. So 28% of liberals have blocked people for political views vs. 16% for conservatives, 14% moderates. But this same research also reports that the percent of Democrats that encounter posts from friends of different political views states is 49%, but only 39% of conservatives encounter these opposing views from friends, and only 32% of moderates do.
So.
Liberals are more likely than conservatives to bock people because liberals have facebook friends with more diverse political views.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:07AM
Anyway, the terms "liberal", "conservative", "moderate", etc. are completely ambiguous to begin with.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:24AM
Not completely ambiguous, just fuzzy and imperfect.
That's life in the analog world.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:09AM
No, I can't find precise definitions that describe what they entail, and people use them pretty much however they please. That is ambiguous.
Is position X liberal, conservative, moderate, or something else? Depending on what it is, there won't be much agreement. Furthermore, why does it matter what we label it as? Discuss its merits. These terms just aren't meaningful in the least, and just serve as a way to distract people with irrelevancies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:22PM
The definition of "conservative" is "Everything supported by Fox News/Rush Limbaugh", and the definition of "liberal" is "Everything that doesn't directly agree with everything stated by Fox News/Rush Limbaugh".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:02PM
Pretty much. Foxbaugh and Hannity have co-opted conservatism. Kind of like the way Israel has co-opted judaism. I know that's a random association, but there is a little bit of a pattern there - you see thoughtful american jews much less enthusiastic about Israel than before. Just like you see thoughtful american conservatives much less enthusiastic about the republican party, so many of them choosing to call themselves "independent" instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:10AM
There are regions that abut/overlap, but it's not that difficult to figure out and describe someone's political position.
Political Compass' Test [politicalcompass.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:06AM
Friend or foe me as appropriate:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:08PM
Tests like those are arbitrary as usual. Whether Position X is a conservative, liberal, or moderate position, or something else, is very difficult to pin down. It seems everyone gives different answers, depending on their politics. Policies they see as "good" will of course be labeled with the label that they like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:17AM
Are the conservatives chickens now? (I kid.(
Taking the time to assess someones views, and decide whether they are someone who you want in their life is sound logic.. I'm with you on that one!
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:01PM
Politically motivated study is politically motivated. "Liberals ignore the speech of those they don't like" fits this data the same as "Conservatives talk more crap that no-one wants to hear".
(Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:17AM
I am thinking of blocking the Might Buzzard. Not because he is wrong, just because I am liberal and can't help myself. Mostly I find that listening to people who are batshit crazy in order to help them return to the path of rational thinking is extremely tiresome. And more and more, an exercise in futility. So it is best to lock such wackos up into their own private echo chamber where they think that they are making sense and that the world is on their side. Makes it better for the rest of us. Problem is some of them escape into actual reality and do great damage, Like D'nesh D'Souza (currently incarcerated), or Congressman Downton Abbey (resigning), or "Your world is Burning!" Ted Cruz (R-Calgary)(running for President)(of Canada,evidently). Conservatives are not smart enough to recognize a)insanity or b)futility.
So I so look forward to our new, all conservative, all misogynist, all racist moderation system that is going to replace our current one, once we generate enough stats- - -wait, this is from PEW? Oh, wholy puke in a handbag! Cannot we ban this organization for the mis-use of statistics? Can we not unfriend them? We should mod them "incorrect" and in "disagree" as in "hurt fee-fees".
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:23AM
At first I mistook SNS for SoylentNewS, and I said, of shit, the Buzzaard has done some research on us.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:37AM
Yeah, me too. First rule of headlines: no unexplained acronyms? (Brought to you by AAAAA, the American Association Against the Abuse of Acronyms.)
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:43PM
no shit, its just after 7am my time, starting on my first coffee and the SNS did seem like soylent news ;) SNL is saturday nite live (well, used to be, does TV still exist anymore?). still not sure what sns is. maybe its a texting protocol - stuff that I also actively avoid...
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:56AM
I believe SNS is "Social Networking Service". at least according to allacronyms.com [allacronyms.com]
However the PEW report has me guessing... I guess its something heard when sitting in front of the pulpit.... Either that or something that stinks.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:09AM
Thanks! Now I know what it stands for. Now if only I knew what it is! We await your further reports on the PEW. (I am thinking Pez, or Pepe.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:42AM
Pro Tip: Pew=expression of revulsion at a foul odor.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:37PM
And here I thought it was the sound lasers made in space all this time!
George Lucas, you misled me!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:22AM
What is this batshit crazy you speak of? Its a pretty picture, but it lacks for meaningful discussion to say that opposing views are 'crazy'. In fact, it throws a lot of shade at people who have legitimate health conditions.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and thinking next time it will work! That's insanity.
What is futility? That sounds like the words of someone who has given up to me.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:06PM
What is this batshit crazy you speak of? Its a pretty picture, but it lacks for meaningful discussion to say that opposing views are 'crazy'. In fact, it throws a lot of shade at people who have legitimate health conditions.
Far-right conservatives really are batshit crazy, and yes, I do think they have legitimate mental health conditions. You simply cannot have meaningful discussion with people who are disconnected with reality, and will believe any crazy conspiracy theory that comes along, even when overwhelming evidence disproves it.
(Score: 2) by akinliat on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:48PM
Nah, it's probably just a coincidence that the decades-long movement in the US towards increasingly liberal views was reversed at the same time that our mental health infrastructure was almost totally dismantled.
More seriously, it's likely just demographics. People are living longer, so we have more old, white racists. At the same time, whites will soon be a minority, which is purely terrifying to a racist. Racism, though, is no longer socially acceptable in most circles, so these folks have to invent all sort of excuses that end up sounding quite crazy.
It might be easier if more people who self-identify as Conservatives (note the big "C") actually knew what Conservatism was, but it's difficult, at least in a democratic society, to champion a belief system that is openly anti-democratic. So, leading "movement" Conservatives tend to disguise the elitism that is at the core of Conservatism as support for free-market capitalism, or other libertarian values. Their followers hear them talk about Edmund Burke and democratic values in the same sentence, never realizing how bizarre that sounds.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:06PM
More seriously, it's likely just demographics. People are living longer, so we have more old, white racists.
I disagree. Liberals like to paint all conservatives as being old, white racists, but they really aren't. All the ones I see aren't old at all, they're between 20 and 55; these are the ones that are really into the batshit crazy stuff, and the wacky religious nuttery. You want proof? Go walk into any typical evangelical megachurch, and look at the congregants. They aren't old, they're in their 30s and 40s.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:13PM
Soylent mods: since you're reworking the site, you should add the ability to add to a post within a few minutes of posting it.
I'd like to add more to this. It's not usually elderly people who spout wacky conspiracy theory crap and ultra-conservative religious views, it's young people. Old people who live long enough seem to usually mellow out and stop worrying about stuff so much. It's the young people who feel like they need to go on a crusade. The perfect example here is ISIS: they aren't composed of a bunch of old farts, they're a bunch of young men.
Also, some young liberals are going to probably read this and say to themselves, "this isn't true! All my friends are liberal like me! And all the young people in my city are liberal!" That's because you live in some liberal city and surround yourself with similar people. Come down to the South and meet up with some early-30s rednecks and see what kind of political views they have. Hint: they're not liberal in the slightest. And they're the norm all over the South.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:42PM
I think you are grouping two things together that aren't related.
The youth lack experience to recognize bullshit and so are more easily swayed by extremism and conspiracy theories (also why you see such things on geek sites, living in mom's basement means less exposure to how society actually works).
But the aged are more likely to be stuck in the past, so you get higher rates of racism and homophobia because that stuff was once normal.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:40AM
Nah, it's probably just a coincidence that the decades-long movement in the US towards increasingly liberal views was reversed at the same time that our mental health infrastructure was almost totally dismantled.
Holy shite! It just hit me! Nixon's Southern Strategy has nothing on this! Thanks, Reagan!
(And, wow, the insane leading the insane, or at least letting them out of the institutions where they can vote! It's ACORN Republican style! Zombies voting, Ammosexuals voting, Libertarians voting, all the crazies all voting! Now I know why liberals and other non-crazy people have to block them. Reagan. And especially Zombie Reagan. )
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:31PM
Sorry, gonna have to block you, too. You just don't get it, do you? And this is not the first time. We have had this conversation before. Remember? I was showing you how you were batshit crazy, for the bazillionth time? Not going to do it again. THAT would be insanity!
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:14PM
Obviously, buzzard meant the Dutch SNS Bank [wikipedia.org] (later merged with Reaal insurers and went belly-up in the 2008 financial crisis). Duh.
Although I'm unsure what the SNS bank has to do with political viewpoints..
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:23AM
It's the same in free software these days.
OpenSource release story removed due to developers opposition to Social Justice.
A story on the Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was manually removed after a few days.
The reason cited was the developer's views on social issues such as gender equality (1).
The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(2).
Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?
Citations:
(1) http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?115776-Xonotic-Forked-ChaosEsqueAnthology-Sees-New-Release/page2 [phoronix.com]
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(2) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JeCIgSFrBlgJ:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page%3Dnews_item%26px%3DChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51%2Bchaosesque&gbv=1&tbs=qdr:w&hl=en&&ct=clnk [googleusercontent.com]
Removed story URL:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51 [phoronix.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:41AM
Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement
Go away, you prevert! There is a reason your "views" are forbidden. They are illegal and morally vicious, deleterious and repugnant to all rational beings.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:31AM
Not to God.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29, hebrew.
Hopefully you will die.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:44AM
Nutjob self-promotes his own personal fork of a game that he forked because he got kicked out of the original community for being a dick.
Now he goes around whining about being censored.
Are you gweg_troll?
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:49AM
I doubt he's _gewg. And I've never encountered _gewg saying something morally or ethically offensive
subicular junctures
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:00AM
Not gewg, gewg_troll -- the AC who has a massive bug up his ass about gewg and also thinks moderation is censorship.
(Score: 3, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:37PM
Mod down anyone that says that moderation is censorship!
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:24AM
The fork occurred when Samual made massive needless code changes because he didn't like the way xonotic internally passed messages. MikeeUSA has been mapping for xonotic before xonotic was xonotic (when it was nexuiz, and for years then).
It's hard to keep up with needless churn.
Kinda like systemd
https://8ch.net/tech/res/162429.html [8ch.net]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:29AM
A People's ==History== of Xonotic
Xonotic was founded around october 2009 (First public release in 2010). The creation of Xonotic was spurred on by two forces.
The first cause was the continuing removal of various weapons and features by the Nexuiz lead developer Lord Havoc.
Here two weapons, the HLAC (heavy laser assault cannon), and the Tag Seeker (homing rockets) were removed because the project lead wanted to keep the weapon number at nine. This created a feeling of insecurity amongst the junior developers where one was never sure if the work they had slaved over for months would one day be ripped out of the code and thrown to the side as if refuse for one reason or another.
The second cause was the sale of the Nexuiz trademark to the Illfonic crew.
The fork of Nexuiz into Xonotic was spearheaded by divverent, Z, morphed, mrbougo, and various others.
Divverent was asked to fork Nexuiz by a number of mappers and code developers once the Illfonoc purchase of the name was finalized (sold by Vermillion), though murmerings of a fork of Nexuiz had been heard for two years prior. Over the summer of 2009 divverent, morphed, and various unnamed contributors conspired with eachother on the topic of a media fork of nexuiz with limited code patches such as the addition of the removed weapons. Talk eventually trended towards a full fork of Nexuiz into an extended project.
There were various contraversies at the very beginning of Xonotic that made a fork of it, too, inevitable.
In the very beginning it was decided that Xonotic would support all the maps and textures of Nexuiz. Instead Xonotic would strip out the Nexuiz player characters, depreciate the nexuiz textures (with an eye towards removal), and remove all the Nexuiz maps. It was also suggested to bring some of the most prolific mappers (and some of their better maps) into the xonotic project. Including mappers who asked for the fork of Xonotic in the first place, such as mikeeusa. However this was decided against because of the social beliefs of said content creators in some cases (example: anti-feminist, pro-girl-child marraige (example: support for social structures in afganistan)), and in other cases because their content style was not in the ever-narrowing perview of the new project.
Though off to a good start in its first two years, xonotic development has largely stalled in recent times.
In 2012 the influence of a single developer known by the nickname Samual had grown to a degree where he had a stranglehold on the project. All decisions had to pass through him, and his answer was usually,if not always, no. Then near May 2012 Samual made a sweeping change in the xonotic quake c code involving the rewrite of the message passing code. This convinced some projects that were tracking the xonotic git repo to break off alltogether. Since that time most code changes have been of the make-work variety, such as to highlight offical servers above all others, and very few new features have been added. Feature developement has moved towards modifications and forks of Xonotic.
There are various modifications and forks of Xonotic, some of which extend and improve the game greatly. These modifications and forks include: Tzork's Vehicle Mod, Overkill[http://mon.xonotic.info/tag/xonotic-overkill-mod/], Defense of The Core[http://dotc.xonotic.info/dotc/], and Chaosesque Anthology[http://www.moddb.com/games/chaosesqueanthology].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:33AM
That's the point. Once upon a time it didn't /matter/ if you were a NutJob. All the mattered was the code. Now that is not the case. Now people like you will claim, without seeing or using the code, that the code is crap because you do not like the person who wrote it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:47AM
I've seen GP's blurb in the queue twice; it has been rejected both times.
The word "agenda" occurs to me.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:54AM
Yeah, normally I'd agree with you, but...
MikeeUSA is a little bit of a special case. He's posted, for instance, that child rape should be resolved with a monetary payment to the father and by having the child become "perhaps one of many" of the rapist's wives. He claims the Bible supports this resolution of child rape (it probably does, there's some fucked-up shit in there, but so what?).
Now, if he kept his politics and code separate, then I'd probably agree that even though he's batshit crazy and I wouldn't want to share physical space with him, Internet collaboration would be okay. But he doesn't. His code contributions are trolling. They are typically trivial and typically in some way offensive. They are a wedge for someone to say "wtf is this" and then he can say how he thinks women exist to serve men.
Only MikeeUSA knows if he's a horrible person because he thinks women's proper position is subjugation or if he's a horrible person because he persistently and viciously trolls both open source projects and women involved in open source. In either case, he is a poisonous person. As an example, his fork of Xonotic probably has a weapon called the "WifeBeater", his maps were probably things where you shot up a feminist convention, etc., etc. Or something even sicker.
Posting anonymously because I do not want him to find this and decide to make me a target. Really. He's that bad.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:20AM
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 is the chapter and verse.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:39AM
"typically trivial"
This is unclear and similar to a comment made by a person of a similar nature previously. Perhaps they are not of a nature that requires much indepth knowlege of advanced mathematics (but quake is a frame-by-frame based simulation, not a calculate change-over-time based simulation, so things are simple for programmers and modders). But they are extensive. Here is some information that was posted:
QUOTE:
>Unlike Terry, he can't contribute anything because he knows nothing. He just makes shitty assets and can barely hack together anything.
3 years of quakeC coding say otherwise.
Does xonotic have a foliage system for instance? Or do you have to manually place all trees and bushes in a vanilla xonotic map? Is it possible in xonotic to arrest a player, jail them, or attach them to a torture device and whittle away their score as they constantly respawn in your jail or on the device after every death unless freed by another player? In xonotic (vanilla) can you blind people? Can they be turned to stone? If they quit the game and then reconnect to the server are they still then stone or still blind? Can you tip your gun to the side like a gangstar by pressing L in xonotic?
If you feel there is insufficent lava, water, baloons, bumpers, abandoned buildings, slime in a map, how would you go about rectifying that need? Are there simple settings you can change to usher in a new day filled with that? What if you want spikes on every surface, does Xonotic give an option for that?
Let us say that you simply wanted to have a tank battle. Can Xonotic help you there? A battle between helicopters and tanks? A battle between helicopters, tanks, technical trucks, with lots of civillian vehicles scattered about in the way?
What about throwing some crew served heavy machineguns, or rotary cannons into the mix. Does xonotic give you a way to do this?
When you are firing your various pistols and rifles, are the casings all the same or do they vary by type?
If you have the urge to fight a medieval melee, what options does Xonotic give you to do so?
How are the ballistics in Xonotic? Are there different materials with different densities automatically discovered by texture name or shader attributes which are then cached?
If you shot someone in the heart, in vanilla Xonotic, is it any different than shooting them in the leg?
What if you just wanted to punch somebody out? How do you do that in Xonotic? Can you uppercut them?
What if you simply wish to build a town? Can you do that in Xonotic? Or a house of your own design, is that possible in game?
Does Xonotic have over 60 weapons?
ChaosEsque has all these things because ChaosEsque quakeC code has been under development for 3 years, and forked 2 years ago when Samual made sweeping needless changes to Xonotic's internal message passing code, oh and around that time headshots were removed from xonotic... ChaosEsque had to depart at that time.
What you have said is false. There is both media and code development in ChaosEsque, and it is extensive. The mere "shitty assets" include 2 texture packs, 50 maps, weapons, music, so on and so forth, and that is just from the author you hate. It is more than you've ever done.
After that there is the quakeC code, also from the developer you hate.
" he can't contribute anything because he knows nothing."
Lie. QuakeC (code), Radiant, blender, (3d modeling), gimp and camera (textures), muse, audacity (music and sfx) are the technologies that the author you hate has used extensively in this fork. You can ask around wherever the Xonotic or old Nexuizers hang out. You have never played the fork so you do not know what you are talking about as you spew these libels.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:44AM
As pertaining to what weapons are included in the fork, here is a post that includes a list of the weapons present in the modification. An explicitly named wife beater weapon does not see to be present, but there is the ability to engage in hand to hand combat. There is also a tetsubo which is probably the closest thing to a club in the game, but that was used on japanese pesants.
QUOTE:
How would you know joerg? You have not downloaded nor played this mod of Xonotic. The only thing you have done is to go to every place on the web where a certain contributor's assets are used and downvote them. You say the same thing in all of those places. You simply google that contributor and then you post. You do this because you disagree with his social politics.
Though this mod does incorporate other GPL licensed mutators for Xonotic (grenades, monsters, overkill weapon models contributed to xonotic .git repo), and does extend them, This is not simply a "copy and paste" game.This mod has over 3 years of custom quakeC programming contributed to it. Of the over 100 maps, 50 were built for this mod by a direct contributor, 2 texture packs made by that contributor, and various pieces of music and 3d art assets.
The most notable mutators which are unique to this game and programmed by the contributor you so revile are the following:
Foliage system (automatically place trees, forests, shrubbery, etc around)
Brawling (hand to hand fighting)
Buildable buildings (you can build buildings like in an RPG and/or build in blocks like minecraft, your call all the buildings were built in radiant by the contributor you so hate)
(This is why you see that hammer in alot of these screenshots)
Misc Items (balloons, bumpers, abandoned buildings, spikes, (and built buildings too)) mutator, which spawns in these items (modeled in blender by the hated contributor) so as to change the character of any level.
Mounted weapons (many machine guns, and various other crew served weapons)
Tipping your gun to the side (press L)
Furthermore there are extensive additions to the vehicle system.
Tanks (both futuristic and old), planes (ditto), helicopters, and civillian cars and trucks.
And of course, quantum non-locality. Here's an ls of the vehicle and mounted gun code directory:
aerocommander.qc fastcar.qc mg_deluge.qc mg_scorpion.qc r22heli.qc spiderbot.qc turretll20.qc
blackhawk.qc fokker.qc mg_gau19.qc mg_shlac.qc racer.qc sportster.qc vehicles_def.qh
bumblebee.qc mechmax.qc mg_grail.qc mg_spadu.qc raptor.qc tankiv.qc vehicles.qc
challenger.qc mg_autonex.qc mg_lewis.qc mg_t17mm.qc sedan.qc tankll24.qc vehicles.qh
CODE_INFO.TXT mg_batteringram.qc mg_m134.qc misc_fire_crossbowbolt.qc smalltruck.qc tankll37.qc yugo.qc
cruizerlimo.qc mg_bpcannon.qc mg_maxim.qc nieuport.qc sopwith.qc tankll40.qc
cruizer.qc mg_browning50.qc mg.qc pickuptruck.qc sparrow.qc tankll48.qc
farman.qc mg_charbelcher.qc mg_rpk.qc qnonlocality.qc speedcar.qc tankt27.qc
Compare that with vanilla Xonotic.
In addition to that there have been many additional monsters added, including skeletons, police, so on and so forth.
There are also per-team starting weapons, vehicles, mounted guns, etc.
And if you want to flood the map with water, lava, slime... well you can do that too.
There is much that has been adapted and extended, and also much that has been invented of whole cloth. It is not simply a copy and paste project.
The developer you hate has been around Xonotic from before Xonotic was Xonotic, back in the Nexuiz days, for years. He asked for the fork to Xonotic
to happen when weapons started being removed from Nexuiz (HLAC, Tag Seeker). This project is indebted to both Xonotic and Nexuiz as it is a fork of them.
What you say is libel. There is a desire to meet you in court or out of court to settle things, to make you not commit libel anymore, to make you want to think before you say: to make that thought process and indelible part of your mind.
If you had played this game you would know that you do not simply have an ax and a hammer. You do not start with an ax and a hammer.
The ax and the war hammer are simply two of over 60 weapons in this game, from medeval to futuristic, here is a list:
laser
shotgun
uzi
grenadelauncher
minelayer
electro
crylink
nex
hagar
rocketlauncher
porto
minstanex
hook
hlac
tuba
rifle
fireball
seeker
pistol
hmg
mg
explosivevest
crossbowdtwr
warhammerspiked
shotgunautomat
pumpshotgun
lightninggun
g98
nukelayer
caltrop
torch
revolver
bigpistol
m1921
flashlight
lrr
multitool
shortsword
broadaxe
longsword
rapier
carbine
utilitool
shackles
spear
pdw
lightpistol
morgenstern
katana
odachi
nagamaki
lightsabre
tetsubo
largepistol
lightauto
magnum
crowbar
yari
ak47
rpg7launcher
aks74u
tt33pistol
ffmagnum
m16mini
m16vn
browninghp
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:44AM
Tell us more about this character, how long has he been doing this. Is it trolling or something else?
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:00PM
Look, most of us don't give a rat's ass about Gamergate and nerd butthurt over imagined slights. You keep bringing it up? Can't talk about anything other than the injustice visited upon you? That's why people unfriend you. You're boring.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:05PM
This thing, for context:
http://www.lgdb.org/game/chaosesque-anthology [lgdb.org]
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:26AM
> Personally, I almost never ignore anyone for ideological reasons.
Instead you just flat-out deny anything you disagree with by resorting to circular logic, dictionary pedantry and self-congratulatory ignorance.
That's not an improvement. Who wants to argue with a rock?
It's not difficult to figure out why Conservatives on the Internet tend to be more intelligent. It takes quite a bit of an independent streak and some world class critical thinking skills to break yourself out of the overwhelmingly Liberal echo chamber that is the online community.
--- The Mighty Buzzard [theregister.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:43AM
Who wants to argue with a rock?
...a rock being someone that liberal commies can't beat into submission
maybe you could just regulate free speech to make it illegal to disagree with a liberal point of view. don't worry about the constitution. after all, your potus doesn't bother himself with that pesky old rag :p
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:47AM
Oh yeah, I forgot blindly partisan absolutism.
Thanks for reminding me.
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:54AM
Just heard today that American are living under the worst tyranny ever. My informer went on to illustrate. The president cannot even get his Attorney General nominee confirmed. That is bad tyranny. Do you think Joe Stalin would have such a problem! And he cannot even get a budget for _Homeland- Geheime Staatspolizei! Do you think Hitler would have stood for that! And finally, President Obama cannot even violate the Constitution enough for the Supreme Court to notice or the House to be able to impeach him! This is not a matter of tyranny, it is incompetence as a dictator! So yes, truly, we live under the worst tyranny ever. And it is called "Democracy", but that is only because that is what it actually is.
Sorry, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am afraid I will now have to unfriend you, block you, ban you, and report your IP address to our good friends at FEMA. Have a happy re-education!
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:55AM
The constitution is broken. Federal power is too great, and state power too little. Our representatives are too few, and our states are too few.
States should have the power to mint their own money, and compete in the market as so other countries, instead of being ruled by the Federal funds desperately needed by States to be competitive with other states to remain attractive for businesses (low taxes, high services).
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:57AM
run on sentence man run on the sentence
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:02AM
state power too little
Sorry if this is not you, but I cannot read such a statement without taking it as Neo-Confederate. States should have a right to legalize slavery. Oh, and marrying children. See what you have done, Buzz! Brought out all the crazies! At once! How can Soylent News withstand such an onslaught!
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:29AM
Its a good counterpoint, but we may have gone too far toward centralization. generally, those rights are protected by the federal constitution. No slavery. etc.
However, when you never have a hope of meeting your representative, it cannot be good for governance by representative democracy. For example, the number of senators per citizen has dropped massively, but more importantly, the number of representatives per citizen is much much lower than it used to be. Second, many states today are bigger than the country was all together 100 years ago, yet they have not gained any power, just lost it.
If states can float their own currencies then you have 50 states being able to experiment with different monetary and fiscal policies, let the best ones win. Today, we have a federal government which tells states what they can and cannot do with federal money...money the state really needs to remain competitive for business. If states could print their own money, instead of just borrow it, then they might have more capacity to say, follow a liberal spending policy when there is deflation.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:53AM
" Oh, and marrying children"
Young girls are often beautiful.
The Bible allows marrying girl children (Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew as an example)
The southern states did too untill 1930 in some places.
Yes that would be a great thing if the feminist states of america were broken up into states, some of which could be pro-men and at war with the pro-woman liberal states (hopefully nuclear war)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:23AM
Get the fuck out of here troll.
Too many friends of mine were abused by men when they were little girls for me to even pretend to stand by to your fucking shit. it hurts them. Its not nice.
get help. See a psychiatrist. Dont hurt anyone.
and you won't find that shit in the red letters of the new testament, for their hearts were hard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:50AM
It's in the black letter of the Old Testament. Deuteronomy specifically.
That is where the real God resides.
Females were made for man, not man for the woman.
The God of the book of Deuteronomy allows men to have female children as brides.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29, in hebrew.
The God of the book of Deuteronomy says those who entice others to follow another
god/ruler/judge , kill them.
Are you enticing us to follow something else?
It sounds that way.
The God of the book of Deuteronomy allows men to have female children as brides.
Including in cases of rape.
Your girl-friends should have been kept by the man, and her father paied.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29, in hebrew.
Hopefully you will be killed. Good person.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:25PM
> Are you enticing us to follow something else?
Can't speak for GP, but I am. Your book of deuteronomy (judging by what you've written above) is a laughably inaccurate, outdated, anachronistic collection of hate, fear and misinformation and anyone who follows its teachings to the letter should be locked up for the good of society. If it truly is the word of God (which I seriously doubt), then God is a dick.
Please AC, wish death upon me too, I would consider it a badge of honour to have made an enemy of such a vile scumbag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @10:38AM
You should be killed.
Marry cute young girls!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:20AM
As a commie libertarian according to some charts, I too am in favor of a decrease in Federal power -- secession really, though that would require a Constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing unilateral secession (the civil war and some Supreme Court decisions answered the question of unilateral secession as clearly "no" -- the only fix is an amendment).
My reason aren't however that I want a theocracy (I'm an atheist), or pollution problems like China (I want environmental regulation) -- I just think that if my state was its own country, it wouldn't get itself involved in useless wars all over the world. Texas can go bankrupt itself doing that and let us good people of Cascadia do something useful and beneficial with our resources.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fritsd on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:34PM
Well, for outsiders such as me, mighty buzzard's article and the comments are a fascinating read (I've put a bag of peanuts next to the computer).
I've got a new prejudice about Americans now: that many of them are dualists, in the sense that they believe there are exactly two "sides" or "teams" and you belong to one or the other.
I wonder if this is because you've had the same two political parties in play for about a century. The shape of your society is constricting the shape of your political thoughts (as I'm sure happens to all of us, including Eurotrash :-)).
In my family when they talked about politics they would say: "he's a communist" or "he's a VVD voter" (uh.. that's probably also translated to "communist", or at least "Democrat", in the USA political spectrum). Some family members voted for the prettiest politician. But the talks are a bit more lively when you have more than 2 to talk about, anyway..
I hope the citizens of the USA get to try out multi-party representative democracy one day. I think you'll love it!
PS M.B. sorry about my comment on the SNS bank, that was a bit lame. What does "SNS" really mean?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:10PM
No, they shouldn't - it makes commerce between states much more difficult. The net effect of that would be that rich states like New York, Massachusetts, and California would stop doing anywhere near as much business with poor states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. That would leave the poor states even worse off than they already are. Also, those states, in order to be competitive, would do everything they could to weaken their currencies against other states' currencies, leading to a race to the bottom far worse than anything going on now.
We don't have to imagine that world, either: The United States tried it under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a complete mess.
Generally speaking, whichever party has more control over the state governments than the federal government argues that the power of the federal government is too great and more should be left up to the states. There's absolutely no consistency about this: As an example, before the Civil War, northern abolitionists were arguing for states' rights because they didn't want to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, but after the Civil War, die-hard ex-Confederates longing for the days of slavery were arguing for states' rights because they didn't want to deal with the 13th Amendment (and in both cases, the other side that controlled the federal government said "screw you" to the side yelling about states' rights).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:48AM
"maybe you could just regulate free speech to make it illegal to disagree with a liberal point of view. don't worry about the constitution. after all, your potus doesn't bother himself with that pesky old rag :p"
That is allready the case in FOSS: esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:51PM
Clearly you've been spending some time digging up quotes made by your target. But your claims aren't supported by that quote you found at forums.theregister.co.uk. It obviously demonstrates he is a conservative, but I don't see any "circular logic" or "dictionary pedantry".
As for "self-congratulatory ignorance", well, I'll grant you have a case for the former, but not the latter without some kind of actual reasoned response to the point in question.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:08PM
The quote is not intended as proof of any of the three (actually four) claims - his posting history here is the evidence for that. Although anyone would be hard pressed to document it now since he's personally responsible for disabling the feature in the latest slashcode version that lets you click a username and see their posting history.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:22PM
Touché. I noticed yesterday that the feature was gone - even for subscribers - and I was a bit sad.
I can come up with a few reasons in addition to this one [soylentnews.org] for keeping it - especially for subscribers.
(Though I wouldn't expect my opinions to carry a huge amount of weight, measured against the needs of the people who actually give up their time to keep the site running.)
Anyway, back to the point.
Fair enough
That's not my impression, although admittedly I only read a modest proportion of the discussions on this site, so maybe I missed something.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:06PM
Although anyone would be hard pressed to document it now since he's personally responsible for disabling the feature in the latest slashcode version that lets you click a username and see their posting history.
It makes me a bit nervous that a person with such an obvious persecution complex is in charge of the mod system...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:51PM
> It makes me a bit nervous that a person with such an obvious persecution complex is in charge of the mod system...
Me too. Especially since all of the changes have been little more than seat-of-the-pants flying justified by the completely unscientific measure of a handful of opinionated posts. It is crazy.
I think we are lucky that moderation in general is a stable equilibrium - you'd have to work really hard to blow it up. A bunch of minor changes is like swishing the milk at the bottom of a cereal bowl, as long as you don't flip the bowl over it all ends up back in the same place.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:54PM
So it is. Had not noticed it missing, hope it makes its way back at some point, very handy feature to see what a user has been saying recently. Helps to see if they are a hopeless loony that it would be a waste of time replying to, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:25AM
I haven't seen any proof of those claims. The Mighty Buzzard is opinionated, idealistic, and has a bias against minorities but he is intelligent and consistent in his views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:30AM
I haven't seen any evidence of those claims in the back-and-forth discussion threads I've had with him about racism and bias. He is maybe over idealistic but he is consistent in his views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:38AM
9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
...
4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics
So what is the difference between these two?
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:43AM
About 5%. if I remember my grade school math correctly.
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:18PM
I had to re-read it a few times myself.
The 9%, the user being blocked posted something political the blocker disagreed with.
The 4%, the blocker posted something political and the one being blocked disagreed (presumably verbally) with it.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:33PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Balderdash on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:50AM
Why is this categorized as science? How am I supposed to filter out things like this when they are mis-categorized?
I browse at -1. Free and open discourse requires consideration and review of all attempts at participation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:19AM
Surprise! When looking at any depth, science always looks like this unless it is merely describing something without interpretation. That is one of the things you learn in postgrad hell.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:13PM
Maybe we need to split the category into "social sciences" and "physical sciences"?
Whether "physical sciences" could then be renamed to "real science" or just "science", is a separate question :)
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:52PM
Maybe we need to split the category into "social sciences" and "physical sciences"?
Won't help. All science is now subject to entanglement with politics.
AGW is just the most obvious example. Every model published in the 1990s has now been shown to be outside the error bars when they all failed to predict the current 'pause', and thus in pure scientific jargon, Wrong. Didn't matter a bit. The position of both sides is exactly what they were because the argument is not about the actual science.
And it does not stop there, not at all. Anything about energy production almost instantly gets mired in politics and green theology. And bring up nukes, fission or fusion, and all discussion of science ends and politics and religion starts.
Even math now intersects with politics. Crypto and bitcoin are just the tip of the spear.
Do I have an answer? No, wish I did but nobody else does either so I don't feel too bad.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Wednesday March 18 2015, @06:35PM
Hmmm, I don't want to take us too far off topic. I suppose we could have this discussion on a journal or some other story?
Not that I'm an expert; I'd probably just refer you to this [realclimate.org], and then pretty much have to accede to any superior knowledge/reasoning that you might assert.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:14AM
No. I have zero desire to engage with a 'pause denier.' I know you guys are feverishly 'renormalizing' the historical climate records in a vain attempt to save AGW but nobody is buying it anymore unless they are personally invested in the theory.. We are closing in on a second decade of 'pause' and even the very word is conceding too much to you guys. It hasn't 'paused.' It has stopped. To say it has paused would imply it was predicted and the return of warming anticipated. That is not what happened. All 'Climate Scientists' (Climate Scientist of course defined as someone who studies Global Warming and Man's impact on the Climate.) predicted warm followed by warmer and finally inferno unless we appeased Gaia by repenting of our Carbon wickedness. And then it stopped. Will it resume? Will global temps begin to fall? Who the heck knows, stay tuned.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:06AM
AGW is just the most obvious example. Every model published in the 1990s has now been shown to be outside the error bars when they all failed to predict the current 'pause', and thus in pure scientific jargon, Wrong. Didn't matter a bit. The position of both sides is exactly what they were because the argument is not about the actual science.
What pause? The "pause" is just another conservative myth, the latest straw they are grasping at in their attempts to claim AGW is not happening. Take ten minutes searching on Google and you can find out how ridiculous that claim has become.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:40AM
It is fascinating that this jmorris guy actually believes in these alternate realities.
I wonder if he's on medication, or been diagnosed with a mental illness.
I wish I knew how he's able to maintain such faith in the face of so much overwhelming evidence.
I wonder if it is a self-identity thing where it isn't about being correct its about being so invested in his beliefs that to accept that the beliefs are false would be like losing his personal identity.
He reminds me of women with "crazy eyes" photos on dating sites like plenty of fish. When they look at one of their own pictures, they do not see the crazy eyes that everybody else sees. They think the picture looks good, or at last normal, so they upload it to their profile. Its enough to make a person wonder if their own pictures have crazy eyes and they just can recognize it in themselves either.
Jmorris, your craziness makes me doubt my own sanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:01AM
not listening/ignoring someone is the most common method of sorting out white noise
assuming someones choice not to listen, or engage with someone based on their political views... equates to intolerance....
thats ignorance in itself. or... an oversimplification...
am i using too many big words for anyone? i can elaborate periodically
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:09PM
Because you asked, and at the risk of feeding a troll, it looks like you used a thesaurus (poorly) to generate many of the "big words" in your post. And maybe cool it on the ellipsis going forward. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:20AM
Everyone has their in-group whose tolerance, reasoning skills and overall demeanor is better than the opposition. It's the tribal part of human nature to make these groups, be it on political, economic, racial, class or even sports grounds (look at the amount of tribal shit slinging at football matches, for example).
I'm of a roughly left libertarian bent, so others expounding similar views seem like darn-tootin' good folks to me.
I don't think you can make arguments like "conservatives/liberals are more/less tolerant" with any kind of authority - it's too large a blanket statement. It's just in group creation and justification. All the study really shows is that the sample suggests that those *particular* conservatives were less inclined to block opposing views - It may (or may not) say something about their tolerance, but I wouldn't stretch that to conservatism as a whole political movement in either case.
There's nothing unusual about making a tunnel like that, but it is a tunnel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @10:22AM
>Personally, I almost never ignore anyone for ideological reasons. You can't argue with someone you can't read responses from.
That is assuming it is actually possible to argue, as opposed to listening to a broken record.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:54PM
A most insightful comment. Too often it quickly devolves into broken records attempting to drown each other out, with 'truth' fleeing for it's life.
Too many times I've seen the 'become like my enemy to defeat my enemy' ploy taken as the easy way out.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:40PM
seriously. just recently i was attempting to debate with somebody who claimed that if the premise[s] were true and the logic was valid that the conclusion drawn from it (mine) was false, and that if the premise[s] were false then the conclusion could be true (a strawman he presented to try to use to "prove" mine false). and he had the nerve to accuse me of trolling! this wasn't an argument about politics mind you but it highlights the sheer ridiculousness of trying to argue with irrational people - they will claim logic itself is a lie in order to not admit that they might possibly be wrong.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:46PM
> You can't argue with someone you can't read responses from.
I'm not here for the arguments.
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Wednesday March 18 2015, @08:16PM
Argument Clinic From Monty Python's Flying Circus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY [youtube.com]
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:04PM
One part of TFA that made me laugh out loud was this:
So, they're worried about the impact of social networking sites on the broad political culture, but not worried about hate radio or Citizens United or TV network attack machines masquerading as news and their impact on the broad political culture? How about the utter failure of the federal government to enforce even the most sacred of our laws or respect our Constitution as they have been charged to do? Because from where I'm sitting it sure seems like they're attacking the victims of all the afore-mentioned, which have been consciously, deliberately planned and carried out by the Power Elite, among whom is Pew Research.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:26PM
FWIW, a left wing British politician recently seemed to agree with those analysts: Online rumours damage British democracy, says Douglas Alexander [theguardian.com]
Apparently one of his constituents "thought the oil companies were involved in a global conspiracy to keep oil prices low".
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:43PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:58PM
So, they're worried about the impact of social networking sites on the broad political culture, but not worried about hate radio or Citizens United or TV network attack machines masquerading as news and their impact on the broad political culture?
I am having a tough time finding the part of TFA that says they are not worried about all those other things.
Perhaps you could quote it for me so that I could give your invective an appropriate level of consideration?
kthxbye
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:05PM
Whatever it started as, it's turned into a rant site for the regs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:41PM
Note the age of the posters. It must be an age thing that the young troll and the old rant.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:14PM
I have blocked people from both ends of the spectrum.
Not because I disagree with them. But good lord 30 posts in 1 day about the same thing. I have to sort thru several hundred posts of your opinion again. I get it you hate obama, I get it you are gay, I get it you do not like what your anti politico group is doing. You post once and awhile I a fine with that. However, I would like to see what my other friends are saying and you are drowning them out.
This is coming from a fairly tolerant conservative. I am of the mind 'you should not do that, but if you do it is wholly on you if you screw up'. None of my business what you are doing.
tl;dr you are at 11 I need you around a 3.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:14PM
The difference between the far-right and the far-left is that the far-right is far more disconnected from reality, and pushes really abhorrent political views: Obama is the literal "antichrist" and a communist Muslim (???), FEMA is preparing for mass executions, "the liberals" are trying to turn everyone gay, etc. On the left, usually it's just people advocating their pet cause, sometimes too far, with the worst being something like "meat is murder!". The ones on the left you can usually at least reason with, and your disagreement with them is solely philosophical; on the right, you can't reason with them because they're not even based in reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:19PM
> Obama is the literal "antichrist"
When the first poll came out with the stat that about 25% of the country thinks he might be the antichrist, someone dug up a poll from back when Mr Dubbya was president and the numbers were similar for him, like 20%. I wish I could find that with google for you, but I'm not willing to put in more than a couple of minutes on it. Maybe someone else will.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by WillR on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:20PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:00PM
Nah, buzzard was just looking for some attention. Lots of bullshit gets posted here, if he wants the occasional piece to make himself feel smugly superior, let him have the hollow comfort. He probably needs it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:48PM
could this be a reaction to the "gewg_ articles" that ACs love complaining about nonstop and try to drown out any possible discussion through endless trolling?
...wait, does this mean that Buzzard is the anti-gewg (aka "gewg_troll")?!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:31PM
From what I've seen, when (US) liberals talk political issues, it's about different points of views. Whether we should do this or that. Where as with (US) conservatives, political issues is more about different realities. Is the planet 4 billion or 6000 years old.
Thus, it should be no surprise that liberals are more likely to block people with different realities (i.e. conservatives), than conservatives are to block people with different opinions (i.e. liberals).
Those of us who affiliate with neither group are also more likely to block people with different realities, than different opinions.
(Score: 1) by srobert on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:51PM
I might be classified as having mixed views on social issues and liberal (or sometimes socialist) views on economic issues (those are the issues I consider most important). I would tend to block conservatives because often cannot be persuaded by evidence, nor do they present evidence that comes from sources of information that I would trust. Libertarians on the other hand, I might argue with. They sometimes can be persuaded to change their minds, and are more likely to present me with evidence that could change mine.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:56PM
An alternative headline might read something like "Liberals Have No More Patience for 'Conservative' Bullshit". It's really telling that this is coming from the Buzzard. Seriously, do you think this is because "liberals" are just naturally "intolerant"? Really? Listen up, Buzzard! And this goes for all your "conservative" friends. We have heard you out. We have heard your wacko conspiracy theories about the President's birth certificate. About his being a Muslim, Kenyan Manchurian candidate out to destroy America. We have heard your crazy notion that the ACA is all about "death panels" deciding who should live and who should die. We have heard all that (and more). Multiple times. And we have refuted these bullshit claims with actual evidence. Multiple times. There is a world of difference between genuine ignorance and wilful, obstinate refusal to look at evidence. Yes, there are some liberals who are intolerant. But the antidote to such people is not to become even more stridently insane than all the rest. At this point, the rest of us--whether we be conservative, moderate, or liberal--have decided that you have nothing but white noise to contribute to the conversation. That is why we are refusing to listen any longer. Grow up and deal with it!
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:45PM
Seems to be a lot of this getting posted here recently and it's nothing but flamebait that's wasting the energy of this community. Getting very tired of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:14PM
I want to discuss non-nerd things with nerds.
We need the technical portion to be just big enough to scare away the non-nerds. I think we could tolerate at least 10% non-nerd stories and still keep the readers nerdy.
(Score: 1) by archfeld on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:02AM
You can't argue/debate with stupid....
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:06AM
You can't argue/debate with stupid....
Yes, you can . . . (no, you can't! But an argument is not just saying "no, you can't"! Yes, it is."
Is this the first time, ever, that we have had more than 200 comments to a completely ridiculous post? Or, for that matter, any post! I feel, and I feel this for the rest of you Soylentils out there, a sense of accomplishment! We have met the enemy, and the enemy is Mighty Buzzard! No, wait that is not quite right. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is stone-cold stupid conservatives? Maybe. Bertrand Russell famously said: " While it is not true that all Conservatives are stupid, it is true that all stupid people are Conservative." Nice of him, don't you think? But of course it does not add anything to our current debate, nor should we expect it to, since we are truly debating the stones themselves. Next topic: "Ayn Rand was a promiscuous floozy." (I mean, really, doing Greenspan? Pew!)