It's amazing to think that this towering edifice of words is something you find genuinely convincing. I've got some really bad news for you: the vast majority of humanity prefer to live in societies where the goods we purchase are regulated. You go ahead and tell yourself that's because we're all dupes, if you like. Whatever gets you through the day.
I'm sure you're right that causes of non-voting include inaccessibility for some voters, and lack of intention for others. However: 1. With some many millions of non-voters, there will be important sub-groups to analyse, including all the obvious demographics. If most rich white folks who don't vote act that way because they can't be bothered, and most poor black folks who don't vote act that way because they can't access the polls, there's a serious problem 2.Unwillingness to vote may be annoying. But someone who wants to vote, ought to be able to, but cannot for reasons of access has had an injustice done to them. Millions of the former do not counter-balance even one of the latter in some way. The latter is always a more important problem than the former, whatever the relative sizes.
Against all odds, you and I have had a decent conversation on Slashdot -- we must have broken the ToS!
1. The UK has a pretty torrid relationship with voter ID requirements, and it's absolutely no fucking surprise whatsoever that the current bunch of right wing Tory cunts are busy doing a pound-shop imitation of the Republicans in relation to gerrymandering, introduction of voter ID requirements, changes to registration requirements for students, moves from household to individual registration etc etc. They know that discouraging the young and poor from voting is central to their success. 2. There's only one country in the world that pulls a stunt like requiring voters to get ID from a DMV centre and then shutting down the majority of the centres that serve poor people. Everywhere else has the decency not to behave like absolute cunts, but not the people in charge of voting in various US states.
Why should I, as a voter, trust that the company that makes these machines has not been subverted in some way? The problem with all electronic voting is that it can be subverted and no-one will ever know. There is no alternative audit record that can prove or disprove the fraud.
If you're really genuinely worried about "vote early, vote often", rather than farting around creating voter ID laws, you could simply mark people's thumbs with an ink stain that takes a few days to fade. Oh look, there's an entire article about it on Wikipedia.
That's nice that you think that. How about actually listening to those people who say that they tried to vote and found it very difficult or impossible to do so?
I understand what you are saying. I just disagree. This specific style of antisemitism, from the right, using imagery in this way, comes from the same dark place in people's hearts as the Nazis of the 40s. You can pat yourself on the back for your purity of logic, but I couldn't really give a shit.
Yes, really. Heuristics are useful and practical, and insisting on formal proof in the teeth of clear evidence is both pointless and dangerous. If someone tweets in the way I've described, it's perfectly reasonable to call them a Nazi (especially given that this was but a single cite and their other tweets were just as vile and demonstrate a pattern of behaviour). If they are "merely" a troll and didn't actually mean to write what they wrote, then boo diddums to them for the false positive, and next time maybe they won't post such nasty shit and then they can avoid their little broflake feelings getting hurt when they're called nazis.
Funny how that particular example was the actual example being discussed in the actual article, eh? And he was talking about actual anti-semitic abuse of the most gross and vile kind, of the sort that Nazis and neo-Nazis indulge in. Baby and bathwater; wheat and chaff; baseless accusations of antisemitism and actual antisemitism.
You'd go for the wrong option. Obviously, I wanted to know what sources the OP is referring to. I have read endless analyses of the significance of Twitter in the rise of the alt-right; Twitter has been called out on dozens of occasions for its inability to prevent some of its users from being acted with hate speech associated with the alt-right, far right, Nazis etc. Trump is the world's most prominent Tweeter. I have never seen a single article about Twitter having a liberal bias -- unless the OP meant Twitter the company rather than the Twittersphere, which seems a stretch. I have had a cursory look and still can't see articles demonstrating this supposed bias. If they're out there, they're well hidden.
How so? The OP provided literally no evidence at all that there is a left bias to Twitter. He commented on an article that was about a right bias. I pointed out that the most famous Twitter account of all is used by the right wing US president (and to retweet videos from British far right parties, too). So tell me how that's a red herring?
Yeah, just about anybody gets called a Nazi these days. I mean, it's ridiculous to call someone a Nazi just because they took a photo of the Chief Rabbi of the UK, pasted it into a photo, set up an impersonation Twitter account with the photo, and used it to send out antisemitic Tweets. That's not Nazi behaviour. That's perfectly normal. Right?
You know what there definitely is such a thing as these days? Stupid people saying stupid shit that they think is really clever. And you, AC, have just provided an excellent example of exactly this.
People really seem to struggle with this as a distinction, don't they. (Also the distinction between communist, socialist, left-of-centre, and liberal)
Congratulations on uncovering that subtly hidden fact. It's not as if the journalist opened the story by discussing how he received lots of antisemitic abuse on Twitter and that was his motivation, is it? We have your amazing detective work to thank for bringing this to our attention.
The fact you think I typed it for you alone is an excellent demonstration of: a) your stupidity b) your narcissism c) your ignorance of how the internet works
Of course you didn't read it -- that would require a level of intellectual effort on your part that we both, if we're honest, know you're incapable of making. Much less engaging with the argument and responding in a thoughtful way. You stick to your world of pretense. I'm sure it's a happy place for you.
No, the wives of the top 10% of men in these societies really *wouldn't* be in the top 10% of their society, what with the forced marriage and marital rape and beatings and brideprice etc etc. This is stupid rhetoric you've used to make a 'ooh look how clever I am' argument.
If I were an epidemiologist, I would indeed be laughing really hard if someone presented me with an argument like that. I'd then ask: - Why exactly did you think this argument was relevant to my field of study? Your argument has nothing to do with epidemiology. It does shed some fascinating insights into the mindset of the broflake, but it's not an epidemiological argument - Did you want me to spell out just how shitty your argument is? I'm asking because as a broflake, it might hurt your feelings
Slashdot Mirror
Um. He said it would have depreciated *by* 19k, not *to* 19k. It would be worth 11k after three years...
Or, just perhaps, they get significant value from buying new, rather than used? Not value that you care about, but value they care about.
It's amazing to think that this towering edifice of words is something you find genuinely convincing. I've got some really bad news for you: the vast majority of humanity prefer to live in societies where the goods we purchase are regulated. You go ahead and tell yourself that's because we're all dupes, if you like. Whatever gets you through the day.
I'm sure you're right that causes of non-voting include inaccessibility for some voters, and lack of intention for others. However:
1. With some many millions of non-voters, there will be important sub-groups to analyse, including all the obvious demographics. If most rich white folks who don't vote act that way because they can't be bothered, and most poor black folks who don't vote act that way because they can't access the polls, there's a serious problem
2.Unwillingness to vote may be annoying. But someone who wants to vote, ought to be able to, but cannot for reasons of access has had an injustice done to them. Millions of the former do not counter-balance even one of the latter in some way. The latter is always a more important problem than the former, whatever the relative sizes.
Against all odds, you and I have had a decent conversation on Slashdot -- we must have broken the ToS!
I don't know about polling, but this was fairly insightful:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
1. The UK has a pretty torrid relationship with voter ID requirements, and it's absolutely no fucking surprise whatsoever that the current bunch of right wing Tory cunts are busy doing a pound-shop imitation of the Republicans in relation to gerrymandering, introduction of voter ID requirements, changes to registration requirements for students, moves from household to individual registration etc etc. They know that discouraging the young and poor from voting is central to their success.
2. There's only one country in the world that pulls a stunt like requiring voters to get ID from a DMV centre and then shutting down the majority of the centres that serve poor people. Everywhere else has the decency not to behave like absolute cunts, but not the people in charge of voting in various US states.
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Feel free to dismiss it all, but I do hope you'll only do so after first going through it all thoroughly and checking the sources.
Why should I, as a voter, trust that the company that makes these machines has not been subverted in some way? The problem with all electronic voting is that it can be subverted and no-one will ever know. There is no alternative audit record that can prove or disprove the fraud.
If you're really genuinely worried about "vote early, vote often", rather than farting around creating voter ID laws, you could simply mark people's thumbs with an ink stain that takes a few days to fade. Oh look, there's an entire article about it on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's nice that you think that. How about actually listening to those people who say that they tried to vote and found it very difficult or impossible to do so?
I understand what you are saying. I just disagree. This specific style of antisemitism, from the right, using imagery in this way, comes from the same dark place in people's hearts as the Nazis of the 40s. You can pat yourself on the back for your purity of logic, but I couldn't really give a shit.
As Heinlein (and others) said, "hear hooves, expect horses, not zebras".
Yes, really. Heuristics are useful and practical, and insisting on formal proof in the teeth of clear evidence is both pointless and dangerous. If someone tweets in the way I've described, it's perfectly reasonable to call them a Nazi (especially given that this was but a single cite and their other tweets were just as vile and demonstrate a pattern of behaviour). If they are "merely" a troll and didn't actually mean to write what they wrote, then boo diddums to them for the false positive, and next time maybe they won't post such nasty shit and then they can avoid their little broflake feelings getting hurt when they're called nazis.
Funny how that particular example was the actual example being discussed in the actual article, eh? And he was talking about actual anti-semitic abuse of the most gross and vile kind, of the sort that Nazis and neo-Nazis indulge in. Baby and bathwater; wheat and chaff; baseless accusations of antisemitism and actual antisemitism.
What's that got to do with the fact that you wrote a post pointing out the bleeding obvious to everyone?
You'd go for the wrong option. Obviously, I wanted to know what sources the OP is referring to. I have read endless analyses of the significance of Twitter in the rise of the alt-right; Twitter has been called out on dozens of occasions for its inability to prevent some of its users from being acted with hate speech associated with the alt-right, far right, Nazis etc. Trump is the world's most prominent Tweeter. I have never seen a single article about Twitter having a liberal bias -- unless the OP meant Twitter the company rather than the Twittersphere, which seems a stretch. I have had a cursory look and still can't see articles demonstrating this supposed bias. If they're out there, they're well hidden.
How so?
The OP provided literally no evidence at all that there is a left bias to Twitter. He commented on an article that was about a right bias. I pointed out that the most famous Twitter account of all is used by the right wing US president (and to retweet videos from British far right parties, too). So tell me how that's a red herring?
Yeah, just about anybody gets called a Nazi these days. I mean, it's ridiculous to call someone a Nazi just because they took a photo of the Chief Rabbi of the UK, pasted it into a photo, set up an impersonation Twitter account with the photo, and used it to send out antisemitic Tweets. That's not Nazi behaviour. That's perfectly normal. Right?
You know what there definitely is such a thing as these days? Stupid people saying stupid shit that they think is really clever. And you, AC, have just provided an excellent example of exactly this.
People really seem to struggle with this as a distinction, don't they. (Also the distinction between communist, socialist, left-of-centre, and liberal)
Congratulations on uncovering that subtly hidden fact. It's not as if the journalist opened the story by discussing how he received lots of antisemitic abuse on Twitter and that was his motivation, is it? We have your amazing detective work to thank for bringing this to our attention.
"Twitter is known for having a somewhat left-bias"??
The most famous Twitter account in the world belongs to Donald Trump. Is he on the left in the world you live in?
The fact you think I typed it for you alone is an excellent demonstration of:
a) your stupidity
b) your narcissism
c) your ignorance of how the internet works
Of course you didn't read it -- that would require a level of intellectual effort on your part that we both, if we're honest, know you're incapable of making. Much less engaging with the argument and responding in a thoughtful way. You stick to your world of pretense. I'm sure it's a happy place for you.
No, the wives of the top 10% of men in these societies really *wouldn't* be in the top 10% of their society, what with the forced marriage and marital rape and beatings and brideprice etc etc. This is stupid rhetoric you've used to make a 'ooh look how clever I am' argument.
If I were an epidemiologist, I would indeed be laughing really hard if someone presented me with an argument like that. I'd then ask:
- Why exactly did you think this argument was relevant to my field of study? Your argument has nothing to do with epidemiology. It does shed some fascinating insights into the mindset of the broflake, but it's not an epidemiological argument
- Did you want me to spell out just how shitty your argument is? I'm asking because as a broflake, it might hurt your feelings
And learn the difference between its and it's, you ignorant shitpile. It's not that fucking difficult.