Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Morpheus

U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

403 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You think DR II's joke was funnier than a comic legends' 

No, I think your use of the joke was dumb and had nothing to do with the actual issue we were discussing.

It's kind of like if we were discussing the treatment of women in Mennonite communities, and in response to somebody's argument I posted a video of Weird Al singing Amish Paradise.

It wouldn't be that Weird Al isn't funny, so much as that the video had nothing to do with the discussion and I would have looked like a fucking idiot for posting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[MOD]

Let's stop with the "Who is the better human - Nazis or the people that punch them?" and the meta debate about who makes the funnier jokes, please.

Seriously the Nazi issue has been done to death here in recent months and it is beyond stale.

[/MOD]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Changing the subject, and going along with the mass misinformation being discussed in the shooting thread, there has long been speculation about whether Trumps tweeting is emotional and impulsive or calculated and cynical. Turns out the answer appears to be both.

This piece contains some detailed analysis of the tweeting habits from Trumps twitter account and concludes that tweets there is a clear and identifiable split between tweets from him and tweets that are not. Trump tweets come from an Android, they tend to be entirely text - rarely including an image or a link, he's sparing with hashtag use, frequently does the old style retweet (copy/paste with quotes). They also tend to be much more negative. The other tweets come from an iPhone, they tend to do the heavy lifting on organisation so include links to events etc, have pictures, lots of hashtags, proper use of the platform, proper spelling and punctuation. Not all of them are organisational etc however and there are clear examples of attempting to appear like a true Trump tweet, eg

Until now it hasn't been clear who was actually writing these tweets, however they stuffed up today and tweeted from the Trump account and their own account at the same time

The thread makes some good points, primarily based in the fact that he isn't tweeting on behalf of Trump - he's doing it as Trump. With how heavily Trump uses twitter to conduct diplomacy, announce policy etc, this means he's functionally acting as POTUS. And Trump may not even have a clue what he's saying, he only uses twitter from his phone, he doesn't use the internet and otherwise is far from technologically competent.

 

 

Edited by karaddin
Fixing formatting of third tweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is like kind of like the living example of Poe's Law. I'm still not convinced he's not Andy Kaufman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that large portions of the right in America including large parts of this administration believe that Islam is a violent genocidal  ideology that demands all of it's followers kill or convert all non Muslims. If you give the government the power to ban genocidal ideologies there is a decent chance the US right will try to ban Islam. Just a thought.

Also I am very uncomfortable giving the Trump administration tools to ban speech, when we are talking about these things I think it's important to remember who the government actually is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darzin said:

Also I am very uncomfortable giving the Trump administration tools to ban speech, when we are talking about these things I think it's important to remember who the government actually is. 

I will eat a bag of shit if Trump endorses any kind of legislation designed to stem hate speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, at the point you have Nazi's running the government they are going to abuse the laws that are on the books. Given they will break the system and do whatever they want anyway, that's not really a compelling argument to not the things that are meant to stop them getting power in the first place. That's precisely why you need to stop them getting there and fight them tooth and nail once they are.

They have demonstrated thousands of times over the last few years that they do not give a shit about hypocrisy. Acting like it will hand them a win is still buying into thinking they care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Until now it hasn't been clear who was actually writing these tweets, however they stuffed up today and tweeted from the Trump account and their own account at the same time

 


It's funny (and terrifying) how the internet age drops completely surprising challenges that can turn out to be REALLY IMPORTANT out of nowhere. Like, I know it's common practice for celebrities to have their twitter part-run by someone else, until recently I've been operating on the principle that 'I know it's highly unlikely that Guillermo Rigondeaux runs his twitter himself but I'm pretending he does it's real to me dammit!'. And it's like, fun and games, and when someone does something silly like posting a tweet by a footballer who is on the field at the time it's a jolly jape.

But then suddenly this comes up and it's not a jolly jape, it's the future of nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Changing the subject, and going along with the mass misinformation being discussed in the shooting thread, there has long been speculation about whether Trumps tweeting is emotional and impulsive or calculated and cynical. Turns out the answer appears to be both.

This piece contains some detailed analysis of the tweeting habits from Trumps twitter account and concludes that tweets there is a clear and identifiable split between tweets from him and tweets that are not. Trump tweets come from an Android, they tend to be entirely text - rarely including an image or a link, he's sparing with hashtag use, frequently does the old style retweet (copy/paste with quotes). They also tend to be much more negative. The other tweets come from an iPhone, they tend to do the heavy lifting on organisation so include links to events etc, have pictures, lots of hashtags, proper use of the platform, proper spelling and punctuation. Not all of them are organisational etc however and there are clear examples of attempting to appear like a true Trump tweet, eg

Until now it hasn't been clear who was actually writing these tweets, however they stuffed up today and tweeted from the Trump account and their own account at the same time

The thread makes some good points, primarily based in the fact that he isn't tweeting on behalf of Trump - he's doing it as Trump. With how heavily Trump uses twitter to conduct diplomacy, announce policy etc, this means he's functionally acting as POTUS. And Trump may not even have a clue what he's saying, he only uses twitter from his phone, he doesn't use the internet and otherwise is far from technologically competent.

 

 

I would remove the word 'techonogically' from your last sentence. Just for clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Re: the tweets the @karaddin posted.  This idea that an aid could be the person to start a war is terrifying.  He could just randomly give a presidential edict on twitter.  And since he writes as Trump rather than for Trump, people just assume it all comes from Trump.  At least other politicians make clear which comes directly from them.  

Although, someone in that tweet thread brought up a good point in that this sort of thing also helps drive misinformation because it's easier to say that such and such tweet didn't come from him, it was a rogue agent, blah blah blah.  

ETA: Stupid question, how does one know what type of device posted a tweet?

Edited by Dr. Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked it up myself, you can grab the last 7 days with a google sheets extension Twitter Archiver as per https://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/blog/social-media/twitter-app-tweet-sent-quick-tip/

Having grabbed the last week of Trump tweets, not a single one in that week was from Android o_O I guess they've stolen his phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Week said:

"Most people" - any analytic response is not what my question was getting at. Clearly, though, you're going to continue to dodge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html

Thanks for posting this, also, in the article the link to "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" doesn't work so here is one that does.

https://www.deanza.edu/faculty/lewisjulie/White Priviledge Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

 

So when people say that white people cannot experience racism, what we're saying is that there are no institutional racism directed against white people, because institutional racism was created by white people to protect white advantages. Does every single white person benefit from every single artifacts of institutional racism? Most likely not. But it is not wrong, in the specific context of institutional racism, to say that white people do not experience racism. 

 

And pretty much everyone has agreed with this line of thinking. The dispute has been whether or not white people can experience every day racism, which has been discussed ad nauseam, and what are the ramifications of telling white people that they can’t experience racism and that they are racists for simply being white. It’s been my long standing argument that doing so will make them reject the concept of institutional racism and make them more likely to become racists. If your goal is to win the long game, you should probably avoid making such claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm really enjoying the "Don't blame the gun blame the shooter" memes on Facebook.  In particular the "if a bomb goes off we blame the bomber".  By that logic bombs should be legal to carry around because the problem is "bombers" not " bombs".

:(

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm really enjoying the "Don't blame the gun blame the shooter" memes on Facebook.  In particular the "if a bomb goes off we blame the bomber".  By that logic bombs should be legal to carry around because the problem is "bombers" not " bombs".

:(

Logic has never been the strong suit of those against gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm really enjoying the "Don't blame the gun blame the shooter" memes on Facebook.  In particular the "if a bomb goes off we blame the bomber".  By that logic bombs should be legal to carry around because the problem is "bombers" not " bombs".

:(

Is there harm in carrying a bomb?

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Logic has never been the strong suit of those against gun control.

No, logic has never been a strong suit for those who support gun control. While you can't entirely remove the blame from guns, to assume that every person with a gun is a likely violent offender is simply ridiculous and illogical, especially given the statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Is there harm in carrying a bomb?

No, logic has never been a strong suit for those who support gun control. While you can't entirely remove the blame from guns, to assume that every person with a gun is a likely violent offender is simply ridiculous and illogical, especially given the statistics.

You want people to carry bombs around with them?  Like making it legal to walk the street with live hand grenades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You want people to carry bombs around with them?  Like making it legal to walk the street with live hand grenades?

That wasn't my question, Ser Scot A Ellison. I asked, "Is there harm in carrying a bomb?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

That wasn't my question, Ser Scot A Ellison. I asked, "Is there harm in carrying a bomb?"

Potentially, yes. If Bob decides to roll a grenade into a store he could injury or kill many people.  Hell by this logic there is no "harm" in allowing people to carry suitcase nukes with them because you need to activate it the weapon for it to harm people.  Are you going to advocate for everyone being allowed to carry miniaturized nuclear weapons on their person?  

If someone doesn't have a firearm, or a grenade, or a miniaturized nuclear weapon on their person those are three options for mass violence that are not at that person's literal fingertips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0