See what you think about this one. The other day, Susan Dynarski wrote an op-ed in the New York Times criticizing school vouchers (a subject I've written about myself ). Dynarski opens with the observation that economists are generally less supportive of vouchers than they are of most free-market policies:
You might think that most economists agree with this overall approach, because economists generally like free markets. For example, over 90 percent of the members of the University of Chicago’s panel of leading economists thought that ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft made consumers better off by providing competition for the highly regulated taxi industry.
But economists are far less optimistic about what an unfettered market can achieve in education. Only a third of economists on the Chicago panel agreed that students would be better off if they all had access to vouchers to use at any private (or public) school of their choice.
Here's the actual poll:
As you can see, the modal economist opinion is uncertain about whether vouchers would improve educational quality, while the median is between "uncertain" and "agree". This clearly supports Dynarski's statement that economists are "far less optimistic about vouchers than about Uber and Lyft.
The headline of the article (which Dynarski of course did not write) might overstate the case a little bit: "Free Market for Education? Economists Generally Don’t Buy It". Whether the IGM survey shows that economists "generally don't buy" vouchers depends on what you think "don't buy" and "generally" mean. It's a little click-bait-y, like most headlines, but in my opinion not too bad.
Scott Alexander, however, was pretty up in arms about this article. He writes:
By leaving it at “only a third of economists support vouchers”, the article implies that there is an economic consensus against the policy. Heck, it more than implies it – its title is “Free Market For Education: Economists Generally Don’t Buy It”. But its own source suggests that, of economists who have an opinion, a large majority are pro-voucher...
I think this is really poor journalistic practice and implies the opinion of the nation’s economists to be the opposite of what it really is. I hope the Times prints a correction.
A correction!! Of course no correction will be printed, because no incorrect statements were made. Dynarski said that economists are "far less optimistic" about vouchers than about Uber/Lyft, and this is true. She also reported close to the correct percentage of economists who said they supported the policy in the IGM poll ("a third" for 36%).
Scott is upset because Dynarski left out other information he considered pertinent - i.e., the breakdown between economists who were "uncertain" and those who "disagree". Scott thinks that information is pertinent because he thinks the article is trying to argue that most economists think vouchers are bad.
If Dynarski were in fact trying to make that case, then yes, it would have been misleading to omit the breakdown between "uncertain" and "disagree". But she wasn't. In fact, her article was arguing that economists tend to have reservations about vouchers. And she supports her case well with data.
This is a special kind of straw man fallacy . Straw manning is where you present a caricature of your opponent's argument. But there's a particularly insidious kind of straw man where you characerize someone's arguments correctly, but get their thesis wrong. You misread someone's argument, and then criticize them for failing to support your misreading. Other examples of this fallacy might be:
1. You write an article citing Autor et al. to show that the costs of trade can be very high. Someone else says "This doesn't prove autarky is better than free trade!" But of course, you weren't trying to prove that.
2. You write an article arguing that solar is cost-competitive with fossil fuels by pointing out that solar power is expanding rapidly . Someone else says "Solar is still a TINY fraction of global generating capacity!" But of course, you weren't trying to refute that.
3. You write an article saying we shouldn't listen to libertarian calls to dismantle our institutions. Someone else says "Libertarians aren't powerful enough to dismantle our institutions!" But of course, you weren't trying to say they are.
I think Scott is doing this with respect to Dynarski's article. To be fair, his misreading was somewhat assisted by the headline the NYT put on the piece. But once he was reminded of the fact that the headline wasn't Dynarski's, and once he re-read the article itself and realized what its actual thesis was, I think he should have muted his criticism.
Instead, he doubled down . He argued that most reasonable people, reading the article, would think it was arguing that economists are mostly against vouchers. But his justification for this continues to rely very heavily on the wording of the headline:
First, I feel like you could write exactly the opposite headline. “Public School: Economists Generally Don’t Buy It”...
Second, the article uses economists “not buying it” as a segue into a description of why economic theory says school choice could be a bad idea...
In the face of all of this, the New York Times reports the field’s opinion as “Free Market In Education: Economists Generally Don’t Buy It”.
On Twitter, he said : "the actual article is more misleading than the headline." But he appears to say this because he takes the headline - or, more accurately, his reading of it - as defining the thesis that Dynarski is then obligated to defend (when in fact she wrote the piece long before a headline was assigned to it). When he finds that Dynarski doesn't support his reading of a headline she didn't write, it is her article, not the headline, that he calls "misleading".
Of course, the fault here is partly that of the NYT, who used a headline that focused only on one part of Dynarski's article and overstated that part. It's a little harsh for me to say "Come on, man, you should know an article isn't about what its headline says it's about!" Misleading headlines are a problem, it's absolutely true. But after learning that Dynarski didn't write the headline, I think Scott should have been able to then read the article on its own, and go back evaluate the arguments Dynarski actually makes. It's the refusal to do this that seems to me to constitute a straw-man fallacy.
Anyway, one last point: I think Dynarski is actually wrong that economists are more wary of vouchers than other free-market policies. Yes, economists in general are probably wary of voucher schemes. But they're also a lot more favorable to government intervention in a variety of cases than Dynarski claims. Klein and Stern (2006) have some very broad survey data (much broader than IGM). They find that 67.1% of economists support "government production of schooling" at the k-12 level, with 14.4% uncertain and 17.4% opposed. But they also record strong support for a variety of other interventionist policies, such as income redistribution, various types of regulation, and stabilization policy. On many of these issues, economists are more interventionist than the general public! So I think if Dynarski makes a mistake, it's to characterize economists as being generally pro-free-market. Their ambivalence about vouchers doesn't look very exceptional.
People who post, both authors and seeders, want other people to read the post. Duh.
This leads to the temptation to give the post a headline that will draw attention, a phenomenon well-known under the name click-bait. A simple informative article may be transformed into polemics if its title is written to do so.
In this article, economist Noah Smith dives into the debate around a NYT article, ultimately demonstrating that the Times editor's choice of a headline that far overstated the author's contention was the error, not anything the author herself wrote.
This reminded me of a Comment I made just yesterday. When I saw the seed's title, "Declassified Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi To Stop Libyan Creation Of Gold-Backed Currency", I prepared for a discussion of goldbuggery, which I consider to be one of the silliest economic ideas (only ever held by non-economists or quacks) floating in the public sphere. (Of course, there are lots of other silly ideas, too...
)
In fact, the title (which the seeder had simply carried over from an red-meat site that had stolen the original article ) was pure click-bait, not at all representative of the original article, which was usefully informative.
These are good demonstrations of the decision faced by anyone who puts a title up on NT: "Do I want to give an approximate idea of the article's content, or do I want to draw clicks?"
See, Bob?
You went to the trouble of attempting to engage us in a discussion about the "why and wherefore" of misreading articles. On NewsTalkers, we always come to the same conclusion:
JR is a condescending asshole.
There, it's solved.
RA Commentary: Blaming an entire problem on one person, when clearly many have participated in this break down of an article and an insult.
There is nothing "condescending" about my comments.
I think that term could be applied to someone who seeds fake news and then says he does it to amuse himself though.
RA Commentary: John has made condescending comments but in denial. Fake news is a problem on the site but each side has now blamed the other for it.
There is nothing "condescending" about my comments.
Oh Really?
Why don't you apply that statement to your responses to me.
Then try to say you do not consider yourself superior, even when you don't have any logical response at all.
I know you have had to give up a lot being here john, you were the most prolific poster, until XX jefferson came along
you have been organizing/leading the liberal cheering section ever since I've got here.
I know your all trying the I'm gonna ignore you all and they will go away routine. Problem is it is not us that are going away.....
Is it?
I've always tried to be fair. even with you John, when your right your right. (which doesn't happen very often)
But I'm sure the sit-out will eventually end, they never work in the first place. I remember when our side tried it and you were lamenting the peace and quiet of your echo chambers.
I suppose this is trying to give us the same experience. Doesn't seem to be working. But then again we are not preaching to the choir, are we.
Most ideologues take their ball and go home when they realize that no one is listening.
Let us know when you decide to come out and play again...
or not.....
That's not condescending at all.
The worst thing you can say about that is that it's childish.
On the other hand, I find a number of them to be entertaining.
Your problem lies in your inability to stay away. You bite more often than you should, and end up being the butt of criticism, contempt and just general derision.
RA Commentary: "Your problem lies in your inability to stay away. You bite more often than you should, and end up being the butt of criticism, contempt and just general derision." Correct! You should have said that in the first place.
It is highly likely that the ingestion of fake news decided this recent presidential election. It was reported that INFOWARS was the most shared news source on Facebook among people who ended up voting for Trump. Infowars was the source for all the fake news about Hillary's health, and much else false. BF seeded all that crap on this forum. I don't think it's appearance on NT effected the election, but as an overall tactic it surely did.
As for your opinion of what people think of me. All of the thumbs down on my comments , when we had that function, and all of the thumbs up on comments that criticize me personally come from people whose opinion I give little weight to.
No one whose thumbs down would bother me gave me thumbs down, nor have any of those people sent me chat or email indicating agreement with your general assessment of me.
In other words, I take your attack on me for what it is.
RA Commentary: The discussion has turned to one member, BF, which has nada to do with the original article. Source material is not what this is about. Then it turns into the issue of thumbs down (the function has long been removed, so why bring it up?).
It is highly likely that the ingestion of fake news decided this recent presidential election. It was reported that INFOWARS was the most shared news source on Facebook among people who ended up voting for Trump. Infowars was the source for all the fake news about Hillary's health, and much else false. BF seeded all that crap on this forum. I don't think it's appearance on NT effected the election, but as an overall tactic it surely did.
Repeated, rehashed, recycled. Nobody cares anymore. Move on. If you're going to whine for 4-8 years about this, you're asking for more of the same treatment that you've been receiving, and you will receive it. If you want to engage in vigorous, constructive debate, you're going to have to abandon this, and the sooner, the better.
As for your opinion of what people think of me. All of the thumbs down on my comments , when we had that function, and all of the thumbs up on comments that criticize me personally come from people whose opinion I give little weight to.
No one whose thumbs down would bother me gave me thumbs down, nor have any of those people sent me chat or email indicating agreement with your general assessment of me.
In other words, I take your attack on me for what it is.
I never voted you down willy nilly. I read your comments. All of them. I don't ideologically agree with many of your stances, but unlike many of those in forums of this nature, I don't summarily vote you down. It's the condescension, John. It's your inability to just click to somewhere else, and let it lie that makes the soup sour. If you believe that the others are such assholes, why would you give them oxygen by responding? I know you realize that when you add a comment to that stuff, you get a minimum of one more, and at times, several responses. Is it your goal to take a silly seed by someone that you do not respect and turn it into a 50 comment article? If it isn't, let me be the first to put in writing that you are not handling this properly.
That's all I got.
If you think we're in a low place, then rise above and let others follow.
If you lie with pigs, you're going to get muddy.
Word.
RA Commentary: In reaction to John's comment, off topic but was going to happen since the door was opened.
Can we try and have one seed in which we don't try and piss off the other side? Can we just stick to the topic and not assign who does what. We are all responsible for the discourse on this site.
Actually, PJ...
This seed was partly a test. It is totally apolitical. Its clearly stated purpose is improving the quality of posts on the site. It has no criticism of anyone. It is hard to see how any member could be unpleasant about such an innocuous article. At worst... the seed may be accused of being boring.
I wondered if some members would demonstrate that they don't care what the topic is, they're only interested is messing with other members. I was hoping the experiment would fail, and we might talk about how to post "friendly".
Sadly...
RA Commentary: Bob, this whole derail, could have been avoided had one comment been ignored. It wasn't and so the article was ruined. There is enough blame to go around.
Bob, you seeded an extremely long article that people are not going to read.
I apologize for disrupting your article. Please ask Perrie to remove all my comments.
RA Commentary: a bit late in the game. Should have ignored BF's first comment.
Don't worry about it, John. The Vandals were going to do their wrecking... with or without your help.
I'm afraid that I read a lot of articles that are much more than three paragraphs long, and when I find one that I think is worth sharing, I seed it. In fact, I very rarely find anything three paragraphs long that is worth... much at all...
On the other hand... you might want to re-read the "dialog" here... the way Johnathan pressed your buttons and you obediently flew off the handle! You allow yourself to be goaded much too easily, John.
It's a problem for me , because the Vandals know that whenever you reply to anything on one of my articles, they can quickly and easily goad you into blowing up and going way, way off topic. They manipulate you to do their dirty work.
RA Commentary: By vandals you mean who? One comment, that is barely off topic and a bit grandiose shouldn't throw an article into disarray. It should have been ignored.
It's a problem for me , because the Vandals know that whenever you reply to anything on one of my articles, they can quickly and easily goad you into blowing up and going way, way off topic. They manipulate you to do their dirty work.
There I have to agree with Bob.
Well, there are two ways of looking at that. One is what you just said, and the other is that saying nothing is surrender to them.
People often have the notion that if "you just ignore something it will go away" even though there is scant evidence of that anywhere.
Nobody pushes my buttons. All my comments are intentional.
We are down to a handful of "liberals" on this site. While I admire the content of your articles and the desire for more intellectually oriented discussions, it would take a major course reversal for that to happen here. This site is about "snowflakes" and "cuntabitch Hillary" and nonsense about President Obama, and they have the numbers and the interest in keeping that way. hence my article about liberals not posting, which is a premise by the way that no one has disputed on that thread.
RA Commentary:
Nobody pushes my buttons. All my comments are intentional.
Which is the issue here and also the problem. Learn to ignore. As for the rest of your comment, I am taking care of that. Stay tune for the meta tomorrow.
How long have we known each other, John? It has been a few years now...
Well, there are two ways of looking at that. One is what you just said, and the other is that saying nothing is surrender to them.
People often have the notion that if "you just ignore something it will go away" even though there is scant evidence of that anywhere.
I agree completely. That's why I'm posting fairly actively these days. I want Perrie to have no excuse for permitting the Vandals to continue. If she doesn't get off that stupid "both sides do it, everything's symmetrical" fence, her site is going to die. She says she has reforms on the way... and they had better address the crap we see every day!
Nobody pushes my buttons. All my comments are intentional.
They've been doing it for years.
We are down to a handful of "liberals" on this site. While I admire the content of your articles and the desire for more intellectually oriented discussions, it would take a major course reversal for that to happen here. This site is about "snowflakes" and "cuntabitch Hillary" and nonsense about President Obama, and they have the numbers and the interest in keeping that way. hence my article about liberals not posting, which is a premise by the way that no one has disputed on that thread.
Again... I agree. It's up to Perrie to decide what she wants.
RA Commentary: What Perrie wants is for all the members to be adults and lighten up a bit. What Perrie gets is both sides claiming that I have a particular leaning, which Perrie doesn't, hopefully seen here in my commentaries.
They've been doing it for years.
You are not the first person to reach the same erroneous conclusion. I confront people intentionally, not because I cannot help myself.
I confront people intentionally, not because I cannot help myself.
John - hahahahahahaha
You crack me up.
OK I just read this whole thread, and I am incredulous from the remarks. So let me give you all a reality check.
I just banned a guy for what I deemed a threat. What do I get for that? A pile of complaints from what you call "vandals" which really translates into conservatives.
And what do I get from the conservatives? A pile of complaints that it was not a threat and that I have bias.
Do you not see the irony of this?
So let's go through your article.
BF makes a general remark, and then admits to clickbait. It is not off topic, but definitely what I would call colorful.
Then John comes back with an insult.
And somehow this translates into me "If she doesn't get off that stupid "both sides do it, everything's symmetrical" fence".
Oh the irony.
Since right now your vandals seem to think I have chosen your side over Oliver, which of course I didn't.
Most of you guys can get down and dirty and it doesn't matter which side does it. I have to moderate it.
Just keep this in mind, if you don't like a comment, but it is on topic, you can go past it, without making an insulting comment which only takes the article down. Ignoring it just makes it one of many other comments.
Which BTW, I have to now go through and start deleting the snark from both sides. So please don't tell me both sides don't do it, cause they damn well do.
"Free Oliver !!!!!!!. Send the Kenyan and the monkey lady back to Africa!!!!!!
OLIVER !.....OLIVER !.......OLIVER !....."
RA Commentary: A waste of a post and a total derail meant to be one.
Like we really needed a reminder of why your roundly ridiculed on this board John.
No one is as capable of taking something serious and making a joke of it like you my friend.
The only people who roundly ridicule me are people like you. Which means nothing. Zip. Nada.
Vamoose !
RA Commentary: A waste of a post and a total derail meant to be one.
I think when you made a long purple pen commentary the article was already derailed.
I just made a fun comment. I know you like fun on the site.
what you call "vandals" which really translates into conservatives.
Absolutely not, Perrie.
A Vandal is someone whose purpose is destruction. That has nothing to do with the political spectrum. It is you who insist on finding symmetry, both sides do it...
There aren't two sides. Unless you mean, on the one hand members who would like to converse, and on the other hand members who want to destroy all conversation.
Do you really want NT to be nothing more than exchanges of crap?
I have tried, over and over, to discuss... whatever... calmly. Only to have the Vandals swoop in and wreak havoc. If that's what you want... You're on the right track.
BF makes a general remark, and then admits to clickbait. It is not off topic, but definitely what I would call colorful.
This is the heart of the problem, Perrie. Bf's post was fairly typical of his method: not atrocious, but off-key enough to perhaps get someone to react. If not, he'll simply try again until someone does react. Once there's a slight deviation off-topic, he'll make his next Comment even further off, but only slightly. Again and again, until there's a thread that has nothing to do with the original article. And he will tell you that none of his posts were significantly off-topic... and you will agree.
He manipulates you. He knows how much you want to be "even-handed". He takes advantage of that.
It's your site: it's your call...
Sorry Bob - you deserve this one.
Sorry 1st - you deserve this one
One comment, that is barely off topic and a bit grandiose shouldn't throw an article into disarray. It should have been ignored.
Of course it should have been ignored. I love John dearly, but the Vandals learned long ago how to trick him into participating in their derails.
If you cannot see how this happens... again and again... If you don't see the pattern... then you are in denial. Don't blame John for being John. Blame the Vandals who so blatantly provoke him.
Yes, it is sad but predictable. I posted a seed about fake news the other day. It was in no way to call anyone out. I wanted to stimulate conversation about fake news; the manipulations of news and information; and what it means for us in the future but no takers.
RA Commentary: The subject of fake news will be addressed in our next updating of the CoC. There has to be a way to have control and consensus on this subject.
PJ,
The Vandals do not (yet?) completely control NT. The site is well on its way to becoming an alt-right circle-jerk, but it isn't quite there yet.
There are still a few independent minds.
So... obviously... the Vandals are attentive to never contribute to anything one of those independent minds may post. On the contrary, they will demolish, even when the topic is as bland as this seed.
Bob - I disagree. It's become quite clear why there are very few "active" members. It's not the issues that are bothersome but the personal attacks and accusations. I've been trying to "reset".
PJ,
To me, it's obvious that the personal attacks are just a means of chasing away anyone who would interfere with the Vandals' project.
But I could be wrong. It has been known to happen. Very, very rarely ...
I wish you success with the reset. If I do anything at all to get in the way -- I can be slightly obtuse, once in a while -- feel free to set me straight!
RA Commentary:
To me, it's obvious that the personal attacks are just a means of chasing away anyone who would interfere with the Vandals' project.
Bob there is no organized effort going on.
Christ Bob, get off the cross, we need the firewood.
What are these "sides", Perrie?
There aren't two teams... although there may be one...
Bob there is no organized effort going on.
Alternatively, Perrie, you refuse to see reality.
While you fail to offer evidence.
What are these sides and who is on each? How do the three sides communicate and plan how to control the site and its content?
Much the way it used to be a much larger 'Alt-Left' circle jerk, in the 'Newsvine of Late' tradition? Seems the majority of the Alt-Left folks have withdrawn leaving a few stalwarts who are complaining about the other side of the equation that they are an equal or greater part of.
Gary,
There is no such thing as "alt-left". One cannot simply take something on from one side of the political spectrum and flip it. The term alt-right refers to the post-reality right, the movement that was so well illustrated by the Tea Party. Alt-right is used in contrast to traditional conservatives who at least paid lip-service to facts. There is no equivalent on the left, because there is no historical rupture between liberals fifty years ago and today.
I have been on NT, with a few pauses, since it was created. I have seen hundreds of members come and go. I think I have a fairly clear idea of why people leave: because they do not want the bother of dealing with assholes. Do not misinterpret! I am not equating conservative with asshole! Nor do I equate alt-right with asshole. Not at all. I appreciate conversation with anyone, regardless of their politics, on condition that the conversation is polite.
I am saying that there are some assholes on this site, and that they have intentionally driven many members away. I think most of these assholes are not political at all. Their behavior on the site has nothing to do with politics. It is driven exclusively by ego-games.
I don't know why the assholes pretend to have the politics they do. If I were a conservative, I would be thinking a lot about this, because I don't like to be tarred by a brush I do not control.
Bob you say in your second paragraph that your not equating conservative with asshole.
But then in your last paragraphs...
I don't know why the assholes pretend to have the politics they do. If I were a conservative, I would be thinking a lot about this, because I don't like to be tarred by a brush I do not control.
You do exactly what your claiming your not doing.
These are the conundrums posted regularly to the site that get your side ridiculed.
Many of us see your side as speaking out both sides of their mouths, and it is elaborately written, sly little statements like this that get our dander up.
You claim one thing, but mean something entirely different.
Thank you for the clear illustration of this phenominae
NWM,
You do exactly what your claiming your not doing.
I don't agree, obviously. Or I would not be doing it.
This is difficult to discuss, because Perrie will delete anything I say, by name, about anyone... but I'll try...
There are some members who, I believe, have no political beliefs at all. Their activity on NT is simply an ego-trip. They like to provoke, to annoy... They get joy from being pests. I'm sorry that I cannot give you names, but Perrie does not allow us to point out that particular members are doing... what they are doing!
I do not believe that these members -- the ones I call "the Vandals" -- hold any political beliefs. They don't care about either society or the nation. They care only about themselves and their own egos, which they stoke by tearing down others.
I observe that the Vandals pretend to be conservatives. I guess (but cannot be sure) that they make this choice because they imagine that they can manipulate the true conservatives into participating in their demolition activities.
So... In my mind, there is a distinct difference between the Vandals, who have no purpose (except destruction), and the conservatives who do have a purpose. (I don't agree with them, but I do not doubt their sincerity.)
Some here have no political beliefs and are just here to ruin the site for those who do have them no matter what their beliefs may be?
Not exactly. "Ruining the site" is only a consequence. The objective is manipulation. There are people who get off by playing puppeteer. They come to NT to mess with people.
The first level is simply posting crap to elicit a reaction, often derailing / destroying the conversation along the way.
The second level is pushing people off the site. You haven't been here as long as I, but surely you have seen folks come... and go. Surely you have seen that even some stalwarts from the site's first days are now shutting down.
The final level is to present the site owner with a site reduced to an alt-right circle-jerk. Ruining a decade of dedication by Perrie is the ultimate goal.
I don't think you are a conscious participant. But your carpet-bombing certainly dovetails nicely. I hope you realize that when there's no one left but alt-right, your seeds will be pointless preaching to the choir.
Everyone has the same limit/opportunity. I used to seed several times as much content on newsvine. Everyone has the same opportunity here. That some would rather run from opposition content than seed their own opposing content speaks to their issues. I don't avoid going on seeds put here by progressives or liberals. Live and let live with no one having content control by type or viewpoint content or number limits is my outlook.
I suppose I could copy/paste five artcles from AlterNet every day... But that would be just as pointless as your multiple red-meat articles. Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it smart to do it.
I'd like to see intelligent conversations on NT. I don't think carpet bombing with red meat goes in the right direction.
How often do you get anything better than zingers and insults? That's what red meat is intended to elicit... and it does. That's what AlterNet articles are intended to elicit... and that's why I never seed any.
I'd like to see each member limited to two or three articles on the "Newest Discussions" list. We'd all be obligated to make careful choices.
Perhaps also a limit on the number of seeds in each Forum.
Bob, the solution for the left always seems to be to limit what others can do or say. I say the best alternative is more speech, not less. The left would prefer to silence or restrain opposition voices rather than create more competing speech themselves. As to the available topics, it's a flaw in the site design that news and politics is used by some as the "front page. If there was a separate front page that took randomly some articles from all the forum pages and the open groups we wouldn't have this issue. The fact is that news and politics drives this site by numbers and Iimitung members access to that forum page is no recipe for growth here.
This has nothing to do with left and right. It's about the perennity of the site.
I disagree, Bob, unless its just that you object to the term, there is the mirror image on the far left of the far right, regardless of what you call it. you might not think so, but there is-and many people see it. In many cases, they have convinced people in the party, the hangers on and their lap dog media that it is 'normal' but this election showed that roughly half the nation disagrees (those pesky flyover states). And we're not talking about just the presidential election, but virtually all the races down to local, across the nation, were a repudiation of the 'far left'.
So, using a derogative name may work for you, but, other than being silly, if you can't apply the same logic to your side of the fence, you're just lying to yourself.
Gary,
I don't "object" to "alt-left" in the sense that I find it offensive. I object in that I don't think it exists. But that may be ignorance on my part.
I gave you the definition of "alt-right", because I consider that I should be able to define and explain any word I use. Words are just labels we put on reality. It is the reality behind the words that is truly important.
Perhaps you could give me your definition of "alt-left". It is entirely possible that the reality behind the term does indeed exist, but that I know it under a different word. Or perhaps it does indeed exist, but I am unaware...
Please.
I'm trying to treat you as a worthwhile conversation partner. Please don't say nonsense.
Alternet is a red meat site. The "red" in "red meat" is not the "red" in "red state". Red meat is raw meat; it is intended to draw nasty critters with claws, smelling blood, who will proceed to rip each other to shreds.
Likewise... there is no "alt-left". The term "alt-right" has a definition: the post-reality "alternative" conservative movement best embodied by the Tea Party. Alt-right is not a synonym for far right. There is no equivalent on the left.
Just because something exists on one side of the political spectrum, doesn't mean that there must be a mirror image on the other side.
Just because there are red roses, doesn't mean there must be blue roses.
Reality is a bit more complicated...
"Blue meat"? You'll have to go hunting muppets for that.
And, who are those VANDALS who are doing so much harm Bob? Whomever they are, they seem to have grabbed you quite well. C'mon, spit it out - who are the "trouble-makers" who are running everyone else off of NT???
1stwarrior,
I'd love to... but Perrie would delete the post.
The CoC says it's OK to be an asshole, but it's not OK to say that an asshole is an asshole. Or Vandal. But I'm pretty sure you know who I mean...
Ok. So we have an article and it has a headline. If the article is a reasoned news or opinion article and the original source has a headline designed to draw attention to it, should the seeder follow the coc and seed it as written or should we arbitrarily tone it down with our own words possibly slanting others words away from the original authors intent? I've noticed that on some newsmax and Fox News articles the web site has a blaring headline and when I click on the article it comes up with a more mild version. I seed the more mild one actually with the article.
You've summarized the article fairly well.
As for actual practice on NT... I certainly have not made a statistically significant analysis!
In the particular case I cited in my first Comment , you seeded from a red-meat site, carrying over the title "Declassified Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi To Stop Libyan Creation Of Gold-Backed Currency". If you had tracked back upstream (the red-meat site had a link) to the original article in Foreign Policy Journal , your headline would have been "Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention". Nothing about "gold".
The FPJ article carried quite a bit of interesting information. The "gold bug" information was entirely secondary. Most of it was old news for me, but probably because there was a lot more, before the attack, in French media than in American. If the FPJ article was new news to you, then it would probably have been new news to others, and therefore a worthy seed.
This case is interesting because the "hook" in the TheFreeThoughtProject.com article / headline that you actually did use -- GOLD BUG!! -- is not a very effective one for the general public. Most people neither know nor care about the long-gone gold standard. But there is a strong affection for the gold standard among conservatives. The TheFreeThoughtProject.com article / headline are click-bait targeted at conservatives .
I didn't seed the NATO kills Qadaffy over gold article.
Oh. Sorry. I'm used to conservative click-bait usually being yours. Since this was in fact baiting conservatives, I should have know...
Most of my seeds come from Fox News, Newsmax, Real Clear Politics, One News Now, Investors Business Daily, AmericanThinker, Red State, Shasta Lantern, and Conservative News Service.
Yes. Red-meat sites.
Sorry but you don't get to label legitimate news and opinion sources that are mainstream conservative as red meat. Real clear politics? Really?
Who is responsible when an article gets misread?
It's a toss-up. One writes in different styles depending on the audience. Business writing, is a school unto itself. Legal writing is another as is reporting. There is a myriad of different styles. Online writing is different also, which is what I'll be mentioning here.
Foe me, I can handle most typo's, spelling and grammatical mistakes. If I don't understand something, I'll say so and allow the other person to clarify. Unfortunately, the courtesy of asking before assuming has been lost among the ideological zealots who seem to prefer assuming.
In a day and age where some people take the written word literally, the use of metaphors, similes, personifications, sarcasm, idioms, etc, are lost on those people. I use a lot of informal colloquialism and (online at least) tend to write in a figurative style which drives these people bonkers.
There is no clear cut answer to this.
Best reply on this thread.
Okay, I will comment on the seeded article. I think the reason that the headlines or titles of articles in mainstream news outlets like the New York Times are not more nuanced is because people are not viscerally attracted to ambiguity. An either/or implication in a headline is not an eye catcher. Subtlety in a headline is not an eye catcher.
I don't know if this is only a recent development. It would be interesting to see a study of how much headline writing has changed, or not, over the years.
Kind of reminds me of the song Dirty Laundry by Don Henley.
people are not viscerally attracted to ambiguity.
Probably true. Personally, I do like ambiguity.
Actually John, no, it's not new. When I took Journalism in College in 1971, one of the primary charges of the instructor was - if you want your story read - SCREAM THE HEADLINE. No, it doesn't have to be "totally" factual, but it should be loud enough and intense enough to grab the reader's attention.
And that was 45 years ago.
Apparently, archaeologists have found tablets in ancient Rome that were the equivalent of the Daily Enquirer .
I don't agree with the folks who are saying that Facebook must DO SOMETHING!!! It's the readers who must do something, as has been necessary since ancient Rome, at least: they must subject their reading to the smell test. If it stinks, it's probably crap!
`
Here's a good example I learned at school;
(wire service) Associated Press - Christ Walks On Water
New York Times - Jesus Can't Swim.
`
Here's a good example I learned at school;
(wire service) Associated Press - Christ Walks On Water
New York Times - Jesus Can't Swim.
In a two-car race, the French car won. The Times of London headlined, "British finish second!"
In my case, I have the disadvantage of not seeing things very well...
Just a few months ago, I read a headline that I thought said: Migraines Leave Iraq . The resultant celebration came to my mind, which would also be migraine inducing:
So, I went back to read it again. It said, " MARINES Leave Iraq ".
Any more, I sometimes have to read things 2 or 3 times to get the real meaning behind the words, because I can't see well. So, whose fault is that? Mine, of course. I need new glasses.
But then, too, I don't always 'catch on' to some of the headlines, or the purposes of an article... It's not that I'm stupid, because I'm NOT. It's that I can't really believe what I'm reading!
Hi, Dowser,
You say "In my case, I have the disadvantage of not seeing things very well..." but you go on to show only advantages!
Any more, I sometimes have to read things 2 or 3 times to get the real meaning behind the words
You do realize that most of us should probably do the same?
When you get something wrong, you can blame it on your vision. The rest of have no excuse.
Thanks, Bob! It is jarring, at times...
When you get something wrong, you can blame it on your vision. The rest of have no excuse.
Well, not necessarily. In some cases here certain individuals keep getting things wrong because they are "intellectually challenged". And not being very intelligent in a discussion that requires some degree of intelligence is not a condition that can be remedied by some easy fix, such as getting new glasses.
When you get something wrong, you can blame it on your vision. The rest of have no excuse.
Well, not necessarily. In some cases here certain individuals keep getting things wrong because they are "intellectually challenged". And not being very intelligent in a discussion that requires some degree of intelligence is not a condition that can be remedied by some easy fix, such as getting new glasses.
Of some of those folks here with these sorts of mental deficiencies have learned how to compensate for their innte ability to understand even basic concepts. What they do when that happens, rather that wallow in the frustration and confusion they fee, they change the subject in hope thst the degree of their diminished mentsl cspcity will not be obvious. They do this by enggingn in the mot juveniletypes of personal attacks on other people, i;n hope that people will be tsken in by this primitive tactic.
And, since there are others who who are equally mentally challenged, they can always count on others to respond to them, thereby ensuring that the discussion will not revert to the actual topic.
Yes, when fools collude on this scale, what you get is a grand festival of...sheer stupidity!
Are you typing on your phone?
But yes... Tag-team derailing is a popular sport on NT. And you're probably correct that the motive is often to avoid proving one's incomprehension.
In some cases here certain individuals keep getting things wrong because they are "intellectually challenged".
This may be true... but somehow I don't see many members invoking being intellectually challenged as justification for getting things wrong.
Then again... If someone did do that... they'd pretty much have proven their point.
Nobody is responsible when an article gets "misread." After reading through this thread, it's clear to me that the purpose of this article is to accuse certain members (without naming them) of click-bating, over posting politically incorrect views, and posting fake news.
This forum is promoted as a place where we can freely speak our minds and I think Perrie has done a good job of keeping it that way. If one seeder wants to speak his mind through the sarcasm of ridiculous titles and pictures, then he should be able to do it. If another poster wants to express his views through the prism of religion, then that's good too. An atheist should be free to do the same thing. Liberals have as much right to express themselves as conservatives and vice versa. Some can even carry Hillary on a sedan chair if they want to and others (like me) can try to knock her out of it. Same goes for Trump. Some people like heated discussion; others don't.
So I think members should be able to continue doing just what they're doing, even if I strongly disagree with what they have to say. That means I expressly support the continued posting by JR, XX, BF, Bob and others.
If you think an article is too "fishy" for you, then you're free to comment or pass it by. If you think someone monopolizes the board with too many posts, then post your own to balance it out rather than tell him to post less. If you don't like someone's religious/conservative or liberal views, then challenge him intellectually rather than try to silence him or run him off the board. If the news is fake and you think others may be too stupid to see it, then simply point out the flaws in the article (not the seeder). If the discussion gets too heated, then add your coolness or take a break. If we can challenge each others' views intellectually without calling each other stupid, then I think Perrie will have less work and we can all have a good time.
1ofmany,
If you think someone monopolizes the board with too many posts, then post your own to balance it out...
I agree with your post, except this.
I understand what you are saying. The problem I see is simply mechanical. There are about twenty articles on the "Newest Discussions" list, which serves most of us as FP. If a very small number of members posts massively, they "crowd out" those who only post occasionally.
Those few "occupy" the ND list.
If we all had to select only a few articles, the quality of NT posts would be better.
There's a reason we cook fish either in one room or outdoors.......because it stinks. I don't have a problem with "fishy" articles but I do have a problem when the stench invades serious articles or it's over powering smell becomes rotten and runs off the guests. Maybe we should adopt Fish Fridays? Then we'll all know if we want to show up and brave whether the fish is fresh or full of bones.
I don't have a problem with "fishy" articles but I do have a problem when the stench invades serious articles or it's over powering smell becomes rotten and runs off the guests.
We're not actually doing anything here but expressing our opinions. Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously and a fishy article points that out or makes a point with mockery. This is like a restaurant that serves all different kinds of food but, on any given day, what I want may not be available. I can eat what's left or leave. The fish "smell" doesn't bother me at all because I knew fish was served here when I walked through the door.
Bob, the news and politics forum drives this site. It has almost 20,000 seeds on it. I don't think the next highest forum topic has 2,000 seeds yet and many have a couple hundred or are still in double digits including this one. If people seeded their articles to the most accurate forum subject matter that might generate more traffic to the other forums. Also, the news and politics section which gets the most traffic is not the front page. When we switched sites it was done so that the news and politics section isn't the first thing one sees when visiting the site. It is the forum that draws many of us to the NewsTalkers. The fact is that since 90% or so of all forum seeds to this site and close to that in number of related posts that those who exclusively use newest comments as a way to get into the conversations are likely to find themselves in the news and politics forum.
... the news and politics forum drives this site.
Not exactly. The news and politics forum swamps the site.
Now the left here want to instead of competing in the field of ideas themselves to get their point across sufficiently, want to limit and control the content of others they disagree with beyond the reasonable present limits or threaten to leave if not given their customary regulatory control over others that in the real world they achieved during the Obama regime and are about to lose there. To those wanting to limit others it's about control and if they can't rule a place, they'll try to ruin it.
X - take a deep breath. I don't think that's what Bob was saying. My understanding was that because of how articles are posted it may not give articles the attention they deserve. For instance, when you post your articles you tend to post them all at once. Some garner attention why others don't because other seeders may post their articles, taking attention away from all but one or two of your articles. If the articles are posted more strategically they may have a better chance of stimulating good discussions.
I didn't take Bob's comments as one of censor but of how to promote articles effectively to promote more activity. Maybe I misunderstood.
I didn't take Bob's comments as one of censor but of how to promote articles effectively to promote more activity. Maybe I misunderstood.
You understood perfectly.
I don't post my articles all at once. I most always post two when I get up in the morning, one somewhere in the middle of the day, and two before going to bed. They can appear together later when I make comments or respond to comments on them during a time I'm here, but I made a point after the 5 a day limit to spread them out through out the day so our resident liberals couldn't simply chain react and comment a slew of their own to bury the double x off the first page of news and politics.
C4P,
I am not criticizing you, personally. I am criticizing the idea of swamping the site... and you happen to be the member who actually does this.
I don't think you are purposefully destroying the site... but you're destroying all the same.
I don't think you are purposefully destroying the site... but you're destroying all the same.
If he doesn't think he's destroying the site and wants to keep posting the way he has been, what do you propose to do about it?
... what do you propose to do about it?
Try to convince him.
Try to convince Perrie.
One thing I will not do is flood the site with red meat from (for example) AlterNet. I think flooding is a bad thing, so I will not do it myself.
... what do you propose to do about it?
Try to convince him.
Try to convince Perrie.
One thing I will not do is flood the site with red meat from (for example) AlterNet. I think flooding is a bad thing, so I will not do it myself.
Try to convince Perrie.
Try to convince Perrie to do what?
1ofmany,
Try to convince Perrie to do what?
Reduce the number of seeds per person per day.
I don't seed five per day from a single source like alternet or politicususa or democrat underground, dailykos, green footballs. I mix the sources and hard news as well as opinion. I don't alway seed about politics either as I seed about religion, the environment, business and investing, health and human interest as well. A reduction in the number of seeds would only insure that the hardest hitting articles with the biggest attention grabbing headline would survive the culling on the right and the left and then what would you have?
The problem is much less the red-meat aspect than the sheer number. There are days when more than half the Newest Discussions list is yours.
If you could only post two per day, I think (I hope) that you would be more attentive to the quality of your seeds... as would be everyone else. Even if you (or anyone) chose to seed nothing but red meat, the fact that there would be only two per day means that readers would have more choice.
I don't seed five per day from a single source like alternet or politicususa or democrat underground, dailykos, green footballs. I mix the sources and hard news as well as opinion. I don't alway seed about politics either as I seed about religion, the environment, business and investing, health and human interest as well. A reduction in the number of seeds would only insure that the hardest hitting articles with the biggest attention grabbing headline would survive the culling on the right and the left and then what would you have?
1ofmany,
Try to convince Perrie to do what?
Reduce the number of seeds per person per day.
XX said he thought you were trying to limit what he can post. Pj (cleverly) spun it and said that she thought you were only suggesting that xx voluntarily spread his articles out so they would get more attention. You agreed with that. But now it's clear that, if xx won't voluntarily agree to limit what he posts, then you want Perrie to mandate a limit. I assume that you'll say the limit doesn't apply just to him but you've also said that he's who you had in mind as the person destroying the site with over posting. So this is all about xx.
1ofmany,
... you've also said that he's who you had in mind as the person destroying the site with over posting. So this is all about xx.
No. Never said that.
There are several phenomena that are killing the site, among them a very few members "swamping" the site with too many articles every day. C4P is the most active seeder on the site, so he draws particular attention. But I have been lobbying for a limit of two articles per member per day for a long time, applicable to everyone. This is not a new subject.
If you discuss the topic of seeding/authoring, you will find that some members refrain from seeding/authoring because they have previously seen their articles fall off the Newest Discussions list very quickly, chased off by too many articles from just a few other posters. I think that we should encourage seeding/authoring, rather than discourage it.
The quality of our articles would go up if we had to select the very best we find each day.
I don't think you are purposefully destroying the site... but you're destroying all the same.
If he doesn't think he's destroying the site and wants to keep posting the way he has been, what do you propose to do about it?
But when JWC and John and others more to your thinking we're here and putting up their 4-5 seeds a day all was well.....you do imply that NT would be a fantastic site if only XX and his seeds weren't here. Yet notice this seed. I wasn't here for the first couple days of it and it went to hell and off the rails as Perries running commentary shows and I had nothing to do with it. I'm the one who came in here and got it on track for you and it seems dined the light on the fact that indirectly I was the original target of your seed all along even though I didn't seed the article that triggered you.
Don't let the haters drive you away XX keep em coming.
But when JWC and John and others more to your thinking we're here and putting up their 4-5 seeds a day all was well.....you do imply that NT would be a fantastic site if only XX and his seeds weren't here.
Absolutely false. I'm not proposing a limit on particular members, but on everyone.
And c'mon, C4P... you know as well as I do that no one seeds as much as you do. No one.
Bob - I think you're being a little derisive by calling X by his NV username. Imo, it's distracting away from the point you are trying to make.
PJ,
I call Bf "Bf", regardless of what name he's using on a given day. I call AngryWhiteMan "racist" regardless of whatever name he has on a given day.
Personally... I use my own name...
I have known Cornhusker4Palin for many years. That name expressed -- rather vehemently, as I recall -- "who he is" back then... and unless he tells me what has changed, I shall continue to use that name.
Perhaps he is no longer a Cornhusker... or never was. Perhaps he is no longer a fan of Sarah Palin... or never was.
Dunno...
I don't seed five per day from a single source like alternet or politicususa or democrat underground, dailykos, green footballs. I mix the sources and hard news as well as opinion. I don't alway seed about politics either as I seed about religion, the environment, business and investing, health and human interest as well. A reduction in the number of seeds would only insure that the hardest hitting articles with the biggest attention grabbing headline would survive the culling on the right and the left and then what would you have?
My apologies Bob. You know X far longer than me.
I am and always will be a Corn Husker even though I haven't lived in Nebraska since 1985. Big Red for life. As to Palin, I still like her though not as much as before. Her early endorsing of Trump whom I didn't vote for didn't please me. If she were to be appointed in a Trump admin or run for the senate from up there I'd support her. Calling me by my old name is a coc issue. If I ever return to Newsvine, I'd delete my dormant current account and using a different e-mail provider join it as something totally unrelated to cornhusker4palin.
So you're still good with "C4P", right?
Really? Try reading comprehension class some time. I couldn't have been more clear that I don't want that name used. To follow the Coc you will address me as XXJefferson#51 or a socially acceptable respectful abbreviation thereof.
Really? Try reading comprehension class some time. I couldn't have been more clear that I don't want that name used. To follow the Coc you will address me as XXJefferson#51 or a socially acceptable respectful abbreviation thereof.
I couldn't have been more clear that I don't want that name used.
Really? I don't remember you ever having posted to that effect... or having chatted to that effect... or having PMed to that effect... And I can remember quite clearly a time when you were very proud of "Cornhusker4Palin".
Any one of those messaging methods would have been far "more clear" than silence. But hey! No problem.
From now on you're "J"! OK?
. . . If we all had to select only a few articles, the quality of NT posts would be better.
I understand your point but I'd prefer to let people express themselves however they choose as many times as they choose to do so. If nobody's interested, then the article disappears. If it doesn't disappear, then somebody's interested (if for no other reason than to throw eggs and tomatoes at the seeder). This is all just for fun and we don't all have fun the same way. If we did, an amusement park would only need one ride.
1 of many;
