ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted October 10 ATRL Moderator Posted October 10 1 hour ago, Lil Mistee said: The information age proving to the be the disinformation age of propaganda is so We have so much knowledge at our fingertips but people would rather watch propaganda algorithmic bullshit on tiktok To be fair, we have corporations that profit off of algorithms that are intentionally designed to radicalize people. I'm not talking about where you fall on the political spectrum. If you stan BTS, the algorithm will not recommend you on people's FYP if you are not the most insane, over-the-top, and hyperbolic BTS stan on the platform. The album rewards anger and frustration because that leads to engagement which leads to profit for the platform. These platforms are designed to mislead and polarize us inside our own echo chambers. This is partly why regulation is needed on social media. But our government only cares about regulating TikTok because it's a Chinese platform. 8
Relampago. Posted October 10 Posted October 10 16 minutes ago, Bloo said: To be fair, we have corporations that profit off of algorithms that are intentionally designed to radicalize people. I'm not talking about where you fall on the political spectrum. If you stan BTS, the algorithm will not recommend you on people's FYP if you are not the most insane, over-the-top, and hyperbolic BTS stan on the platform. The album rewards anger and frustration because that leads to engagement which leads to profit for the platform. These platforms are designed to mislead and polarize us inside our own echo chambers. This is partly why regulation is needed on social media. But our government only cares about regulating TikTok because it's a Chinese platform. I desperately wish a candidate would run on regulating social media because misinformation is more rampant than ever. But you know this would turn into a "the government is CENSORING us!! CHINA!!!!" real quick. It's like.. where do we even go from here. Perhaps don't even run on it, just do it once you're in office cause it's bad, bad out here. 7
Communion Posted October 10 Posted October 10 21 minutes ago, wastedpotential said: If Trump (or maybe Harris, who really knows how far she's willing to go on immigration) have their way, a good cohort of the working class Hispanic men will be stripped of their citizenship and deported anyway by the time the next election rolls around (surely that's where the conversation around "anchor babies" is headed), so their vote won't count in the long term "We can just deport Hispanic Men because we will just trust Hispanic Women to continue voting for the material benefit of rich white women even to their own detriment instead of staying home and not participating in electoral politics" Ehhhh sis, I think this is what they call soul rot. *nervous laughter* You're hoping to dismiss real living people as fractions of fractions but the 2016 loss actually didn't require much change in the swing states in turns of voter composition. It's just that such turnout drops in specific demos hurt Dems more than others and these are the demos they're throwing under the bus still now. Clinton's loss in Wisconsin itself was at its root due to inaction amongst black voters - even black women - deciding that they can stay home on election day. It took just a 1% shift in the composition of the electorate to do that. 1
Sannie Posted October 10 Posted October 10 Just saw the good sis @GhostBox on this livestream. Come through, king. 11
Blade Posted October 10 Posted October 10 3 minutes ago, Communion said: "We can just deport Hispanic Men because we will just trust Hispanic Women to continue voting for the material benefit of rich white women even to their own detriment instead of staying home and not participating in electoral politics" Ehhhh sis, I think this is what they call soul rot. *nervous laughter* You're hoping to dismiss real living people as fractions of fractions but the 2016 loss actually didn't require much change in the swing states in turns of voter composition. It's just that such turnout drops in specific demos hurt Dems more than others and these are the demos they're throwing under the bus still now. I'd like to believe the good sis @wastedpotential was pointing out the irony in Hispanic men shifting to R's considering Trump wants to do "mass deportations" that will disproportionately impact them if they're undocumented. They weren't supporting the idea... at least I'd hope not 1 2
Relampago. Posted October 10 Posted October 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Communion said: (My point was not to convince you to vote Green, but to just remind you to that despite the orthodoxy that no individual, single vote is actually important enough to be torn over <3) If Harris loses, it will be because she chose to lose. Neither I nor you nor anyone can lose sleep over her desire to lose. To me, the below strategists quoted sound exactly like the kind of people who want to lose. Elected officials can only become so diametrically opposed to their voters until the rubberband snaps, with some apparently needing to learn that the first rubberband snap wasn't just a fluke.. (And the last time the rubberband snapped, we got a socialist from Vermont changing the discourse as we know it but that's a tale for another day ) I know this is such an annoying response, but I do truly believe Harris is unprincipled and just does this because her campaign believes this is the way to win. I believe she would move to the left if she was convinced it was a winning move. The Democratic Party has been running scared from the left more than ever since 2020 though, so I don't know who's in her ear because the data supports popular leftist policies. But ultimately you're right, this might be the last election I blindly support a Democrat for the presidency, but it really depends on the next 4 years. If Trump wins and it's hell, I'll go back to supporting them again. If he wins and it's more of the same, then I'll throw my hat in the 3rd party ring. If Harris wins, and there's meaningful legislation that helps me, I'll vote for her again. If she wins and it's just a nothingburger (probably the most likely), then I'll vote 3rd party. But for what it's worth, it wouldn't take too much to convince me to vote Democrat again. Biden potentially getting my student loans forgiven is a huge incentive. If Harris can help me own a home, if she pushes to legalize marijuana, or even just makes it easier to regulate social media/misinformation (something I've been wanting for awhile), it would be a strong incentive. Perhaps I should raise my standards instead of begging for crumbs, but we'll have to check in on 2028 Relampago. to see how he's feeling. It's all just a lot to think about right now. Edited October 10 by Relampago. 6
wastedpotential Posted October 10 Posted October 10 12 minutes ago, Communion said: "We can just deport Hispanic Men because we will just trust Hispanic Women to continue voting for the material benefit of rich white women even to their own detriment instead of staying home and not participating in electoral politics" Ehhhh sis, I think this is what they call soul rot. *nervous laughter* You're hoping to dismiss real living people as fractions of fractions but the 2016 loss actually didn't require much change in the swing states in turns of voter composition. It's just that such turnout drops in specific demos hurt Dems more than others and these are the demos they're throwing under the bus still now. Clinton's loss in Wisconsin itself was at its root due to inaction amongst black voters - even black women - deciding that they can stay home on election day. It took just a 1% shift in the composition of the electorate to do that. I think I cut the paragraph out of my rant where I stated that these weren't my beliefs and that they're not exactly the path that I'd choose as supreme leader of the Democratic Party ddd These things are won on the margins, until they're not. 2024 is a deeply razor thin election being contested by two… controversial candidates, as was 2020, and as was 2016. By 2028, Harris will have either lost and the Democrats will have had to make a drastic shift (assuming political opposition still exists post Trump) or she'll have won and will probably be running a deeply unsuccessful re-election campaign and will be wildly unpopular, failing to maintain any power or momentum. I'm not putting bets on Trump's health, but I don't think the odds are good he makes it too far past 2028, so even if he wins this election, it seems like the 2028 GOP candidate will be Vance or someone like him, or Trump loses and the Republicans have an open primary for the first time in over a decade and find a unity post-Trump candidate to get behind. Either way, one party or the other will be in the position to run a less controversial candidate who will likely play better to their broader base (let's say mythical Democrat is willing to play some ball on Palestine negotiations and mythical Republican is actually a good Christian who doesn't have a history of sexual assault and isn't also ******* creepy), and we'll no longer be looking at a marginal election. 1
shelven Posted October 10 Posted October 10 Marist and NYT both being A+ rated, yet one of them has Florida at Trump +13 while the other has it at Trump +4 3 3
Blade Posted October 10 Posted October 10 9 minutes ago, shelven said: Marist and NYT both being A+ rated, yet one of them has Florida at Trump +13 while the other has it at Trump +4 They both don't weight the sample to recalled votes. Very odd. 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted October 10 ATRL Moderator Posted October 10 1 hour ago, Relampago. said: I desperately wish a candidate would run on regulating social media because misinformation is more rampant than ever. But you know this would turn into a "the government is CENSORING us!! CHINA!!!!" real quick. It's like.. where do we even go from here. Perhaps don't even run on it, just do it once you're in office cause it's bad, bad out here. I think there are some easy to pitch policies. For instance, let's ban targeted advertisement or at least legally require that platforms confirm the veracity of the information provided in any targeted advertisement. Mark Zuckerberg confirmed in the House that Facebook does not do this for their targeted advertisement tools. This means a political faction can target a racial demographic with ads that promote a false information about getting registered to vote to mislead people into thinking they are registered when they are not. This should not be legal in any scenario. If a platform allows disinformation to gain access to their targeted advertisement APIs, then they should be fined very harshly. There are things we can do that would be easy to popularize into a majority opinion. 4
Sannie Posted October 10 Posted October 10 16 minutes ago, Vermillion said: JD Vance is literally supporting Kamala's idea/plan to increase the child tax credit here. Exactly zero voters thinking about Khan right now. Just another thing for leftists to whine about while not voting. 1 1 2
Sannie Posted October 10 Posted October 10 1 hour ago, Relampago. said: I desperately wish a candidate would run on regulating social media because misinformation is more rampant than ever. But you know this would turn into a "the government is CENSORING us!! CHINA!!!!" real quick. It's like.. where do we even go from here. Perhaps don't even run on it, just do it once you're in office cause it's bad, bad out here. Ultimately, you'd target the companies, right? Companies should have to be regulated when it comes to the ads or content they pump out. Ironically, repealing section 230 now that Elon runs Twitter would probably be a better idea as it would then hold him and his company accountable for everything on the site lol. I think any attempt, though, would be struck down by SCOTUS. 1 1
bunnyeyes Posted October 10 Posted October 10 Anyone else getting eerie 2016 vibes the last week? It feels like we went from 2008 to 2016 on speed run (though that's been this entire campaign) with the hope and change being replaced with more of the same rather quickly. I'm voting this week for Harris and got a few people to register as well and just hoping for the best. 1 1
Harrier Posted October 10 Posted October 10 The endless march towards things being the party of the educated vs the party of the non-educated, across racial and even to some extent socioeconomic lines, is so depressing. That is an extremely damaging situation. I am hoping that if one 'fever' does break when Trump is gone, it might be his cultural strength with uneducated voters. Can a JD Vance or a Tucker Carlson sustain that? It isn't clear they will 8
ClashAndBurn Posted October 10 Posted October 10 1 hour ago, Sannie said: JD Vance is literally supporting Kamala's idea/plan to increase the child tax credit here. Exactly zero voters thinking about Khan right now. Just another thing for leftists to whine about while not voting. Dem voters don't care about labor issues, no, you're right. And that's why they pick candidates who go on to lose like Hillary Clinton, one of the most anti-labor politicians of our lifetime. Kamala rejecting Biden and following the Clinton path wrt Labour concerns is…. Interesting I guess. Listening more to donors does seem to be one of the only things she's willing to break with him on, even though she can't say that out loud 2 1
GhostBox Posted October 10 Posted October 10 So has the storm been as bad as some thought or has it weakened? I don't see much on my Twitter about it being too bad.
anti-bitch Posted October 10 Posted October 10 9 minutes ago, GhostBox said: So has the storm been as bad as some thought or has it weakened? I don't see much on my Twitter about it being too bad. It's bad but the damage will become more apparent when the sun rises. Almost 3 million households without power in Florida right now according to https://poweroutage.us
ClashAndBurn Posted October 10 Posted October 10 Least objectionable thing he's ever said, but it's not as though Trump has ever given a coherent answer to anything. He's always been graded on a curve, just like Biden has. The biggest problem for Harris is she's not given the same grace as the old white men that are two decades her senior. 1 6
midnightdawn Posted October 10 Posted October 10 There's definitely a double standard where female politicians are dragged for being "weak" candidates when male ones aren't. 1
Armani? Posted October 10 Posted October 10 Quote DETROIT — Democrats are deploying prominent Black surrogates to Michigan to deliver an urgent plea: Black men, we need you. It's a concerted push, involving the likes of NBA hall-of-famer Magic Johnson, New York Attorney General Tish James, Democratic Party elder Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Gen-Z Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and actress Kerry Washington in Detroit, which is nearly 80 percent Black, and the surrounding area. And it's the latest sign that the Kamala Harris campaign — and Democrats more broadly — see trouble on the horizon. Harris has built up a small advantage in Michigan, but soft turnout among Black voters could cause that lead to vanish in the face of a motivated Republican base. The Harris campaign's Black voter outreach strategy in Detroit includes a combination of traditional efforts like door knocking and literature drops and non-traditional events like local house parties.
Armani? Posted October 10 Posted October 10 6 hours ago, Communion said: "We can just deport Hispanic Men because we will just trust Hispanic Women to continue voting for the material benefit of rich white women even to their own detriment instead of staying home and not participating in electoral politics" Ehhhh sis, I think this is what they call soul rot. *nervous laughter* You're hoping to dismiss real living people as fractions of fractions but the 2016 loss actually didn't require much change in the swing states in turns of voter composition. It's just that such turnout drops in specific demos hurt Dems more than others and these are the demos they're throwing under the bus still now. Clinton's loss in Wisconsin itself was at its root due to inaction amongst black voters - even black women - deciding that they can stay home on election day. It took just a 1% shift in the composition of the electorate to do that. -19% 3
Recommended Posts