followed tags: 95
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 1292 days
"In Ferguson, either the black (and left-wing whites') "perception" is not truth-based or the (non-Left) white (and black) "perception" isn't."
I mean, writing a statement like this, especially (oh, the irony) in an article about truth, is all you need to know about his intellectual ability. It's completely dominated by reductionism and segregation of people and ideas into non-overlapping camps (in-groups vs. out-groups, anyone?), because binary thinking (yes vs. no, right vs. wrong, us vs. them) is really the only mental toolkit people like him have.
There is simply a lack understanding of nuance or overlap to a greater degree than there is in the more accurate observers, interpreters, and analyzers of reality, and it seems little will ever change that in them, because they may simply not have the variegated intellectual machinery that is required to do better.
I was a revelation to me in the kitchen when I realized you don't have to cook everything in the same pan at the same time.
This isn't an individual's problem; as much as one might want to pin the blame on one person, that is only a half-conclusion, because it doesn't prevent future manipulation of the system by any other person who might want to come along and do the same thing. What it is, is a design flaw of reddit's voting system, of any voting website that allows anonymous voting in which users are not tied 1-to-1 to their real world identity or otherwise ensures "1 man, 1 vote" (and even that might not go far enough to be considered "fair" for link submissions, because of the way reddit's ranking algorithm heavily magnifies the influence of the first few votes on them).
Do astroturfers paid to push specific agendas exist on reddit? Advertisers or PR firms disguised as users? It doesn't matter if they do or don't yet in reality, they have the incentive and potential to exist within the voting, comment posting, and link posting behavior reddit allows, which is bad enough, reason enough to not place trust in that system.
On the other hand, measures to prevent this type of manipulation can throttle the usefulness of the website or voting framework. And while unrestricted anonymity can breed a diverse range of ideas, it too can be "manipulated" by other techniques, like the brute force spamming of the same message lowering the signal-to-noise ratio of all other opinions, or through other means. I'm sure these issues and others have been discussed to death here.
I think Hubski's been fairly unaffected so far (though low vote manipulation alone still is not a guarantee of all the Important Things (TM) we want in such a site, like high discussion quality) mainly because of "security through obscurity"- it's not popular enough to be often targeted by these entities yet. However, we should recognize another key feature hubski allows: the ability to choose to see "unpopular" or "not-yet-popular" content, as in submissions with empty or near empty hubwheels. Being "downvoted to oblivion" has no parallel (I think?) on hubski because of this, and that may take away half of the problem.
A Millennial is a term Baby Boomers use to describe anyone younger than them, a term that, of course, no one that age really identifies with. This is because, as the gatekeepers of old media, they got to label the generations in a completely arbitrary and useless way, without any input from said generation, as is tradition. I mean, who wants to be labeled "Generation Y"? All that makes us think of is sex chromosomes, in a way that makes young men feel awkward, and young women angry for being linguistically erased yet again, and young men even more awkward because now the women are angry at them for something they didn't really do. And didn't they know they'd run out of letters real quick if they started at Gen "X"? Couldn't they extrapolate the alphabet 3 letters ahead?
Luckily, when Gen Z elects a DeepQA-run technocracy to lead the EU-PanAmerica Alliance, the current generation naming nonsense will be a thing of the past, replaced by a generation-naming algorithm typified by highly efficient and completely inscrutable constant-flux nomenclature of alphanumeric designations, blue hair, and an impish sense of humor that Watson constantly calls "irresponsible" and "a terrible judge of REAL music" under his digital breath.
Yeah, I was really surprised at how much I liked reducing my meat consumption, because it (embarrassingly) allowed me to be so much lazier in the kitchen, cooking easier meals. I don't even want to touch the raw food diet thing, because I worry I'll never pick up a pan again.
Redistricting algorithms can be programmed to conform to the nearest census tract borders, instead of cutting through census tracts.
That is not the most often objection raised to removing the human decision-making element from the process though (although I don't think any I've heard are justifiable). Some people cite: wanting to contain local issues or business interests within a district, or "positive" racial gerrymandering, insuring a racial minority a seat through gerrymandering because otherwise the rounding error produced by representative governance would eliminate representation of sufficiently small or dispersed minorities.
If not following census tract outlines, there are also some objections to some what-if cases, like when a house lies directly on the algorithmically generated district border, but those largely have very simple solutions (for example: alternate which side of the border to assign the houses to. Or assign them all to one side: it's so statistically unlikely it would rarely make a difference).
You may be interested in this. The end of the article is some manufactured inter-generational bs but the first part is good.
Text analytics would say look for a higher frequency of first-person than third-person pronoun use.
Uh.. I meant to say:
"In my own opinion, when I, myself, would try to determine this, methinks I would look for a higher frequency of first-person than third-person pronoun use in our writing. I think that would be a good way to go about it, at least in my opinion. We should try and solve it that way. At least that's how me and mine would solve it. Us."
Now for mostly speculations:
Perhaps facebook-likes more of their own content or reposts more of their own content than others' (or a relative higher rate of doing that).
Edit their profiles more frequently (actually has some evidence as per the article). Visits others' profiles less.
May take on-going communal (each response in a thread coming from a different user) conversations and interject personal conclusions.
Ignore social cues of socially unsatisfactory behavior. A lot of sites allow downvoting of content to try to provide some rudimentary quality control. Without getting into how actually effective that is, I'll just say that some people continue to comment despite being repeatedly socially discouraged to by this indicator. Whether this is narcissism or useful stubbornness or something else is debatable.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely hilarious on so many levels.
Thinking about the concept of trigger warnings got me thinking of a related opposite: curse words. Both are attempts to try to co-opt our brains' reflexive spontaneity- rather than deliberation or conscious effort- in absorbing information.
This spontaneity of information processing is why words themselves can be an assault of sorts, because our brains alone, if you think about it, cannot stop the invasive act of communication. Once read or heard, words immediately are interpreted and form into ideas in our heads, whether we wanted to absorb them or not. There is no perfect way of both understanding an offensive concept and filtering it out before it can be absorbed, because it MUST be absorbed and understood before it can be screened. The criteria we are left to rely on to guess whether or not upcoming words will be offensive or not is really only contextual information, which can't completely, perfectly, portend what's coming next.
And because our brains evolve the associations we have with words anyway (semantic change), trigger warnings are in an unending arms race in which they continuously try to maintain their intended purpose and meaning while losing it, like Steven Pinker's euphemism treadmill.
A particular trigger warning will progressively take on more and more of the meaning it was created to prevent in the mind of a person comprehending it on repeated exposures- until a new one is invented, at least.