'Verified' Is Now a Derogatory Term on Twitter (theoutline.com) 416
From an article on The Outline: Since 2009, Twitter has added a blue checkmark symbol to certain accounts that have been deemed "verified," which means "that an account of public interest is authentic," according to Twitter. For some, the verified distinction is coveted. For others, it's become a dirty word. "Verifieds" or "blue checks" are the elite, the establishment. Since many members of the media are verified, they have also become associated, for some, with the perceived liberal bias of the fourth estate. Conservatives, alt-righters, and Donald Trump fans have noticed that when Trump tweets, there is invariably a flood of "blue check liberals" responding in a negative way. There is also the perception that Twitter, a California company, is biased toward liberals. Also, according to Twitter, there are now about 250,000 people who're verified on the site, some of which are for unknown reasons.
It's become derogatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not widely. I've never heard of this.
Not surprising considering how few people actually use twitter.
Re:It's become derogatory? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Not widely. I've never heard of this.
I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you.
Seriously though, you should have.
A couple years ago Twitter began revoking blue check marks from the trolly right wingers. Prior to this, the blue check mark just meant "this person is who they purport to be" with a twinge of "...and is important enough that we verified that fact". When they started revoking blue check marks, it added a new piece to it, "...and we editorially support what they say, in some fashion, because if we did not, we would have revoke their check mark".
At this point, it was fully politicized, but it was not discussed that widely. But once Twitter had made this editorial decision to "demote" those whose views they disliked, but had broken no terms of service, the next logical question would be to select the second-most-trolly right winger and ask, well ok, why do THEY have a blue check still? Do you guys agree with them?
This double meaning, and the twitter management wading into political debate, really hurts trust in their system*. There's also accusations of them handling political tweets that they disagree with differently- pushing them out to users at different times, claiming a tweet isn't found, etc. Unlike the blue check thing, which is very obviously top down policy, this one may just be a conspiracy theory (and maybe in fact just due to the fact that twitter's infrastructure is duct tape apparently). However, it's a lot more plausible than it was before they started doing this.
Another semi-conspiracy is that the anti-Trump tweets that respond to every Trump tweet and are always listed at the top are, in some sense, "rigged". This one also can't be shown to be true, but again, is more plausible given the provable side twitter has taken.
Basically, twitter not only has an agenda, but this has resulted in a bunch of claims that are plausible instead of laughable.
*I don't exactly know why anyone ever assumed that twitter would be an open platform without their own corporate and personal agenda, but apparently a ton of people made that assumption, and now are shocked to find that that was not the case.
Re: (Score:3)
> Is there evidence supporting the claim that the loss of the verified mark was related to their opinions and not an ambiguity in who was actually posting
One easy-to-find case:
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Milo, of course, went on to be completely banned by twitter at a later time. But there was ABSOLUTELY no question than he was who he said he was: there was no ambiguity. So there's your "evidence supporting the claim". Because he was later banned, it definitely fits the idea that they unverified
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's become derogatory? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So why remove the check-mark?
Because whether the check-mark is meant to be seen as an endorsement, people do anyway.
Re:It's become derogatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because whether the check-mark is meant to be seen as an endorsement, people do anyway.
So now I can reasonably assume that anybody with a check-mark is seen as a good boy by twitter? So I can also assume the guy that tweets about white genocide and vomiting when he sees a uniformed service member being treated well is considered a good boy by twitter because he *still* has a check-mark?
Re: (Score:3)
So now I can reasonably assume that anybody with a check-mark is seen as a good boy by twitter?
That would be stupid and unreasonable, so I can see why you would think that, but it's not what I said.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
However that is why you insinuated. Like it or not . You can't say people see things that aren't there. But nobody will ever come to the conclusion of what he said based on your words.
Moving goal posts: check
Contradiction within one comment: check
Holier than thou attitude: check
Found the libtard!
Re: (Score:2)
Holier than thou attitude: check
Found the libtard!
contradiction within one comment: check
hey, look, it's a hyprocrite, everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
But, the removal of the check is effectively and apparently a removal of endorsement. That much is clear. So, you'll forgive those of us who, while we see the distinction that mere semantics would allow for, will naturally come to the conclusion that the check mark is a de facto endorsement.
Re:It's become derogatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Before they banned Milo Y. they"unverified" him.
So this either means that they believed someone had kidnapped him and was now posting in his name...
or...
The didn't like what he was saying, so they unverified him as a way to de-legitimize him.
So which is it? Why would the "unverify" him?
Re: (Score:3)
If it is not intended as an endorsement, then Twitter would not be treating it as an endorsement. Which they clearly did.
Since it's their fucking site, I think that pretty much means that's how they intended the Verified moniker to be used.
Re:It's become derogatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
i think his point was. if you adopt the role of mediating who is and who isn't deserving of a checkmark, dependent in part of your approval of their ideological position and not purely as a verification, per removal of check-marks putatively for behavior as a punitive measure, then you necessarily also adopt the responsibility of failing to moderate certain individuals.
as someone else pointed out. if twitter wants to moderate its user's behavior so be it, but in doing so they jeopardize or sacrifice any claim they have to safe harbor as telecomms.
you can't moderate your users and then claim to be a simple impartial facilitator of communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's become derogatory? (Score:2)
You need to go talk to Socrates.
Re: (Score:3)
Does he have a blue checkmark?
Re: It's become derogatory? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Milo unverified on twitter Jan 2016:
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Milo banned on twitter Jun 2016:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
So they DID unverify Milo, with no reason given, and certainly no doubt as to his authenticity. Six months later they banned him for ToS violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already did....
Its called Gab.ai, alt right phenom VoxDay promoted it endlessly a while back.
https://gab.ai/ [gab.ai]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because conservatives are well-known as pragmatic and open-minded people.
They're not the ones on university campuses or society trying to shut down speech, engaging in no-platforming, violently assaulting people for having different opinions, pushing safe spaces, engaging in racism like progressives are. Or have you failed to miss how much identity politics, anti-white bullshit gets pushed out by people who claim to be "moral arbiters" and standing up for minorities?
So yep, conservatives do seem to be the pragmatic and open-minded ones these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I do so love people who think their side's shit doesnt smell
Re: (Score:3)
Sure: half of it's sideways, it's compressed all to fuck, the aspect ratio on the left half has been mangled and the composition on the right panel sucks. Visually it's a total disaster.
You should probably tell the ones protesting free speech then to figure out how to hold a camera then. That is if they don't beat you, smash your camera, and you spend a day or two in hospital recovering from your "run-in" with them.
Re: BOHICA (Score:4, Insightful)
... trying to delegitimize every news source to his left counts as trying to shut down speech.
Really? So you're saying that his opinions of something are trying to shut them down. Or that he's right when you can find the media is vastly left-wing, votes democrat, reporters are democrats(around 90%) and 95-97% of them in the beltway donate to democrats or are democrats. Or that 90% of what they report is all negative, even when the subject is positive.
It's not like the MSM haven't spent decades delegitimizing themselves to well...everyone. Which is why the trust of the press in most of the west is between 8% and 15% or anything. No, you want to see what trying to shut down speech looks like? Go pay attention to what's happening to youtube right now, and sites like the WSJ, gizmodo, et.al., directly attacking the source of revenue for people because they don't "conform" to their ideology. That's what an attack on free speech looks like.
Seems about right. (Score:5, Interesting)
The biases of Twitter can be quite easily seen by looking at the "Safety Council", tasked with keeping Twitter free of undesireables.
( https://about.twitter.com/safe... [twitter.com] )
Furthermore, it is quite telling that Twitter punished notorious troll and agitator Milo Yiannopoulos by removing his verified tag. Why would they do that if the tag was only there to assert that the account was in fact verified as belonging to the real Milo Yiannopoulos?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Milo is a gay republican and that just cannot be.
This paradigm didn't compute so they removed his green check.
Re:Seems about right. (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter punished notorious troll and agitator Milo Yiannopoulos by removing his verified tag.
Are you sure it isn't wasn't because he changed his information within his profile?
"Changing information, such as your profile image, can cause Twitter to remove the badge,"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He was trying to martyr himself for years. Find an obscure rule and break it, then feign ignorance and start some conspiracy theories.
He's basically a professional victim, whose baiting eventually went too far.
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that *your* wild conspiracy theory is more probable than his? And then adding a Trumpesque straw man in for good measure? How exactly did you picture that argument going in your head?
What *is* far more likely is that
a) the verification badge has at some point started to mean something more/other than just a verification of the person behind the account. This is not unusual, it happens with symbols all the time (Southern Flag -> Jim Crow stuff, Swastika -> Nazi stuff, Viking sy
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe they just applied the rules as written long before Milo came along. It's not even a conspiracy theory, as it doesn't require any conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure it isn't wasn't because he changed his information within his profile?
"Changing information, such as your profile image, can cause Twitter to remove the badge,"
Considering he's filed with the UK data commissioner for the disclosure of why it was removed, and why he was banned? Nobody knows, not even him. By law twitter has to disclose these reasons. And twitter has been stonewalling him and the UK data commissioner for over 9mo's now as to "why" should tell people a lot about what's exactly going on.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really respect those kinds of degrees either, but your complaints are laughable.
If those so-called "soft degree" liberals can run a successful social media organization, they are doing their jobs effectively.
If you are opposed to their views and cannot muster a community or audience to rival theirs, they are outperforming you.
Don't waste your time going down the "you have no right to a platform" and "free speech only matters when the government is the censor" paths with this, either. Those tired old memes have been beaten to death and we all know that you really mean "I only like the concept of freedom of speech when it applies to me and those who agree with me."
If you need the government to provide you with a speaking platform, you are weak and pathetic. No handouts, buddy. Freedom of speech means the government doesn't play favorites
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Your opinions differ from mine, let me label you with a term my peers and I have deemed derogatory and threaten you with violence"
Keep loosing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to me he's winning it.
Milo is successful at trolling the dumbshits who support him, along with everyone else. He is getting paid to troll everyone. That is a kind of winning, but it's not the kind you think it is. Unless, of course, you have figured this out, and are not actually behind him, only amused by him. Personally, I'm revolted, because of the amount of time and energy wasted talking about him, but if it wasn't him it would just be some other troll and it will be ever thus until people learn to stop feeding trolls. But s
He's a troll because...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Milo is a troll because of his message, or because of how it's delivered? People on the right finally figured out that no matter how they say things, the progressive left will attack. Milo, and to a large extent President Trump have figured out that being "politically correct" has never worked. The target is constantly moving, and only favors the progressive left. The progressive left is now beginning to eat as much as they dish out, and they don't like it.
We hear the same claims about Ann Coulter, Ben
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I disagree is that the arguments for wanting to control borders/immigration or having concerns for ones own populace results in the progressive left labeling you with one or all of those labels. I would further add that the demands for increased Government control, broad censorship, increases bureaucracy for wealth redistribution programs, and promotion of anarchy through neglecting laws all comes with one or more of those same labels. "We can't stop those people from breaking windows and assaulting
It's easy for it to look that way. (Score:5, Informative)
It does look elitist. I'm not so sure that it's a nefarious scheme so much as a by-product of a sorting algorithm. It would be nice to be able to easily sort those responses. When showing replies to a Tweet, Twitter prioritizes the verified accounts, as they are typically more visible (more followers see and like their replies). We see them first, even if we have no clue who the person is. For high profile accounts, like the president, there is bound to be thousands of responses. If even a small percentage of those are "blue checks", they tend to drown out the other responses. Their voice gets a priority. It can be pretty tiring, especially when the first few people responding have multiple replies. They appear to be "hogging" the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to start with a definition of "elitist", rather than going with what feels elitist to you.
Elitism is granting irrational preference for the opinions of an elite. It follows that the nature of the elite in question matters. It's irrational to have more interest in Matthew McConaughey's opinion on the national budget than some internet rando's opinion, but it's not irrational to have more interest in Paul Krugman's -- even if you disagree with it.
Trumpism, it seems to me, isn't so much anti-elitist
Re: (Score:2)
No, you appear to have just added the irrational part in. Granted, criticisms of elitism are typically rooted in their irrationality, but that doesn't make irrationality a necessary component of elitism.
Re: (Score:2)
The nature of the elitism on twitter is identity verification and number of followers.
No, that is the nature of the perceived elitism. No one has actually offered any evidence that it exists, only cried about it a lot. No evidence, only tears now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you contesting that twitter shows comments from users with more followers more prominently, or are you contesting that it is elitism?
It is not elitism to show the majority of your users what they want to see. That's called service.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that has nothing to do with the definition of elitism. Elitism has nothing to do with what is rational, and nothing to do with what people want. It's about the interests and views of the elite having more weight or being taken more seriously. The elite of twitter are MATHEMATICALLY WEIGHTED to be more important.
You don't seem to be arguing that there isn't elitism, you're just saying it's a feature, not a bug. I would not totally disagree, however there are weaknesses to that approach. That's a b
Re: (Score:2)
No, you appear to have just added the irrational part in.
Well, elitism defined your way is nothing to complain about.
When people use "elitism" as they have here, they mean it in a pejorative sense. They are talking about an unreasonable elitism. If you wish to admit reasonable elitism to the discussion, fine, but then we're no longer discussing the feelings people have toward Twitter's policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except those same biases can favor corporate propagandists over actual journalists.
Point to it happening, or stop spreading FUD.
Quit assuming that twitter is an inherently democratic system that gives roughly equal audience to all voices.
Quit assuming that I'm making such assumptions. I don't think that Twitter does that, that they should do that, or that they should be forced to do that. See, we have this thing called freedom of speech. They don't have to give dumbshits a soapbox.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitters own algorithms favor people with more followers. That's been established. Chris Hayes is mostly a corporate propagandist, and has a million followers. Jordan Chariton is an actual journalist, and has around 76K followers. If the two of them commented on something, Hayes would get more attention. Glenn Greenwald would be one of the most popular of the actual journalists, and he hasn't quite topped 900k.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it looks elitist if you're a brownshirted alt-nazi who is seeing the masses rise up...
Thanks for your contribution, it really added a lot to the conversation! You might want to try & add a few more ad-homs next time though.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your contribution, it really added a lot to the conversation! You might want to try & add a few more ad-homs next time though.
I note that your response added absolutely nothing to the conversation, and this fact will not escape the audience. Try harder, son. You'll never get it, but you're fun to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm unambiguously Liberal, and to me there is an appearance of elitism. I'm not necessarily among those droves who you say would be leaving Twitter, but I certainly don't typically comment on high profile posts, simply because I know it would be a waste of time, as my reply would quickly get drowned out by blue-checked accounts who rise to the top quickly. I never said this was unjust or even a problem, but it definitely is a reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unambiguously Liberal, and to me there is an appearance of elitism.
So just to be clear, there are more verified people sharing progressive views, and you think that's elitist? That doesn't actually make any sense. First you'd have to show some evidence that alt-righty-whities who can only write their name in crayon are actually successfully and faithfully filling out the form to become a verified twitter user, and then you'd have to show that there is a significant public interest in having them verified. That's because Twitter's standard for verifying accounts is both tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Liberal elites" are center-right corporatists, and their use of smug condescension as a replacement for actually advocating actual progressive views only drives the right away.
If you think the liberal elites are smugly condescending, you haven't been listening to the alt-nazis talk about cucks — at the same time that "their" leaders are selling them up the river for short-term profits. Cucks, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck do you keep bringing race into this you ignorant piece of shit. YOURE THE PROBLEM how don't you see this.
Sure (Score:5, Funny)
@realDonaldTrump is a blue check. What more do you need?
So what this means... (Score:2)
So what you're saying, is that conservatives who come from other social media sites to post on twitter, they're....
undocumented immigrants to twitter?
Interesting...
Re: (Score:2)
Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
... low numbers on Slashdot are not to be trusted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
Even more, anything lower than 4 digits are untrustworthy!
Does anyone still use Twitter? (Score:2)
It's Not (Score:2)
Stop participating in confused people's erroneous perceptions. This one embodies a string of fallacies and rational people have no obligation but to pity their confusion. Amplifying their misperceptions is a disservice to everybody involved.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want insight into that abyss of delusions of grandeur and power built on deep set foundations of inferiority complex... you should listen to this episode of This American Life:
Meme Come True [thisamericanlife.org]
From claims like "We did it. We memed him into the presidency." to the idea of "meme magicians" - it's the crowd who are living the life of cognitive delusion where they are part of both the persecuted, yet jaded, minority and of powerful "king making" elite, doing it for the lulz.
Very misleading headline (Score:2)
Being "verified" is only derogatory from the perspective of users who believe in alternative facts. They are far from a majority, even if they are exceptionally loud.
Also, how is this newsworthy? People have unconventional opinions, and for every norm there is a small population that opposes it.
Wake me up if these people ever do anything interesting with this attitude. Something interesting means "more than dismissive or disprespectful attitudes"---those are a dime a dozen on the internet.
Re: Very misleading headline (Score:2)
Twitters "liberal bias" is hardly a perception (Score:5, Insightful)
They drank the social justice kool-aid a while back. And that group of "the left" has managed to steal the "liberal" label somehow.
And no, I'm not an alt-right nutter. No, I didn't vote for Trump. No, I don't think Brexit is great. No, I don't think Obama was evil incarnate. My introduction to SJWs was when they destroyed what was a reasonably functioning atheist community with their religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, I'm not an alt-right nutter.
Don't worry, you'll get there. You're already seeing how evil the SJW's are. You'll get red pilled like the rest in no time.
It's funny, I run into a lot of people that make statements just like yours. You're still on the fence because you've been told for so long that "right" is bad and "left" is good. Once you get over that it's like breathing fresh air for the first time. You can give both "sides" the middle finger equally and start operating on whats right and wrong rather than whats right and left.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who uses the term "SJW" is too far gone already. The best thing is to point and laugh.
What ISN'T a derogatory term? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm still confused as to why both political sides decided "the elites" needed to be thrown out. We knew they weren't great, but they were a known, sane quantity. Corruption charges were fairly boring or obviously nonsense. The "outsider" in office now on the other hand seems to do things without rhyme or reason. "Cut funding for cancer research and build a wall that will be less effective than the great wall of China!" And the accusations of corr
Mao Mao (Score:2)
The alt-Right seeing Twitter verification as derogatory reminds me of the way the 20th century hard-core Communists used to see using a toothbrush or wearing glasses as a evidence that you are an elitist.
I don't get it. (Score:2)
Re:The truth (Score:5, Insightful)
So does reality. And sanity.
A sane world is a free one. Because only in a free world you will get to hear ALL opinions, even the ones you do not want to hear. Ideas that go against your religion, your groupthink, your echo chamber and your peer group approval. They will not be filtered and they will reach you.
Reality on the other hand simply is. No matter how much you wish it away. Saying it ain't simply isn't going to serve you well, for reality is a cruel mistress who will remind you that she's in charge. No matter your wishes, no matter your doctrine or your conviction.
And yes, that works for the alt-right as much as for the alt-left (or whatever the term is for the regressive left is today, I fail to keep track and quite honestly, I couldn't care less what attribute they want to be associated with today). Sanity as well as reality is found in the middle ground. Not the extremes.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is people who conflate expressing ideas and harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
it's the ctrl left.
should i tolerate islamic sexism? if i criticize it will i be called an islamophobe? should i question the 80 cents on a dollar? would i be called sexist if i do? should i ask questions about the statistics of black on black violence? will i be called racist if i do? should i make a distinction between how i feel of legal immigration and illegal immigration? will i be called xenophobe if i do?
they are controlling the 'acceptable' narrative of life in the united states, because asking que
Re: (Score:2)
And calling them the alt-left is bullshit, because they're the opposite of trying to force people to believe what they believe.
No, I'm pretty sure if I go to UC Berkley and say "men and women have real physical biological differences that result in behavioral differences that are not merely socially constructed, and the same is true of different human haplogroups (broadly grouped into "races" or "ethnicities"). I have documented, reproducible scientific studies to prove these things and would like to peacefully make my case so that others can make up their own minds about these issues" I'm pretty sure they will literally beat me to
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm pretty sure if I go to UC Berkley and say "men and women have real physical biological differences that result in behavioral differences that are not merely socially constructed, and the same is true of different human haplogroups (broadly grouped into "races" or "ethnicities"). I have documented, reproducible scientific studies to prove these things and would like to peacefully make my case so that others can make up their own minds about these issues" I'm pretty sure they will literally beat me to within an inch of my life.
This is a parody of some kind, right? Please tell me it is a parody. Nobody can really believe this, surely?
Re: The truth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how the police can reasonably make that determination when they didn't bother to arrest anyone. Apparently putting on a black mask and shirt revokes your status as a student or teacher at Berkeley for the duration you wear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the liberal protesting students joined in. They may not have thrown the first punch. But after Anifta virtual signaled by hitting people and damaging property, they joined right in.
Re: (Score:2)
... virtual signaled ...
I'm sorry, but righty jargon is evolving so fast I can't keep track any more. What the hell does 'virtual signaled' mean? Typo for 'virtue signaled'? A favourite righty phrase that seems to mean 'nice, so I hate him', or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense in this context. Virtual as in emulated/simulated? What does that even mean? Eh?
Re: (Score:2)
I pointed out many times conservatives were not allowed to speak because of liberals. I think you are probably not smart enough to follow what was being discussed.
Pointing out that facts were left out of a narrative that changes the circumstances is only my way of pointing out everyone has an agenda.
In fact you helped out my point by showing liberals PAY outside people to riot when conservatives give speeches.
And when did I do that? All I said was an outside group say the protest as a opportunity for mayhem. Factually, the student protestors had nothing to do with the riot. Nowhere did I say anything you claim. What you are saying is basically a lie.
I have yet to hear of a riot preventing a liberal from speaking, unless it was other liberals preventing it.
Your knowledge of history is poor: Kent State, Birmingham, the entire history of the KKK?
Thanks for helping make my point. Censorship is the #2 pillar of liberalism.
KKK? Nazis? Communism? Wow you seem not
Re: (Score:2)
Well I can god damm tell you that Obama ordering the FBI not to ever use the term "radical Muslim" didn't help make terrorism go away.
Re: (Score:3)
tends to have a liberal bias.
Get over it.
I think calling it a "liberal bias" in the first place is very misleading. It is a Democratic Party bias of the big city press. Born of cultivated political and personal relationships made in big cities controlled by the Democratic Party which also happen to be the centers of media markets.
I've personally seen this play out where reporters from the main press outlets are given office space inside city hall and the state government and clearly develop a symbiotic relationship with the political establishme
Re: (Score:2)
Silly person - they won't ban Trump because the press NEEDS Trump on Twitter.
Without his tweets, how would they know what to complain about?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "how would they know what stupid thing he is going to do next".
Re: Ban Trump from Twitter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that so-called "liberals" don't use your one dictionary to select their behaviour.
I know how that goes. I'm a moderate conservative and I get crap from holier-than-thou crowd because I don't meet their definition of conservatism. One of the reasons why I'm no longer a Republican. I bailed out before the 2016 election.
Re: (Score:3)
Bias is an inclination or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. According to wikipedia,
Have you seen conservative bias? It's an alternative reality filled with alternative facts. When Obama was president, my Tea Party-loving, lily-white relatives in Idaho emailed clippings out of the right-wing echo chamber. I could prove every item was factually wrong in some way.
Re:Liberals are evolved, conservatives are primiti (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not completely sure that this isn't a troll, but I'll answer up as if it isn't. It would have been better if it wasn't an Anonymous Coward posting with no way to establish the context from which the author has spoken...
This illustrates a big part of the problem. A belief that a particular political viewpoint is so correct, and another so wrong, that merely expressing views associated with the latter automatically makes one wrong.
It may be the case that loonies are more likely to identify with a conservative, individualistic political ideology more so than a group-think government-take-care-of-me political philosophy, and since loonies tend to be outspoken and get attention, those loonies might be seen as the face of that political philosophy. But that appearance doesn't make it so.
The current trend of folks wearing a liberal banner shutting down conversations about significant issues simply because the alternate viewpoint from theirs MUST be wrong because it's not their viewpoint is troubling to me. It's the political equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, and vocalizing "nyahh nyah nyah" as loud as one can. Donald Trump won the election because a significant number of people in the US voted for him. Wouldn't it make sense to try and understand WHY people voted for him rather than just shouting "He's not MY president" and suggesting that the political process in the United States has somehow gone off the rails because your candidate didn't get elected? It doesn't seem like very evolved behavior to me.
People believe all sorts of things, and they believe them for all sorts of reasons. Dismissing others beliefs because they don't line up with the beliefs that you hold dear isn't a sign of intelligence; it's a sign of close-mindedness. From my viewpoint, it seems like a lot of liberals are the kind of people who like living in a denser, urban environment, while a lot of conservatives are people who like living in a less-crowded, non-urban environment. Perhaps this acts as a filter for political beliefs. Perhaps it's possible that liberal beliefs work well in an urban environment, while conservative beliefs work well outside of that environment. I currently live in a US state that has a tradition of having individualistic citizens, yet has developed significant urban populations in some parts. The political demographics seem to support the notion that urban-dwellers are more liberal, while non-urban dwellers are more conservative. Does this mean that the future of the human race is to live in dense urban environments with liberal politics? I hope not, because that isn't an environment that I would like to live in, and one that I have specifically chosen NOT to live in. Is my choice invalid? Am I broken or defective because I don't want to live that way, or is it a valid choice of mine to not live that way?
I believe many things and have rejected belief in many others. I've been called a Skeptic before I was aware that it was a thing because I believe in evidence-based reasoning. I was raised in a northeastern US state as a southern baptist, but threw away the religious beliefs I was taught when I went to college and found a better explanation with more evidence. I've spent a lot of my professional career using knowledge and reason to to separate fact from fiction, to understand why things have occurred, and what is most likely to make things work better in the future. In my mind, THAT is a more evolved human. The use of reason, thinking based on evidence, and considering all of the data, not just the data that favors what I would like to be true.
As soon as one starts labeling things, including people, one ceases to be able to truly understand them. Labels are useful abstractions, and its human to use them, but some of the most interesting discoveries come from peering past the labels to truly see.
I would like to see some political dialogs that don't assume right and wrong based on party membership, I would like to see political dialogs that don't reject other's beliefs simply because they are counter to one's own. And for the sake of the FSM, I would really like to see an end to self-appointed moral superiority.