Political Polarization Toned Down Through Anonymous Online Chats (arstechnica.com) 293
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Political polarization in the US has become a major issue, as Republicans and Democrats increasingly inhabit separate realities on topics as diverse as election results and infectious diseases. [...] Now, a team of researchers has tested whether social media can potentially help the situation by getting people with opposite political leanings talking to each other about controversial topics. While this significantly reduced polarization, it appeared to be more effective for Republican participants. The researchers zeroed in on two concepts to design their approach. The first is the idea that simply getting people to communicate across the political divide might reduce the sense that at least some of their opponents aren't as extreme as they're often made out to be. The second is that anonymity would allow people to focus on the content of their discussion, rather than worrying about whether what they were saying could be traced back to them.
The researchers realized that they couldn't have any sort of control over conversations on existing social networks. So, they built their own application and hired professionals to do the graphics, support, and moderation. [...] People were randomly assigned to a few conditions. Some didn't use the app at all and were simply asked to write an essay on one of the topics under consideration (immigration or gun control). The rest were asked to converse on the platform about one of these topics. Every participant in these conversations was paired with a member of the opposing political party. Their partners were either unlabeled, labeled as belonging to the opposing party, or labeled as belonging to the same party (although the latter is untrue). Both before and after use of the app, participants answered questions about their view of politicized issues, members of their own party, and political opponents. These were analyzed in terms of issues and social influences, as well as rolled into a single index of polarization for the analysis.
The conversations appeared to have an effect, with polarization lowered by about a quarter of a standard deviation among those who engaged with political opponents that were labeled accordingly. Somewhat surprisingly, conversation partners who were mislabeled had a nearly identical effect, presumably because they suggested that a person's own party contained a diversity of perspectives on the topic. In cases where no party affiliation was given, the depolarization was smaller (0.15 standard deviations). The striking thing is that most of the change came from Republican participants. There, polarization was reduced by 0.4 standard deviations. In contrast, Democratic participants only saw it drop by 0.1 standard deviations -- a change that wasn't statistically significant. The error bars of the two groups of party members overlapped, however, so while large, it's not clear what this difference might tell us. The researchers went back and ran the conversations through sentiment analysis and focused on people whose polarization had dropped the most. They found that their conversation partners used less heated language at the start of the conversation. So it appears that displaying respect for your political opponents can still make a difference, at least in one-on-one conversations. While the conversations had a larger impact on people's views of individual issues, it also influenced their opinion of their political opponents more generally, and the difference between the two effects wasn't statistically significant. The findings have been published in the journal Nature Human Behavior.
The researchers realized that they couldn't have any sort of control over conversations on existing social networks. So, they built their own application and hired professionals to do the graphics, support, and moderation. [...] People were randomly assigned to a few conditions. Some didn't use the app at all and were simply asked to write an essay on one of the topics under consideration (immigration or gun control). The rest were asked to converse on the platform about one of these topics. Every participant in these conversations was paired with a member of the opposing political party. Their partners were either unlabeled, labeled as belonging to the opposing party, or labeled as belonging to the same party (although the latter is untrue). Both before and after use of the app, participants answered questions about their view of politicized issues, members of their own party, and political opponents. These were analyzed in terms of issues and social influences, as well as rolled into a single index of polarization for the analysis.
The conversations appeared to have an effect, with polarization lowered by about a quarter of a standard deviation among those who engaged with political opponents that were labeled accordingly. Somewhat surprisingly, conversation partners who were mislabeled had a nearly identical effect, presumably because they suggested that a person's own party contained a diversity of perspectives on the topic. In cases where no party affiliation was given, the depolarization was smaller (0.15 standard deviations). The striking thing is that most of the change came from Republican participants. There, polarization was reduced by 0.4 standard deviations. In contrast, Democratic participants only saw it drop by 0.1 standard deviations -- a change that wasn't statistically significant. The error bars of the two groups of party members overlapped, however, so while large, it's not clear what this difference might tell us. The researchers went back and ran the conversations through sentiment analysis and focused on people whose polarization had dropped the most. They found that their conversation partners used less heated language at the start of the conversation. So it appears that displaying respect for your political opponents can still make a difference, at least in one-on-one conversations. While the conversations had a larger impact on people's views of individual issues, it also influenced their opinion of their political opponents more generally, and the difference between the two effects wasn't statistically significant. The findings have been published in the journal Nature Human Behavior.
Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine that not knowing the label applied to the person you're talking to removes a lot of the "baggage" associated with it.
And as people are not robots with a pile of pre-packaged opinions, you end up finding quite a bit of potential common ground that would not be possible normally.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It wasn't the anonymity, it was the "moderation", because they needed to "control" the conversation, to "depolarize" the conservatives.
I think all they really proved, is if you ban posts you get less of the posts that you don't like.
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
It helps because the lack of anonymity combined with the reach of the Internet means that if you step out of line, you risk having your entire life ruined. Why bother doing that "just" for the sake of entertaining a controversial topic or attempting to have a debate? Thus everyone tends to engage in safe kneeling and the expected worship behavior. You kneel in the pew when everyone else does, and you sing the hymns like everyone else.
The problems with this are of course becoming more and more obvious as we exit our immature and unrestricted social media phase and come to recognize its insidious potential for harm.
Re: Anonymity HELPS? (Score:3)
The most radical comments on here are from Anonymous Cowards. The proof is irrefutable.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of it may be making the other person anonymous vs a "known" person (ie: user 3443290 leans towards X party and we were sparring 3 weeks ago about Y policy where they were being completely unreasonable, so I will now return the favor).
Aaron Z
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it isn't their identity which is obscured but rather their political affiliation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, but also no.
Anonymity makes people more likely to be honest about what they believe. But it also makes people into assholes because the absence of moderation tends to make people with narcissist and sociopathic (never mind psychopathic) tendencies want control.
So in a controlled experiment where sociopath/psychopath's are not trying to get people to hurt or kill each other, I can see how this experiment put level-headed people on any side of the political spectrum into a conversation that doesn't
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the quote is "a person is smart, people are stupid", and the reason is, people are manipulated quite easily. It was something we learned in school, and it has always messed us up ever since.
The most important skill you can learn is, fuck the popular opinion of your group. Validate it for yourself, think for yourself... otherwise known as critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
The silent majority doesn't give a fuck about either of the fringe positions. All they want is to live their life and not be pestered by the loonies on either side off the deep end.
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it helps! People aren't then afraid to be cancelled, lose their jobs and get their bank account blocked (like it happened in Canada for protesting against vaccines).
That's highly misleading. The people who had their accounts frozen didn't have that happen because they protested against the COVID vaccine. There were plenty of highly publicized protests that were done legally where there were zero repercussions. The "trucker convoy" on the other hand were illegal blockades that also harassed neighborhoods, and their stated goals were went all the way up to dissolution of the Canadian government system. System. Not current ruling group. And again, illegal.
How many people do you think are in the same situation as I am? Probably the silent majority!
Probably? Based on paranoia, yes. Based on what actually happened? Only the paranoid.
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because what you say is not what the data suggests at all, yet you receive Insightful scores, which then strokes your ego and that of those that rated you higher for it being "the one and only truth".
On the contrary, the data suggests that it's your type of people that's so obsessed with being cancelled depolarizes the most when the peer pressure of the echochamber is removed.
Re: Anonymity HELPS? (Score:2)
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymity helps? That honestly surprises me quite a bit.
Of course it helps! People aren't then afraid to be cancelled, lose their jobs and get their bank account blocked (like it happened in Canada for protesting against vaccines). They thus feel more confident in telling the truth and say what they really think about various topics that are now censored and where dissidence isn't allowed.
I post this anon so I won't lose my job and get my bank account frozen. How many people do you think are in the same situation as I am? Probably the silent majority!
What the Canadians did was that the corporate accounts of truckers blocking roads in protest at having been required to get COVID jabs were frozen and the the insurance on their vehicles was suspended. The thing is that Canada is a democracy, 83.2% of the Canadian population outvoted you and your anti-vaxxer beliefs by getting vaccinated. Since majority rules in a democracy you have one option, which is to just suck it up and learn to live with having been out-voted. You see, while *you*, may be more than willing to pay for your anti-vaxxer lifestyle with the lives of other people whenever you infect them with COVID on your travels accross Canda and the USA that does not mean that the people you infect want to die for your anti-vaxxer ideology and they will do something to limit the damage you can do (unfair as that may appear to you). Posting this anon to demonstrate that this study must be flawed since, strangely enough, posting anonymously did nothing to bring me over to this flat earth, anti-vaxxer, motherfucker's point of view.
What Canada did, was punish people who broke the law. Had they just broken up the protest when asked politely absolutely nothing would have happened. They persisted hoping there was a popular uprising, which never occured so the police charged for their offences and everyone (except the morons) lived happily ever after.
They had made their point by the time they were asked to leave, it's just that no-one agreed with them (weren't a significant portion of the protesters not Canadian as well).
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymity helps? That honestly surprises me quite a bit.
Of course it helps! People aren't then afraid to be cancelled, lose their jobs and get their bank account blocked (like it happened in Canada for protesting against vaccines). They thus feel more confident in telling the truth and say what they really think about various topics that are now censored and where dissidence isn't allowed.
I post this anon so I won't lose my job and get my bank account frozen. How many people do you think are in the same situation as I am? Probably the silent majority!
What the Canadians did was that the corporate accounts of truckers blocking roads in protest at having been required to get COVID jabs were frozen and the the insurance on their vehicles was suspended. The thing is that Canada is a democracy, 83.2% of the Canadian population outvoted you and your anti-vaxxer beliefs by getting vaccinated. Since majority rules in a democracy you have one option, which is to just suck it up and learn to live with having been out-voted. You see, while *you*, may be more than willing to pay for your anti-vaxxer lifestyle with the lives of other people whenever you infect them with COVID on your travels accross Canda and the USA that does not mean that the people you infect want to die for your anti-vaxxer ideology and they will do something to limit the damage you can do (unfair as that may appear to you). Posting this anon to demonstrate that this study must be flawed since, strangely enough, posting anonymously did nothing to bring me over to this flat earth, anti-vaxxer, motherfucker's point of view.
What Canada did, was punish people who broke the law. Had they just broken up the protest when asked politely absolutely nothing would have happened. They persisted hoping there was a popular uprising, which never occured so the police charged for their offences and everyone (except the morons) lived happily ever after. They had made their point by the time they were asked to leave, it's just that no-one agreed with them (weren't a significant portion of the protesters not Canadian as well).
Canada decided that the deeply held beliefs of the few do not outweigh the detrimental effects that those deeply held beliefs will have on the health, safety and lives of the many. I cannot find fault with that logic.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The penalties had nothing to do with their anti vax beliefs and everything to do with the massive traffic disruptions and the endangering of cross boarder trade they were causing.
In Canada, just like in the US, you are free to hold moronic beliefs like the entirety of the medical industry throughout the entire world from doctors and nurses to office workers are all united in conspiracy against us to hide some horrible truth. What you're not free to do in either country is fuck up peoples lives beyond a reas
Re: (Score:3)
My comment wasn't related to the pro-vax / anti-vax issue, it was related to the authoritarianism issue:
Then why was it a reply to my own post?
The proper way to handle the situation would be to arrest those blocking traffic, then tell them "You're charged with XXX, here's your court date" and release them.
You sound so reasonable here I started to wonder a bit so I poked around a little to reinform myself on this issue. Turns out the Canadian government was acting within the context of a state of emergency that was legally declared. I know in our own BLM protests (some of which got out of hand) authorities decided to not go into large mobs of angry citizens and start making arrests as that would have likely just made things worse. Perhaps Canada was operating under the s
Re: (Score:3)
What the Canadians did was that the corporate accounts of truckers blocking roads in protest at having been required to get COVID jabs were frozen and the the insurance on their vehicles was suspended.
You'll never get conservatives to admit it, but ultimately it just came down to a difference of opinion on how to deal with protesters blocking roads. Conservative-run Florida briefly made it legal to run road-blocking protesters over with your vehicle. [vice.com] Although, it's pretty hard to run someone over while they're in a semi-truck, so you'd probably need a monster truck or a tank.
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Informative)
Still trying to understand why I have to get the vaccine for your vaccine to work. This would be the first vaccine that I've ever seen that worked that way.
Not the least, it was a at a time that the medical system was overwhelmed and people were dying because of insufficient access to medical care. Beyond death, all kinds of important but not necessarily life-threatening procedures were delayed, because of staff and equipment shortages. In short, you getting COVID and taking a hospital bed would impact others.
This is the first time in living memory where there was a vaccine against a brand new disease that had obliterated the medical system. Being asked to do your part to not be part of the problem was apparently too much for some people... who still can't demonstrate any good reason for not getting the shot. All the misinformation about microchipping and infertility... shameful. All the misrepresentation about things like blood clots... where COVID hospitalization actually resulted in worse clots, more often... shameful.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Still trying to understand why I have to get the vaccine for your vaccine to work. This would be the first vaccine that I've ever seen that worked that way.
Not the least, it was a at a time that the medical system was overwhelmed and people were dying because of insufficient access to medical care. Beyond death, all kinds of important but not necessarily life-threatening procedures were delayed, because of staff and equipment shortages. In short, you getting COVID and taking a hospital bed would impact others.
Cancer patients in serious condition were being sent home because anti-vaxxers who needlessly contracted life-threatening COVID infections needed the beds. The perverse thing about that whole situation was that a simple vaccine injection could have converted these life-threatening COVID cases into mild ones and the cancer patient could have gotten his/her treatment at the hospital if it wasn't for people wilfully refusing to use the 1000 year old thoroughly proven technology of vaccination because of someth
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Informative)
Still trying to understand why I have to get the vaccine for your vaccine to work.
This would be the first vaccine that I've ever seen that worked that way.
Not the least, it was a at a time that the medical system was overwhelmed and people were dying because of insufficient access to medical care. Beyond death, all kinds of important but not necessarily life-threatening procedures were delayed, because of staff and equipment shortages. In short, you getting COVID and taking a hospital bed would impact others.
This is the first time in living memory where there was a vaccine against a brand new disease that had obliterated the medical system.
How much of that overwhelming hospitals (at the beginning) was people who didn't need to be there, but were scared out of their wits because of what they had read/watched in the news, so they went to the ER to get tested as soon as they got the sniffles vs waiting until they needed to be hospitalized?
I have friends who work in our local hospital systems, they fired a lot of people after the shot mandates went out (due to our governor requiring vaccinations from healthcare workers who had been working COVID wards since it started) and IMO the next round of being swamped was self inflicted.
Being asked to do your part to not be part of the problem was apparently too much for some people... who still can't demonstrate any good reason for not getting the shot.
How about that as a younger, relatively healthy person (0-49, no significant comorbidities):
1. Your risk of dying of COVID extremely low (there were a total of 3071 people in that age group who died of COVID in NY, of those 2507 had significant comorbidities (per: https://coronavirus.health.ny.... [ny.gov] )
2. The variants followed the normal virus pattern where they spread faster, but have consequences that are not as severe, thus with the later variants (ie: those that were prevalent by the time the shots were being made mandatory) the difference between the experience of getting later rounds of COVID with the shot vs without it was very small for those who were otherwise healthy
3. As a result of 2, the statistical likelihood of the shot (or the later boosters) making a noticeable difference in the likelihood of you dying, or needing to be hospitalized is so low that it falls into the margin of error.
4. The shot DID NOT KEEP YOU FROM GETTING COVID AND SPREADING IT TO THOSE AROUND YOU (in fact, it may have helped reduce your symptoms to where you didn't realize that you had it until you had spread it), various of the pharma execs have testified before congress that it would not keep you from getting it.
To follow up on point 1, using the NY mortality numbers from the link above and the 2020 NY population numbers from https://www.health.ny.gov/stat... [ny.gov] here are the percentages of each age group in NY who was reported as having died of COVID:
0-9 0.002%
10-19 0.002%
20-29 0.010%
30-39 0.031%
40-49 0.082%
50-59 0.203%
60-69 0.478%
70-79 1.108%
80+ 3.173%
quote>
All the misinformation about microchipping and infertility... shameful. All the misrepresentation about things like blood clots... where COVID hospitalization actually resulted in worse clots, more often... shameful.
Misinformation flew in all directions, do you not remember hits such as:
"winter of death for the unvaccinated" (nothingburger)
"cloth masks will stop you from getting it" (they will stop you from coughing on someone else and keep someone from coughing into your mouth/nose, but otherwise they are as effective as a screen door on a submarine)
"Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus [disease 2019
Re: (Score:3)
"How about that as a younger, relatively healthy person (0-49, no significant comorbidities):
1. Your risk of dying of COVID extremely low"
You are looking only at the individual here. Your younger, healthy, etc, etc person gets COVID, probably will survive, to be sure.
But what about those around this person? Parents, Grandparents? Older co-workers? How will they fare?
It is an issue beyond just the young. Prevent it in people, regardless, and COVID doesnt spre
Re: Anonymity HELPS? (Score:2)
The vaccines were tested before EUA, and those results were made public before the vaccines were.
Covid was such an emergency that waiting for full approval was much more dangerous. That said, I personally understand why some people chose to wait for approval and utilize other measures such as staying home, social distancing, and masking in the mean time.
But that was a very small portion of the people who did not get vaccinated. Many of those people did not take precautions. And they did not get vaccinate
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fact that the vast majority of medical professionals did take the vaccine?
Under threat of losing their jobs. And many took the other option at the expense of their livelihood. That's not a ringing endorsement.
Just for the record, I am vaxxed and boosted voluntarily. However, my employer also dropped a mandate and threatened our jobs (not in medical field) but I had already had gotten mine.
Re: (Score:3)
This vaccine, in essence, was not tested.
Except for the phase 1, 2 and 3 trials which tested on some odd 50k people and it took about 10 months total.
It was also approved under an Emergency Use Authorization and did not get "full" approval until about a year later, at which point it had been under testing for some odd 2 years.
Is two years out of band for other drugs? That's your burden to prove.
You can claim it did not get *enough* testing for you but to say it got no testing is in fact a lie, because it isn't true.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's [nih.gov] plenty [nejm.org] of information to find, if you're not lazy. And there's a lot of easy to understand facts, if you're not dedicated to eating the shit of liars just to make other people smell your breath.
And the fun part is, you'll reject a
Re: (Score:2)
EUA's are not new though so considering the circumstances there would have to be some proof that what happened with the vaccines was out of the norm (besides the whole once-in-a-lifetime-pandemic) or the testing results from the trials (which are all public despite claims) showed problems.
We also had a concerted effort to get this done faster (thus the whole Operation Warp Speed, a good thing!) because, once-in-a-lifetime-pandemic.
Also let's just be honest, 99.999% of antivax doom predictions have turned up
Re: Anonymity HELPS? (Score:2)
But if you just want to act like every other liberal then go ahead. Discount everything that does not fit your narrative.
Projection.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Still trying to understand why I have to get the vaccine for your vaccine to work. This would be the first vaccine that I've ever seen that worked that way.
I see that when I called you a flat-earth, anti-vaxxer, motherfucker I was underestimating the extent of your stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
First, It's similar to antibiotics: If you stop taking them when your symptoms get better, you give the surviving strains a chance to evolve until they get resistant.
If you leave a sizeable pocket of the population unvaccinated, you create a pool of hosts for the virus to evolve resistant strains, which then can break out in the larger population.
Second: Like every cure, vaccines are a game of probabilities. Vaccines are not hundred percent effective in both supressing symptoms
Re: (Score:3)
Because you clearly do not understand two fundamental facts:
1. No vaccine is 100% effective
2. Herd immunity is a thing
Re: Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Interesting)
As your randomly assigned partner, I have to disagree. Thirty years ago we had the same differences of opinion but we were willing to work toward a compromise because that was how things got done. The old adage "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" was about giving, receiving, and meeting in the middle.
It wasn't until about fifteen years ago that someone started the notion that compromise meant you were weak. The Art of Compromise was replaced by Stand Your Ground Even if the City is Burning. The political parties started ostracizing anyone that didn't follow the party platform, even if they and their constituents were against it. The political parties slowly became the equivalent of red and blue Stepford Wives.
The solution might be as simple as other cultural integrations. Pair someone up with their opposing counterpart and get them to talk. Many people find they have more in common with their opposites and meeting in the middle isn't as abhorrent as they thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'd agree with forcing delivery after viability, provided you added a few more weeks, because >99% mortality *with* millions in cutting edge care shouldn't really count as 'viable'. And you're off by a week; 21 weeks, 1 day is the record holder. 24 weeks would be the lowest I found acceptable, and that's still 50% death with extraordinary medical intervention and 33% chance of severe disability for survivors.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you like stupid questions sure -
Of course the government has a right to protect people from physical attacks on their person. If it does not it does not have the right to do basically anything else and has no reason at all to exist.
Which is the truth - If American won't protect its must vulnerable and fragile, the yet to be born, than she has not right to exist.
unwilling to make exceptions in cases of child rape and birth defect incompatible with life or causing profound disability.
So you are fine with being punished for the crimes/sins of your father? - Right did not think so.
Doctors NEVER misdiagnose terminal conditions a
Re:Anonymity HELPS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mediators help more
If you can convince prochoicers that lifers aren't actually against choice, but rather, they fundamentally believe a baby and an embryo are the same thing
False premise. Nobody thinks that, any more than they think a baby is the same as an adult. What are you actually trying to say? That some attribute of embryos and babies is the same? Think a bit more about what you are saying.
and lifers consider terminating an embryo the same as terminating a baby, it becomes clear that lifers, based on their belief that an embryo is a baby aren't evil.
What??? Who said anything about evil. And you seem to be avoiding the problem entirely, which is one group forcing their beliefs on another. I can be a vegetarian, believing it is unethical to eat meat. That is OK, until I try to force other people to be vegetarian, or nag them incessantly.
I'd say that anyone who fundamentally believes an embryo is the same as a baby absolutely should see someone who supports terminating it as a horrible person.
I'd say you are completely wrong. The vegetarian does not think you are a horrible person for eating meat. But they do believe if you knew the suffering that caused, you might fell guilty and stop.
it is clearly impossible to make someone believe an embryo is not a baby,
You just need a dictionary. I think you are trying to say "they believe in some moral equivalence between abortion and infanticide",
but then you might need to think about what this means.
And you have completely missed the fact that most societies throughout history, including biblical times, allowed infanticide.
So why would equating that to abortion bother them? The difference was that inducing an abortion was more dangerous to the mother than killing it after birth.
But you just **assume** that everyone thinks infanticide is bad, with no reason? Massive cultural bias there.
Christian churches all across the US focus entirely on the issue that people who kill babies are fundamentally evil and as such, you should not side with evil.
Citation needed. Far from every Christian is a right-wing extremist. That is like saying every Muslim believes in stoning adulterers to death.
If you believe that they believe an embryo is a baby, any semi-moral person must agree that their hearts are in the right place.
So if I truly believe that meat-eaters , or those who work on the sabbath, are evil and should be put to death, is my heart in the right place?
All this talk of "beliefs" and viability is totally missing the point. These are not reasons for peoples cultural values, but rationalisations after the fact.
Vegetarian belief (Score:3)
'The vegetarian does not think you are a horrible person for eating meat.'
If they believe in equal rights for animals as for humans - which some vegetarians do - then they should think us carnivores are horrible people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, vegans are the ones with ethical concerns. All the vegetarians I know eat unborn baby chickens. Hell I'm 90% veg due for health reasons. It helps me stay slim and lowered my blood pressure and cholesterol to levels where I didn't require medication. I still love me a steak, but 5-6 days a week I eat the veggy way.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can convince prochoicers that lifers aren't actually against choice, but rather, they fundamentally believe a baby and an embryo are the same thing
False premise. Nobody thinks that, any more than they think a baby is the same as an adult.
Everyone who unironically says "life begins at conception" believes that. Depending on who you ask that might be 3/4 of republicans.
The vegetarian does not think you are a horrible person for eating meat.
There are definitely vegetarians who believe eating meat is unethical [ox.ac.uk]. Horrible person might be hyperbole, but unethical is not too uncommon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be willing to bet money on that the average "pro-choicer" would gladly opt for having an embryo "transferred" instead of removed and disposed if that was a viable option that was also affordable. No need to enshrine that in laws as this should be sorting itself out naturally where people go for the more practical options.
I wonder if the average "pro-lifer" would be in favour of making such procedures the more attractive for ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Anonymity HELPS? (Score:3)
We're not yet at the point where we recognise a chicken can identify as a human, although that's probably on the cards.
Re: Anonymity HELPS? (Score:2)
Completely different contexts. Fertilised human eggs are human beings. There isn't some arbitrary and subjective point during gestation/birth where 'clump of cells' is granted the right to not be arbitrarily killed.
Animal eggs aren't considered meat, meaning they're okay on Fridays. Eating fish is symbolic.
Re: (Score:2)
So if there's 4,000,000 live births in the U.S. every year, that means about 2.4 million embryos die each year from naturally failing to implant.
Where's the outrage over the deaths of these embryos?
To me, there's no doubt that harming a newborn is morally and ethically reprehensible and I would have no problem locking up someone who harmed a newborn and throwing away the key.
But I do n
slashdot (Score:2)
I've been reading slashdot for years and I call bullshit.
Re:slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting as anonymous on slashdot only exists to troll and post flamebait.
And prevent the removal of prior moderation.
And to prevent one's employers claiming 'guilt by association'.
And to express 'controversial' (often social / political) views that someone would rather not have associated with their pseudonym.
And, for the paranoid (justifiable or otherwise), to make it more difficult for the government to gather more information about the poster.
Re: (Score:2)
And to express 'controversial' (often social / political) views that someone would rather not have associated with their pseudonym.
In my opinion a good reason for it not to exist. If you can't standby what you said even if it may be controversial then your opinion is purely to troll. You're literally acknowledging that you don't want to be associated with what you said because it will rub people the long way.
A more suitable option is to just STFU. The world would be a better place if people actually had to own their language.
That said... the first 2 points you made are not just legitimate, I would argue they override this negative one
Re: (Score:2)
And prevent the removal of prior moderation.
It's funny how many Slashdot users think this is just some random feature that could only exist by accident, with no value to it and that is perfectly fine to work around.
This rule has a purpose. Users being able to moderate discussions they're involved in is not good for discourse regardless of how it's done.
And to prevent one's employers claiming 'guilt by association'.
What? How many employers search Slashdot for their employees let alone know the handles their employees use on Slashdot? This concern might have had some incredibly small level of validity back when Sl
Designed poorly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BUT with it traceable to a person.
What a great way to quash any form of meaningful discourse on anything controversial on the internet. On Slashdot alone I've talked to several people who I am very glad have no realistic way to track me back to my home. Even with the anonymity provided by most internet platforms things like swatting are a thing, we dont need to make such things ridiculously easy for these bad actors.
What does that even mean? (Score:2)
I read the whole summary but not the article, obviously, this being /.
What does it mean exactly that someone's "polarization was reduced by X"?
Hunh? So, their word choice analyzers assigned arbitrary numbers to their word choices as they used the app? And once this artificial number was reduced, does that mean they were simply nicer to the other person or they changed their views to more agree with the other person?
What does it mean that one group changed less than the other?
It feels like they're trying r
Re: (Score:2)
Study itself is behind a paywall, but abstract mentions that control group had to write an essay instead of interacting with people, but used the same prompts.
So I'm guessing the measure is something among the lines of "who moved some of their positions from initial ones, or changed their mind about why opposition thinks the way it does".
Granted, it's a conjecture. I'd need to read the actual source, and I didn't have my university login for over a decade at this point.
Does it work on the zerohedgies? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading and writing were required skills to participate.
So... no.
No U (Score:2)
Now get ready for Reverse Propoganda
Real change (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately the USA has too much invested in the status quo to make such large fundamental changes.
When visiting the USA you notice the focus on love of the country as a substitute for love of your fellow citizen. If social media could be used to improve things that would be great, but really, I can never see that happen, there is too much money at stake for those that control things.
Re: (Score:3)
Coalition governments are horrible. Look at what Israel's Knesset is going through right now. You wouldn't want that here.
Re: Real change (Score:2)
And how exactly is it worse than the status quo?
Re:Real change (Score:5, Interesting)
I am lucky to be old enough to remember voting before we switched from FPTP to MMP so I have experience living in both systems with same parties and people. Therefore I know first hand what a difference it can make. To be honest it would be hard to make things worse in the USA. If you look at ratings for the quality of democracies New Zealand rates at #2, the USA at #25 or #26. https://govisafree.com/democra... [govisafree.com] https://wisevoter.com/country-... [wisevoter.com]
To be fair we do other difference from just FPTP vs PR. Voting districts are determined by an independent body using statistical data, not by gerrymandering politicians and judges are not appointed by politicians. We have strict rules around funding of political parties and the transparency about reporting it.
Re: (Score:3)
Israel is a very special case where two large parties are split almost evenly and the fringe loony party is the kingmaker. That's not exactly a good example.
Re:Real change (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think that way myself. Whatever the faults of the FPTP system, at least it produces strong governments backed by a decisive popular mandate, right? Then I became more interested in politics here (in the UK, which also has a FPTP system, one of I believe only three countries in the world who use this system) and it became clear that this just isn't the case.
The big two parties here are the Labour, who are a bit more left-wing (using the simplistic left-right model) and Conservatives, who are a bit more right-wing. Labour has been fighting an internal civil war between the more centrist elements and the more hard left faction since well before my time. At various times one of the two factions was on top, at one point the centrist faction dominated completely - New Labour, although they had their own internal conflicts. Then the harder left seemed to be on top - the Jeremy Corbin era, now the centrists seem to be dominant again.
As for the Conservatives, they had their own civil war for just as long, between the more centrist and the more right-wing factions. Back in 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron got so tired of fighting the Eurosceptic factions in his party that he put the issue to a public referendum, and that is how we got Brexit. After that the longest serving PM was Boris Johnson, not because he was a visionary leader - he was a totally clueless baffoon - but because he could sort of charm people into compromising a little bit. With him gone, the right-wing faction briefly got on top with the short-lived but disastrous Truss government, now Sunak is I guess something of a compromise candidate.
My point is that there will always be a wide spectrum of different political views, and the proponents of these views will always try to take control. If you try to group all these views into just two parties, which tends to happen in FPTP systems, you will still get the same large number of factions, but they will compete for power behind the scenes via intrigue and backstabbing. You can't escape the fact that there will be political horsetrading and struggle for power. At least with PR the views of all those factions are more formalized by them forming separate political parties which then form coalitions and the power struggles within a coalition are more transparent and more directly influenced by the electorate.
Re: (Score:2)
Israel's problem isnt coalition government, its the fact that they never bothered to create a hard to modify constitution. If they had a strong constitution they wouldnt be having the problems they are having.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really good way to lay out the way to consider this.
Re:Real change (Score:5, Interesting)
When visiting the USA you notice the focus on love of the country as a substitute for love of your fellow citizen.
I believe this was somewhat intentional. Think of the wording of the pledge of allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..." It's propaganda and 'brainwashing' in it's purest form. When you know what's best for the country everything else takes second priority, including individuals who hold different beliefs about what the right thing to do is. The extremes of this can be seen in those who perpetrate violence on those who would dare to deface their revered Stars and Stripes, i.e. flag burners. To them it's not just destruction of an object, no big deal, it's violation of a sacred oath, and therefore violence, even murder, is a perfectly justified response. Madness, but then the law of unintended consequences has a habit of cropping up where one might least expect it.
Re: (Score:2)
I only recently found out that burning our flag is illegal here. Like most people here I couldn't care less if you did that, if you paid for the flag then you are free to do wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I only recently found out that burning our flag is illegal here."
That's a myth. [uscourts.gov] In fact, "The approved method of disposing of unserviceable flags has long been that they be destroyed by burning." [defense.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't make that at all clear. In fact, if the country they're talking about is not the US, I have no idea what country they're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
They didnt say which country they were from but it was very clear they werent American. Quotes like "First time in the USA I found the number USA flags surprising..." make that quite clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting thing about flag flying in the US is that a lot of it is political ideology based. Outside of flags flown from government buildings and those flown on patriotic holidays (like our Independence Day) you can be pretty much assured that anyone casually sporting a US flag in a way you find unusual is one of our country's conservatives. Make of that what you will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To get real change the USA would need to move from a "First Past the Post" (FPTP) system to some form of proportional representation (PR).
Eh, it worked great for about 200 years. I get wanting easy answers, but don't think that one is it.
Re:Real change (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking in from the outside it is quite sad to see country that was once help up as example of what to emulate becoming an example of what not to do to a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking in from the outside it is quite sad to see country that was once help up as example of what to emulate becoming an example of what not to do to a democracy.
That is what happens when you let the wealth concentrate, as it inevitably will. There is nobody or no thing to stir the pot, so the contents separate and the results are an unpleasant mess rather than a pleasing stew.
Re: (Score:3)
For varying definitions of "great".
Don't get me wrong, the election system of the US was pretty progressive for the time it was invented. But it aged like the Trabant [wikipedia.org]. What used to be a cutting-edge, innovative idea at its inception has become a relic and laughing stock that remained unchanged in a world that did change a LOT since.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a ridiculous misreading of well, everything.
I get it. Some people have this quasi-religious belief that "if only X was changed, everything would be better" and then they ride that hobby horse into the ground.
In this case, it's that darn simple, straightforward voting system.
I would ask them as a practical matter: when you and your handful of friends are deciding where you're going tonight...do you issue a ranked choice voting ballot, and then spend a half hour poring over the results?
I'd guess not.
Re: (Score:3)
It turns out that while some political systems are worse than others, they are all pretty bad.
Israel uses proportional representation and they have some of the same problems as the problems that you associate with the "First Past the Post" system. Because they have tons of political parties (something that, on the surface, seems like a really good thing) the only way for a party to win an election is to form a coalition with other political parties so that the total seats of their combined coalition outnumb
Teamism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That would be because study results say that.
Republicans were willing to move on their positions and views on opposition. That is in line with being reasonable, and finding points where they were misinformed and changing their mind on those points in some cases.
Democrats didn't move. That is in line with being rigidly stupid and remaining convinced that they're already right.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans were willing to move on their positions and views on opposition
2/3rds of Republicans still believe our last presidential election was rigged despite being completely unable to furnish a single piece of evidence for meaningful levels of fraud. They were also the ones leading the charge to demonize any efforts to combat COVID, even those like the vaccine that had near universal medical consensus behind it from the entirety of the worlds doctors and medical experts.
Sorry but your caricature of Republicans as the reasonable ones who change their opinions based on reasonabl
Re:Teamism (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats didn't move. That is in line with being rigidly stupid and remaining convinced that they're already right.
I have a good friend who is very far left and totally convinced he is always right. I have given up trying to reason with him. I have no idea where he gets his information but it is generally wrong. His most recent rant over lunch a few weeks ago was over how the US Supreme Court "ordered Governor Greg Abbott to remove the river barriers from the Rio Grande" and he refused the order. I pointed out that there was no such court order and the case had only just been filed in District Court two weeks prior so it had no time to make it to the Supreme Court. He worked himself into a lather convinced *I* was wrong.
I like this guy but his politics and ignorance makes it hard. He becomes irrational when politics are involved yet he always thinks he is informed. The sad thing is that he regularly votes on his information.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thank you for demonstrating an example of democratic dogmatism and stupidity when viewing their opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought these comments would all be Republicans saying, "See! Republicans are reasonable and Democrats are rigidly stupid"...
I have to admit, as a conservative, I did consider posting something similar to that.
"getting people to communicate (Score:2)
Wrong conclusion... (Score:3)
I fear they've drawn the wrong conclusion from the data.
What it actually shows is that Republicans change their views with the wind (one reason they've drifted so far, so fast, and are swayed by meaningless rhetoric spouted, scattergun, by orange fools), whilst Democrats are closed minded and unwilling, or unable, to listen to reason.
</troll>
</jk>
The problem is the commercial ad model (Score:3)
The real key of why they had results is the participants were separated from the profit driven platforms. No algorithms, and no money, driving the suckers into a frenzy.
Re: (Score:2)
I might qualify that statement - It's probably the tracking, rather than the ads per se. Take away the tracking, then the algorithms might become more humanely built.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, almost. There's certainly a bias in Republican circles towards group think and appeals to authority, but Democrats tend to herd like cats. It would follow that Republicans —particularly those told that they are talking to another Republican —would change their individual position more easily. And, also, American politics is skewed waaaaaaay to the right to the point that it is pretty hard to reasonably move someone further right.
Would it be too much to ask that for just once we (Score:3)
I don't see how it helps to focus discussion on the two political parties, when the problem is a refusal to break out of that mindset.
I know they're trying to help but to me it looks like they're just perpetuating the thing they want to fix.
A Measure of Entrenchedness (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not supporting or criticizing any political party here, but this seems part of a larger overall trend about entrenchedness (I just made that a word.) For example, in 2020, an NBC News Generation Lab poll found that 71% of Republican college students would dorm with a Democrat but only 38% of Democrat students would dorm with a Republican. (https://www.axios.com/2022/08/19/college-students-dorm-political-views-poll) A 2019 YouGov poll found that Democrats are more likely to say that "most or all of their friends have similar views." (https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/articles-reports/2019/10/24/politics-beliefs-friends-partners-poll-survey)
If you want to get political and think that Democrats are just right and know it, or that Republicans are more reasonable, then whatever - either way, it's not my point. It's just an interesting trend that seems to be pretty consistent.
Re: A Measure of Entrenchedness (Score:5, Interesting)
However, many times the the other people canâ(TM)t keep it civil and it devolves into an argumentâ"especially when there is an audience. They act as if they have to represent or theyâ(TM)ll be ostracized by the gang.
It has already been said here butâ¦a person is smart but people are stupid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
71% of Bullies said they would dorm with a Nerd, but only 38% of Nerds said that they would dorm with a Bully. Nerds are more likely to say that "most or all of their friends have similar views."
Symptomatic Relief Only (Score:2)
As long as "Team Red" and "Team Blue" continue to exist in their current duopoly, there can be no real change in the polarization that will surely lead to a Second Civil War and potentially World War 3.
I invite any evidence to the contrary. Modding me down or making derogatory comments only demonstrates your lack of compelling evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing's going to work until a lot of people from "Team Red" and "Team Blue" come to the realization that they're being played. Culture War issues are nothing more than diversions to make average people forget both parties are completely corporate owned, and dedicated to funneling more and more money from the dying middle class into the pockets of those who already own almost the whole United States.
Federal Reserve data from 2021 indicates the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the co
Re:Symptomatic Relief Only (Score:5, Interesting)
You could literally pick any issue that has a polarized viewpoint and point out the holes you could drive a truck through in each competing viewpoint.
The fact this is even up for debate shows how indoctrinated people are. This research is nifty, but nibbles at the edges of the problem.
The joke is going to be on the polarizers when they finally realize that this is how you get a civil war, and a bunch of people pacified by plenty and circuses (or internet porn, endless entertainment, etc) realize it's gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point. I'm genuinely worried about what the next 20 years will look like.
Re: (Score:2)
I invite any evidence to the contrary. Modding me down or making derogatory comments only demonstrates your lack of compelling evidence.
Or in other words "I have not nor do I have any way to cite any evidence to support these wild claims that are clearly based on personal opinion but if you cant cite any evidence in refuting them then you suck!"
All you've done here is voiced a clear opinion with zero support and then claimed that no one can do the same to refute you.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it extremist. I'd say Democrats are less willing to change and therefore more conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
Define EVIL... A group of factors that bring out an emergent anti-social behavior.
To kill is not evil in itself but "the force" that made it happen in an anti-social context (which killing almost always is) is the EVIL. It can appear like a sentient spirit making generally good people do bad things which is why primitive societies see emergent behaviors as having a mind behind them. The birds don't plan to fly in a V, it's emergent behavior with no thought behind it any more than a snowflake fractal does.