@cuwurious_strag_CA's banner p

cuwurious_strag_CA


				

				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 04 21:54:43 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 190


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
cuwurious_strag_CA


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 21:54:43 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 190


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
surely desantis is being 'undermined' because democrats dislike republicans, as usual, similar to how republicans 'undermine' biden, not specifically because of voter fraud?


Any evidence here? Did the past journo-list leaks have any instances of "this guy is cracking down on voter fraud! better get him, we depend on illegal voters!" or even something vaguely similar to that?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you read the article, the prison population was 'roughly half' nonwhite. It also claims the POCs were "20 percent identifying as black, 14 percent as Latino, 17 percent as Native American and 19 percent as Asian or other races" (which adds up to 70%?), and that they polled at  20% trump / 30% novote / 50% dem, while whites  40% trump / 25% novote / 35% dem.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Presumably, republican organizations that aren't the "RNC" would be able to do that? And there are a ton of those.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
    

  1. 

    "there is no evidence that black people commit crimes more often than white people"
    

    2. 

  2. 

    "there is no evidence that jews control the media"
    

    3. 

  3. 

    "there is no evidence sex ed teachers are grooming children"
    

    4. 

  4. 

    "there is no evidence democrats hacked voting machines to swing the election with 5M votes"
    

    5. 



1 is plainly false, and justified by a ton of hedges and lies. 2 is ... eh, jews are profoundly overrepresented in the media, but going from there to 'control' or claiming jewishness is causal isn't proven at all. 3 is mostly true, sex ed teachers really aren't grooming anyone, but it's a cover for 'lgbt be bad' - which is arguable - and its own claim. and 4 is entirely true - that just didn't happen!


Just because 'the no evidence game' is played doesn't mean it isn't true sometimes.




As you yourself should well know given your background, only 19 instances of prosecution/conviction is not the same thing as there being only 19 instances of a crime




his point is the evidence for anything more than that is entirely lacking.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I could use an analogy, but it usually won't be persuasive, because analogies are never perfect 1:1 matches to the original subject,




But they don't have to be. They just have to be relevant in some way to be convincing.


Obviously the interlocutor can just say "but apples aren't LITERALLY orange, checkmate republikkan", but they can do that for any argument that isn't an analogy.




it's rare for someone to disagree, hear an analogy, and respond, "oh, I was wrong the whole time, but now I agree




Yeah, but that's also true for non-analogy arguments. Analogies and similar things are plenty useful in persuading people who firmly disagree, but it's generally hard to do so.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Those other guys are jumping off of bridges. Why shouldn't I be able to do that too?"


Because the point of 'accepting claims', in this context, is to actually figure out if abortion is good or bad, what relevance that has to law, and use that knowledge and the way one comes to it in other areas as well. "Abortion is domestic violence" doesn't mean anything other than "i don't like abortion for some other reason", and throwing terrible justifications at each other is pointless. Believing it makes you dumber, and less able to figure out the right approach to abortion, and anything else. What about children transitioning? Domestic violence! AI art? Theft from the WORKING CLASS. Banning affirmative action is LITERALLY jim crow. TheMotte isn't a TV ad for a state senate race, and the latter shouldn't even exist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Next time, include a source for the claim? I dug it up -


I read the wikipedia article, an incredibly boring use of 5 minutes of time (and reading the sources was worse...), and it ends with


"On March 31, the court issued an order to count at most 400 rejected absentee ballots and denied any other relief.[88][89] On April 7, the court scrutinized those ballots and determined that 351 had been legally cast. Those votes were counted, with 111 going to Coleman, 198 to Franken, and 42 to others, giving Franken a final margin of 312 votes.[90]"


You seem to refer to "In July 2010, Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, conducted a study in which it flagged 2,803 voters in the Senate race for examination, including 1,359 it suspected to be ineligible convicted felons in the largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul area.[110][111] Subsequent investigations of Minnesota Majority's claims by election officials found that many of its allegations were incorrect. Some of the cases that were submitted involved mistaking a legal voter for a felon with the same name, others involved felons who had had their voting rights reinstated after serving their sentences, and others were felons who illegally registered to vote but did not vote in 2008 election.[112][113][114] Ramsey County officials narrowed their investigation to 180 cases, while Hennepin County examined 216 cases.[115]"


From the first source (fox news):




The report said that in Hennepin County, which in includes Minneapolis, 899 suspected felons had been matched on the county's voting records, and the review showed 289 voters were conclusively matched to felon records. The report says only three people in the county have been charged with voter fraud so far.






The report says that in Ramsey, 460 names on voting records were matched with felon lists, and a further review found 52 were conclusive matches.




Added up, that's 342, which is slightly higher than 312. (although even if we believe that, if even 5% of the felons voted R, 342*.9 < 312). (although you could just as well argue plenty of the nonconclusive matches were 'real' too, whatever)


The star tribune confirms the 312 number, 'Ever since Franken won by a mere 312 votes', and




Of 1,359 suspected ineligible felons originally brought forward to Hennepin and Ramsey County officials, the vast majority have been withdrawn, found to be unsubstantiated, or erroneous. Ramsey County officials say they are still examining 180 cases; Hennepin County says it's still looking at 216.




Unless most of those were confirmed, that still puts us under 312.


And (from kare11):




"We've charged about 30 cases so far," he said, "About half of them were people who were felons who just registered but did not actually vote. Election workers flagged those names before they could vote, but it's still a felony for a felon to register."




Those who are being charged with two felonies are felons who registered at the polling place on election day and voted, leaving no time for a cross-check with lists of convicts still on probation "We're going to continue to investigate 180 other complaints but we're not talking about a huge number of actual cases.  And of that 30 about half of them were registration only, they didn't actually vote."


If we assume that cuts half of the 180 + 216, that puts us well under 312.


On the other hand, of course, dropping an investigation may be because it's impossible to prove, not because it didn't happen.


But




He said just because someone's name appears both on a list of felons and a roster of voters doesn't prove they they voted illegally. In Minnesota many felons are granted an early end to their probation, and their rights are automatically restored. "The voter records as they appear on a computer screen say Joe has 5 years probation," Diamond explained, "But then when you talk to Joe's probation officer he says, 'No, we released Joe after 2 years, or after 3 years.' Well, then Joe can vote."




So - at a guess, these particular voters didn't tip it, but ... who knows.


However - these are right-wing claims. Did some R voters vote illegitimately, tipping the election rightwards? Idk, but from the wikipedia article, there were a number of recounts where both sides challenged vote counts, absentee ballot validity, et cetera - and in each of those, franken ended up with more extra votes than his opponent.


Obviously, both sides are very willing to play hard in the legal system, fighting tooth and nail, and care about the 'facts' only tangentially', and, more visibly so in more local races, sometimes commit outright fraud.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That doesn't change the point at all - if that happens at all (and it does), then arrest people who are knowingly breaking the law, instead of people who were told they could vote!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Imagine if a democrat arrested 20 republicans for possessing an illegal firearm because they misunderstood an ATF statute and the ATF webpage said that particular modification / accessory was legal. And when Rs got mad about it, a democrat said "think on the meta level - from a pure signaling standpoint - if we want to prevent people from knowingly committing gun crimes, we have to arrest people who commit gun crimes, even if they possess a defense.".


This argument doesn't make sense, at all. If voter fraud is a real and massive issue, surely they can find at least 4 people who really did it and arrest them? Er, except it does actually happen, and people are convicted for it! wikipedia shows many convictions. So ... how does this make any sense?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's both a little trick that's selectively used in cases where they agree with the conclusion and something they actually believe in a vague sense - vaguely like "this is a woman, i am a man, i am privilege, i cannot disagree with her , because it's socially unacceptable and hurts oppressed person". It's usually not knowingly or intentionally disingenuous.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


because analogies often work as an attempt to explain a position, but not as an attempt to persuade




Huh? How are these different? If you listen to political speeches or debates, both often attempts to persuade, there are tons of analogies.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think it's not unreasonable to call surgery violence toward a tumor. Certainly more reasonable than "silence is violence" woke type usage.




Why do people keep making this argument? "My enemies, who I also think are lying hypocrites, made <ridiculous and unjustifiable claim>. And my claim is slightly better than theirs, so I get to make it, and you can't object it's nonsense."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But you're just using the way in which domestic violence is "very bad", which is something about how women are vulnerable and get really hurt, but that doesn't apply at all to abortion. Also, murder is worse than domestic violence, and abortion is domestic violence 'only because' aortion is murder, so how can this help?


Yelling at a child when they're about to put a fork in an electrical outlet and you're 100 feet away from them is literally hurting a child's feelings. But - it isn't ... bad.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Abortion is literally domestic violence – it is intra-family and it is violent. So the pro-choice side is using the domestic violence defense for literal domestic violence.




Imagine if I said "spanking is domestic violence", or "Forced schooling is domestic violence", or "vaccinating children is domestic violence". Are these also, therefore, bad? None of these have anything to do with the reason people dislike domestic violence, which is "men beating women, which is very bad, women are vulnerable and easy to abuse because mumbles, feminism, etc". Non-central fallacy, worst argument in the world, abusing taboo ideas! <X right wing issue> isn't actually the same thing as <Y left-wing issue against vulerable minority victims>. Transitioning isn't child abuse. Gun rights aren't critical for black people fighting cop racism. Capitalism isn't good because it uplifts poor people. Please defend your claims on their own terms, in ways that make sense, instead of picking a vaguely related idea that everyone gets mad about and saying they're the same. It doesn't even work - you're just playing on the same 'we must help the oppressed omg!!' approach that you're losing to anyway.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


it mismatches my experience




Well, it matches mine! HIynka mentioned selection effects and 'bubbles', ala scott's conservatives in I can tolerate any thing except the outgroup. I'm pretty sure the 1/4 number disproves that HIynka has almost never met someone who uses twitter, but it's very reasonable that much fewer than 1 in 4 or even 20 people he knows use it.


Instead of just "vibing" about the behavior of a group of 350M people, we can use modern technology to research it. https://www.statista.com/statistics/265647/share-of-us-internet-users-who-use-twitter-by-age-group/ "Around 23% of U.S. adults use Twitter." / in 2018, 22% of US adults use twitter, from pew poll. These are smaller than the 1/4 number, but very compatible with the 38 mDAU number although I'll again emphasize that 'has a twitter account and has gone to twitter.com or opened the app in the past month' is going to be higher than basically any other measure. Obviously this is still a very light and casual attempt, but it's better than just 'it mismatches my experience'.




and people in my bubble most are all technologically savvy college-educated and not technophobes at all




Social media use rather trivially clusters by friend group. If all your friends use snapchat/facebook/discord/twitter/whatsapp/tiktok, you'll do that too! So that makes sense.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Once per month would only give 1/30: "number of mDAU on each day of such period divided by the number of days




To be clear, I was referring to "monthly active users", as per that chart, which is different from daily active users, as described above.


My quote came from here, linked above


The mention of bot filtering is here, page 7:




Furthermore, our metrics may be impacted by our information quality efforts, which are our overall efforts toreduce malicious activity on the service, inclusive of spam, malicious automation, and fake accounts. For example, there are a number of false or spam accountsin existence on our platform. We have performed an internal review of a sample of accounts and estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during thefourth quarter of 2021 represented fewer than 5% of our mDAU during the quarter. The false or spam accounts for a period represents the average of false orspam accounts in the samples during each monthly analysis period during the quarter. In making this determination, we applied significant judgment, so ourestimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts couldbe higher than we have estimated. We are continually seeking to improve our ability to estimate the total number of spam accounts and eliminate them from thecalculation of our mDAU, and have made improvements in our spam detection capabilities that have resulted in the suspension of a large number of spam,malicious automation, and fake accounts. We intend to continue to make such improvements. After we determine an account is spam, malicious automation, orfake, we stop counting it in our mDAU, or other related metrics




The claim that the real numbers are 1/10 to 1/100 is ... absurd. "Tech company say something, therefore BAD." tier. A lot of people use twitter!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I was specifically rebutting the " I don't know if I've ever actually met a real live human being that uses it regularly." claim. Obviously a MAU chart proves nothing about 'wellspring of culture', as the creationist example, or something like 'red tribe', 'christians', 'reality tv fans', 'old people' - all of which have large populations yet aren't culturally dominant - nicely shows.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 16, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Nominalism vs realism sounds like ... a strange philosophical debate. "Universals are real, particulars aren't" vs "particulars are real, universals aren't" - what does this even mean? It reminds one of plato, and the right response is - https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/archive/stove/


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's not at all incompatible though. The other 10% could be influential, and that's what you'd expect - 90% of everything is shit, elite theory, whatever


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"MAU" is an industry term that means something like 'people who have used the service in some way in the past month', like, if you have an account and went to twitter.com at some point. It doesn't mean 'number of people who have a twitter account and actively post'.


From twitter's most recent financial report




We define mDAU as people, organizations, or other accounts who logged in or were otherwise authenticated and accessed Twitter on any given daythrough twitter.com, Twitter applications that are able to show ads, or paid Twitter products, including subscriptions. Average mDAU for a period represents thenumber of mDAU on each day of such period divided by the number of days for such period.




(mDAU is monetizable daily active user, not monthly active user - "In Q2 2019, Twitter discontinued publishing MAU figures in favor of figures regarding monetizable daily active users (mDAU)")


Worldwide - "Average monetizable daily active usage (mDAU) was 217 million for the three months ended December 31, 2021, an increase of 13% year over year.". In the US - ". In the three months endedDecember 31, 2021, we had 38 million average mDAU in the United States".


For the monthly active user number - afaict, all that requires is 1) have a twitter account and 2) be at 'twitter.com' sometime in the past month. It makes sense that 1/4 of americans do that.


Oddly, this means I'm not counted as a mDAU, despite spending at least an hour on twitter.com today. And most of that was w/o adblock.


Anyway even if for the sake of argument it's 1/4 that, that's still 1/16th of all americans, meaning HIynka has interacted with many of them


I don't think most of those are bots.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Not that torture doesn't work, but enough information leaks through 'spies' or 'telling a friend' or 'posting it on reddit' that it'd happen either way


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You definitely have, see the mau chart.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Minority for the common man (and the electorate!) means a group that is inferior in numbers in comparison to a majority.




to the electorate / common man, 'minority' absolutely has a connotation of 'oppressed group that people are racist or bigoted against'


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


At the age of 12, in 2003, Le Conte and a group of friends played a contest to “find the weirdest porn on the internet.” Today, the results of such a search would be unpublishable




On the 12 + porn bit, controversial claim: it doesn't actually do that much, she wasn't really injured by it. men were much more violent with women (on average), not less, in pre-modern life, and choking-violent-sex-bad thing seems like a strange male-power-bad/early-feminist thing.


As for 'unpublishable' - no? there are plenty of places that'll "publish" that, including substack, or random subreddits. Reddit still hosts all sorts of weird porn. It's not going in the NYT, but why does that matter?




I’m never going to have TikTok on my phone because I tried, and I hate that it doesn’t let you search or watch what you want. It is fully algorithm-driven. It’s incredibly frustrating




tiktok actually does have a search function, and you can also browse by hashtags? No idea what that means. Tiktok is designed for the algorithm-driven mode, and it's more effective for most people's use cases, but it isn't even that different from 'searching or watching what you want' - it's still the same content, and most people click on the cat videos or half-naked women either way.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
On a decent chunk of the popular internet - discord, reddit, twitter - many involved posts no photos of themselves at all, so her complaint about 'beautiful people' is bizzare. (also, why is she including photos of her in the article??)


Is 'toxic' really a useful descriptor here? Her issue seems to be with ... normie culture as a whole, the fact that beautiful people are on instagram, etc. And while that does suck, is it 'toxic'?