4 ms·

"done correctly" = "in accordance with my ideas" If bad ideas are being communicated, then communicate better ones. I understand it's hard, that people can be

"done correctly" = "in accordance with my ideas" If bad ideas are being communicated, then communicate better ones. I understand it's hard, that people can be idiotic and short-sighted, that 140 characters is very limiting, but thinking "<candidate/party/side I support> only lost because of gullible morons" isn't how (in Trump's case) the Dems will end up winning in 2020. There's a fantastic article about this logic here: https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-other-side-is-not-dumb-2670c1294063 https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-other-side-is-not-dumb-26... FWIW I'm not American either.

kelnos 9y ago
Ideas are not necessarily neutral, innocent things. Some of them are good, and some of them are bad. Some of them are a judgment call and certainly fall under the "only good if in accordance with my ideas" bucket. And agreed, suppressing ideas just because you don't agree with them isn't sufficient reason to do so. I've actually have read the article you point to, and while I don't disagree with it (it makes a lot of good points), it's just an opinion. And it's not even a great one sometimes: just because an opposing view point makes you angry, it doesn't mean you're not wrong to be angry. The opposing view point may actually be bat-shit insane. Sometimes it's hard to determine that sort of thing objectively, but... sometimes it's not. For some supporting evidence to the contrary, this one: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-pre... -- that suggests, using per-county voting and education data, that low education and voting for Trump was strongly correlated. Now the meat of the matter is, as you suggest, "what's the best way to win next time?" And yeah, telling Trump voters that they're idiots (even if/when they are) isn't a particularly great way to win over hearts and minds. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here: we're talking about how/why Trump won in the first place, and if it was a good idea to give him and his supporters a platform to easily spread lies to those who are more susceptible to believing them.
croon 9y ago
> If bad ideas are being communicated, then communicate better ones. This is assuming that valid arguments always wins. Anyone who's working with technical depth knows that when you start implementing something, your simple idea doesn't jive as well with the thousands of unforeseen caveats, edge cases, and real world conditions. The truth is always more complicated than a simple lie. It's similar to how eating junk is much easier than eating healthier, varied food, which is also more expensive. Exchange "expensive", and "complicated" with "requires more thought" and you'll have the answer. Idiocy always wins unless people make an effort. It's also why politicians talk like they do, and are extremely noncommittal. Speaking frankly about issues pisses off a lot of (pardon the French) idiots, who can't be rational about hard realities.

kelnos 9y ago

Ideas are not necessarily neutral, innocent things. Some of them are good, and some of them are bad. Some of them are a judgment call and certainly fall under the "only good if in accordance with my ideas" bucket. And agreed, suppressing ideas just because you don't agree with them isn't sufficient reason to do so. I've actually have read the article you point to, and while I don't disagree with it (it makes a lot of good points), it's just an opinion. And it's not even a great one sometimes: just because an opposing view point makes you angry, it doesn't mean you're not wrong to be angry. The opposing view point may actually be bat-shit insane. Sometimes it's hard to determine that sort of thing objectively, but... sometimes it's not. For some supporting evidence to the contrary, this one: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-pre... -- that suggests, using per-county voting and education data, that low education and voting for Trump was strongly correlated. Now the meat of the matter is, as you suggest, "what's the best way to win next time?" And yeah, telling Trump voters that they're idiots (even if/when they are) isn't a particularly great way to win over hearts and minds. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here: we're talking about how/why Trump won in the first place, and if it was a good idea to give him and his supporters a platform to easily spread lies to those who are more susceptible to believing them.

croon 9y ago

> If bad ideas are being communicated, then communicate better ones. This is assuming that valid arguments always wins. Anyone who's working with technical depth knows that when you start implementing something, your simple idea doesn't jive as well with the thousands of unforeseen caveats, edge cases, and real world conditions. The truth is always more complicated than a simple lie. It's similar to how eating junk is much easier than eating healthier, varied food, which is also more expensive. Exchange "expensive", and "complicated" with "requires more thought" and you'll have the answer. Idiocy always wins unless people make an effort. It's also why politicians talk like they do, and are extremely noncommittal. Speaking frankly about issues pisses off a lot of (pardon the French) idiots, who can't be rational about hard realities.