6 ms·

I read a number of articles and they're alright but I think you're boiling down people's opinions on these things a bit too much. "Those who oppose..." "Those

I read a number of articles and they're alright but I think you're boiling down people's opinions on these things a bit too much. "Those who oppose..." "Those who support..." are just made-up by your staff. You don't really know that's what people who oppose/support something actually believe. For all you know the reason why someone supports a given bill is because a source they trust says they should support it. The assumption that people have reasoned themselves into supporting/opposing any given thing is a great big one. You may be able to fix this just by changing your wording a bit. I don't know though. As an example, I spoke with someone recently here in Florida that supported the "don't say Gay" bill for no other reason than, "it pisses off liberals." There's far more tribal support/opposition to things that have nothing to do with logic or reason. My neighbor is a prime example. Related to that bill in particular, I feel you got it wrong with, "Those who support (the "don't say gay bill"): > "Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Instead, parents should be the ones in charge of their children’s education — especially when it comes to determining what topics their children are ready for." This is just my opinion here but I really feel this completely misses the boat in regards to the opposition's argument. They don't feel that "parents should be in charge of their children's education" because that would mean that some gay couple with an adopted child could make those sorts of decisions. They don't want that at all! Also, who's to say that teaching (or even discussing with) K-3 kids basic facts about sexuality is bad for them? Those that support the bill do! That is their argument: That their beliefs about sexual education are the only ones that are acceptable. Not that they think, "parents should be in charge..." "Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Believe that teaching children about sexuality or gender identity is morally wrong and such topics should be prohibited from classrooms."

nerdponx 5y ago
> As an example, I spoke with someone recently here in Florida that supported the "don't say Gay" bill for no other reason than, "it pisses off liberals." There's far more tribal support/opposition to things that have nothing to do with logic or reason. My neighbor is a prime example. I think the lesson here is that not everyone has a rational, logical, or considerate reason for supporting what they support. Showing "contrasting views" is more than just putting two earnest-but-incompatible opinions side by side on a webpage. You also need to include stuff like "I support this bill because it triggers snowflake liberals / gets back at those evil conservatives" and "I support this bill because I am smart and it sounds like a good idea." > "Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Instead, parents should be the ones in charge of their children’s education — especially when it comes to determining what topics their children are ready for." You also need to be able and willing to see through euphemisms, coded speech, and dogwhistles.
- octopoc 5y ago
  I believe in parent rights. That is not a euphemism, coded speech, or dogwhistling. I believe the parents are responsible for raising their own children, I want to be the one to explain sex to them. I don't want the school to do it. This is one example of where the Narrative Project is spot on, at least for me and pretty much every conservative I know.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    Was there some large news story about Grade 3 teachers explaining the intricacies of docking that I missed?
  - riskable 5y ago
    > I want to be the one to explain sex to them There's two problems with this: 1) Parents often don't do that. Resulting in all sorts of societal problems e.g. increased teenage pregnancy, STDs, suicides, etc. We can argue about the age at which they need to learn about sex but ultimately they do have to learn about it and no, parents can't be trusted to teach these sorts of things (if history is any guide!). 2) You assume that the bill in question only prevents discussions of sex (as in, intercourse). That's not the only thing it prohibits. It prohibits discussions of sexuality. As in, you can't even acknowledge that same-sex relationships or transgendered people even exist. Sounds like it wouldn't come up? Think again: Teachers and students don't just exist inside a classroom. They will encounter each other regularly in the community. If some kid sees a (male) teacher kissing their husband in the Walmart parking lot how is the teacher supposed to respond to that when asked about it in school the next day? You can say that the teacher should tell the kid to mind their own business or some other, "avoid talking about it by all means possible" excuse but it still puts the teacher at risk. In fact, schools might not even hire gay or transgendered teachers just to avoid that risk... Which is one of the big problems with the bill: It gives school administrators an excuse not to hire someone based on sex. Remember: The bill isn't about curriculum. No Florida curriculum for K-3 has any sex-related material. It's a tool for religious/conservative parents to attack gay and transgendered teachers.
    - 5y ago
escapedmoose 5y ago
Came here to say this. The breakdowns seem… not very accurate. In most cases, the problem is not that I disagree with the statements selected for the opposition, it’s that the statements selected for them aren’t the arguments I’ve heard from the people themselves. And the arguments supposedly on my side aren’t even close to my own. Makes me question the methods here.
- ShaunCammack 5y ago
  Here's an outline of our method, which might help explain this (And please feel free criticize it): First, we look at news aggregators and twitter trends to see what the big stories of the day might be. Then we pull a bunch of tweets with our social media listening tool and try evaluate the story on three criteria: Momentum (is it trending and growing), Partisanship (are two sides talking about it), and Emotion (Is the story morally animating). Then we collect data by pulling tweets through our tool, and focusing on the most widely shared and engaged tweets, and sort them into pro/con (or whatever division fits the story. Then it's analysis. We identify the facts each side is referencing, the affected values and emotions from either side, and whatever the key source of division is (if there is one. Like any methodology, this has its limitations. It only looks at twitter, for example. If there is an argument or position out there that doesn't come through in the data, then we can't really assume it's there (although we do use broader ideas to contextualize and explain the data).
  - escapedmoose 5y ago
    Oh, that actually explains a lot. I don’t use Twitter, nor do most of the people I talk to about these things. Frankly, most of the stuff I see on Twitter sounds to me like it was composed by an insane person. If you used more of a “boots on the ground” approach and interviewed people who aren’t chronically online, your findings might ring more true with people like me. But maybe that’s not your goal? Nothing wrong with using Twitter as your basis, but I think the site as a whole will feel “off” to a lot of people unless you make it very clear that your data is Twitter-based.
    - 5y ago
quantumwannabe 5y ago
Whenever someone says they support something "to own the libs/cons", what they really mean is "I don't want to discuss this with you". The vast majority of the time, people have real reasons behind their positions. If they don't believe you are genuine and just want a fight, then they might as well end the conversation as quickly as possible. In your specific example, the website did a good job summarizing the pro-bill perspective, and you did a terrible job. The entire second half of your comment is you projecting your own opinions onto people who disagree with you, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone told you that they support it to "piss off liberals" just to get you to shut up and move on.

nerdponx 5y ago

> As an example, I spoke with someone recently here in Florida that supported the "don't say Gay" bill for no other reason than, "it pisses off liberals." There's far more tribal support/opposition to things that have nothing to do with logic or reason. My neighbor is a prime example. I think the lesson here is that not everyone has a rational, logical, or considerate reason for supporting what they support. Showing "contrasting views" is more than just putting two earnest-but-incompatible opinions side by side on a webpage. You also need to include stuff like "I support this bill because it triggers snowflake liberals / gets back at those evil conservatives" and "I support this bill because I am smart and it sounds like a good idea." > "Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Instead, parents should be the ones in charge of their children’s education — especially when it comes to determining what topics their children are ready for." You also need to be able and willing to see through euphemisms, coded speech, and dogwhistles.

octopoc 5y ago
I believe in parent rights. That is not a euphemism, coded speech, or dogwhistling. I believe the parents are responsible for raising their own children, I want to be the one to explain sex to them. I don't want the school to do it. This is one example of where the Narrative Project is spot on, at least for me and pretty much every conservative I know.
- etchalon 5y ago
  Was there some large news story about Grade 3 teachers explaining the intricacies of docking that I missed?
- riskable 5y ago
  > I want to be the one to explain sex to them There's two problems with this: 1) Parents often don't do that. Resulting in all sorts of societal problems e.g. increased teenage pregnancy, STDs, suicides, etc. We can argue about the age at which they need to learn about sex but ultimately they do have to learn about it and no, parents can't be trusted to teach these sorts of things (if history is any guide!). 2) You assume that the bill in question only prevents discussions of sex (as in, intercourse). That's not the only thing it prohibits. It prohibits discussions of sexuality. As in, you can't even acknowledge that same-sex relationships or transgendered people even exist. Sounds like it wouldn't come up? Think again: Teachers and students don't just exist inside a classroom. They will encounter each other regularly in the community. If some kid sees a (male) teacher kissing their husband in the Walmart parking lot how is the teacher supposed to respond to that when asked about it in school the next day? You can say that the teacher should tell the kid to mind their own business or some other, "avoid talking about it by all means possible" excuse but it still puts the teacher at risk. In fact, schools might not even hire gay or transgendered teachers just to avoid that risk... Which is one of the big problems with the bill: It gives school administrators an excuse not to hire someone based on sex. Remember: The bill isn't about curriculum. No Florida curriculum for K-3 has any sex-related material. It's a tool for religious/conservative parents to attack gay and transgendered teachers.
  - 5y ago

escapedmoose 5y ago

Came here to say this. The breakdowns seem… not very accurate. In most cases, the problem is not that I disagree with the statements selected for the opposition, it’s that the statements selected for them aren’t the arguments I’ve heard from the people themselves. And the arguments supposedly on my side aren’t even close to my own. Makes me question the methods here.

ShaunCammack 5y ago
Here's an outline of our method, which might help explain this (And please feel free criticize it): First, we look at news aggregators and twitter trends to see what the big stories of the day might be. Then we pull a bunch of tweets with our social media listening tool and try evaluate the story on three criteria: Momentum (is it trending and growing), Partisanship (are two sides talking about it), and Emotion (Is the story morally animating). Then we collect data by pulling tweets through our tool, and focusing on the most widely shared and engaged tweets, and sort them into pro/con (or whatever division fits the story. Then it's analysis. We identify the facts each side is referencing, the affected values and emotions from either side, and whatever the key source of division is (if there is one. Like any methodology, this has its limitations. It only looks at twitter, for example. If there is an argument or position out there that doesn't come through in the data, then we can't really assume it's there (although we do use broader ideas to contextualize and explain the data).
- escapedmoose 5y ago
  Oh, that actually explains a lot. I don’t use Twitter, nor do most of the people I talk to about these things. Frankly, most of the stuff I see on Twitter sounds to me like it was composed by an insane person. If you used more of a “boots on the ground” approach and interviewed people who aren’t chronically online, your findings might ring more true with people like me. But maybe that’s not your goal? Nothing wrong with using Twitter as your basis, but I think the site as a whole will feel “off” to a lot of people unless you make it very clear that your data is Twitter-based.
  - 5y ago

quantumwannabe 5y ago

Whenever someone says they support something "to own the libs/cons", what they really mean is "I don't want to discuss this with you". The vast majority of the time, people have real reasons behind their positions. If they don't believe you are genuine and just want a fight, then they might as well end the conversation as quickly as possible. In your specific example, the website did a good job summarizing the pro-bill perspective, and you did a terrible job. The entire second half of your comment is you projecting your own opinions onto people who disagree with you, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone told you that they support it to "piss off liberals" just to get you to shut up and move on.