3 ms·
Right on cue
by treis 8mo ago
Right on cue
- Loughla 8mo agoWhat is the point of your three words here? Legitimately I don't get it.
- nearbuy 8mo agoThe parent comment was about how the most partisan users post the most on social media and sure enough, the first response was by a partisan user.
- lazide 8mo agoThey have the most to win/lose. The rest are just going ‘WTF is this shit?!?’
- _9za9 8mo agoAnd you are replying to a partisan user.
- nearbuy 8mo agoNot sure why this is relevant. The paper says partisanship is strongly correlated with frequency of posting. Are you also pointing out that the commenters here are very partisan and this shows the paper is correct?
- bsder 8mo agoThe problem is that "partisan" doesn't automatically mean "wrong". People wield "the middle" as if it is some magic incantation that makes them correct or immune to criticism. In fact, it is generally the "middle" or, as I prefer to call them, the "inert" that tend to be wrong since they are always behind the curve rather than ahead of it. In Milgram's experiment, only the most "partisan" refused to deliver the shocks. The "middle" dutifully continued right to the end and delivered the highest voltages even as their own distress mounted. You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.
- iugtmkbdfil834 8mo agoI am ok with being called inert. In the context, this would suggest I am less easily swayed than most.
- bsder 8mo agoThat just means you cling to your wrong ideas with the same tenacity as your correct ones. Someone very famous who predates social media had words for you: "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
- iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago... There are layers to your post that need to be properly disassembled to be properly appreciated. And I assure you that I do appreciate it. Deeply. ... << That just means you cling to your wrong ideas with the same tenacity as your correct ones. It is bold of you to assume that your ideas are correct and, consequently, my ideas are not. It is not just bold, but also kinda well, not smart, to assume what my ideas are. For all you know, I believe circles are, in fact, round. Are you going to argue against roundness of circles now? But to top of it all off with a quotable quote that seems like it should mean something, and yet manages to mean nothing, because, apart from it being -- lets say -- misapplied in general, it is also ridiculously wrong in the context. How does work for an outright rejection? We can stop talking now. We have no useful thoughts to exchange.
- pinnochio 8mo agoOr, you know, they actually have a point, and framing them as just another partisan is an uncharitable response. Which, ironically, is typical of partisans.
- nearbuy 8mo agoNeither the paper nor the original comment said the most partisan commenters are wrong. It found a strong correlation between how partisan a social media user is and how often they post. You're being uncharitable by assuming the commenter is disagreeing that with the point that the Overton window has moved. Which, I've heard, is typical of partisans.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- _9za9 8mo ago[flagged]
- kelseyfrog 8mo ago(De)legitimation is the dominant meta. Much more than arguing on the merits of ideas, folks argue on the legitimate status of their opponents real or perceived stance. A lot of it attempts to play to the audience rather than either side open to changing their minds. That's how I read it at least.