Comments | andrewducker: Interesting Links for 17-05-2015

andrewducker

Interesting Links for 17-05-2015

May 17, 2015 12:00

I concise guide to the current UK Cabinet. Well worth a read. (tags: uk politics conservatives ) JavaScript at 20 (tags: javascript ) Exercise alone won’t make you lose weight. (tags: exercise weight ) Beware Eurosceptic versions of history and science (tags: history science Europe ) How Many Americans Are Married To Their Cousins? (And how ( Read more... )

spying, ohforfuckssake, virtualreality, computers, technology, media, death, society, cia, thefuture, brain, misogyny, journalism, exercise, usa, money, internet, environment, logic, republicans, psychology, food, bias, happiness, abuse, children, libdem, links

Comments 52

gonzo21 May 17 2015, 14:57:26 UTC

I *very* much like the idea of dropping the use of the word 'trolling' and replacing it with 'violent misogynist' instead. Or 'violent sexist' as the case may be.

It's really very brilliant. They enjoy thinking of themselves as trolls. They revel in it. They may not enjoy thinking of themselves as violent misogynists quite so much.

kalimac May 17 2015, 15:16:52 UTC

Or they could reclassify the insult as a badge of pride, the way the N-word and the Q-word have been.

nancylebov May 17 2015, 15:58:35 UTC

I've thought that we need some metaphors based on parasitism (leeches, bedbugs, etc.) for what are now called trolls. They live on other people's attention and good conversations. They need us. We don't need them.

It might be hard to reclaim leech.

kalimac May 17 2015, 15:19:18 UTC

Here's somebody who's not part of the regular media who found Hersh's reporting on this to be totally inadequate: pt 1, pt 2. Basically, Hersh got his "scoops" from people with no reliable access to inside information and every motive to tell tall tales.

don_fitch May 17 2015, 18:02:07 UTC

I've always understood & used "Trolls" as something like "people who promote strong controversy when it is not called for, often by dishonest means".

I don't think Trolling is especially related to misogyny, racism, religious beliefs, or whatever -- though it often involves one or more of such things -- or that it's specific to any one of them.

andrewducker May 17 2015, 19:34:47 UTC

Yeah, that's definitely the original meaning. And I think it's reasonable to call the people who are simply trying to cause a fuss, because they like causing a bit of trouble, trolls.

But a lot of the really unpleasant misogyny going on as part of the things like GamerGate and similar is being called "trolling". And it's not, so we should stop calling it that, and start calling it misogynist abuse, because that's what it is.

don_fitch May 17 2015, 21:49:53 UTC

Thanks. I don't do Games (except the one of "I don't do Games", as FM Busby put it), so have experienced only a bit of (unpleasant) fall-out on the fringes by way of the various breeds of Puppies who are obnoxiously trying to re-make the Fandom I've been reasonably satisfied with for 50+ years. But they don't seem to be overtly mysoginistic yet. Although I can't understand what they have against "Social" (they're interacting in a society) or "Justice" (they want to purpetrate Injustice?) or "Warriors" (which they seem to aspire to be).

Wisconsin Republicans ban poor people from buying ... drdoug May 17 2015, 19:42:12 UTC

Mmm, not quite:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/wifoodstamps.asp

Re: Wisconsin Republicans ban poor people from buying ... andrewducker May 17 2015, 19:43:28 UTC

That really is a wafer-thin difference.

Re: Wisconsin Republicans ban poor people from buying ... firecat May 18 2015, 04:34:34 UTC

Having read the lists of items allowed and disallowed under the bill, I think a more meaningful summary would be "Wisconsin Republicans force poor people to memorize enormous sets of rules, because apparently poor people don't already have enough on their minds." (Stuff like, "you can only buy 16 oz cans of beans, not 12 or 20 oz cans.")

steer May 17 2015, 23:03:58 UTC

The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever I'm not terribly surprised. I imagine I can sometimes come across as right wing because I correct my friends when they post articles using spurious facts or poor arguments to support beliefs I actually agree with ( ... )

steer May 17 2015, 23:39:13 UTC

And one final thought along those lines that may convince you that people are being more "rational" than you think: the "Aha, what about what they didn't know?" effect ( ... )

andrewducker May 18 2015, 10:45:54 UTC

I was having a discussion last night of how much media bias affected the last election, or the independence referendum. And how chunks of the people on "my side" in both cases sound a bit tinfoil-hattish in detecting plots.

But then stuff does come out where civil service people are leaking information to the press and announcing that because they _really_ didn't like the idea of independence, the normal rules of impartiality didn't apply. And then I wonder if sometimes I'm too anti-conspiracy!

steer May 18 2015, 11:52:41 UTC

Well I think that's the viewpoint thing -- taking the "leaking information" thing, you see "conspiracy from supporter leaks information to the press supporting their political interest" I am seeing "heroic whistleblower releases facts that are important to question being resolved."

In a different universe where the vote went the other way there might be people thinking "why on earth wasn't I aware of that information before the vote?" (I mean if the RBS did have plans to leave then actually, I think that certainly should be brought to people's attention because it is really important and will influence how people vote... whereas I assume you think it should not in case it influence the vote.)

We all view the stories through our biases.

Thread 37