Political Randomness

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:32 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was a Harry Potter place at first, but I quickly did an "oh yeah, right" when I saw the spoiler. In fairness to the american public, I knew that Agrabah was not a real place because I spend a lot of time in not real places with my kids, not because I'm a master of real places.

Also in fairness, I don't typically agree to bomb places that I have no fucking idea whatsoever where they are or why they should be bombed, so there's that.

Well, people should probably say "Don't know", but it's not inconceivable for people to assume that such a question would be some place we either are bombing or are considering bombing (eg, somewhere ISIS is) rather than a trick question. And I'm not going to condemn people for doing so.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:20 pm

You don't answer in the affirmative with regard to bombing a place if you have no idea where or what that place is, is all I'm saying.

I don't think that's asking too much of the public. Excusable ignorance aside.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:23 pm

Defiant wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I thought it was a Harry Potter place at first, but I quickly did an "oh yeah, right" when I saw the spoiler. In fairness to the american public, I knew that Agrabah was not a real place because I spend a lot of time in not real places with my kids, not because I'm a master of real places.

Also in fairness, I don't typically agree to bomb places that I have no fucking idea whatsoever where they are or why they should be bombed, so there's that.
Well, people should probably say "Don't know", but it's not inconceivable for people to assume that such a question would be some place we either are bombing or are considering bombing (eg, somewhere ISIS is) rather than a trick question. And I'm not going to condemn people for doing so.

To be fair, Democrats went 19% for bombing in the poll.

The rule of thumb is that at least 10% of those completing a survey aren't taking things seriously enough for their answers to matter. If we assume that others might be mistaken or misreading, that mitigates the embarrassment further. There's still a problem, though.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:27 pm

GreenGoo wrote:You don't answer in the affirmative with regard to bombing a place if you have no idea where or what that place is, is all I'm saying.

If you're the person ordering the bombing, yes.

If you're a person being asked by a poll, though, I think you're allowed to make some basic assumptions and assume you're not being punked.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:32 pm

Actually, for that matter, there's nothing wrong in supporting the bombing of a fictional location. The only death toll would be a fictional one.

(Although I guess the retribution by Disney would probably be pretty vicious....)

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:32 pm

Defiant wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:You don't answer in the affirmative with regard to bombing a place if you have no idea where or what that place is, is all I'm saying.
If you're the person ordering the bombing, yes.

If you're a person being asked by a poll, though, I think you're allowed to make some basic assumptions and assume you're not being punked.

That's...insane.

Let me go back and read the question to make sure I'm not missing something.

edit: You're insane.

How on earth can any rational person not answer "I don't know" when asked whether a place they don't have a clue about should be destroyed/bombed or not? What possible logic are you applying here? That simply being asked the question is enough evidence for someone to support it?

edit: and sure, if you know the place and think it should be bombed, mythical or not, that's a different discussion.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:52 pm

GreenGoo wrote: How on earth can any rational person not answer "I don't know" when asked whether a place they don't have a clue about should be destroyed/bombed or not? What possible logic are you applying here? That simply being asked the question is enough evidence for someone to support it?

Let's just make the assumption that everyone polled didn't know it was a place from a Disney movie (if they did, then all possible answers would be completely valid).

Now, yes, I would think "Don't know" would be the best answer. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people to take clues from the context of the circumstances (being polled about support for current events) to make the assumption that it's a location being held by ISIS, in the same way you can attempt to understand a word or phrase you are unfamiliar with from the context of the surrounding words.

It's a trick question hidden among a bunch of serious questions. Yes, people got fooled. Big surprise.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:04 pm

I would assume that most (but not all) of the people answering made the assumption that this unfamiliar name must surely be a place in ISIS territory, and they know that prosecution of the war on ISIS is the topic of the day. In other words, regardless of what's on the page, they understood the question to mean not "Should we bomb Narnia?" but "Should we bomb that ISIS target everyone is talking about?"

It tells us a lot about how people read, and it certainly suggests that people will make big decisions even when they know they're kind of ignorant, but it doesn't go as far towards madness as we might assume.

"Should we admit refugee children from Eriador?" might give similar results.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:34 pm

You guys are insane.

Should we bomb x? Should be met with "wtf is x?". Not "X sounds like a place that deserves bombing, so I'll just tick the "yes" box".

Answering yes to this question is not being "fooled or tricked". It's being fucking stupid. Dangerously, ignorantly stupid.

Should we be killing x? If you don't have a fucking clue what X is, you don't say "sure" because it sounds like people who you would like dead.

I can't even fathom your position on this Defiant. It's so foreign to me that it's like a different language.

In what world is "bombing, it's the right thing to do" ever the default answer to anything, even IF your country is in the middle of a war? Holly hell, that explains the last detour through Iraq while on the way to the terrorists in Afghanistan, I guess.

A question like "We're planning on painting Narnia yellow, are you for or against?" might result in all sorts of answers based on whatever the person had for lunch. A question like "should we go to war with eurasia" shouldn't be "well, we're having a lot of trouble in the middle east, I'm gonna answer "yes" because that sounds right".

Ok, a little calmer now, but bombing is some serious shit. Having an opinion on it should at least involve more thought than "I want to bomb SOMEONE, I just can't remember who, and this sounds right". The completely nonchalant acceptance and excusing of this ignorance like it's a totally reasonable expectation of people to agree that bombing something they don't understand is...unsettling.

Asking people their opinion on favourite pop stars is one thing. Who cares of they name Johnny Cash. Asking them if they approve of explosive violence on a target that they don't recognize and having them say "sure" is not excusable, in my so very not humble opinion.

edit: It's not that I can't envision people assuming it's a middle eastern target, it's the assumption that because it's somewhere around the area of people that I'd like to bomb that I don't need to actually know what I'm agreeing to that I have a problem with.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:38 pm

I realize I repeated myself a lot there. I kept looking for a path that would allow me to see your point of view, but I always ended up back at my starting position.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:54 pm

I'm not trying to excuse it but explain it. If you start with the premise that many people don't take surveys seriously in the first place and then add that they take shortcuts in their thinking, you can see the answers as sloppily human rather than irretrievably monstrous.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:05 pm

While I understand that surveys aren't testimony in a court of law, I guess I just expect people to pay attention when they're asked about the life or death of strangers, even if they think they know what strangers the survey is asking about.

Sorry, the idea that people, people who vote, could have such casual opinions about the deaths of others obviously gets to me a little.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:07 pm

Since it's Star Wars day, I got Agrabah confused with Degobah... Yodawould probably still survive

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:14 pm

A certain percentage of people are asshats who would prefer to bomb anything unfamiliar, and let God sort it out.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Except that the reasoning for those of them being tricked, it's not that their reasoning is "X sounds like a place that deserves bombing, so I'll just tick the "yes" box"

It's not like they're going through and thinking "What are the advantages and disadvantages of bombing X" They've already thought about that and come to their opinion before the poll ever began - That Y needs to be dealt with militarily. The mistake is in assuming that X is part of Y (because polls almost invariably ask about current events, not fictional stories).

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:18 pm

I'm pretty sure I understand your point on this Defiant, it's just that I find it appalling.

"should we implement a trade embargo on Narnia?" Maybe I'd let that go by. I mean, I wouldn't if it was asked of me, but I can let that go for others. Things change when you start talking violence and war.

"should we bomb Narnia?" requires several degrees of magnitude more attention than the first one, just based on its nature.

Is bombing stuff not real for the average American, or so casual that it doesn't require actual understanding of the target?

It's like you're aliens. Which is not to say that Canadians could not answer similarly. It's just that those guys are aliens too.

edit: For the record it's not that they agreed to bomb Agrabah that is the problem (for me anyway. It's not the gotcha of Agrabah that matters). They could just as easily have agreed to bomb Baghdad, Moscow or Ottawa. The point is they hadn't a clue what they were agreeing to bomb. They THOUGHT it was ISIS, but they had no clue and anyone with a modicum of self awareness would realize that they didn't have a clue.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote:While I understand that surveys aren't testimony in a court of law, I guess I just expect people to pay attention when they're asked about the life or death of strangers, even if they think they know what strangers the survey is asking about.

Sorry, the idea that people, people who vote, could have such casual opinions about the deaths of others obviously gets to me a little.

Sorry but no one takes a mall poll seriously. Most people with half a brain just tell them to piss off no matter what they are asking about.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:51 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I'm pretty sure I understand your point on this Defiant, it's just that I find it appalling.

"should we implement a trade embargo on Narnia?" Maybe I'd let that go by. I mean, I wouldn't if it was asked of me, but I can let that go for others. Things change when you start talking violence and war.

"should we bomb Narnia?" requires several degrees of magnitude more attention than the first one, just based on its nature.

Is bombing stuff not real for the average American, or so casual that it doesn't require actual understanding of the target?

It's like you're aliens. Which is not to say that Canadians could not answer similarly. It's just that those guys are aliens too.

edit: For the record it's not that they agreed to bomb Agrabah that is the problem (for me anyway. It's not the gotcha of Agrabah that matters). They could just as easily have agreed to bomb Baghdad, Moscow or Ottawa. The point is they hadn't a clue what they were agreeing to bomb. They THOUGHT it was ISIS, but they had no clue and anyone with a modicum of self awareness would realize that they didn't have a clue.

I think we can assume that they realized no one was getting bombed as the result of a stupid poll.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:57 pm

Rip wrote: I think we can assume that they realized no one was getting bombed as the result of a stupid poll.

That's not even remotely the point.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:25 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote: I think we can assume that they realized no one was getting bombed as the result of a stupid poll.
That's not even remotely the point.

But it is. People don't really give much thought to what they answer for a poll they know doesn't mean shit. Which is why I hang up on them, as do most people with a life and an IQ over 80.

Hell you could easily get more than 30% to say that Hillary should be subjected to a ordeal by water to see if she is a witch.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:07 am

Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote: I think we can assume that they realized no one was getting bombed as the result of a stupid poll.
That's not even remotely the point.

But it is.

No it isn't.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:32 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote: I think we can assume that they realized no one was getting bombed as the result of a stupid poll.
That's not even remotely the point.

But it is.
No it isn't.

Then the point is pointless.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:55 am

Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote: I think we can assume that they realized no one was getting bombed as the result of a stupid poll.
That's not even remotely the point.

But it is.
No it isn't.
Then the point is pointless.

a) stats and polls have science behind them.
b) polls are only as good as the science
c) why answer polls if you're going to answer randomly. Are people just dicks in general?
d) I don't go to you for morale guidance. Or approval. I believe having an opinion on who should get bombed while completely ignorant of even the most basic facts is repugnant.

Perhaps Americans are walking around believing any place they don't recognize needs to be bombed. Or just randomly answer polls because fuck pollsters. Or perhaps are lazy. I don't know. What I do know is that calling for places to be bombed that you have no clue about is fucked up. Believing you know what place they are referring to when they ask you if it should be bombed when you really have no clue is also as fucked up, but maybe less so.

The poll clearly illustrates either a disregard for facts, or a lack of concern about who gets bombed, or both. If you think polls are bullshit, well you're entitled to your belief I suppose. People believe all sorts of shit.

When asked who my favourite stooge is, I might answer Trump because I hate being polled (normally I'd tell the pollster to go away. You can do that you know). When asked if Washington should be bombed out of existence, I don't answer yes because I'm bored and even though I don't know where Washington is it sounds like a place where ISIS hangs out. Clearly, that's just me.

Who should die is a serious question. I can't imagine answering it flippantly or without any knowledge of who I'm referring to when I say they should die. At best it shows an incredible lack of respect for human life.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:07 am

People are dumb about facts especially when it comes to geography and will mistake agrabah with alraqqah. That's no stunning revelation.

I think the more stunning thing is that 57% of people admitted they didn't know something.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:19 am

Defiant wrote:People are dumb about facts especially when it comes to geography and will mistake agrabah with alraqqah. That's no stunning revelation.

I think the more stunning thing is that 57% of people admitted they didn't know something.

I understand the science (well, I now it exists anyway) behind resistance to admitting a mistake or admitting to ignorance, and I get that people are dumb. I'm a people. I'm dumb too. But when you ask me if I approve of putting a gun to the back of Barrack Hussein Obama's head and pulling the trigger, I'm gonna pause and make sure we're talking about the former leader of Al-Qaeda before I agree that it would be a good idea. And yes I understand Osama is already dead.

The thinking you're suggesting results in 30% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats agreeing that it would be a good idea to shoot the president. I get that my example produces some rhetorical and facetious responses, but those should be accounted for in the polling science.

You aren't surprised that people will answer any damn thing with any damn answer. Mostly I agree with you, until we start talking about topics that by their very nature I feel deserve more thought. Then I'm like, wtf people, don't be lazy, ill-informed douches. Or if you're going to be, keep your opinions to yourself.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:26 am

Goo you should read this book.

The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls
by George F. Bishop

Chapter three in particular should be enlightening.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:40 am

Looks like some people are getting really nervous.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... president/

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:52 pm

Honestly after his first few bankruptcies I stopped paying attention. People call him a billionaire so I've been assuming that's true.

As with my normal position, I don't care what Trump does with his money. Either he can afford it or it can't. Either way, it's his money to spend.

Shrug.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:40 pm

I remember one time Trump got out of a helicopter and pointed at a homeless person and said, "That guy has more net worth than me." Maybe so, but no one is offering to give the bum a helicopter ride.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:56 pm

One does have to wonder how much of this he will find a way to parlay into something he doesn't pay for.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:56 pm

Red Cross expose on the new corporate style management at the Red Cross and how the organization has ended up even more messed up than ever.

Under McGovern, the Red Cross has slashed its payroll by more than a third, eliminating thousands of jobs and closing hundreds of local chapters. Many veteran volunteers, who do the vital work of responding to local fires and floods have also left, alienated by what many perceive as an increasingly rigid, centralized management structure.

Far from opening offices in every city and town, the Red Cross is stumbling in response to even smaller scale disasters.

When a wildfire swept through three Northern California counties in September, the Red Cross showed up but provided shelter to just 25 of 1,000 victims at one site. Because of the charity’s strict rules and disorganization, many evacuees slept outside for over a week, even when the weather turned bad. “These families were sleeping in the rain with their children,” said Wendy Lopez, a local volunteer.

Local officials were so angry they relieved the Red Cross of its duties.

The Red Cross had closed chapters in the area last year. “You’re seeing a huge loss of experienced staff,” said John Saguto, a 15-year Red Cross volunteer in Northern California.

Some emergency planners around the country have concluded they can no longer rely on the charity.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:36 pm

Senate President Biggs Names Sen. Allen Education Chair

Who happens to believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:55 pm

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:22 pm

Sarah Palin has a new show.

Trying to decide if it's so bad it's good, but I don't think it rises to that.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:24 pm

Hillary to battle Alzheimers....

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:34 pm

Rip wrote:Hillary to battle Alzheimers....

But not as far advanced as Trump's

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:04 pm

With the NSA, she can remember it for you wholesale.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:28 pm

Virginia drops concealed carry reciprocity:

Virginia will stop recognizing concealed carry gun permits from 25 states, including Florida, Tennessee and Louisiana, where firearm laws differ from those of the commonwealth.

State Attorney Gen. Mark Herring said the change will stop those prohibited from owning a gun under Virginia law because of criminal charges, mental illness or other restrictions, from traveling to another state to obtain a concealed carry permit.
...
Virginia has about 20 reasons someone can be disqualified from being granted a concealed carry permit, including those ordered to receive outpatient or inpatient mental health or substance abuse treatment; someone who is subject to a restraining order; or anyone who has been convicted of assault.

Agreements with states without the same disqualifiers will be voided, Herring said. Those states are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Virginia will recognize concealed handgun permits from Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. Alabama does not have reciprocity agreement with Virginia.

The move also means several of the states will no longer recognize Virginia's concealed carry permits due to mutual recognition requirements. Those states are: Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming.

The new rules are effective Feb. 1.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:06 pm

Nevada

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R) ... who is also CEO of a healthcare company, told listeners to her weekly radio show on Saturday, that she will soon introduce a “terminally ill bill,” to allow more non-FDA-approved treatments for those diagnosed as having terminal illnesses.

As first reported by Jon Ralston, Fiore told listeners: “If you have cancer, which I believe is a fungus, and we can put a pic line into your body and we’re flushing, let’s say, salt water, sodium cardonate [sic], through that line, and flushing out the fungus… These are some procedures that are not FDA-approved in America that are very inexpensive, cost-effective.” The American Cancer Society warns that while cancer patients whose immune systems are weakened by high doses of chemotherapy can sometimes contract fungal infections, “there is no evidence that antifungal treatment causes the patients’ tumors to shrink.” Cancer Research UK dismisses the claim that sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) can cure cancer as a debunked “persistent cancer myth.”

Michele Fiore, the newly crowned Assembly majority leader-to-be, has had more than $1 million in federal tax liens filed against her and her business during the last decade, some as recently as this summer.

The liens, listed below, were filed in Nevada and Colorado, and include nearly $350,000 in liability for taxes she withheld from employee wages during the last six years. Fiore’s company, Always There Personal Care of Nevada, has had nearly $700,000 in liens filed against it during the last decade, some of which (nearly $200,000) have been released.

Fiore also has had personal income tax liens totalling $58,000, which she tried to turn to her advantage when one lien was discovered by the Nevada News Bureau’s Elizabeth Crum during the assemblywoman's disastrous 2010 run for Congress, by asserting, “My case is a perfect example of an over-reaching government using its power and bureaucracy to intimidate its citizens.”

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:57 pm