Twitter

Smedley said:

So the notion that the left has moved to the left in recent years is really, really stupid? Zero basis in reality? Nate Silver has it all wrong, but you have it right?

Yep.


Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I see the cartoon as a mildly to moderately amusing depiction of how the left has moved left in recent years, alienating some center voters in the process. The cartoon is not fully accurate nor does it pull in context of 20th-century history. It is a friggin cartoon. Are you this fun at parties? 

Probably more fun than you if that's your idea of funny. The cartoon is really, really stupid. And pointing that out doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor.  

So the notion that the left has moved to the left in recent years is really, really stupid? Zero basis in reality? Nate Silver has it all wrong, but you have it right?

From Silver: "What Elon is encountering on Twitter (and on MOL) is not the Democratic Party but left-leaning "thought leaders" (e.g. media, academics, experts, activists) and the leftmost of those folks have moved to the left especially in the *public* sphere (maybe privately not as much)."

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.

He's kind of an **** when he ventures out into punditry. I read his tweet and the thread commenters rightfully lambasted him. Even if the Democratic party has moved left significantly (prove it) the amount that Republicans have moved right completely dwarfs any leftward movement so as to make any comparison ludicrous.

This is so freaking obvious that it is just embarrassing for Silver not to realize it. His tweets regularly reveal him to be kind of dense.


for your reading pleasure. read the thread


Then there's the weird Twitterverse thingie where liberal accounts are dropping followers at a precipitous rate while conservatives like Boebert and DeSantis are picking up tens of thousands of new followers a day, up from just a few hundred a day before the Musk announcement.  Obama dropped 300,000 followers in a single day.  This seems to signal that Dems are deleting their accounts while Republicans feel more emboldened to rejoin Twitter and hope Trump reemerges on the platform.   Twitter claims this is organic and that they are not purging fake accounts.


Someone's keeping track of Elon's claims

https://elonmusk.today/


I finally understand the dumb Elon tweet.

No. It's not funny because it's flat out wrong and therefore offers no insight.


Smedley said:

So the notion that the left has moved to the left in recent years is really, really stupid? Zero basis in reality? Nate Silver has it all wrong, but you have it right?

From Silver: "What Elon is encountering on Twitter (and on MOL) is not the Democratic Party but left-leaning "thought leaders" (e.g. media, academics, experts, activists) and the leftmost of those folks have moved to the left especially in the *public* sphere (maybe privately not as much)."

It's stupid because:

  1. 2008 is an arbitrary starting point
  2. It does not move the conservative side at all
  3. Its evidence of a leftward progressive movement is "wokeness" and not real policy ideas

I get why some people think it's funny. It's aimed at conservative snowflakes who are trying to kid themselves they were ever progressive, who miss the good old days when nobody got called out for casual racism or misogyny. 

So yeah, it's a stupid cartoon that appeals to a segment of aggrieved (mostly) white guys. 


nohero said:

dave said:

Elon isn't a dumb enough to think he has negotiating power with the CCP.   Is he going to prevent talk of an independent Taiwan on Twitter?  Tibet conversation groups?  Xinjiang / Uyghur rumors?  HK pro-democracy exiles having accounts?   He would have to make those concessions to even begin talks. 

More likely, he could use his control of the Twitter to make it more palatable to China, not to have the Twitter be used in China, but to get benefits in China for his other businesses.

Perhaps a form of Twitter devoid of re-tweet capabilities and Xi Jinping is automatically added as your first friend?


Things rarely end well for cartoon stick figures who never move.


drummerboy said:

meanwhile

Oh, the worries of owning stock whose baseline in a chart is $800.


ridski said:

Smedley said:

So the notion that the left has moved to the left in recent years is really, really stupid? Zero basis in reality? Nate Silver has it all wrong, but you have it right?

Yep.

the brain trust weighs in


ridski said:

Smedley said:

So the notion that the left has moved to the left in recent years is really, really stupid? Zero basis in reality? Nate Silver has it all wrong, but you have it right?

Yep.

If the American left has gone so far over to the left, that still means that they're almost Canadian now.

If the American right is in the same place they've always been, then they're just saying the quiet parts out loud now about race, gender, sexual orientation, the poor, immigrants, etc.


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

meanwhile

Oh, the worries of owning stock whose baseline in a chart is $800.

Depends on when you bought it.


I've been pushed off Twitter by among other things, the incomprehensible structure of the thing and the inane, dumb, time-wasting commentary - by just about everybody on the damn thing. Do I need to read every trivial thought that comes into Sarah Silverman's head? Do I need Rex Parker's every response to, well,  everything? (Don't get me wrong - I love SS and RP.)  And the advertising! Trying to focus on the serious, meaningful dialogue is such a time waster. It's all too much for a casual user. 

I only use it now to learn when alternate side street sweeping has been cancelled here in Jersey City. It's good for that. 


drummerboy said:

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.


I don't, but in general I accept 538 and its associated commentary as more closely connected to reality than the consensus view of MOL. 


Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.


I don't, but in general I accept 538 and its associated commentary as more closely connected to reality than the consensus view of MOL. 

in what way?  It's easy to make those kinds of comments and leave without explaining yourself. It's harder to make a convincing case for your blanket assumption.


Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.


I don't, but in general I accept 538 and its associated commentary as more closely connected to reality than the consensus view of MOL. 

Fair enough, but in that case you should use his whole argument, and not only the part where he described the Democrats "moving left".


nohero said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.


I don't, but in general I accept 538 and its associated commentary as more closely connected to reality than the consensus view of MOL. 

Fair enough, but in that case you should use his whole argument, and not only the part where he described the Democrats "moving left".

I think the problem for the cartoonist is that depicting what has happened to so-called conservatives doesn't fit on a neat line.  You'd have to draw them as lemmings running off a cliff called "white supremacy/authoritarianism."


ml1 said:

I think the problem for the cartoonist is that depicting what has happened to so-called conservatives doesn't fit on a neat line.  You'd have to draw them as lemmings running off a cliff called "white supremacy/authoritarianism."

As you wish - 


ml1 said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.


I don't, but in general I accept 538 and its associated commentary as more closely connected to reality than the consensus view of MOL. 

in what way?  It's easy to make those kinds of comments and leave without explaining yourself. It's harder to make a convincing case for your blanket assumption.

There's no "assumption" here, I simply stated that I personally find 538 has more truthiness than MOL does.

Is that a surprise? 538 is a pretty comprehensive site -- many of the articles are pretty good, there's lots of interesting, unique data and analysis and the site gives a fair shake to different points of view. For example I find Biden's approval rating to be meaningful information and 538 has that graph up top above the fold. From previous discussion, MOL consensus is that that number is not meaningful.  

is good in its own way but it is a small local site with much less information, fewer points of view and a strong progressive slant.    

And pls don't go there with the "convincing". I'm not looking to "convince" anyone that 538 is more closely connected to reality than MOL. That is the case for me, maybe it's not for you. 


Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.


I don't, but in general I accept 538 and its associated commentary as more closely connected to reality than the consensus view of MOL. 

in what way?  It's easy to make those kinds of comments and leave without explaining yourself. It's harder to make a convincing case for your blanket assumption.

There's no "assumption" here, I simply stated that I personally find 538 has more truthiness than MOL does.

Is that a surprise? 538 is a pretty comprehensive site -- many of the articles are pretty good, there's lots of interesting, unique data and analysis and the site gives a fair shake to different points of view. For example I find Biden's approval rating to be meaningful information and 538 has that graph up top above the fold. From previous discussion, MOL consensus is that that number is not meaningful.  

is good in its own way but it is a small local site with much less information, fewer points of view and a strong progressive slant.    

And pls don't go there with the "convincing". I'm not looking to "convince" anyone that 538 is more closely connected to reality than MOL. That is the case for me, maybe it's not for you. 

your problem is that you think that the 538 website is somehow connected to his political pontifications. No one here is talking about 538 - they're talking about his tweet. Which happens to be a pretty bad take.


drummerboy said:

your problem is that you think that the 538 website is somehow connected to his political pontifications. No one here is talking about 538 - they're talking about his tweet. Which happens to be a pretty bad take.

Silver's Twitter handle is @NateSilver538. He leads his Twitter profile with "Founder, EIC @FiveThirtyEight." And fivethirtyeight.com is the website in the profile.

Yet it's my "problem" that I think there's a connection between the site and the tweets. 

I yi yi 


Interesting riff on Musk on TV this morning.  Supposedly he margined a boatload of Tesla stock with banks at a really high interest rate.  Should Twitter fail or Tesla stock drop big, the banks would start dumping the Tesla stock, leading to a spectacular show.  He could lose both companies.

Interesting take


Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your problem is that you think that the 538 website is somehow connected to his political pontifications. No one here is talking about 538 - they're talking about his tweet. Which happens to be a pretty bad take.

Silver's Twitter handle is @NateSilver538. He leads his Twitter profile with "Founder, EIC @FiveThirtyEight." And fivethirtyeight.com is the website in the profile.

Yet it's my "problem" that I think there's a connection between the site and the tweets. 

I yi yi 

I don't even know how to respond to this.

How about - expertise in one area (statistics and polls) is not connected to expertise in political science.

Did you ever see his tweets on the pandemic? Horrible stuff.

The point is, he should stick to what he's good at.


drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your problem is that you think that the 538 website is somehow connected to his political pontifications. No one here is talking about 538 - they're talking about his tweet. Which happens to be a pretty bad take.

Silver's Twitter handle is @NateSilver538. He leads his Twitter profile with "Founder, EIC @FiveThirtyEight." And fivethirtyeight.com is the website in the profile.

Yet it's my "problem" that I think there's a connection between the site and the tweets. 

I yi yi 

I don't even know how to respond to this.

How about - expertise in one area (statistics and polls) is not connected to expertise in political science.

Did you ever see his tweets on the pandemic? Horrible stuff.

The point is, he should stick to what I agree with.

Fixed that last part for you.


Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your problem is that you think that the 538 website is somehow connected to his political pontifications. No one here is talking about 538 - they're talking about his tweet. Which happens to be a pretty bad take.

Silver's Twitter handle is @NateSilver538. He leads his Twitter profile with "Founder, EIC @FiveThirtyEight." And fivethirtyeight.com is the website in the profile.

Yet it's my "problem" that I think there's a connection between the site and the tweets. 

I yi yi 

I don't even know how to respond to this.

How about - expertise in one area (statistics and polls) is not connected to expertise in political science.

Did you ever see his tweets on the pandemic? Horrible stuff.

The point is, he should stick to what I agree with.

Fixed that last part for you.

your argument of last resort, as usual.



drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your problem is that you think that the 538 website is somehow connected to his political pontifications. No one here is talking about 538 - they're talking about his tweet. Which happens to be a pretty bad take.

Silver's Twitter handle is @NateSilver538. He leads his Twitter profile with "Founder, EIC @FiveThirtyEight." And fivethirtyeight.com is the website in the profile.

Yet it's my "problem" that I think there's a connection between the site and the tweets. 

I yi yi 

I don't even know how to respond to this.

How about - expertise in one area (statistics and polls) is not connected to expertise in political science.

Did you ever see his tweets on the pandemic? Horrible stuff.

The point is, he should stick to what he's good at.

he's really good at using analytics to discuss sports.  which is his real expertise.  He was doing baseball analysis for years before he got into politics.

I look to 538 first and foremost for sports commentary, which is quite good. Then I look to them for aggregated political polling and evaluation of pollsters.

Political punditry, not so much.  Silver and his team aren't much better than any other "Conventional Wisdom".  Which means they don't know any more or any less than any of us here who keep ourselves well-informed and think critically about the news we consume.


Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

I can't for the life of me figure out why you think Nate Silver is some kind of god.


I don't, but in general I accept 538 and its associated commentary as more closely connected to reality than the consensus view of MOL. 

in what way?  It's easy to make those kinds of comments and leave without explaining yourself. It's harder to make a convincing case for your blanket assumption.

There's no "assumption" here, I simply stated that I personally find 538 has more truthiness than MOL does.

Is that a surprise? 538 is a pretty comprehensive site -- many of the articles are pretty good, there's lots of interesting, unique data and analysis and the site gives a fair shake to different points of view. For example I find Biden's approval rating to be meaningful information and 538 has that graph up top above the fold. From previous discussion, MOL consensus is that that number is not meaningful.  

is good in its own way but it is a small local site with much less information, fewer points of view and a strong progressive slant.    

And pls don't go there with the "convincing". I'm not looking to "convince" anyone that 538 is more closely connected to reality than MOL. That is the case for me, maybe it's not for you. 

fwiw, "truthiness" is an ironic word that means not truthful.

But regardless you have made zero argument that people on this site are not connected to reality.  (Once again, just because you "personally find" something to be true, doesn't make it so.  Which is a lazy person's argument.  Or a person who knows their argument is bogus, but is too stubborn to admit it).

Because outside of one person who has promised us a rose garden, I find most of the people who post here to be more connected to reality than the majority of political pundits (and certainly the majority of NYT columnists).  I could link to a dozen insightful posts on this site, from at least a half dozen different posters.  I'm curious who you think is posting here from a position of unreality.


mrmaplewood said:

Interesting riff on Musk on TV this morning.  Supposedly he margined a boatload of Tesla stock with banks at a really high interest rate.  Should Twitter fail or Tesla stock drop big, the banks would start dumping the Tesla stock, leading to a spectacular show.  He could lose both companies.

Interesting take

it would not surprise me if Musk never completes the deal for Twitter.  It would be Hall of Fame level trolling.


ml1 said:

you have made zero argument that people on this site are not connected to reality.  

That is correct, because that is not my argument. I said I find 538 to be more connected to reality than MOL, which is different than saying people on this site are not connected to reality.

For someone who calls out straw men arguments, you sure make a lot of them. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business