WRL62

[waiguoren]

Bias can't be detected from memory in a NYT-like publication.

I think you are using a different definition of "bias" then I am. I'm using it in the sense of statistics (i.e., skew), while you're using it in a the sense of a deliberate prejudice.

If we had taken a panel of 100 politically engaged adults randomly selected from the US population and had we forced them to browse NYT front page political headlines for 10 minutes every day for the months (March 2019 to August 2019) and mark each candidate-mentioning headline as negative, neutral, or positive, Sanders would come out with the worst coverage of the top five Democratic candidates. Do you think the odds of the above being true are even, less than even, or above even?

If we're using the same definition of "bias", then you think the answer is "even", since you think we can't detect bias from memory and you haven't seen a study on the matter.

I think it's a good analogy, and your objection is bad.

Why?

But it does matter because it's the opposite of the organization's mission to insert bias into the headlines. If it happens, it's a subtle, inadvertent failure.

Again, I think you and I are using a different definition of "bias" here, which explains why you would write that.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Sure, but the states can also govern things that are federal, which is where the silliness comes in. For example, there's a woman now serving a prison sentence in texas because she voted in 2016. She had a criminal record and was a few months short of completing her probation. In something like 30-ish states that is completely legal. Exact same american citizen, in the exact same federal election, exercising her exact same constitutional right is either completely within her rights, or a felon.

That's silly.

Because Texas has different laws than the 30-ish states where that’s legal. And apparently in 20-ish states it’s illegal. I’m failing to see what’s silly about that, besides that maybe Texas has a silly law. If there was a federal law that said that people on probation have to be allowed to vote then it would override the Texas law.

In Hawaii we have our own constitution and I for one am glad for it. I don’t want to have to have the same laws as Texas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
^ it’s not that crazy or uncommon

 

[waiguoren]

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

If you listen to this guy ^ it will be a very bad idea. Think of someone from the Simpson’s who already tried this.

Also lol @Fawlty pretending these guys don't already report fucking everything.

 

[Madmick]

@Trotsky
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/154230659/

here's how it's done, just don't actually use the word 'stupid' and you're all good

 

[HereticBD]

So, is it game on? I mean if we're endorsing the manipulation of posters into screwing themselves, there are some very clever people who can make that game a blowout. I don't think that's a good direction for the WR, though.

LOL.

As if you're not mass reporting already.

 

[HockeyBjj]

LOL his next one is even better. He doesn't seem to know what back wages are.

The first was bad

This second one here brings to mind the phrase "Give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself"

 

[LMP]

LOL.

As if you're not mass reporting already.

The mods have stated time and time again that the guys on the right report just as much as the left. I assume that they are not lying about that.

 

[HereticBD]

The mods have stated time and time again that the guys on the right report just as much as the left. I assume that they are not lying about that.

I wouldn't know. I can only control myself from being so pathetically triggered over text on a screen.

 

[Trotsky]

@Trotsky
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/154230659/

here's how it's done, just don't actually use the word 'stupid' and you're all good

That's actually more like something I would post, although my writing style is less like a high school English paper written by Michael Scott ("scrupled in analogy"? Wtf does that mean? To hesitate on moral grounds...in...a comparison between two things?). Personally, I must "lack the comprehension to properly interpret" what "the nature of the conduct here, not his upbringing, is the matter being scrupled in analogy" could possibly mean to a literate adult.

For Mick, he's happy to flame and shit post less discretely. One that comes to mind is when luckyshot made a long and sincerely thought-out post about free speech:

This is one of those things that everyone will cheerlead when “their side wins,” but we should really think about the precedent.

Is it a good idea for schools to be held responsibility for actions of their students? Really? In all cases?

Someone said colleges should be about free speech, not encouraging protest... well, lol, I don’t think I need to point out the contradiction there. Protests ARE free speech.

And don’t Americans have the right to protest— even if they are wrong about something? Is anything the students did actually illegal?

It sounds to me like the jury awarded damages because the school cancelled their food orders from the bakery... but did the bakery have a right to those food orders?

I don’t know the law— or the details of the case— that well. But, on the face of it, I’d say it sounds like there are some legal questions to be clarified.

And Mick responded with:

Jesus Christ. Do another line of blow and go to bed.

The point being that @MadDildo, unlike more capable moderators, doesn't try to adhere to the rules that he then arbitrarily enforces in lieu of argument. Just as with any other vindictive partisan , he's perfectly comfortable with shameless hypocrisy. But when it annoys me (it unfortunately and obviously does at times), I just think of the sadness of weaponizing internet moderator power because a stranger made you feel dumb.

 

[Sketch]

Also lol @Fawlty pretending these guys don't already report fucking everything.

It will fall on deaf ears. They are powerless and will remain dubbed continuously.

 

[Sketch]

That's actually more like something I would post, although my writing style is less like a high school English paper written by Michael Scott ("scrupled in analogy"? Wtf does that mean? To hesitate on moral grounds...in...a comparison between two things?). Personally, I must "lack the comprehension to properly interpret" what "the nature of the conduct here, not his upbringing, is the matter being scrupled in analogy" could possibly mean to a literate adult.

For Mick, he's happy to flame and shit post less discretely. One that comes to mind is when luckyshot made a long and sincerely thought-out post about free speech:

​

And Mick responded with:

​

The point being that @MadDildo, unlike more capable moderators, doesn't try to adhere to the rules that he then arbitrarily enforces in lieu of argument. Just as with any other vindictive partisan , he's perfectly comfortable with shameless hypocrisy. But when it annoys me (it unfortunately and obviously does at times), I just think of the sadness of weaponizing internet moderator power because a stranger made you feel dumb.

Stop whining

 

[Captain Davis]

In flesh......

*felsh

 

[Trotsky]

The first was bad

This second one here brings to mind the phrase "Give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself"

lol

I think this is more akin to "offer a man hand and he'll shoot himself in the dick."

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you are using a different definition of "bias" then I am. I'm using it in the sense of statistics (i.e., skew), while you're using it in a the sense of a deliberate prejudice.

I'm saying that you cannot reliably identify either drawing on your own memory. I would be surprised if either existed.

If we had taken a panel of 100 politically engaged adults randomly selected from the US population and had we forced them to browse NYT front page political headlines for 10 minutes every day for the months (March 2019 to August 2019) and mark each candidate-mentioning headline as negative, neutral, or positive, Sanders would come out with the worst coverage of the top five Democratic candidates. Do you think the odds of the above being true are even, less than even, or above even?

Less than even (roughly one in five would be the assumption).

Why?

The processing would be similar. For the bias, at best (that is, if one weren't hopelessly biased oneself), we're talking about a vague sense of unfairness. Likewise, one might have the vague sense of there being a lot of "m"s in headlines.

 

[Captain Davis]

We back on a reporting spree round here?

 

[LMP]

We back on a reporting spree round here?

 

[Captain Davis]

Perfect. Lighten up Nancy’s.

 

[LMP]

Perfect. Lighten up Nancy’s.

Posting on the internet is serious business.

 

[Captain Davis]

Posting on the internet is serious business.

Especially when talking politics on a karate forum.