Stacey McCain hits my main issue with youtube. For demonstrations it is good, and for music (though spotify is better). Podcasts, meh. Unauthorized gives transcripts. I read fast. Audio is slower. But the woke want to ruin what utility there is.
Did I ever mention I can’t stand watching YouTube videos? As a means of communication, the written word is my preferred medium; it is more time-efficient, because I can read faster than anyone can talk. Even Ben Shapiro, who talks so fast I can barely keep up, talks slower than I can read. Give me the transcript of an hour-long YouTube video, and I’ll quickly skim through it, picking out whatever facts are most of interest to me, in a mere fraction of the time it would take to watch the video. So I almost never watch YouTube videos, and thus my intellectual diet is not impacted by the Left’s demonetizing and deplatforming crusades.
Neverthless, there are many millions of people — particularly young people — for whom YouTube is a habit,
You can read the whole thing, which is not-so-subtly advocating censorship of anyone in that “entire universe of right-wing creators” — in other words, anything on YouTube that might persuade you to vote Republican should be banned, according to the New York Times.The Other McCain.
There are those who would lie and betray anyone to show their virtue. Such people make poor friends, but far worse bosses. Moreover, they are vulnerable, because they cower at any hint of exposure. Do not be such.
This is not going to end well. For the progressive left. They cannot do sums, and they have no knowledge, forgetting that knowledge is the foundation of rhetoric.
Vox and Milo drive SJWs mad because they refuse to succumb to such tactics. Vox, because he will not back down no matter what names they call him. Milo, because he turns their attacks into a joke. Meanwhile, the cuckservatives are cowering in fear, begging Milo and Vox to stop drawing enemy fire or, alternatively, throwing them under the bus for being “extreme.” Are Milo and Vox “extreme”? Extremely effective, yes. Extreme in political terms, no, unless you think believing in human nature, families, nations, and Our Lord Jesus Christ is “extreme.”Fencing Bear.
I was originally taken with Professor Peterson because he defended Milo when Milo was down and he, Professor Peterson, was first coming under fire. But once the world had embraced him, Professor Peterson seemed to forget what he had said, instead nodding along as Ben and Dave declared Milo “irrelevant,” eventually succumbing to Bari Weiss’s efforts to make Milo untouchable by labeling him a racist. As Milo noted, at that moment, Professor Peterson was speaking “in front of what must have been the wealthiest audience he’d ever addressed.” How many of us would not cave at the prospect of winning the world, if only we were willing to distance ourselves from someone whom otherwise we might call friend?
It is not as if we have not been here before. (Fencing Bear is a medievalist, and knows this, though I would consider the Malleus Malificarum, as it is from the 1400s, as early modern)
The ironies here are that the Malleus relationship with Gutenberg’s press is a damn fine distant mirror of SJW’s on the Internet. Additionally, the Malleus now reads like a guidebook for SJWs. Simply replace witches in the book with non-woke, and voila! You’ll get your SJW recipe for dealing with Thought Criminals going forward.Steve Sailer.
One of my friends has written a book. I’ve read an early version, and will write a proper review once I’ve read the full version, though I feel unqualified to do so: I’m male, and the audience is Christian women. In her words.
So, a bit more about the book. It is MEANT to be challenging, and it is meant to be read in short bursts and then there is a bit of homework at the end of each (very short) chapter to make you sit and think.Amy Fleming, Facebook.
I did not write a smushy book to make you feel happy about the way you look. I wrote a strong book to challenge you to take your looks – and beauty more generally – seriously. It is meant to kick the excuses and lies and half-truths to the curb.
We have a sufficiency of “you go girl” books. We don’t have books to push you to deal with the excuses and lies. I already wrote a basic how-to style book. Other than the physical inventory and a few thoughts about pinterest, this ain’t that book.
I noted polls are bunk a couple of days ago. One of the members of the political media pack agrees — there is no viable sampling frame because most people don’t have a landline. Those who do are generally tradies or older. Locally, that means they tend left: I live in what is traditionally a Labour safe seat.
On one channel, Labour was sitting on nearly 51 per cent and able to govern alone. On the other, it was down, below National.Heather du Plessis Allan, NewsHub
On one channel, National is the biggest part on 44 per cent. On the other, National is down to 37 per cent and about to roll Simon Bridges because it’s all his fault.
Both cannot be true at the same time.
I have a reasonable idea of what the political parties own internal polling is showing, or what they are prepared to say it’s showing, and both sides seem to be saying roughly the same thing, which is that neither of these polls are totally right.
It’s not the case of one of them being rogue and one of them being right, it’s a case that neither of them got it right.
From what I’m hearing, the polling is more like this. Labour is sitting at 46 per cent or thereabouts. National is floating around between the 40 per cent and 44 per cent mark, depending on what kind of day they are having. That has not been reflected in either of these polls.
The problem here is, like Mike Williams, former Labour Party president says, the market research industry is in crisis.
They can’t poll correctly anymore. They got the Australia election wrong, Brexit wrong, Trump’s election wrong, and the problem, it seems, has reached us now.
There may be a couple of reasons why this is happening. For one, we, as a society, shame people for what they think. If someone says they like Donald Trump, they often get shouted down for that, so they stop being honest about what they think and who they support and that, it seems, could even extended to an impartial pollster calling up.
Number two; landlines. I’m in the middle of renovating our house and I’ve ripped up all the phone cords. We don’t have a landline, and I’ve made the judgement call that the next people who own the house won’t want one either. And I hope they don’t, because there’s no cord even if they do!
But this is the future, and the present. You can’t reach people on landlines and there’s no White Pages for cell phones, so how do you find the numbers to reach people to get a representative sample for a poll?
You can’t. Which means, for now at least, polls, as far as I’m concerned, are worthless. You’d know as much consulting a magic ball.
Chris Trotter, of the left, comments further. Apologies to Martyn Bradbury for the long quote, but on my cellphone the daily blog is autoblocked for some odd reason (ColorOS hates the Menshiviks?). Read the whole thing, noting that I don’t talk to the media, and pollsters are media.
How things have changed. Fewer and fewer voters have landlines. As a consequence, the phonebook is no longer sufficient to the task of preparing a statistically valid survey. And, unfortunately, there is no handy, publicly available, register for cell-phone subscribers. Even if there was, the dutiful citizenry required to make the survey truly representative has largely disappeared.Chris Trotter, The Daily Blog.
Because, while the pollsters were learning every little quirk about the voting (and buying) public, the public was also learning a thing or two about polling. What it was for; how it was being used; and by whom. With painful slowness, more and more voters realised they were being used. That what they were participating in wasn’t a matter of civic duty. It was a marketing exercise, impure and simple. They were helping the politicians to manipulate the electorate – i.e. themselves. Clever “communications specialists” were persuading them to buy back their own opinions.
This is the reason why polling agencies have so much difficulty in persuading the people they contact to participate in their surveys. For every one person who agrees to be interviewed, there are dozens who refuse. So many, that in statistical terms, the participating subjects have become unusual in themselves, and their opinions have to be weighted accordingly. Then, there are the respondents who deliberately mislead their interviewers. The “rat-fuckees” who become “rat-fuckers”.
Confronted with these formidable obstacles, opinion polling is becoming less and less a science, and more and more an art. The trick now lies in assessing how much of the sample to write-off as tricksters; how many as atypical political junkies; how many as persons who enjoy being asked for their opinions, but who will never make it off the sofa on election day. These questions cannot be answered scientifically, they can only be guessed at. Those guesses will be guided by experience; by ex post facto analyses; and, crucially, by intuition.
One pollster will say: “Oh sure, people love Jacinda – but will they turn that love into a bona fide ballot-paper stuffed into a ballot-box? Young people may revel in Jacinda’s stardust, but its old people who vote. We need to be conservative in our assumptions about the relative weighting of these two groups.”
Another pollster might say: “Normally, I’d apply a pretty heavy discount to the under-25 preferences. But, you know what? I’m betting that, in 2020, the under-25 vote is going to spike. I’m looking at all those secondary-school kids on the street demanding action on climate change. I’m thinking about the influence they’re going to have on their big brothers and sisters. Heck! The effect they will have on their parents! That’s why I’m assuming a significantly higher turnout.”
The first pollster might predict a solid vote for National. The second, a game-changing surge towards Labour and the Greens. They both can’t be right – but I’m hoping that more than 50 percent of voters would like to see the second prediction proved correct.
I do not hope for what Chris hopes for. I think we are at a point where the left and right model is falling apart. Instead people will vote for race, blood and soil. This may a step backward. It may be bloody.
But divided postmodern state cannot stand.