Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by robotresearcher on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @12:06AM
(#12641486)
He claims that the backlash against his support of Trump cost him $1M in speaker fees in the coming year. That is 20 years of the median wage for full time work in the US.
I respect Adams' creativity and he's made a significant cultural contribution, but the late-stage Adams career of self-proclaimed genius too smart to be fooled by political correctness is unpleasant. It's very easy to be a libertarian when you won everything.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by robotresearcher on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @12:24AM
(#12641545)
Those links show 13 million people voted for Trump in the Republican primary. In a voting population of 241 million, that's 5.39% of eligible voters. More people voted for Clinton, and very nearly as many voted for Sanders (Trump/Sanders = 1.0071).
Official popular vote count in 2016 primaries, in numerical order:
Clinton 16,914,722
Trump 13,300,472
Sanders 13,206,428
Cruz 7,637,262
Poll-based predictions for the general election currently:
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by jakeogh on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @03:54AM
(#12642189)
The point is the GE was delta 5M. That's almost down in the noise. Small changes in turnout (or huge changes this case) matter.... and that's ignoring the significant crossover vote in the Rustbelt.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by robotresearcher on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @12:58PM
(#12645607)
It looks like a wash in delta-primary-turnout nationally. The link posted above showed Dems down a lot in primary turnout in a short list of states. Nationally turnout was high on both sides, but a record for neither. That list of states was carefully chosen to make a certain impression, I guess.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by robotresearcher on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @01:24PM
(#12645843)
Turnout is the number of votes cast, not the number cast for a single person. Rep turnout was not a record. Trump's votes received were indeed a Rep record.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by dragonwriter on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @05:15PM
(#12647958)
National primary turnout (as a whole or for any one party) is neither really meaningfully comparable across elections (because of changes in methodology of particular primaries, changes in timing between primaries, differences in the course of elections which change the perceived value of voting in later primaries, etc.) nor predictive of general election turnout (so pointing to primary turnout as evidence of a party's or its nominee's strength in the general election is meaningless.)
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by dragonwriter on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @01:34PM
(#12645914)
> Record numbers of ordinary people are voting for Trump.
Record numbers of votes in the primaries for the winner aren't necessarily a sign of strong support; the primaries aren't an all-at-once election, they are process where results are reported as the process continues and the result is often determined early in the process, depressing later turnout (and increasing the percentage of late turnout which is simple protest voting against the already-determined winner.)
Record votes for the winning candidate in the primary could just be a sign of an unusually protracted actively-contested primary, and a party unusually resistant to coalescing around the leading candidate.
Intelligent conservatives' comments on Trump fascinate me. I like reading between the lines as they realise they have to explain things very slowly for a big portion of their audience, who they thought were appreciating their intellectual arguments, but it turns out they just thought they were in the same tribe.
For more from this genre, see also Sam Harris podcasts available on Youtube, where he goes into great detail about why Trump would be a disaster.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by NotSammyHagar on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @11:24PM
(#12641334)
Can't he just use his powers of persuasion and hypnosis to make twitter do what he wants? More seriously, I am curious what he actually did. Is he constantly an asshole or threatening people or something? Twitter is not the same thing as free speech, but I know a lot of conservatives get their panties in a bunch, being so afraid of being oppressed by the (wo)man.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by EJTH on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @03:54AM
(#12642190)
> The article doesn't really say what he posted.
> Why did I get shadowbanned?
> Beats me.
> But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.
It was literally the second paragraph of the article...
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by NotSammyHagar on Saturday October 08, 2016 @02:21PM
(#12667969)
That's pretty vague, he "feels something he might have tweeted about Clinton supporters"? That's not specific enough, that's why I said it was uncertain.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by ZeroGravitas on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @04:17AM
(#12642264)
He's also been saying recently that he supports Clinton, because if he didn't then he'd be assassinated.
So it's quite possible that he's actually mentally ill. On the other hand, it could just be a schtick, as I saw him bring interviewed recently on a right wing video blog and he was much more subdued than his written 'character'.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by EJTH on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @04:40AM
(#12642373)
Why make the assumption that he is mentally ill? As I see it it is just a reference to the very popular conspiracy (theories?) that several of Hillarys problematic staff and opponents has died under wierd circumstances, like shot in the back of the head during a robbery with nothing stolen from the victim, shotgun suicides, guccifer hung in his cell in Russia and much more.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by dragonwriter on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @01:35PM
(#12645931)
Yeah, unproven is different than disproved, but a source noting that a claim is unproven is hardly support for the claim being true, which is how you offered it.
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by NotSammyHagar on Saturday October 08, 2016 @02:23PM
(#12667972)
It was just unsubstantiated. If you want to suggest something might have happened, linking to a debunker website that says its unproven makes your claim less likely, right?
Re:Scott Adams Shadowbanned from Twitter for Supporting Trump
by NotSammyHagar on Saturday October 08, 2016 @02:24PM
(#12667983)
No, support for trump is not enough to get banned of course. That guy from brietbart who got banned from twitter had been attacking people for a long time, and urging others to attack people like leslie jones. I thing this is the kind of thing that eventually adds up to a ban on twitter.
I respect Adams' creativity and he's made a significant cultural contribution, but the late-stage Adams career of self-proclaimed genius too smart to be fooled by political correctness is unpleasant. It's very easy to be a libertarian when you won everything.
http://img.ccrd.clearchannel.com/media/mlib/15172/2016/06/de...
https://i.sli.mg/erfcMO.jpg
Official popular vote count in 2016 primaries, in numerical order:
Clinton 16,914,722
Trump 13,300,472
Sanders 13,206,428
Cruz 7,637,262
Poll-based predictions for the general election currently:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?...
The 2012 primary results were:
Obama: 6,158,064
Romney: 10,031,336
The Dems' nomination of the sitting president was a foregone conclusion so no need to get out the vote.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-...
It'd be interesting to look at relative delta-turnout in swing states only.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/1/donald-trump-...
14.8%(2016) vs 11.8%(1980)
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/20...
Thanks for a polite correction :)
Record numbers of votes in the primaries for the winner aren't necessarily a sign of strong support; the primaries aren't an all-at-once election, they are process where results are reported as the process continues and the result is often determined early in the process, depressing later turnout (and increasing the percentage of late turnout which is simple protest voting against the already-determined winner.)
Record votes for the winning candidate in the primary could just be a sign of an unusually protracted actively-contested primary, and a party unusually resistant to coalescing around the leading candidate.
Wonder if Scott Adams can satisfy the search for intelligent Trump supporters - http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-quest-for-int... .
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-jo...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/10/01/he-kept-us-out-of-war/
Intelligent conservatives' comments on Trump fascinate me. I like reading between the lines as they realise they have to explain things very slowly for a big portion of their audience, who they thought were appreciating their intellectual arguments, but it turns out they just thought they were in the same tribe.
For more from this genre, see also Sam Harris podcasts available on Youtube, where he goes into great detail about why Trump would be a disaster.
That site has a thorough listing. He seems to have been very odd for a long time, not believing in fossils and things like that.
http://mradilbert.tumblr.com/
Quotes the highlights from his recent blogs.
This is one of the better non-blog sources I found, google will find you plenty more:
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/whats-with-dilberts-cr...
He also mansplains harassment: http://freethoughtblogs.com/indelible/2014/11/10/scott-adams...
You can also search for the fun stuff he said about rape and salary inequality.
Here's one of the rape ones: http://jezebel.com/5813290/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-weigh...
He's since deleted the original post.
Please don't use sexist language on HN.
And of course the sock puppets: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/19/scott_adams_sock_puppetry_sc... http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/04/16/scott-adams-ima...
The article doesn't really say what he posted.
> Why did I get shadowbanned?
> Beats me.
> But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.
It was literally the second paragraph of the article...
So it's quite possible that he's actually mentally ill. On the other hand, it could just be a schtick, as I saw him bring interviewed recently on a right wing video blog and he was much more subdued than his written 'character'.
Furthermore Hillary has suggested that Julian Assange should be dronestriked: http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/
$0.10 was deposited to your CTR account.
Support for Trump. Isn't that enough?
I know I had tuned out of it a while ago because Twitter didn't have any content that interests me. Now it's like reality tv for the election
> All things considered, I had a great week. I didn’t realize I was having enough impact to get on the Clinton enemies list.