The Facebook bubble just popped

Post by downandout » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

gdulli wrote: post #140

downandout wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that half the country are racist rednecks (as Brokaw did). Got it. What you and Tom Brokaw are effectively saying is that one had to have been an idiot to either withhold a vote from or vote against Hillary, despite literally hundreds of perfectly valid reasons to do so.

I don't have a college degree, and I don't consider myself a racist redneck. I don't know where you're getting this from.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #67

woodchuck64 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense. Now, how can Silver correct his methodology to capture the above in future elections, I wonder.

He should call it quits together with all other pollsters. All that predicting is at best a totally useless activity or even worse, it influences voter behavior. Bet on football games instead. At least that doesn't do damage to the country.

Post by 75j » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #128

zzalpha wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please. Let's all admit SJW has a clear, negative connotation. I mean, geez, it has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics. Are you really going to claim that you weren't aware of this when you threw that term out there?

>Let's all admit SJW has a clear, negative connotation. I mean, geez, it has a Wikipedia page: Many of them also own up to the term and use it to refer to themselves in a positive manner, even placing it in their Twitter bio's next to a link to their Patreon. Anyone who actually spends any amount of time in the political sphere where SJW run rampant is aware of this. Someone like myself uses it with the full negative…

Post by herbst » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

vsgxvhdxh wrote: post #149

herbst wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry if this does not fit with your world view. In my environment facebook is some social media platform, with a few uplifting news but mostly irrelevant personal stuff. As anyone i am "friends" with way to many people without a specific genre, so i dont think my feed is special in that regard. There is barely political or relevant stuff on my feed, and as said i never heard anyone say "did you read _that_ on f…

When you see a political post do you tend to interact with it? Do you interact more with personal uplifting stories? Your feed tends to contain the sort of things you interact with to the exclusion of the sort of things you don't. You are probably in a Facebook bubble without even realising it...

Post by vsgxvhdxh » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

herbst wrote: post #112

istorical wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people use it as a link-sharing medium like others use Twitter.

"we" do that too, just not for these kind of news. Everytime i see some of the hardliners posting something political it will be completely ignored, or at max liked by some other hardliners. If someone posts a article about vegan or animal rights or shit, thats the kind of stuff that goes viral in my circles.