New Cambridge Analytica Leaks • Hacker News Board

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#201

Post by Moodles » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 10:14 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #191

Moodles wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not so much the factual inaccuracy as the loaded language. One can factually describe Trump in a positive light and Clinton in a negative light. It’s needlessly emotive and doesn’t belong on HN in my opinion.

I'm not sure I'd classify it as "needlessly" emotive; the topic is very serious and deserves engagement from people, and emotions are one of many ways to engage people. In the spirit of the founder of Y Combinator, I'd suggest that perhaps the emotive response signals that there is a sacred cow worth exploring here. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

I assume you would appreciate the loaded language if it was biased against your side then.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#202

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

Moodles wrote: post #201

shadowgovt wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I'd classify it as "needlessly" emotive; the topic is very serious and deserves engagement from people, and emotions are one of many ways to engage people. In the spirit of the founder of Y Combinator, I'd suggest that perhaps the emotive response signals that there is a sacred cow worth exploring here. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

I assume you would appreciate the loaded language if it was biased against your side then.

Yes.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#203

Post by Moodles » Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 12:11 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #202

Moodles wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you would appreciate the loaded language if it was biased against your side then.

Yes.

Ok then. Personally I don’t like it and I suspect a lot of others don’t appreciate it either though. I think it also sabotages your own overall point because half the audience will just roll their eyes at the biased emotive language, rather than fully paying attention to your main point.

Re: New Cambridge Analytica Leaks

#204

Post by jfengel » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #192

jfengel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decades is too much to ask, but one decade isn't. It isn't a single ideology, but a set of overlapping ideologies. Those do shift, as circumstances and priorities change, but generally not radically within the scale of a single Presidential term. I'd say it's not unreasonable to commit to a party and re-evaluate that commitment every decade (or perhaps 8 years is a better figure in the US). That's not to say that you…

> I'd say it's not unreasonable to commit to a party and re-evaluate that commitment every decade But that's a rational attitude and not what I was describing initially. A lot of people commit to a party for all their voting life which generally is quite a few decades. Sometimes this even goes for generations.

Oh, definitely. Parties change, and people's priorities change, and that gradually leads to a strain. Even purely rational people have a hard time telling when that strain has become a breach.

And a new alliance isn't easy to construct. You can't just go to the opposite party and say, "I've swung to you, so start catering to my priorities". Usually, you'll spend some time voting for nobody, in hopes that somebody will notice you, but that's hard without some level of organization, and that's work. In the meantime, you're failing to vote for a party that you had at least some sympathy for, and possibly losing to a party that has no reason to be on your side.

So a lot of people make party-line decisions based on inertia. They could improve their situation, but it's not as simple as changing their vote, since the existing alliances have priorities that won't change for a few votes. That leaves a lot of people in limbo, where there is no really great rational choice.