Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PRESIDENT TRUMP
Posts
SnowOwl
5188
SnowOwl
View playlists
CloseThe polls are a pretty concrete example that the media is biased. You can swing it around and call it complex any way you want, but the fact remains that if they had done proper polls, the result would have showed the actual, real outcome.
There are plenty of ways to do surveys that show close to real results, and yet pretty much all polls done showed that Clinton would win. I'm sure it was just pure coincidence.
There are plenty of ways to do surveys that show close to real results, and yet pretty much all polls done showed that Clinton would win. I'm sure it was just pure coincidence.
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
No, that 'fact' doesn't remain. I just told you how doing proper polls can still result in biased outcomes and how the real problem is poll results are presented as less nuanced and more concrete than they should be. If you want to call the media biased or corrupt based on the polls, you're better off trying to say the results were so concrete and unnuanced because of the bias. Except it's a thing that has been happening forever, worldwide, so bias here can't really have anything to do with it.
I'm not going to claim the media aren't biased, because of course some media are more right or left leaning than others. But claiming they're all leftist is blatantly false as long as Fox News exists.
I'm not going to claim the media aren't biased, because of course some media are more right or left leaning than others. But claiming they're all leftist is blatantly false as long as Fox News exists.
Shinan
4314
Also the TV I watched as it happened did state that most of the results were within the margins of error (you know that tiny text when they give results where they say like "+/- 2%")
We've had a lot of these reactionary results around the world. Have any of those led to changes in a following election? That is if populist got power, did they go down massively next time?
In Finland we had the "True Finns" win massively in the 2011 election (becoming the third largest party), however they didn't get into government so could continue their opposition politics. In last year's election their results stayed pretty much the same but now they got into government and not the opposition and in polls their numbers have gone down by quite a lot. But we won't know until 2019 if the populists having power actually decreases their support (by more than everyone else who is in power)
So basically I'm wondering if there's some countries where these reactionaries have been in power, how they've done in the next election? (I mean my gut and all the people on TV say that they thrive on being in the opposition and once in power they're fucked. But has that actually happened yet?)
We've had a lot of these reactionary results around the world. Have any of those led to changes in a following election? That is if populist got power, did they go down massively next time?
In Finland we had the "True Finns" win massively in the 2011 election (becoming the third largest party), however they didn't get into government so could continue their opposition politics. In last year's election their results stayed pretty much the same but now they got into government and not the opposition and in polls their numbers have gone down by quite a lot. But we won't know until 2019 if the populists having power actually decreases their support (by more than everyone else who is in power)
So basically I'm wondering if there's some countries where these reactionaries have been in power, how they've done in the next election? (I mean my gut and all the people on TV say that they thrive on being in the opposition and once in power they're fucked. But has that actually happened yet?)
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
Well, we have Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands. In 2010 his party got 24 seats in parliament, and sort of got into the coalition. Then in 2012 there were new elections, and he only got 15 seats, landing back in the opposition. Now he's back in the opposition he's thriving again, and current polls actually place him around 30 seats in the next elections, making him the largest party. :/
So yeah, I definitely hope that a similar thing will happen now to what happened in 2010, and he'll fall in popularity again after the next elections.
So yeah, I definitely hope that a similar thing will happen now to what happened in 2010, and he'll fall in popularity again after the next elections.
SnowOwl
5188
author=Jeroen_Sol
But claiming they're all leftist is blatantly false as long as Fox News exists.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said they play favourites, not that all of them are the same way.
The media as it is now is not a unbiased way to get news, it's just another political tool. And the majority leans one way.
And don't keep bullshitting about how doing proper polls can still result in biased outcomes. There's obviously a chance for a couple of percents up and down in either direction, but if close to 100% of polls show wrong in one direction, there's a very big chance that something is not right. Either the people doing the polls used biased questions (for example: "Clinton is the clear winner in this election, don't you agree?") or the results have been manipulated.
Personally, I don't give a shit about who won, except I lost a couple of dollars on my stocks, but I do find it pleasing how the media got what they deserved and how they are now acting like babies that dropped their icecream.
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
Look, the thing is, your premise and conclusion don't match up.
Premise: Close to 100% of polls show wrong in one direction.
This is true, and does indeed point out that something went seriously wrong with the polling. Refer back to previous statements on the matter, particularly how I said it's hard to guarantee independence and truth of the results, which, no, aren't bullshit.
Conclusion: People used biased questions or results were manipulated.
This is utter nonsense based on your premise. Almost ALL of the polls were wrong. It is completely impossible that they were ALL manipulated or unfair.
When a trend like this is prevalent across ALL of the media, there is no way it can be due to manipulation. It's much more likely some sort of phenomenon influenced all of the polls in ways the pollers had not foreseen. (Which, of course, is the reason people are hypothesising about the whole silent majority thing.)
Do you really believe a conspiracy theory that all of the media are corrupt and intentionally manipulating their poll results is more likely than a phenomenon that the pollers simply didn't foresee?
Premise: Close to 100% of polls show wrong in one direction.
This is true, and does indeed point out that something went seriously wrong with the polling. Refer back to previous statements on the matter, particularly how I said it's hard to guarantee independence and truth of the results, which, no, aren't bullshit.
Conclusion: People used biased questions or results were manipulated.
This is utter nonsense based on your premise. Almost ALL of the polls were wrong. It is completely impossible that they were ALL manipulated or unfair.
When a trend like this is prevalent across ALL of the media, there is no way it can be due to manipulation. It's much more likely some sort of phenomenon influenced all of the polls in ways the pollers had not foreseen. (Which, of course, is the reason people are hypothesising about the whole silent majority thing.)
Do you really believe a conspiracy theory that all of the media are corrupt and intentionally manipulating their poll results is more likely than a phenomenon that the pollers simply didn't foresee?
SnowOwl
5188
Do tell, what is this mysterious phenomenon that occured that swinged polls in the same direction?
The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. It's not good to be too trusting of people, even if you agree with their opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. It's not good to be too trusting of people, even if you agree with their opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Shinan
4314
Doesn't Occam's Razor tend to argue that there isn't a massive media conspiracy manipulating things?
SnowOwl
The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. It's not good to be too trusting of people, even if you agree with their opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
This is an oversimplification to the extent that it is not the correct interpretation of Occam's Razor. You can thank Jodie Foster in Contact for that. Occam's Razor does not state that the simplest explanation is usually correct; it states that when solving any problem, one should make the minimum amount of assumptions required. It says that when observing models of any phenomena, we should choose the simplest one. A simple model =/= a simple solution. This is the essential function of Occam's Razor.
As for the the argument you're having about polls, I agree with Jeroen. Occam's Razor does not apply to this argument. Newton's Flaming Laser Sword does. Polls have always been known to be unscientific and unreliable, which essentially precludes the possibility of them ever being even remotely objective.
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
Are you trying to use Occam's razor to justify a conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theories are never the simplest explanation.
Occam's razor states that among hypotheses that explain equal amounts, whichever uses least assumptions is preferred.
Your hypothesis has the following assumptions:
- Bloomberg intentionally manipulated their poll results
- CBS intentionally manipulated their poll results
- FOX news intentionally manipulated their poll results
- Reuters intentionally manipulated their poll results
- ABC intentionally manipulated their poll results
- Monmouth intentionally manipulated their poll results
- The Economist intentionally manipulated their poll results
- Rasmussen Reports intentionally manipulated their poll results
- NBC intentionally manipulated their poll results
Compare this to:
- A phenomenon was happening in America
- This phenomenon made it so that A: Clinton supporters were more likely to be polled, influencing the independence of the poll results or B: made Trump supporters more likely to falsely respond to the query, influencing the truth of the poll results.
Occam's razor states that among hypotheses that explain equal amounts, whichever uses least assumptions is preferred.
Your hypothesis has the following assumptions:
- Bloomberg intentionally manipulated their poll results
- CBS intentionally manipulated their poll results
- FOX news intentionally manipulated their poll results
- Reuters intentionally manipulated their poll results
- ABC intentionally manipulated their poll results
- Monmouth intentionally manipulated their poll results
- The Economist intentionally manipulated their poll results
- Rasmussen Reports intentionally manipulated their poll results
- NBC intentionally manipulated their poll results
Compare this to:
- A phenomenon was happening in America
- This phenomenon made it so that A: Clinton supporters were more likely to be polled, influencing the independence of the poll results or B: made Trump supporters more likely to falsely respond to the query, influencing the truth of the poll results.
Trump's internal polling on election day predicted that he'd lose, badly.
Trump probably wasn't manipulating his own polling to make it look like he was losing.
Trump probably wasn't manipulating his own polling to make it look like he was losing.
eplipswich
2728
author=SnowOwl
Do tell, what is this mysterious phenomenon that occured that swinged polls in the same direction?
The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. It's not good to be too trusting of people, even if you agree with their opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Perhaps you should actually read the article before making such a point. Even the 2nd line of the article states, "The principle can be interpreted as stating, Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
And while there's a line in the article that states, "The widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one" appears to have been derived from Occam's razor.(citation needed)", notice the (citation needed).
SnowOwl
5188
Alright, so it's some magical mysterious unknown phenomenon that happened then. If you're fine with that explanation, by all means enligthen me. What actually was this phenomenon then? I dunno, but you'd probably have to make a bunch of assumptions to believe that explanation, too.
I'm gonna choose to believe that a certain sort of people become journalists, and this sort of people tend to not like Trump. And this colored the way they did the polls in a small but decisive way.
Another explanation I could believe could be that all the journalists tend to live in areas where people vote for Clinton, and they did their polls in those areas.
Maybe even a combination of both.
I'm gonna choose to believe that a certain sort of people become journalists, and this sort of people tend to not like Trump. And this colored the way they did the polls in a small but decisive way.
Another explanation I could believe could be that all the journalists tend to live in areas where people vote for Clinton, and they did their polls in those areas.
Maybe even a combination of both.
It's not a magical effect. It's something real that has been known about for years, has been studied, and has a name.
The Shy Tory Theory
The Shy Tory Theory
Did any polls actually claim Clinton was certain to be elected? When I voted early, Trump had a 1 in 7 chance to win, which isn't terrible odds.
Before the election I heard discussion about people lying to the pollsters (in both directions) because they didn't want their spouse to know who they really intended to vote for. And after the election I'm hearing people bragging about lying to the "liberal" polls.
Before the election I heard discussion about people lying to the pollsters (in both directions) because they didn't want their spouse to know who they really intended to vote for. And after the election I'm hearing people bragging about lying to the "liberal" polls.
Society made it taboo to be conservative. So, conservatives pushed underground. But they didn't go away. So the perception was that our army was much weaker than it actually was.
Don't censor, don't shame, don't SJW and your enemies will be proudly out in the open. And maybe they won't even be your enemies anymore.
Don't censor, don't shame, don't SJW and your enemies will be proudly out in the open. And maybe they won't even be your enemies anymore.
Housekeeping
3571
I think that Trump's victory is definitely due in part to the whole "anti-PC" thing. It's just unfortunate that PC culture is a cultural phenomenon independent of actual public policy; so many of Trump's younger supporters voted for him at least in part because they don't like being annoyed.
I agree that it's annoying behavior; shame might just be the worst motivational tool. Unfortunately, the ticket that conservatives latched onto in order to fight this comes with a lot of other stuff that's kind of horseshit: impractical trade policies, antiquated social policies from the religious right, promises based on outright lies. Another unfortunate result from this: a small percentage of actual racists are getting emboldened, and the things they're going to say and do is going to be placed under a microscope by the media, and the PC backlash from that is going to be intense.
I agree that it's annoying behavior; shame might just be the worst motivational tool. Unfortunately, the ticket that conservatives latched onto in order to fight this comes with a lot of other stuff that's kind of horseshit: impractical trade policies, antiquated social policies from the religious right, promises based on outright lies. Another unfortunate result from this: a small percentage of actual racists are getting emboldened, and the things they're going to say and do is going to be placed under a microscope by the media, and the PC backlash from that is going to be intense.
Dyhalto
7536
We're not still blaming the closet racists, are we?
Let's compare the voting numbers to previous years. Trump's numbers are about the same as Romney's in 2012, whereas the Democratic turnout is 5 million less voters. The anecdotes are starting to role in, how people would go and vote in every category but the Presidential one which they left blank.
The polls weren't wrong. The majority genuinely wanted Hillary as the lesser evil, but a part of them wouldn't go ahead and give her the actual vote to secure it. Enough people file a protest vote or stay home, while the Republican crowd is a reasonably loyal bunch, and thus we have our result.
As an aside, this is also the first election we've had under the new version of the Voting Rights Act, amended courtesy of SC Justice Scalia. I'm sure some effects were felt (868 polling places shut down, for example).
What are you so smug about? Whose going to buy your games when wages go down and the cost of the necessities of life go up?
Let's compare the voting numbers to previous years. Trump's numbers are about the same as Romney's in 2012, whereas the Democratic turnout is 5 million less voters. The anecdotes are starting to role in, how people would go and vote in every category but the Presidential one which they left blank.
The polls weren't wrong. The majority genuinely wanted Hillary as the lesser evil, but a part of them wouldn't go ahead and give her the actual vote to secure it. Enough people file a protest vote or stay home, while the Republican crowd is a reasonably loyal bunch, and thus we have our result.
As an aside, this is also the first election we've had under the new version of the Voting Rights Act, amended courtesy of SC Justice Scalia. I'm sure some effects were felt (868 polling places shut down, for example).
author=harmonic
Welp, this attitude is what got you Trump in the first place. (Other than incessant SJWs) By all means, I implore you to remain complacent and comfortable :)
What are you so smug about? Whose going to buy your games when wages go down and the cost of the necessities of life go up?
Gonna say it now: please stop throwing around the term SJW.
I got no issues with you choosing to vote how you want, that's your prerogative and you're gonna have to live the with the good and bad of your choices which is fair enough, but using that term as an insult for anyone who actually cares about stuff that you don't and want to protect parts of society that you don't is beyond annoying.
At this point in time it's nothing more than a catch-all insult - pretty much flame baiting, so please cease using it. Thanks.
I got no issues with you choosing to vote how you want, that's your prerogative and you're gonna have to live the with the good and bad of your choices which is fair enough, but using that term as an insult for anyone who actually cares about stuff that you don't and want to protect parts of society that you don't is beyond annoying.
At this point in time it's nothing more than a catch-all insult - pretty much flame baiting, so please cease using it. Thanks.
