The article it links to tries to frame both sides as bad as each other and it's just a misunderstanding. I've really had enough of people doing that and thinking they can elevate themselves above each side to then referee.
The simple fact is that they're not equal opposites. The left has as a whole been repelling away from centre exponentially. If you measure it it's literally a tangent. The right has drifted slightly as a counter force but no where near so significantly.
If the two are entirely the same then why is the British Army rolling out White Fragility indoctrination yet are not rolling out any right wing political indoctrination? This is just one example of a pattern you see over and over. This is not a single case but an example of what we have seen time and time again.
It's the left doing this, not the right. It's not mutual opposition. The left are driven by a supreme ignorance and total paranoia where as conversely the right are driven by what the left is doing. It may not be 100% of left wing voters but to say that things like open borders which are extremist views aren't frequently dominant at the top of left wing power structures is a total lie. The real moral of the story in th article from the twitter link is that the people that represent the left might not be very representative of the left as a whole. That's tough shit. Doesn't get them off the hook.
Fair point. I suppose the British Army will become nothing but fags, trannies, and diversity hires. It will become an institution where no self-respecting real man will want to serve their country that cucks them out to this bullshit.
And if they continue down this path, which I assume they will, we need to stop selling them weapons. We can't give a soon to be muslim majority nation F22s, Apache attack choppers and missle tech. We need to remain more inner focused for military purposes. Very few of our "allies" actually sent any help when we were fighting in the middle east and at this rate, none of them will be willing to help next time shit hits the fan.
That country is cucked anyways. Can’t fucking own guns freely, can’t defend yourself, rapist gangs run around with impunity, and its royal family is infested with pedophile rats who kept company with Epstein. It needs a overhauling even more desperately than the US.
Black kids committing over half of all violent crime? I went to public high school and I don't doubt it for one damn second.
While not every black is violent, the fact that so many of them come from broken who often have mothers that pop children out just for the benefits and often have fathers that are little more then gigolos it's no wonder violence breeds in their race so readily.
We need to bring eugenics back so that only good fathers may produce offspring. Not just for the blacks, but for all the races. Bad people should not be allowed to spawn more of themselves. White, black, it doesn't matter. Children should never be subjected to abusive house holds. It's a moral imperative to keep children from suffering from birth this way.
It really is. People can't just go about their lives any more, they constantly read about how the world's on the edge of being destroyed and how Trump is dooming everything.
I'm just curious what the meta-narrative will be if Biden does win. MSM will go broke. There's so many grifters making a living off "orange man bad" lol
I would not be surprised if many of these so-called journalist AKA propaganda pieces of shit actually vote for Trump. Secretly of course. Because they do this for the money. The average idiot sitting on the couch though listens to this garbage for confirmation bias.
100% no one gave a shit about it for years of it's life, but MSM kept pushing it and quoting it. They created the expectation that "If you aren't on twitter, you won't get media coverage."
Corporations and politicians and pedowood stars signed up en mass because of that media push, long before even 5% of the population was aware it existed. Once they were quoting politicians and pedowood, they created the expectation that "Twitter is where you could have heard this first" and a VERY small group of the population started obsessing over twitter posts of the people they wished they could stalk.
Keeping people in fear keeps them coming back for more thinking media will report good news but they keep bringing the propaganda.
Reminds me of this one story that came out over a decade ago about Popeyes in upstate NY where the location runs out of chicken because of a great special going on so supply cannot keep up with demand. The local news did a story about it and interviewed the customers who were salty about it. This one guy says "they always do this, they always run out of food" and yet that customer always keep coming back. No matter how bad customers are treated they still come back...much like Democratic voters.
The fluff piece indoctrination proves that people don't actually want to see negative news, but also illustrates how they successfully conditioned an entire population to obsess over negative news.
For decades they used the Fluff formula to get ratings. Talk about a fluff piece coming up, advertise the fluff piece periodically for hours before the news segment, introduce the fluff piece immediately, bring it up again before every commercial break, and then finally show people the story about the poodle who saved the life of a chipmunk.
This worked for at least two whole generations to get people watching the news all the way through, and is all the proof you ever need that bad news is not what drives ratings.
But at the same time it created an expectation that if you just watch the news long enough you will eventually get to the good news. No matter how bad things are if you just keep watching a poodle will appear out of no where and save the day.
It has its good parts, though. Example: It allows POTUS to bypass the lame stream media control of the narrative. Also, it's allowed us to see the truth regarding the riots even when the news stations all says
it's mostly peaceful. You just need to follow some solid people on there. Andy Ngo, Ian Miles Cheong, Simulation Warlord, Alex Berenson for everything COVID related, etc. Don't forget Elon Musk as well, very interesting dude, and Joe Bastardi for meteorology and everything pertaining to AGW, etc. Start there and I guarantee you'll be happy you have.
How the fuck does omnicoreagency know whether an account is a bot in a manner that Twitter itself does not? The truth is that detecting bots is VERY hard. If Twitters algorithms detect you are a bot account it is an instaban. So I repeat: how is omnicoreagency more aware of who is and isnt a bot than twitter itself?
Answer: They DON'T know who's a bot, they just have some pre-set criteria for "this is a bot, and this is not", which they then proceed to believe will be 100% effective, even though the bot account owners are constantly trying to make their bots seem more human without requiring full human control at all times.
And many bots are designed to increase the monetization value of another account, and thus would be designed to register by whatever methods are most likely to come across as a 'monetizable' account.
Working for a cell carrier, I rarely see Twitter installed on any phones anymore. (I see Gab and Parler more often if that's a clue on how rare we're talking.)
Facebook is far, far more common, but even then, a lot of folks don't use it or use it often. And if they do use it, it's to keep in touch with people they already know in person.
I do see people on the Trump SMS notification list. I actually once saw this place on someone's web browser. 😉
Facebook is default installed on Droid OS if I recall correctly? They pulled a Micro$oft sort of deal with OEM to include it in the OS and making it VERY VERY difficult to completely remove. I recall one phone I had all you could do was disable it.
It depends on the phone. Some have it some dont. Mine had the entire amazon stack installed. You can disable all of it usually. But can not uninstall without rooting it.
Not really. There's an app that is preinstalled on a lot of phones that handles the account-side of facebook and sometimes auto-downloads crap, but it's easy enough to get rid of.
A phone running vanilla android usually doesn't contain any of these apps.
Meanwhile, Republicans believe that nearly 40 percent of Democrats are LGBTQ.
just 6 percent of Democrats are LGBTQ.
Democrats are 100% gay. Voting Democrat is gay.
Both of these figures are highly suspect.
those holding extreme views are a minority in both parties
This isn't even a relevant comparison. Right wing extremists are a minority among left wing extremists. The left wing is minority driven where as the right win is majority driven.
Extreme can be better rationalised so as to be more objectively or reason based but indeed it's also overwhelmingly subjective. For the left the most so. Even when the left appears to employ reason and objectivity it's as it suites them. This is all they really do, they do as they please. They will pick the things that serve their purpose and reject everything else. This is why they insist on science the one moment then oppose it as a valid discipline in its entirety the next calling it the tools of white supremacy.
Supporting BLM is an extreme view depending where you stand. If you're aware of the truth rather than fooled by the lies which themselves have to be extreme then that's fully extreme. If someone is gullible and truly believes the BLM narrative while being unaware of the many truths of the movement then it wouldn't necessarily be entirely extreme to support it.
There is often a true centre in many forms. It can be established by weighing up as much as possible, through many issues needing to work like a trial and through that quite often a divide arises because there are often dilemmas.
Many people seem to assume they sit in the centre on issues. They think they are normal or average. This is rarely so.
It's useful to look at things such as this but it is deceptive.
It should look like this:
L----C-R
The problem is people just put centre straight in the middle of the two. When studies are taken using a constant centre you see something like this decade on decade old to new...
LCR
L-CR
L--CR
L---CR
L-----C-R
L-------C-R
Each letter is the centre of an asymmetrical distribution that you can assume stretches out one to two points.
For people on the left things appear very strangely. Quite often anyone <L and often <C then anything >L or themselves is far right.
The graph in the image does this...
LCR
LCCR
L-C-R
L-CC-R
L---C---R
L----C----R
This isn't valid however and makes C completely meaningless. This is extremely common in political "science". It's also a common problem in bench marking. It most commonly comes from the scoring of the questions, their construction and assignment being balanced whether intentional or not by as you guessed it subjective assumptions.
This happened with things post WWII where surveys for things such as detecting authoritarian views would be written to assume values they thought on the right were authoritarian would be measured so they really do nothing scientific except confirm their own stereotypes.
Chaining benchmarks to detect change over time is rarely done making what looks like a continuous progressive science where one paper appears to be based on the other completely and utterly useless. They then also design their questions to be balanced and completely fail to detect or recognise the real imbalance. We know this is a problem because if we dig into it tests that try to maintain C as a constant or that use the same test through the ages show the shifts into the extreme on the left as a matter of fact.
The left calls everyone far right when it's the opposite, the average left is far left but in their minds it looks like this instead:
LCR
LC-R
LC--R
LC---R
L-C-----R
L-C-------R
They fail to realise they're the ones moving. They think they're standing still. All these centuries of enlightenment but they still think the world mostly orbits them.
One of the reasons they cannot adhere to the centre is because they're just computers rather than having souls. They're not truly conscious or aware. People on the right can better maintain close proximity to the centre because they can do things such as maintain a superposition rather than immediately and automatically taking sides in a dilemma according to some programming. This is also the reason for the know it all like behaviour seen in the left. As they're unable to hold on to uncertainty they must immediately adopt a constant value.
The best solution is to find a way to separate from them and then allow them to destroy themselves.
We shouldn’t focus on “extreme” at all, but on right or wrong. There are many positions that are considered extreme today, but normal by the standards of 99% of history, that are obviously correct. The left is wrong irregardless of how “extreme” they are. They’re wrong as a matter of fact.
If you're sensible and reasonable you would incorporate both concepts into a sensible model that appropriately reflects reality. Extreme on its own without context is neutral. With context it can be good or bad. Given a state of normality that is generally good then extreme would tend to indicate a zone of risk.
Politically extreme is heavily rooted in right and wrong though that doesn't really solve the puzzle. Liberals are moral supremacists. They can do no wrong and inherently their establishment of what is extreme hinges on their sense of what is wrong.
Their religion, their new found absolute morality and their automatic sense of right and wrong is the problem. They are in fact moral extremists.
They're wrong on many fronts and they mix things up. That's as a matter of fact.
It's incredibly complex and you know what? To be quite honest it would all be much simpler if they just didn't exist. I do this a lot in engineering. No X, no problem instead of spending so much time and effort on something so complex. Just delete it. It's often been a great subject of humour when someone just gets fed up, removes something entirely out of frustration when there's a crisis related to it and their eyes glare wide open when suddenly everything works.
We call it a no code no problem situation where not only is getting rid of the code better than trying to fix it but getting rid of it fixes it. This happens for real. One morning the programmers storm in panicked screaming that half the code has gone and demanding I explain what I've done only to be shocked when not only does it all still work but even better than before by a factor or a hundred. If something is too complex to maintain and not really adding any value then get rid of it.
I have a hard time following what you’re saying. It’s not very clear. What two concepts am I supposed to incorporate to be deemed “sensible and reasonable” by you (not that I care to be)? I’m not interested in mainstream opinion. I don’t think mainstream opinion is always reasonable or sensible or good. That’s what I’m talking about. We would be better off without people who insist on being wrong, that’s obvious. But we can’t just delete them. We need to secede and let conservatives and liberals go their own way.
The meaning of sensible and reasonable can sometimes transcend words themselves and depend very much on the quality of the brain including the level of cognition the speaker and listener experience. I assume that you operate on a similar level and what would be sensible or reasonable to you would be not entirely dissimilar to what I would recognise as such as well.
What I mean is that both extreme and right or wrong can apply. I think the point you're really making is that people over use extreme to try to attribute right or wrong which is true. My point is that not all use need be abuse so while I might say we should prevent it's abuse I would not use as blunt an approach as to oppose all use. You can try to steer its use in the right direction or simply eliminate it. To be honest, if referring to the left then I don't think they should necessarily be using it at all if they're simply not competent enough to apply it appropriately.
It's not as practical as with code but it at least betrays a sense of the problem. We need to do something and separatism feels a lot like it can solve a few things but is also similarly impractical. It may be a case where things have to be done the hard way. With gdd, printfs, etc. Though the most important thing is to make sure we're the ones at the control console and not they.
They're philosophical zombies. This means their natural purpose is to be slaves to those possessed of consciousness. Yet there is a paradox as they are most identifiable when allowed to fault. That aside they have no awareness of self so no awareness of others. Their attempt to achieve socialism which creates a society of drones makes sense to them as suitable to all and excludes that it is not suitable to those who possess a soul.
We need some kind of separatism without being separate perhaps where they can if they so choose submit themselves to be subordinate drones so to self select. We do not know who lacks a soul but those who do know. We'll call it being a socialist rather than a drone or a slave as for some reason they respond better to that particular synonym. They'll be able to choose to be a socialist within our own society while the rest of us remain as we are. Give them what they want in this respect but simply make sure it's over them and themselves but not over us.
Your comments here come across as trying to paint a black and white picture as "shades of mauve with a hint of post-modern existentialism."
There is right and there is wrong. There is really nothing on the left that is good. Not a thing. Whether you want call it socialism, paganism, depravity, or just straight up evil doesn't much matter, it ain't good.
Take the most liberal among us and the most fundamental among us and maybe you can have some kind of "if we just balanced the two ideologies we'd have a better society." But we still have to leave the party of pedophiles and satanists out of it.
The pro-Trump MAGA party is already the final remnants of the two ideologies that once existed in the USA into that perfect 'balanced society' you were trying to exfoliate on. What's left on the left is the utter degenerate bottom of the barrel.
There's no "extreme" right, only extreme left. By the original definition, rebels are the left, guards are the right. In America, most of the right is the everyday folks. They have no hidden agenda or ulterior motives. They just wanna conserve their way of life and not to be bothered by anybody, hence the label conservatives. The left, on the other hand, intends to overthrow the whole system and build a totalitarian regime on its ruins.
Everything (though not literally) will have its extremes it's just that there's not so many on the right. Not in any significant capacity. Left and right in politics is supposed to perform a more neutral and functional role like defence and prosecution. Where they could technically even alternate.
It's not even as simple as left verses right really. The ideology that has gripped the left really departs the realm of sane or sensible thought to become it's own religion where the only permissible state of existence is to be a believer.
That is what I believe to be their objective. Absolute rule. Absolute power. It makes sense. They're absolutely corrupted and one things leads to another.
There's another quality of the extreme on the right. The extreme are not extreme. Some people might have seemingly extreme views but if you talk to them there's often a difference. They're not inhuman like the left and very rarely is someone on the right extreme in and off themselves. Talking to someone on the left is not like talking to a person. It's like trying to debate with a bear to spare your life. Things such as thought and reason don't exist in the left.
It's strange but I can actually have a conversation with a neo-nazi even though there are many things I might disagree with in totality. This is simply not possible with a liberal.
Leftism, or wokeness in particular, has developed into a RELIGION. It's a heresy originated from the liberation theology, which falsely identifies Jesus as the first SJW who came to solve social issues and liberate the poor from oppression. They have actually adopted many elements from Christianity such as original sin - your white privilege and conservative values, crucifixion - denounce your "whiteness" and condemn the whole system of "whiteness", and salvation - posting black squares on twatter and attend critical race theory training sessions.
From an agnostic but default atheist position I've always been wary of Christianity but it has certain defence mechanisms. If you believe in God or are even versed in the concept such that you understand it then humility is innate.
These are some people who are also adapting SJW through a Christian lens where it's seeping in and exploiting that Christianity on a basic more reasonable level corresponds, for example Jesus doesn't care if you're black or white, he's certain to be beyond that sort of thing.
Genuine racists adopted principles from Christianity as well though not always. The concept of original sin also stands alone but happens to be in Christianity in the same way a pizza has tomato but tomato doesn't come from a Pizza.
The SJW religion is principally an atheist religion (also a cult at the same time, they're cultists). At its heart is a godless religion. Atheism doesn't mean anything more than not being theist so you don't believe in supernatural gods or a single god. It's actually a mistake that people couple theism with religion and what religion is too tightly.
It doesn't have to have a god or gods in it to be a religion. Atheists can have any number of belief systems that also dictate their morality that exclude any gods. Many atheists believe in the UN as the ultimate source of morality and worship the concept of human rights handed down to them (gifted to them like it's the ten commandments) by their god in the form of an organisation rather than the ancestors that actually suffered to afford the quality of life and rights they now enjoy or more commonly put to waste while crying that they need more.
The signs of religion are a well developed belief system and morality. Religion is not strictly good or bad but can be. More often than not the real fear of religion even if good is the human propensity for dogmatism. The quality of a religion varies depending on the hands its in and the religion itself.
The liberal religion is bad both as a belief system and a moral standard. The belief system demands the immoral. It does not simply believe in a God beyond our perception but forces far closer to home such as this invisible racism which immediately makes demands of non-believers as well. It's as incompatible with our society as Islam is.
It truly is a horrifying sight to behold. I wouldn't actually say they have adapted elements from Christianity but from racism!
They believe that they are opposing racism but are actually just racists switching all the targets. They're really doing the same things. They think racists say no one can interbreed so to be anti-racist everyone must interbreed. The same as how they just swapped white with black.
They believe in it all. Original sin. Divine right. Breeding the colour in/out of them. Manifest Destiny. Lebenshaum. Slavery. All of it and more. Everything we ever equate with evil and bad they embrace but in some twisted way such that it is different yet the same, so that it is synonymous. I really start to believe that they are simply composed of pure evil.
Meanwhile, Republicans believe that nearly 40 percent of Democrats are LGBTQ.
Outside of hyperbole, I dont believe this stat. Its absurd; I've never met a single Republican that would honestly hold this belief. If anything its the Democrats wildly overestimating the percentages of LGBTQ people in any given group.
What I do not get is who is filling out these polls?
I do not know of anyone who does. They usually go 'oh those things I hate them'. No one answers their phones anymore because of spam calls. If they do not recognize the number and they do not leave a message there is no return call.
I am fully aware that the LGBT+ crowd makes up less than 10% of the nation (most being in the L, G, or B groups), with the T group making up less than 10%, and the 59 different flavors of + making up less than 1%, of the already less-than-10% LGBT+ crowd.
However, because of Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook (as well as decades of hype from the media), the tiny-tiny-tiny fraction of T and + people get massively overhyped, which turns into an excessive amount of support for these needle-in-a-haystack freakshows, which then gets them hyped up even MORE in the media, which then gives them enough political power to have the law changed in their favor (see: Commiefornia making it legal to spread HIV without even informing the other person of your disease, making it legal for the state to take your kids away and give them hormone-altering drugs if you don't believe they're trans, etc.).
In short, thanks to both the long-standing echo chambers surrounding most journalists and the more-subtle echo chamber effect of social media, the left is driving themselves over the far-left cliff at mach speed, and they're trying to drag everyone down with them.
True. Twitter is a liberal freak show under heavy censorship. Only total imbeciles care about whatever dumb hashtag is 'trending'. But even there the leftist habitually get roasted over their intellectual bankruptcy and Trump landslides in all the polls.
Social media has become a spectator sport. What was once the free and open marketplace of ideas has now become the political forum for the verified elite.
I think I read the same info that also listed most users don't even use it every day or even every week.... Plus when you figure in how much support Trump gets on some of his most controversial tweets, not all of them can from the left....dropping 2% even lower.
Said this for years. 10 percent of their “users” create all this social justice and online bullshit. This company is nowhere near as powerful as they project. Time to remove twitters power.
There is a concept called the pareto principle or the "80/20 rule". It is found regularly in nature, business, you name it. It says that on Twitter, 20% of users should be creating 80% of the content. Now it's not a principle that doesn't have exceptions but it holds in in most things you will find on earth. Not Twitter. What does that tell you? Twitter is out of touch with reality and the laws of nature. It's a twisted platform for twisted fucks.
PRoves what I've always said, the American people do not use Twitter!!! Only a very small portion of people use this shit yet the "MSM" pushes it like everyone is on it and Twitter makes a difference. It doesn't. Look at Facebook, it's a store that's gone out of business but the lights are still on that keeps telling people they're packed with customers and are making a ton of money when the parting lot is empty. Facebook is the grand illusion of total bullshit, nobody uses it.
It’s such a lie though. How do they define extreme? Are they defining it by being a small minority, thus making it circular logic? I’m guessing they do. For a long time most Americans, not just most democrats, supported the BLM protests. That’s an extreme position. It assumes that Black people are genocided by racist police, which there’s only evidence against. That’s an extreme view. Most Americans believe George Floyd was somehow murdered by a cop who somehow strangled him by putting his knee on the SIDE of his neck? And despite all the evidence that he died of fentanyl. That’s an extreme view.
Twitter used to be great. It used to be quick comedy hits, 140-character kill shots from anonymous funny people. Now it's a political sewer. There's nothing the left can't ruin.
That being said, it is no reflection of real life. If it were, Hillary would have won the Electoral College 536-2.
I deleted that cancer from my life years ago! Not that instagram is any better but there are a ton of hilarious shit posts on celebrity posts virtue signaling the importance of voting for Creepy Joe. Jason Momoa had so many Trump 2020 posts in his Dms.
Make a reddit like site that you can use a projector to put on a wall in a public place. Have the main discussion on the page with a link where people can join. Then everyone in your real world, real neighborhood can anonymously discuss right in front of each other.
((2%))
Sheesh, both the "left" and "right" keep falling the same old shit.
The article it links to tries to frame both sides as bad as each other and it's just a misunderstanding. I've really had enough of people doing that and thinking they can elevate themselves above each side to then referee.
The simple fact is that they're not equal opposites. The left has as a whole been repelling away from centre exponentially. If you measure it it's literally a tangent. The right has drifted slightly as a counter force but no where near so significantly.
If the two are entirely the same then why is the British Army rolling out White Fragility indoctrination yet are not rolling out any right wing political indoctrination? This is just one example of a pattern you see over and over. This is not a single case but an example of what we have seen time and time again.
It's the left doing this, not the right. It's not mutual opposition. The left are driven by a supreme ignorance and total paranoia where as conversely the right are driven by what the left is doing. It may not be 100% of left wing voters but to say that things like open borders which are extremist views aren't frequently dominant at the top of left wing power structures is a total lie. The real moral of the story in th article from the twitter link is that the people that represent the left might not be very representative of the left as a whole. That's tough shit. Doesn't get them off the hook.
Fair point. I suppose the British Army will become nothing but fags, trannies, and diversity hires. It will become an institution where no self-respecting real man will want to serve their country that cucks them out to this bullshit.
And if they continue down this path, which I assume they will, we need to stop selling them weapons. We can't give a soon to be muslim majority nation F22s, Apache attack choppers and missle tech. We need to remain more inner focused for military purposes. Very few of our "allies" actually sent any help when we were fighting in the middle east and at this rate, none of them will be willing to help next time shit hits the fan.
That country is cucked anyways. Can’t fucking own guns freely, can’t defend yourself, rapist gangs run around with impunity, and its royal family is infested with pedophile rats who kept company with Epstein. It needs a overhauling even more desperately than the US.
Inside every leftist is a totalitarian screaming to get out
I think every leftist is a screaming totalitarian.
so 10% is responsible for 80% of the trouble?
Gosh. It's like I've heard other statistics similar to this. I can't quite place it though...
BTW, new stats indicate 3% of the population (young black men) commit 58% of violent crime.
They beat whites and hispanics combined at murder in raw numbers for 2019.
Black kids committing over half of all violent crime? I went to public high school and I don't doubt it for one damn second.
While not every black is violent, the fact that so many of them come from broken who often have mothers that pop children out just for the benefits and often have fathers that are little more then gigolos it's no wonder violence breeds in their race so readily.
We need to bring eugenics back so that only good fathers may produce offspring. Not just for the blacks, but for all the races. Bad people should not be allowed to spawn more of themselves. White, black, it doesn't matter. Children should never be subjected to abusive house holds. It's a moral imperative to keep children from suffering from birth this way.
Kek, more like 90%
Pareto/power law distribution baybee
The Bolsheviks were 50,000 people.
They toppled a nation and led to the death of a hundred million.
Never underestimate the power of a small, brutal, determined people.
And those 2% of the population are being led by the 0.1% of the population and they don't even know it.
agreed pede
Twitter is cancer.
It really is. People can't just go about their lives any more, they constantly read about how the world's on the edge of being destroyed and how Trump is dooming everything.
MSM relies heavily on Twitter
I'm just curious what the meta-narrative will be if Biden does win. MSM will go broke. There's so many grifters making a living off "orange man bad" lol
I would not be surprised if many of these so-called journalist AKA propaganda pieces of shit actually vote for Trump. Secretly of course. Because they do this for the money. The average idiot sitting on the couch though listens to this garbage for confirmation bias.
100% no one gave a shit about it for years of it's life, but MSM kept pushing it and quoting it. They created the expectation that "If you aren't on twitter, you won't get media coverage."
Corporations and politicians and pedowood stars signed up en mass because of that media push, long before even 5% of the population was aware it existed. Once they were quoting politicians and pedowood, they created the expectation that "Twitter is where you could have heard this first" and a VERY small group of the population started obsessing over twitter posts of the people they wished they could stalk.
Keeping people in fear keeps them coming back for more thinking media will report good news but they keep bringing the propaganda.
Reminds me of this one story that came out over a decade ago about Popeyes in upstate NY where the location runs out of chicken because of a great special going on so supply cannot keep up with demand. The local news did a story about it and interviewed the customers who were salty about it. This one guy says "they always do this, they always run out of food" and yet that customer always keep coming back. No matter how bad customers are treated they still come back...much like Democratic voters.
Video for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyW6w5B7Aw
The fluff piece indoctrination proves that people don't actually want to see negative news, but also illustrates how they successfully conditioned an entire population to obsess over negative news.
For decades they used the Fluff formula to get ratings. Talk about a fluff piece coming up, advertise the fluff piece periodically for hours before the news segment, introduce the fluff piece immediately, bring it up again before every commercial break, and then finally show people the story about the poodle who saved the life of a chipmunk.
This worked for at least two whole generations to get people watching the news all the way through, and is all the proof you ever need that bad news is not what drives ratings.
But at the same time it created an expectation that if you just watch the news long enough you will eventually get to the good news. No matter how bad things are if you just keep watching a poodle will appear out of no where and save the day.
twitter is like a gay night club in the early 80s... it's full of liberals who think theyre smart hot shit, but in actuality they all just have aids
Astronaut meme: "Always has been."
yeah, i got on there a couple of years ago, never sent out one twat, and was inundated by hookers
Hunter Biden has entered the chat.
hahahahahahahaha
Ass cancer.
It has its good parts, though. Example: It allows POTUS to bypass the lame stream media control of the narrative. Also, it's allowed us to see the truth regarding the riots even when the news stations all says it's mostly peaceful. You just need to follow some solid people on there. Andy Ngo, Ian Miles Cheong, Simulation Warlord, Alex Berenson for everything COVID related, etc. Don't forget Elon Musk as well, very interesting dude, and Joe Bastardi for meteorology and everything pertaining to AGW, etc. Start there and I guarantee you'll be happy you have.
Those that do are mostly just talking to themselves. Twitter shadowbans you if you dare to violate the narrative.
Yeah, chinese virus is deadly, no fraud in mail in voting, BLM good, Orange Man Bad, that sums it up right?
There are 48.35 million monthly active Twitter users in the US and 31 million monetizable (i.e. not bots) daily active Twitter users.
https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/
So 9% which is still less than the 22% claimed
How the fuck does omnicoreagency know whether an account is a bot in a manner that Twitter itself does not? The truth is that detecting bots is VERY hard. If Twitters algorithms detect you are a bot account it is an instaban. So I repeat: how is omnicoreagency more aware of who is and isnt a bot than twitter itself?
Answer: They DON'T know who's a bot, they just have some pre-set criteria for "this is a bot, and this is not", which they then proceed to believe will be 100% effective, even though the bot account owners are constantly trying to make their bots seem more human without requiring full human control at all times.
And many bots are designed to increase the monetization value of another account, and thus would be designed to register by whatever methods are most likely to come across as a 'monetizable' account.
Working for a cell carrier, I rarely see Twitter installed on any phones anymore. (I see Gab and Parler more often if that's a clue on how rare we're talking.)
Facebook is far, far more common, but even then, a lot of folks don't use it or use it often. And if they do use it, it's to keep in touch with people they already know in person.
I do see people on the Trump SMS notification list. I actually once saw this place on someone's web browser. 😉
Facebook is default installed on Droid OS if I recall correctly? They pulled a Micro$oft sort of deal with OEM to include it in the OS and making it VERY VERY difficult to completely remove. I recall one phone I had all you could do was disable it.
It depends on the phone. Some have it some dont. Mine had the entire amazon stack installed. You can disable all of it usually. But can not uninstall without rooting it.
Not really. There's an app that is preinstalled on a lot of phones that handles the account-side of facebook and sometimes auto-downloads crap, but it's easy enough to get rid of.
A phone running vanilla android usually doesn't contain any of these apps.
So many fucking foreigners talking about American politics. Fuck off commies!
i've stated my experience
Democrats are 100% gay. Voting Democrat is gay.
Both of these figures are highly suspect.
This isn't even a relevant comparison. Right wing extremists are a minority among left wing extremists. The left wing is minority driven where as the right win is majority driven.
It’s also bullshit because the term “extreme” is subjective. I think supporting BLM is an extreme view. And yet I know most democrats support BLM
Extreme can be better rationalised so as to be more objectively or reason based but indeed it's also overwhelmingly subjective. For the left the most so. Even when the left appears to employ reason and objectivity it's as it suites them. This is all they really do, they do as they please. They will pick the things that serve their purpose and reject everything else. This is why they insist on science the one moment then oppose it as a valid discipline in its entirety the next calling it the tools of white supremacy.
Supporting BLM is an extreme view depending where you stand. If you're aware of the truth rather than fooled by the lies which themselves have to be extreme then that's fully extreme. If someone is gullible and truly believes the BLM narrative while being unaware of the many truths of the movement then it wouldn't necessarily be entirely extreme to support it.
There is often a true centre in many forms. It can be established by weighing up as much as possible, through many issues needing to work like a trial and through that quite often a divide arises because there are often dilemmas.
Many people seem to assume they sit in the centre on issues. They think they are normal or average. This is rarely so.
It's useful to look at things such as this but it is deceptive.
It should look like this:
The problem is people just put centre straight in the middle of the two. When studies are taken using a constant centre you see something like this decade on decade old to new...
Each letter is the centre of an asymmetrical distribution that you can assume stretches out one to two points.
For people on the left things appear very strangely. Quite often anyone <L and often <C then anything >L or themselves is far right.
The graph in the image does this...
This isn't valid however and makes C completely meaningless. This is extremely common in political "science". It's also a common problem in bench marking. It most commonly comes from the scoring of the questions, their construction and assignment being balanced whether intentional or not by as you guessed it subjective assumptions.
This happened with things post WWII where surveys for things such as detecting authoritarian views would be written to assume values they thought on the right were authoritarian would be measured so they really do nothing scientific except confirm their own stereotypes.
Chaining benchmarks to detect change over time is rarely done making what looks like a continuous progressive science where one paper appears to be based on the other completely and utterly useless. They then also design their questions to be balanced and completely fail to detect or recognise the real imbalance. We know this is a problem because if we dig into it tests that try to maintain C as a constant or that use the same test through the ages show the shifts into the extreme on the left as a matter of fact.
The left calls everyone far right when it's the opposite, the average left is far left but in their minds it looks like this instead:
They fail to realise they're the ones moving. They think they're standing still. All these centuries of enlightenment but they still think the world mostly orbits them.
One of the reasons they cannot adhere to the centre is because they're just computers rather than having souls. They're not truly conscious or aware. People on the right can better maintain close proximity to the centre because they can do things such as maintain a superposition rather than immediately and automatically taking sides in a dilemma according to some programming. This is also the reason for the know it all like behaviour seen in the left. As they're unable to hold on to uncertainty they must immediately adopt a constant value.
The best solution is to find a way to separate from them and then allow them to destroy themselves.
We shouldn’t focus on “extreme” at all, but on right or wrong. There are many positions that are considered extreme today, but normal by the standards of 99% of history, that are obviously correct. The left is wrong irregardless of how “extreme” they are. They’re wrong as a matter of fact.
If you're sensible and reasonable you would incorporate both concepts into a sensible model that appropriately reflects reality. Extreme on its own without context is neutral. With context it can be good or bad. Given a state of normality that is generally good then extreme would tend to indicate a zone of risk.
Politically extreme is heavily rooted in right and wrong though that doesn't really solve the puzzle. Liberals are moral supremacists. They can do no wrong and inherently their establishment of what is extreme hinges on their sense of what is wrong.
Their religion, their new found absolute morality and their automatic sense of right and wrong is the problem. They are in fact moral extremists.
They're wrong on many fronts and they mix things up. That's as a matter of fact.
It's incredibly complex and you know what? To be quite honest it would all be much simpler if they just didn't exist. I do this a lot in engineering. No X, no problem instead of spending so much time and effort on something so complex. Just delete it. It's often been a great subject of humour when someone just gets fed up, removes something entirely out of frustration when there's a crisis related to it and their eyes glare wide open when suddenly everything works.
We call it a no code no problem situation where not only is getting rid of the code better than trying to fix it but getting rid of it fixes it. This happens for real. One morning the programmers storm in panicked screaming that half the code has gone and demanding I explain what I've done only to be shocked when not only does it all still work but even better than before by a factor or a hundred. If something is too complex to maintain and not really adding any value then get rid of it.
I have a hard time following what you’re saying. It’s not very clear. What two concepts am I supposed to incorporate to be deemed “sensible and reasonable” by you (not that I care to be)? I’m not interested in mainstream opinion. I don’t think mainstream opinion is always reasonable or sensible or good. That’s what I’m talking about. We would be better off without people who insist on being wrong, that’s obvious. But we can’t just delete them. We need to secede and let conservatives and liberals go their own way.
The meaning of sensible and reasonable can sometimes transcend words themselves and depend very much on the quality of the brain including the level of cognition the speaker and listener experience. I assume that you operate on a similar level and what would be sensible or reasonable to you would be not entirely dissimilar to what I would recognise as such as well.
What I mean is that both extreme and right or wrong can apply. I think the point you're really making is that people over use extreme to try to attribute right or wrong which is true. My point is that not all use need be abuse so while I might say we should prevent it's abuse I would not use as blunt an approach as to oppose all use. You can try to steer its use in the right direction or simply eliminate it. To be honest, if referring to the left then I don't think they should necessarily be using it at all if they're simply not competent enough to apply it appropriately.
It's not as practical as with code but it at least betrays a sense of the problem. We need to do something and separatism feels a lot like it can solve a few things but is also similarly impractical. It may be a case where things have to be done the hard way. With gdd, printfs, etc. Though the most important thing is to make sure we're the ones at the control console and not they.
They're philosophical zombies. This means their natural purpose is to be slaves to those possessed of consciousness. Yet there is a paradox as they are most identifiable when allowed to fault. That aside they have no awareness of self so no awareness of others. Their attempt to achieve socialism which creates a society of drones makes sense to them as suitable to all and excludes that it is not suitable to those who possess a soul.
We need some kind of separatism without being separate perhaps where they can if they so choose submit themselves to be subordinate drones so to self select. We do not know who lacks a soul but those who do know. We'll call it being a socialist rather than a drone or a slave as for some reason they respond better to that particular synonym. They'll be able to choose to be a socialist within our own society while the rest of us remain as we are. Give them what they want in this respect but simply make sure it's over them and themselves but not over us.
Your comments here come across as trying to paint a black and white picture as "shades of mauve with a hint of post-modern existentialism."
There is right and there is wrong. There is really nothing on the left that is good. Not a thing. Whether you want call it socialism, paganism, depravity, or just straight up evil doesn't much matter, it ain't good.
Take the most liberal among us and the most fundamental among us and maybe you can have some kind of "if we just balanced the two ideologies we'd have a better society." But we still have to leave the party of pedophiles and satanists out of it.
The pro-Trump MAGA party is already the final remnants of the two ideologies that once existed in the USA into that perfect 'balanced society' you were trying to exfoliate on. What's left on the left is the utter degenerate bottom of the barrel.
Yes, I used exfoliate on purpose.
There's no "extreme" right, only extreme left. By the original definition, rebels are the left, guards are the right. In America, most of the right is the everyday folks. They have no hidden agenda or ulterior motives. They just wanna conserve their way of life and not to be bothered by anybody, hence the label conservatives. The left, on the other hand, intends to overthrow the whole system and build a totalitarian regime on its ruins.
Everything (though not literally) will have its extremes it's just that there's not so many on the right. Not in any significant capacity. Left and right in politics is supposed to perform a more neutral and functional role like defence and prosecution. Where they could technically even alternate.
It's not even as simple as left verses right really. The ideology that has gripped the left really departs the realm of sane or sensible thought to become it's own religion where the only permissible state of existence is to be a believer.
That is what I believe to be their objective. Absolute rule. Absolute power. It makes sense. They're absolutely corrupted and one things leads to another.
There's another quality of the extreme on the right. The extreme are not extreme. Some people might have seemingly extreme views but if you talk to them there's often a difference. They're not inhuman like the left and very rarely is someone on the right extreme in and off themselves. Talking to someone on the left is not like talking to a person. It's like trying to debate with a bear to spare your life. Things such as thought and reason don't exist in the left.
It's strange but I can actually have a conversation with a neo-nazi even though there are many things I might disagree with in totality. This is simply not possible with a liberal.
Leftism, or wokeness in particular, has developed into a RELIGION. It's a heresy originated from the liberation theology, which falsely identifies Jesus as the first SJW who came to solve social issues and liberate the poor from oppression. They have actually adopted many elements from Christianity such as original sin - your white privilege and conservative values, crucifixion - denounce your "whiteness" and condemn the whole system of "whiteness", and salvation - posting black squares on twatter and attend critical race theory training sessions.
From an agnostic but default atheist position I've always been wary of Christianity but it has certain defence mechanisms. If you believe in God or are even versed in the concept such that you understand it then humility is innate.
These are some people who are also adapting SJW through a Christian lens where it's seeping in and exploiting that Christianity on a basic more reasonable level corresponds, for example Jesus doesn't care if you're black or white, he's certain to be beyond that sort of thing.
Genuine racists adopted principles from Christianity as well though not always. The concept of original sin also stands alone but happens to be in Christianity in the same way a pizza has tomato but tomato doesn't come from a Pizza.
The SJW religion is principally an atheist religion (also a cult at the same time, they're cultists). At its heart is a godless religion. Atheism doesn't mean anything more than not being theist so you don't believe in supernatural gods or a single god. It's actually a mistake that people couple theism with religion and what religion is too tightly.
It doesn't have to have a god or gods in it to be a religion. Atheists can have any number of belief systems that also dictate their morality that exclude any gods. Many atheists believe in the UN as the ultimate source of morality and worship the concept of human rights handed down to them (gifted to them like it's the ten commandments) by their god in the form of an organisation rather than the ancestors that actually suffered to afford the quality of life and rights they now enjoy or more commonly put to waste while crying that they need more.
The signs of religion are a well developed belief system and morality. Religion is not strictly good or bad but can be. More often than not the real fear of religion even if good is the human propensity for dogmatism. The quality of a religion varies depending on the hands its in and the religion itself.
The liberal religion is bad both as a belief system and a moral standard. The belief system demands the immoral. It does not simply believe in a God beyond our perception but forces far closer to home such as this invisible racism which immediately makes demands of non-believers as well. It's as incompatible with our society as Islam is.
It truly is a horrifying sight to behold. I wouldn't actually say they have adapted elements from Christianity but from racism!
They believe that they are opposing racism but are actually just racists switching all the targets. They're really doing the same things. They think racists say no one can interbreed so to be anti-racist everyone must interbreed. The same as how they just swapped white with black.
They believe in it all. Original sin. Divine right. Breeding the colour in/out of them. Manifest Destiny. Lebenshaum. Slavery. All of it and more. Everything we ever equate with evil and bad they embrace but in some twisted way such that it is different yet the same, so that it is synonymous. I really start to believe that they are simply composed of pure evil.
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Outside of hyperbole, I dont believe this stat. Its absurd; I've never met a single Republican that would honestly hold this belief. If anything its the Democrats wildly overestimating the percentages of LGBTQ people in any given group.
It's probably people just like me joking that they're all gay or something else. I don't really believe it either. 20% of the population being LGBTQ?
It's bound to be an average and I bet it's because loads and loads of people put 100% gay. Probably around a third of the responses.
What I do not get is who is filling out these polls?
I do not know of anyone who does. They usually go 'oh those things I hate them'. No one answers their phones anymore because of spam calls. If they do not recognize the number and they do not leave a message there is no return call.
Who is filling these things out?
I am fully aware that the LGBT+ crowd makes up less than 10% of the nation (most being in the L, G, or B groups), with the T group making up less than 10%, and the 59 different flavors of + making up less than 1%, of the already less-than-10% LGBT+ crowd.
However, because of Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook (as well as decades of hype from the media), the tiny-tiny-tiny fraction of T and + people get massively overhyped, which turns into an excessive amount of support for these needle-in-a-haystack freakshows, which then gets them hyped up even MORE in the media, which then gives them enough political power to have the law changed in their favor (see: Commiefornia making it legal to spread HIV without even informing the other person of your disease, making it legal for the state to take your kids away and give them hormone-altering drugs if you don't believe they're trans, etc.).
In short, thanks to both the long-standing echo chambers surrounding most journalists and the more-subtle echo chamber effect of social media, the left is driving themselves over the far-left cliff at mach speed, and they're trying to drag everyone down with them.
Thank you all! This post has lightened my soul. I’m off dumb ass twatter for good. No like.
wait why does anybody want to read twats
isn't Twatter a RSS feed anyways
kek
Reddit is the same way. It's partly why the meltdown in 2016 was so great.
True. Twitter is a liberal freak show under heavy censorship. Only total imbeciles care about whatever dumb hashtag is 'trending'. But even there the leftist habitually get roasted over their intellectual bankruptcy and Trump landslides in all the polls.
Selah
And much of twatter are bots...
weird to think that people buy into that shit . . .
but i do yell at the TV when muh team plays
It's a digital bathroom wall.
Nuke it.
again, don't use it
That 2% on twitter is the command and control of the left though.
true
Despite making up only 22% of the population...
That's why I get frustrated by Trump. He should do a real adress to the nation and not short twitter videos that nobody will see.
hmmmmmm
Social media has become a spectator sport. What was once the free and open marketplace of ideas has now become the political forum for the verified elite.
And 90% of that 2% are Twitter approved accounts made to harass Trump.
yep
And of that amount, a great many tweets, replies and other engagements are coming from botnets or propaganda accounts.
Anyone who bases their opinion on what Twitter says is a moron. Dropped that bullshit along with every other social media.
Am I the only one that finds it fucking pathetic that over 1 in 5 adults in this country on Twatter?
not me
2% of the population... what an oddly familiar number
The Pareto Principle strikes again.
You mean all those trending anti trump hashtags are fake? 🤔
hahahahahahahahaha
According to Twatter mental illness trends for 88% of the time. Hmmmm
Some Twitter stats from Omnicore
There are 262 million International Twitter users (users outside the US) which make up 79% of all Twitter accounts.
There are 48.35 million monthly active Twitter users in the US.
80% of Twitter users are affluent millennials.
38% of Twitter users are between the ages of 18 and 29, 26% users are 30-49 years old.
whoa
I think I read the same info that also listed most users don't even use it every day or even every week.... Plus when you figure in how much support Trump gets on some of his most controversial tweets, not all of them can from the left....dropping 2% even lower.
Jordan Peterson said that once you know about the Pareto Distribution you can see it everywhere, and he was right.
10-80
10% of users are responsible for 80% of violent tweets
Said this for years. 10 percent of their “users” create all this social justice and online bullshit. This company is nowhere near as powerful as they project. Time to remove twitters power.
There is a concept called the pareto principle or the "80/20 rule". It is found regularly in nature, business, you name it. It says that on Twitter, 20% of users should be creating 80% of the content. Now it's not a principle that doesn't have exceptions but it holds in in most things you will find on earth. Not Twitter. What does that tell you? Twitter is out of touch with reality and the laws of nature. It's a twisted platform for twisted fucks.
Selah
Sound a lot like the covid situation
The 20%/80% "Pareto principle" phenomenon is fascinating. I read about it a couple years ago, and it just so easily applies to a ton of things.
yep, and i just learned about it from my fellow pedes
And yet an entire company will bend the knee to these mobsters.
yup
22% my ass
And most likely, half of the 2.2 percent are Chinese citizens, not US.
true
PRoves what I've always said, the American people do not use Twitter!!! Only a very small portion of people use this shit yet the "MSM" pushes it like everyone is on it and Twitter makes a difference. It doesn't. Look at Facebook, it's a store that's gone out of business but the lights are still on that keeps telling people they're packed with customers and are making a ton of money when the parting lot is empty. Facebook is the grand illusion of total bullshit, nobody uses it.
Facebook is the grand illusion of total bullshit, nobody uses it.
i know a grip of people who do, and i call them out for
"staying in touch with family"
hey fuckheads, just call them, or better yet, go SEE them
If you rely on Twitter, Facespace, or Insta for your news you are grossly misinformed.
That being said I get my news here, so... 😂
kek
Twitter doesn't represent reality? Imagine my shock...
hahahahaha
Twitter, and Reddit are not real life. Great post!
thanks Patriot!
It’s such a lie though. How do they define extreme? Are they defining it by being a small minority, thus making it circular logic? I’m guessing they do. For a long time most Americans, not just most democrats, supported the BLM protests. That’s an extreme position. It assumes that Black people are genocided by racist police, which there’s only evidence against. That’s an extreme view. Most Americans believe George Floyd was somehow murdered by a cop who somehow strangled him by putting his knee on the SIDE of his neck? And despite all the evidence that he died of fentanyl. That’s an extreme view.
indeed pede
I doubt it's even that high. I imagine the most advanced AI is being tested to fake their active user count.
Selah
Twitter used to be great. It used to be quick comedy hits, 140-character kill shots from anonymous funny people. Now it's a political sewer. There's nothing the left can't ruin.
That being said, it is no reflection of real life. If it were, Hillary would have won the Electoral College 536-2.
well put pede
I deleted that cancer from my life years ago! Not that instagram is any better but there are a ton of hilarious shit posts on celebrity posts virtue signaling the importance of voting for Creepy Joe. Jason Momoa had so many Trump 2020 posts in his Dms.
Momoa is based?
hahahahaha
Twitter is nothing but low IQ raging liberalretards.
I had an idea -
Make a reddit like site that you can use a projector to put on a wall in a public place. Have the main discussion on the page with a link where people can join. Then everyone in your real world, real neighborhood can anonymously discuss right in front of each other.
and there ya go, DD
Showed this to some libs. They IMMEDIATELY made incorrect assumptions. It was hilarious.
hahahahahahahaha
Twitter - Never before have so many said so little to so few...
kek
fuck twatter.
agreed pede
Not just that, twitter shadowbans those who dare to commit thought crime by saying wrong things. So we are listeninh to less than 2.2 pct
this is the best i can do . . .
That would kill twitter.
Twitter is a HELL HOLE, I haven't seen Twitter for months now thanks to jack's bans and I never felt better. Fuck that shit hole.