Lurker > Antifar

This is a good topic and it made me smile
---

kin to all that throbs

I'm picturing the conservative alternative to Netflix, with like, Scott Baio starring in every original series
---

kin to all that throbs

10 a day usually
---

kin to all that throbs

I got to 1:30 and that was after skipping some


---

kin to all that throbs

Dash_Harber posted...

And again, people are self identifying here.

Several studies have validated the use of left-right self-placements in cross-national analysis (Huber 1989; Knutsen 1995; Evans et al. 1996).

---

kin to all that throbs

Dash_Harber posted...

Which, again, doesn't mean that centrists are bringing down democracy,

What does is the fact that the center consistently responded with the most anti-democracy views
https://imgur.com/edOHN2Q
https://imgur.com/aVJ9DSV
https://imgur.com/bvls9aA
https://imgur.com/JQT8X7l
---

kin to all that throbs

Dash_Harber posted...

Not to mention that the whole thing is literally a spectrum, not a one or the other.

Which is exactly how the study operated

The key independent variable is respondents left-right position. The survey asks respondents to place themselves on the spectrum from 1 (left) to 10 (right). As Table 1 shows, there is a balance in the survey between left, right, and center. I recode the data with five groups: far left (1-2), center-left (3-4), center (5-6), center-right (7-8), and far right (9-10).

The survey in question is the World Values Survey, which is not conducted by the author here
---

kin to all that throbs

silentwing26x posted...

What are the numbers supporting the claim "In the United States, centrists support for a strongman-type leader far surpasses that of the right and the left"?

I examined the data from the most recent World Values Survey (2010 to 2014) and European Values Survey (2008), two of the most comprehensive studies of public opinion carried out in over 100 countries. The survey asks respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from far left to center to far right. I then plotted the proportion of each groups support for key democratic institutions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fOGwtRUF-y-98IcDs-3YYrtREl8GbaoH/view

Several studies have validated the use of left-right self-placements in cross-national analysis (Huber 1989; Knutsen 1995; Evans et al. 1996). However, some reasonable concerns remain. It is possible that respondents place themselves at the center when they are confused, or when they do not care enough to take sides. I address this possibility in four ways. First, the survey includes a Dont Know response to left-right placement, which account for more than 10 percent of the sample. I exclude Dont Know responses from subsequent analysis. Second, I test the self-placement against views of immigration (Appendix A). The EVS includes a question about whether Immigrants are a strain on the welfare system, from 1 (Strain) to 10 (Not a strain). Across models, political orientation strongly predicts views of immigration, with large and statistically significant differences between groups. On the issue of immigration, then, the centrist self-placement appears to align with the moderate position. Third, I test self-placement against the question of whether equality or freedom is more important (Appendix A), with the expectation that respondents on the left prefer equality while those on the right prefer freedom (Rokeach 1973). Again, self-placement strongly predicts preferences over equality and freedom, providing further validation of the left-right placement. Finally, I re-run all the analysis on the sub-sample of politically engaged respondents (Appendix C), using two different measures of engagement: interest in politics (Very interested or Somewhat interested) and participation in political activities (Would vote tomorrow in a general election).

---

kin to all that throbs

tommybel89 posted...

Yawn, is the NYT continuing its attack on the so called "intellectual dark web"? I'm not giving this trash paper any traffic.

Do...you think Bari Weiss' piece was meant as an attack?

And no, this has nothing to do with nerds like Sam Harris or whoever the fuck. I posted the whole article in the first post; try reading it.
---

kin to all that throbs

silentwing26x posted...

The person who wrote that article is literally a socialist.

Do you have a critique of his argument, or just its author?

silentwing26x posted...

All he's really saying in this garbage piece that SOMEHOW got published as an op-ed in NY Times is that if you aren't an extremely far left literal socialist in 2018, you're "center.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that data suggests centrists have significantly higher anti-democracy views throughout the West
---

kin to all that throbs

Yes I do: I watch a ton of soccer (Tottenham Hotspur and unhealthy amounts of MLS), a good amount of baseball and football, and hockey and basketball when the playoffs come around
---

kin to all that throbs

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Radical_center_(politics)
---

kin to all that throbs

Damn_Underscore posted...

Who to support?

The union
---

kin to all that throbs

jayj350 posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

Kind of a crap poll since the terms are not defined and left up to the person to determine in their own mind what "strong", "moderate", or "basic" means.

Hardcore partisans never utilize honest polls, if they did they would realize how hardcore they are.

What party am I a partisan for?
---

kin to all that throbs

darkjedilink posted...

A sizeable majority wants to ban semi-automatic weapons because they think the military uses them?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/375513-majority-support-ban-of-semiautomatic-weapons-poll

Sixty-one percent of respondents said they believe strengthening gun control laws and background checks would prevent future mass shootings. In addition, 76 percent of those surveyed said those who have been treated for mental illness should not be able to own a weapon.

The poll found 63 percent of respondents believe weapons like the AR-15 should be banned. It is not clear from the polling if those surveyed support a full ban of semi-automatic weapons, or a ban of the AR-15 in particular, which was used in the Florida high school shooting and other recent mass shootings.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/bipartisan-gun-control-policies-majorities/index.html

And, though only by a slim margin among Republicans, majorities of both parties even back an assault weapons ban and creating a new federal database to track gun sales. (Support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents for these priorities remains around eight in 10, creating a broad gap between the two parties' support.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gun-owners-and-non-gun-owners-actually-agree-on-a-lot-of-gun-reforms/ar-AAxrX6O?pfr=1

The survey showed large gaps and less overall support for banning the sale of military-style semiautomatic rifles 44 percent of gun owners versus 68 percent of non-gun owners and banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines 41 percent of gun owners versus 67 percent of non-gun owners.

Given the percent of people who are gun owners, that's majority support overall for both.
...

Now from 2011, which was a low point for gun control support
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/americans-favor-automatic_n_806994.html

But, as the following table shows, three organizations have found majority or plurality support for bans on semi-automatic weapons in recent years.

---

kin to all that throbs

Spooking posted...

All I see is this guy blaming centrists for not picking a side.

That's not what he's blaming centrists for
---

kin to all that throbs

J E S U S posted...

Sample size and poll demographics?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/388962-poll-support-for-gun-control-support-slips

The Reuters poll surveyed 3,458 adults between May 5 and May 17. Its credibility interval is "about 2 percentage points," according to the Reuters report about the poll.

---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

The warning signs are flashing red: Democracy is under threat. Across Europe and North America, candidates are more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.

These trends have prompted a major debate between those who view political discontent as economic, cultural or generational in origin. But all of these explanations share one basic assumption: The threat is coming from the political extremes.

On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles. Across the board, the assumption is that radical views go hand in hand with support for authoritarianism, while moderation suggests a more committed approach to the democratic process.

Is it true?

Maybe not. My research suggests that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.

I examined the data from the most recent World Values Survey (2010 to 2014) and European Values Survey (2008), two of the most comprehensive studies of public opinion carried out in over 100 countries. The survey asks respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from far left to center to far right. I then plotted the proportion of each groups support for key democratic institutions.
...
Respondents who put themselves at the center of the political spectrum are the least supportive of democracy, according to several survey measures. These include views of democracy as the best political system, and a more general rating of democratic politics. In both, those in the center have the most critical views of democracy.

Some of the most striking data reflect respondents views of elections. Support for free and fair elections drops at the center for every single country in the sample. The size of the centrist gap is striking. In the case of the United States, fewer than half of people in the political center view elections as essential.

Of course, the concept of support for democracy is somewhat abstract, and respondents may interpret the question in different ways. What about support for civil rights, so central to the maintenance of the liberal democratic order? In almost every case, support for civil rights wanes in the center. In the United States, only 25 percent of centrists agree that civil rights are an essential feature of democracy.

One of the strongest warning signs for democracy has been the rise of populist leaders with authoritarian tendencies. But while these leaders have become more popular, it is unclear whether citizens explicitly support more authoritarian styles of government. I find, however, evidence of substantial support for a strong leader who ignores his countrys legislature, particularly among centrists. In the United States, centrists support for a strongman-type leader far surpasses that of the right and the left.

Across Europe and North America, support for democracy is in decline. To explain this trend, conventional wisdom points to the political extremes. Both the far left and the far right are, according to this view, willing to ride roughshod over democratic institutions to achieve radical change. Moderates, by contrast, are assumed to defend liberal democracy, its principles and institutions.

The numbers indicate that this isnt the case. As Western democracies descend into dysfunction, no group is immune to the allure of authoritarianism least of all centrists, who seem to prefer strong and efficient government over messy democratic politics.

There's a lot of cool graphs with the article itself
---

kin to all that throbs

jayj350 posted...

Antifar posted...

A sizable majority of the country holds the Democrats' views on guns

Here we go...

Lol, the loudest people trying to speak for everyone, classic hardcore partisan mistake.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-poll/gun-control-support-fades-three-months-after-florida-massacre-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1IO19P

The poll found that 69 percent of American adults supported strong or moderate regulations or restrictions for firearms, down from 75 percent in late March, when the first poll was conducted following the Valentines Day shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The new poll numbers are virtually unchanged from pre-Parkland levels.

The latest poll was conducted before the May 18 shooting in Texas, at Santa Fe High School near Houston, that killed 10 people.
...
The baseline for gun control has gradually crept up since the Sandy Hook massacre, rising from the high 50s to the high 60s since 2012.

Meanwhile, those favoring no or very few restrictions have fallen from 10 percent in the middle of 2012 to 5 percent today.

---

kin to all that throbs

A sizable majority of the country holds the Democrats' views on guns
---

kin to all that throbs

See you in two hours
---

kin to all that throbs

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/23/planned-parenthood-union-nlrb/

COLORADO PLANNED PARENTHOOD executives, with help from President Donald Trumps labor board appointees, are fighting their health center workers unionization efforts in a case that could set a precedent for workers rights nationwide.

The case is Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood Inc. v. SEIU.

Staff for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, in coordination with SEIU Local 105, won the election for their union in December 2017. But shortly after the vote to unionize, Planned Parenthood leadership, instead of recognizing the new unit, turned to the Republican-controlled National Labor Relations Board to challenge the outcome. The Planned Parenthood bosses won the first round, and the appeal will now move to the full five-member labor board.

In April, Trump labor board appointees Marvin Kaplan and Bill Emanuel sided with Planned Parenthoods argument that the union ought to include all the clinics in the regional agency, which spans three states. Meanwhile, former President Obamas appointee, Lauren McFerran, voted against the appeal and in favor of the workers.

In many, if not most, instances, such daunting geographic barriers could be prohibitive to employees right to choose and engage in collective bargaining, McFerran said. Despite the employers failure to posit other alternatives, the [NLRB] regional director made an independent unit determination that gave geographic proximity the weight it deserved alongside the other relevant factors for multi-facility unit determinations.

Going to the NLRB under Trump, rather than settling the matter internally, risks allowing the agency to set a precedent for other organizations. If Planned Parenthood is to prevail, it could be a setback for similar workers across the country, who may need to not just organize their own workplace, but organize people hundreds of miles away in order to be recognized.

The bargaining team is asking Planned Parenthood leadership to drop its NLRB challenge and sit down to discuss competitive wages and raises, fully employer-paid health insurance for families, along with issues like worker retention that they said have plagued health centers across Colorado. We want a voice at the table and we are asking that Vicki Cowart drop her many appeals and sit down with us once and for all, the union bargaining team said in a statement. Look us in the eye and talk to us about our struggles with wages, benefits and working conditions.

Whitney Phillips, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said that that group is not going to the NLRB to undermine its workers, but in fact to help more of them. We are not currently opposing efforts to organize our affiliate; we have asked the NLRB to consider whether all of our employees should be able to participate, she told The Intercept.

But Planned Parenthood doesnt need the NLRBs permission to negotiate with workers at clinics in the three states. But forcing all three states to be included is a clear way to tank the effort.

Amanda Martin, a Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains health center worker, said she is disappointed by the actions of an organization with a mission to support choice and progressive causes.

If PPRM wants to lift the voices of all of its employees, then it needs to prove it by stopping its effort to silence those that have decided to speak up and organize, Martin said. Now that these Colorado clinics have organized locally, there is a clear path for other workers in our organization to come together in the way they best see fit, and we will support their efforts. All we want is to have a voice in our workplace. It comes down to the dignity and respect that all workers deserve.

This is one of the purest cases of "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" I've seen.
---

kin to all that throbs

Man, this is not good
---

kin to all that throbs

scorpion41 posted...

dont purposely endanger any lives.

Have some bad news for you about the NFL
---

kin to all that throbs

That's, uh, not reparations
---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17353284/emergency-room-doctor-out-of-network

On January 28, 34-year-old Scott Kohan woke up in an emergency room in downtown Austin, Texas, with his jaw broken in two places, the result of a violent attack the night before. Witnesses called 911, which dispatched an ambulance that brought him to the hospital while he was unconscious.

The thing I remember most was my lips were caked in blood and super dry, Kohan says. My head was throbbing, so I touched the top of my head, and I could feel staples there.

Kohan called for a nurse, who explained that he would need jaw surgery that night. In the meantime, he tried to check whether the hospital Dell Seton Medical Center was in his insurance network.

I was on my iPhone lying there with a broken jaw, and I go on the Humana website and see the hospital listed, Kohan says. So I figured, okay, I should be good.

Except he wasnt: While the emergency room where Kohan was seen was in his insurance network, the oral surgeon who worked in that ER was not. Thats how Kohan ended up with a $7,924 bill from the oral surgeon that his health plan declined.

In hindsight, I dont know what I could have done differently, Kohan says. I couldnt go home. I had a broken jaw in two places. I tried to check if the hospital was in network.

Kohans experience is not unique.

In the past six months, Vox has collected more than 1,300 emergency room bills submitted by readers in all 50 states and Washington, DC, as part of an investigation into emergency room billing practices.

The dominant storyline to emerge is what anyone who has visited an emergency room might expect: Treatment is expensive. Fees have risen sharply in the past decade. And when health insurance plans dont pay, patients are left with burdensome bills.

Voxs database shows that patients are especially vulnerable to these surprise bills when out-of-network doctors work at in-network hospitals.

It does happen quite a lot in the emergency room, says Christopher Garmon, an assistant professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City.

Garmon published a study last year that found as many as one in five emergency room visits led to a surprise bill from an out-of-network provider involved in the care.

When somebody is out of network and the patient knows that, they can avoid those providers, Garmon says. Here, its very hard for patients to know this is going to happen.

Garmon found that surprise bills are the most common in emergency room visits where the patient is ultimately admitted to the hospital for further treatment. Twenty percent of those patients end up with an out-of-network bill, often from specialists such as anesthesiologists and pathologists.

For patients who stay in the emergency room who have a shorter visit that doesnt lead to a hospital admission the risks are still high. An estimated 14 percent of those patients end up with an out-of-network bill for care delivered during their visit.
...
These surprise bills appear to be especially common in Texas, where Kohan lives. Garmons research, for example, finds that as many as 34 percent of emergency room visits lead to out-of-network bills in Texas way above the national average of 20 percent.

Separate data from the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based think tank, finds that a staggering number of Texas emergency rooms have zero in-network emergency physicians meaning that patients are guaranteed to see a doctor who does not accept their health insurance.

---

kin to all that throbs

https://twitter.com/RobertKlemko/status/999416362656120832
---

kin to all that throbs

Muffinz0rz posted...

publicity stunt. otherwise he woulda voted against the changes.

unless he abstained

I haven't seen a tally on the vote; I think the NFL only requires two-thirds on these things
---

kin to all that throbs

The irony here is that the Jets' real owner is a huge GOP donor and would probably hate this, except Trump appointed him ambassador to the UK and he's busy doing that instead of running the team.
---

kin to all that throbs

video
https://twitter.com/WISN12News/status/999419106628722693
---

kin to all that throbs

Gafemage posted...

The disparity between how people talked about him last year vs this year is insane. Last year people were kissing the ground he walked on,

Those people still exist
https://twitter.com/JohnnaSabri/status/999170144172732416
---

kin to all that throbs

MedzXVIII posted...

Did the NBA take away freedom when the started the dress code?

Yeah and it was sold in really dogwhistly language
---

kin to all that throbs

420.69
---

kin to all that throbs

As for this move by the Niners, the most obvious impact will be a few more empty seats at kickoff because concession lines will be delayed by that minute or so.
---

kin to all that throbs

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1548755

As a Jets fan, I'm pretty stunned by this. The owner Woody Johnson is a big Republican, but I guess he isn't in control since Trump appointed him ambassador to the UK
---

kin to all that throbs

Spooking posted...

The NFL is a billion dollar company (around 75 billion).

How much of that ends up in your pocket?
Spooking posted...

If I was an NFL owner, why would I jeopardize my profits for this non-issue? I wouldn't! I would fire them and be done with it.

You aren't, though.
---

kin to all that throbs

Relevant!
https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-left-injuries-off-the-books-but-it-might-not-face-penalties/

Tesla Inc. recently added more names to its list of injured employees after Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting raised questions about whether the company was counting all of its work injuries, records show.

The electric car company added 13 injuries from 2017 that had been missing when Tesla certified its legally mandated injury report earlier this year.

Alaa Alkhaf**i, for example, smashed his face and arm in the paint department last fall. He said he had been asked to perform a task for which he had no training.

At the time of the injury, Tesla didnt put Alkhaf**i on official injury logs, even though the accident caused him to miss work. So it didnt count toward Teslas 2017 injury rate, which the company later trumpeted as matching the auto industry average.

Reveal wrote about Alkhaf**is injury last month as part of its investigation of injury undercounting and safety problems at Teslas Fremont, California, factory. By late April, Tesla had added him to the 2017 logs, dating his injury Oct. 1 and noting that he missed three days of work because of it.

Other recently added injuries include lacerations that made an employee miss more than 100 days of work, a dislocated knee for which a production associate remains out of work and various ergonomic injuries to the hand, wrist, back and shoulder.

Still, Reveal found Tesla has yet to record all of the 2017 injuries it should have by law. And the company might not face a penalty for it.

---

kin to all that throbs

Lost_All_Senses posted...

Slim fit isn't the same as skinny jeans is it? I don't know if I wear slim fit cause I use to wear baggy as fuck but now I wear shit that fits better

It's like the step above skinny, a little more roomy
---

kin to all that throbs

Hexenherz posted...

The Musk thing is weird, the media attacking him and his businesses is equally weird.

Is reporting on the shortcomings of his business an attack?
---

kin to all that throbs

Kitt posted...

I can't tell if the internet loves or hate this guy. It changes every other week.

You're seeing different parts of the internet. My understanding is the Rick and Morty Imgur crowd loves him, but there are people with reasons not to
---

kin to all that throbs

lol
---

kin to all that throbs

Highlights include:
- Having his girlfriend stand up for him and say (wrongly) he hasn't tried to intimidate union efforts
https://www.sfgate.com/g00/technology/article/grimes-elon-musk-dating-tesla-union-factory-defend-12932650.php
- Maybe violating labor law by intimidating union efforts via Twitter
https://twitter.com/josheidelson/status/999089137453027329
- Having a bizarre understanding of the American revolution and/or the concept of class
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/998987396870950912
- Accusing a non-profit of doing clickbait investigations for ad money
https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/999366564334845953
- Upon being corrected, saying they take their jobs too seriously
https://twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/999383012944072704
- Whining about fake news
https://twitter.com/timkhiggins/status/999358853513990144
- Being celebrated by Donald Trump Jr. for whining about fake news
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/999366215696109569
- Whatever this bullshit is
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/999367582271422464
---

kin to all that throbs

*Thinking emoji*
---

kin to all that throbs

Spooking posted...

Not to mention the players who kneel make the NFL look bad. What company is going to employee somebody who makes their company look bad?

fenderbender321 posted...

When you're at a game, you're at work. If you're protesting during a game broadcast, you're using the NFL as your platform. Sorry, but you don't get to do that. That's the NFL's platform. You're on their time.

Why do you guys care about the NFL's image and time?
---

kin to all that throbs

Caution999 posted...

Because I'm a huge NFL fan? If they start losing revenue, the teams get less money, and we get a worse product on the field.

What mechanism do you think will cause that drop in quality? Will fewer, less-talented players go into football due to a marginal change in the revenue?
---

kin to all that throbs

Capn Circus posted...

They're letting them stay in the locker rooms if they don't want to stand

What do you think the public reaction will be to players who take this option?
---

kin to all that throbs

MedzXVIII posted...

Caution999 posted...

The majority of NFL fans don't want to see them kneeling for the anthem. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the NFL doesn't want to scare away their hardcore fanbase, here.

Why is the NFL's bottom line your concern?
---

kin to all that throbs

thelovefist posted...

That's literally what their job is...

And every telemarketer's job is to harass you into buying their boss's scam. You're don't have to support an action just because it makes people money.
---

kin to all that throbs

JfAtS1O3N posted...

Absolutely and from a business point of view, their objections make sense.

I think there's a point to be made here: unless you're an NFL owner or their accountant, you're under no obligation to care about their profits. You're a person, not a calculator; you can make judgments based on factors other than the bottom line.

krazychao5 posted...

If you wanted to kneel during the anthem, you can just instead to not be on the field during it now.

The people upset by kneeling will be exactly as upset by this
---

kin to all that throbs

thelovefist posted...

averagejoel posted...

capitalism is an economic system that has specific characteristics. it didn't really exist until the French Revolution.

averagelol spouting nonsense once again.

You can quibble with the timing a bit: some might place it earlier in the 1700s, but he's about right. Capitalism is not just "all trade or commerce."
---

kin to all that throbs