Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2799|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

they spent the primary repeatedly writing articles about how trump was going to lose the primary. one of their articles was literally "stop panicking. trump is not going to win the primary".

when the general election rolled around, they lured lefties into a sense of security by assuring them they had a 75% chance of winning. up until the results coming in they were still predicting democrats would even take back the senate.

then trump finally wins in a way that 0 of their articles or estimates predicted as happening. nate silver called two elections closely but this was a huge fuck up. the huge disparity between their predictions and how things played out call into doubt their entire premise.
Or the democrats have built up a coalition of race sensitive people that will only vote for their own. Whodathunk there would be consequences for encouraging racial pride in lieu of the melting pot?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4157
Trump actually won the election by taking away more black and minority votes as compared to romney.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2799|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Trump actually won the election by taking away more black and minority votes as compared to romney.
No, they just didn't turn out for a white candidate in the same numbers they turned out for a black candidate.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+164|1161

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

they spent the primary repeatedly writing articles about how trump was going to lose the primary. one of their articles was literally "stop panicking. trump is not going to win the primary".

when the general election rolled around, they lured lefties into a sense of security by assuring them they had a 75% chance of winning. up until the results coming in they were still predicting democrats would even take back the senate.

then trump finally wins in a way that 0 of their articles or estimates predicted as happening. nate silver called two elections closely but this was a huge fuck up. the huge disparity between their predictions and how things played out call into doubt their entire premise.
Or the democrats have built up a coalition of race sensitive people that will only vote for their own. Whodathunk there would be consequences for encouraging racial pride in lieu of the melting pot?
How did you transition in your mind from polling data to complaining about black people voting?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2799|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

they spent the primary repeatedly writing articles about how trump was going to lose the primary. one of their articles was literally "stop panicking. trump is not going to win the primary".

when the general election rolled around, they lured lefties into a sense of security by assuring them they had a 75% chance of winning. up until the results coming in they were still predicting democrats would even take back the senate.

then trump finally wins in a way that 0 of their articles or estimates predicted as happening. nate silver called two elections closely but this was a huge fuck up. the huge disparity between their predictions and how things played out call into doubt their entire premise.
Or the democrats have built up a coalition of race sensitive people that will only vote for their own. Whodathunk there would be consequences for encouraging racial pride in lieu of the melting pot?
How did you transition in your mind from polling data to complaining about black people voting?
Because the Clinton team made false assumptions about voter turnout based on how Obama did. This is one the primary contributors to her loss.

Also, Nate Silver has stated repeatedly that polling has become a lot more suspect since he started because pollsters still call landlines and many people have transitioned away from them. They're no longer representative of the populace at large.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+164|1161
Black vote declined from 13% to 12% of the electorate between 2012 and 2016. Hispanic vote was up 1 point though the only place that really matters is in Florida and Nevada. The black vote would have made a difference but that is black people for you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The missing blacks account for 2 million votes. Obama won by a margin of 5ml in 2012, and 10ml in 2008. That's still a gap of 3-8 ml that was not made up of black people.

Don't blame us darkies when Trump starts a war with Iran.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4157

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Trump actually won the election by taking away more black and minority votes as compared to romney.
No, they just didn't turn out for a white candidate in the same numbers they turned out for a black candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … lysis.html

% wise clinton lost a lot of minority votes.

lol macbeth going on about to 'start a war with iran' when hillary wants to shoot down russian jets in syria.

kek.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Member
+164|1161

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Trump actually won the election by taking away more black and minority votes as compared to romney.
No, they just didn't turn out for a white candidate in the same numbers they turned out for a black candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … lysis.html

% wise clinton lost a lot of minority votes.

lol macbeth going on about to 'start a war with iran' when hillary wants to shoot down russian jets in syria.

kek.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4157
America already is shooting at Iranian boats.

Iran has been known to play fuck fuck games. You forget they pretty much kidnap a group of Royal Navy personnel?

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,772|4073|949

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Trump actually won the election by taking away more black and minority votes as compared to romney.
No, they just didn't turn out for a white candidate in the same numbers they turned out for a black candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … lysis.html

% wise clinton lost a lot of minority votes.

lol macbeth going on about to 'start a war with iran' when hillary wants to shoot down russian jets in syria.

kek.
yeah but they didn't vote for Trump - they didn't vote at all.  Voter supression (as jay mentioned).
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,759|3594|what

Cybargs wrote:

America already is shooting at Iranian boats.

Iran has been known to play fuck fuck games. You forget they pretty much kidnap a group of Royal Navy personnel?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYVavL2kHaI
They tried that same shit on the Aussies but we just used harsh language and they pissed their pants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ilors.html
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,741|4213|Banoi, PNG

TheOnion.

They're one of the only sources apart from The Simpsons who can tell me what's going to happen in 10-20 years.
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+279|3916|Foothills of S. Carolina

BF2s and Facebook give me all the news I need to get through life.

Last edited by Canin (2016-11-19 19:36:39)

DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+697|4126|United States of America
50% off NYT subscriptions currently if you've become tired of using the free 10 articles a month (and then stopping the page from loading after that so you don't get the "you're out of articles" screen )
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,759|3594|what

Just browse in an incognito window and it can't enforce the 10 articles a month bullshit.

Why the hell would you pay for a news subscription when they're so many free choices available?

Last edited by AussieReaper (2016-11-22 15:58:55)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,772|4073|949

because you enjoy the site and want to support the journalists?
uziq
Member
+138|893

AussieReaper wrote:

Just browse in an incognito window and it can't enforce the 10 articles a month bullshit.

Why the hell would you pay for a news subscription when they're so many free choices available?
because good longform journalism and essays/criticism are a dying art?

don't complain about clickbait, buzzfeed, listicles and sensationalist bullshit when you expect to get top-quality writing for free.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+697|4126|United States of America
That's a good point that I wish was my actual reasoning, but honestly, I don't go around browsing in incognito mode. If that gets turned on, something naughty is going down (alternate: if that gets turned on, so am I).
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,772|4073|949

longform.com is a really good resource for longform journalism.  They update weekly.  Some fluff, some REALLY REALLY good pieces.  The NYT Magazine did a pretty good 5 part series on the fracturing of the Arab world since the US invaded Iraq in 2003 that I found on longform.com.
uziq
Member
+138|893
longreads for me, bordering on essays/criticism rather than reportage per se, in order of preference:

london review of books
new left review
new yorker
la review of books / new york review of books
new statesman / the spectator for a balanced look at both sides of the liberal commentariat (uk equivalents of the the atlantic / the national review type stuff)
the new enquiry / n+1 / jacobin for graduate student-type leftist ranting

i'm probably more interested in short non-fiction books on topical issues rather than endless streams of comment and verbiage. sometimes it's better to just get a 128pp hit of a subject from an expert or a polemicist rather than spend weeks on end chewing the cud in tiny 500-word opinion pieces. all the online news sites are major culprits for this endless cycle of ad-revenue generating, hysteria-inducing groupthink. best to avoid the constant news cycle altogether and go to a good old print-and-bound book. there are some great publishing houses posting criticism and critical thinking on contempo issues, though i tend to gravitate towards the verso/zero books end of the spectrum (i like my commentary to have frankfurt school theory and lots of german compound nouns).

Last edited by uziq (2016-11-23 11:39:50)

KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,772|4073|949

longreads is another good one.  Regarding reporting, I tend to lean towards longform investigative or human interest stories more than banal daily news rubbish - in fact I've more or less cut out that part of news consumption completely.

Short non-fiction is right up my alley.  Recommendations plz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,759|3594|what

uziq wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Just browse in an incognito window and it can't enforce the 10 articles a month bullshit.

Why the hell would you pay for a news subscription when they're so many free choices available?
because good longform journalism and essays/criticism are a dying art?

don't complain about clickbait, buzzfeed, listicles and sensationalist bullshit when you expect to get top-quality writing for free.
If I do ever come across a decent news source, I won't use ad block. If media cared about integrity they wouldn't disguise celebrity news as news and other such bullshit.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
uziq
Member
+138|893

AussieReaper wrote:

uziq wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Just browse in an incognito window and it can't enforce the 10 articles a month bullshit.

Why the hell would you pay for a news subscription when they're so many free choices available?
because good longform journalism and essays/criticism are a dying art?

don't complain about clickbait, buzzfeed, listicles and sensationalist bullshit when you expect to get top-quality writing for free.
If I do ever come across a decent news source, I won't use ad block. If media cared about integrity they wouldn't disguise celebrity news as news and other such bullshit.
if you think that adverts on newspaper websites are paying good writers what they deserve, you're sorely mistaken. most websites that aren't paywalled and simply rely on good old fashioned ads are not making big bucks. the guardian have been very transparent on this. the result of print news moving online has almost entirely resulted in a loss of earnings for full-time journos/reporters. there needs to be a different model if you're really going to give the writers the financial security necessary to do good work.

@ KJ: not related to current events but in terms of non-fiction i always recommend john mcphee and ryszard kapuściński. whatever subject those guys turn their pens to, it becomes fucking engrossing as all hell.

Last edited by uziq (2016-11-23 17:50:21)

SuperJail Warden
Member
+164|1161

uziq wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

uziq wrote:


because good longform journalism and essays/criticism are a dying art?

don't complain about clickbait, buzzfeed, listicles and sensationalist bullshit when you expect to get top-quality writing for free.
If I do ever come across a decent news source, I won't use ad block. If media cared about integrity they wouldn't disguise celebrity news as news and other such bullshit.
if you think that adverts on newspaper websites are paying good writers what they deserve, you're sorely mistaken. most websites that aren't paywalled and simply rely on good old fashioned ads are not making big bucks. the guardian have been very transparent on this. the result of print news moving online has almost entirely resulted in a loss of earnings for full-time journos/reporters. there needs to be a different model if you're really going to give the writers the financial security necessary to do good work.

@ KJ: not related to current events but in terms of non-fiction i always recommend john mcphee and ryszard kapuściński. whatever subject those guys turn their pens to, it becomes fucking engrossing as all hell.
A few newspapers and magazines now block users who use adblock. I often end up disabling it in order to read whatever. Sites are getting better with the sort of ads they host as a result of adblockers. A lot less auto play car commercials and live webcam feeds.
uziq
Member
+138|893
they still don't ensure that writers are paid as much as pre-internet.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard