11-06-2024, 06:30 PM
This post was last modified 11-06-2024, 06:31 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: added content
I recently was fed a 'short' by the algorithm... you know which one I mean...
I will include the link after this little tirade...
Our host Bill Maher expresses utter disappointment at the statistics.. which include:
36% of Republicans think that freedom of the press does more harm than good...
Clearly those 36% have awoken to the reality that "Freedom of the Press" is now in fact a virtue signal. A convenient contrivance to flaunt the freedom to promote what you like and vilify what you don't. When Freedom of the Press was first ensconced in our culture, the "Press" was a very different thing... even as long ago as the 1950s... those words meant what the current institution's exemplars most clearly do not embody. That 36% remembers well what journalistic reporting actually is. So "no," it is the perceived state of the Press that centers this statistic... not the Republicans. Way to make the point of the problem... prestige has to be earned before it's relied upon; the press is no exception. Today's press is a different animal... and it has most definitely done real harm, saying "Freedom of the Press!" over and over.
Only 61% of Republicans think [freedom of the press] is necessary.
That's the hopeful 61% that still rely on existing one-sided news. They hope, beyond reason that there will always be a balancing power in the different "news" sources. If they knew that 'balance' is far from the point of today's journalism, that number might change... This is all in the "press' wheelhouse" to correct. Perhaps 'activist' journalism does not serve the institution, but instead fractures it? I don't know, I'm not a journalist.
Only 30% of millennials thinks it's essential to live in a democracy.
Who's been teaching them about democracy? You? The television? Activist teachers? YouTube?
What would you otherwise expect from such a situation.
This is what people get for trusting the government with 'education' and then the Internet.
Two decades ago one in sixteen thought that "army rule" would be a good way to run the country, now it's one in six.
I hate sloppy poll data... it renders the result meaningless...
Who are you asking? Republican millennials?
That's a very specific demographic... Who paid for this research, I wonder?
Is army rule a metaphor for martial law?
What context was brought to this question, if 'army rule' is the wording used? (Is there any other narrowing in this poll?)
Among the young and affluent [the army rule preference] has risen to 35% (six-fold increase.)
All the same questions apply here... except it has narrowed further.
One fifth of undergrads say it's acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker. [joke] specifically offensive and hurtful statements.
The poll doesn't specify context here?
As if there is no possible circumstance in reality to warrant physically assaulting a speaker? This question raises interesting but inconsequential segues.
Presuming we're talking about a specific speech here... offensive and hurtful... which translates to "it makes you feel something you don't like"
Could it be political, religious, or the new contenders "gender" speech or "Israel/Gaza - Ukraine?"
Yes... context matters, life is a spectrum, it always will.
62% of student Democrats think you should be able to 'shout down' speech you don't like.
"Student" is an important clue here... high school, university, both bastions of the art of debate, reason, and devotion to truth... oops, alternate reality.
Let me guess this poll was conducted at an Ivy-League institution.
My disappointment is about the presumption that a poll is a viable measure of people... my point would be that pollsters get away with too much... they can do real damage...
OK... that's out of my system...
Bill Maher reads statistics he finds troubling
I will include the link after this little tirade...
Our host Bill Maher expresses utter disappointment at the statistics.. which include:
36% of Republicans think that freedom of the press does more harm than good...
Clearly those 36% have awoken to the reality that "Freedom of the Press" is now in fact a virtue signal. A convenient contrivance to flaunt the freedom to promote what you like and vilify what you don't. When Freedom of the Press was first ensconced in our culture, the "Press" was a very different thing... even as long ago as the 1950s... those words meant what the current institution's exemplars most clearly do not embody. That 36% remembers well what journalistic reporting actually is. So "no," it is the perceived state of the Press that centers this statistic... not the Republicans. Way to make the point of the problem... prestige has to be earned before it's relied upon; the press is no exception. Today's press is a different animal... and it has most definitely done real harm, saying "Freedom of the Press!" over and over.
Only 61% of Republicans think [freedom of the press] is necessary.
That's the hopeful 61% that still rely on existing one-sided news. They hope, beyond reason that there will always be a balancing power in the different "news" sources. If they knew that 'balance' is far from the point of today's journalism, that number might change... This is all in the "press' wheelhouse" to correct. Perhaps 'activist' journalism does not serve the institution, but instead fractures it? I don't know, I'm not a journalist.
Only 30% of millennials thinks it's essential to live in a democracy.
Who's been teaching them about democracy? You? The television? Activist teachers? YouTube?
What would you otherwise expect from such a situation.
This is what people get for trusting the government with 'education' and then the Internet.
Two decades ago one in sixteen thought that "army rule" would be a good way to run the country, now it's one in six.
I hate sloppy poll data... it renders the result meaningless...
Who are you asking? Republican millennials?
That's a very specific demographic... Who paid for this research, I wonder?
Is army rule a metaphor for martial law?
What context was brought to this question, if 'army rule' is the wording used? (Is there any other narrowing in this poll?)
Among the young and affluent [the army rule preference] has risen to 35% (six-fold increase.)
All the same questions apply here... except it has narrowed further.
One fifth of undergrads say it's acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker. [joke] specifically offensive and hurtful statements.
The poll doesn't specify context here?
As if there is no possible circumstance in reality to warrant physically assaulting a speaker? This question raises interesting but inconsequential segues.
Presuming we're talking about a specific speech here... offensive and hurtful... which translates to "it makes you feel something you don't like"
Could it be political, religious, or the new contenders "gender" speech or "Israel/Gaza - Ukraine?"
Yes... context matters, life is a spectrum, it always will.
62% of student Democrats think you should be able to 'shout down' speech you don't like.
"Student" is an important clue here... high school, university, both bastions of the art of debate, reason, and devotion to truth... oops, alternate reality.
Let me guess this poll was conducted at an Ivy-League institution.
My disappointment is about the presumption that a poll is a viable measure of people... my point would be that pollsters get away with too much... they can do real damage...
OK... that's out of my system...
Bill Maher reads statistics he finds troubling
