Survey says Dems super bloodthirsty

[PitPat]

They have no scientific credibility? They are affiliated with Rutgers University, and their clients include MIT, Stanford, Northwestern University, Oxford, Princeton, and Yale. Huh.

Great. You should try to get a hold of them to extend your congratulations. Or somebody in those institutions who will say they've taken them seriously.

 

[jt512]

Great. You should try to get a hold of them to extend your congratulations. Or somebody in those institutions who will say they've taken them seriously.

Oh, I've done that. I know Lee Jussim at Rutgers personally and have sat down with him to discuss this study that he collaborated on with NCRI.

 

[PitPat]

Oh, I've done that. I know Lee Jussim at Rutgers personally and have sat down with him to discuss this study that he collaborated on with NCBI.

this%20study doesn’t support a secure connection​

• Attackers can see and change information you send or receive from the site.
• It's safest to visit this site later if you're using a public network. There is less risk from a trusted network, like your home or work Wi-Fi.

 

[jt512]

this%20study doesn’t support a secure connection​

• Attackers can see and change information you send or receive from the site.
• It's safest to visit this site later if you're using a public network. There is less risk from a trusted network, like your home or work Wi-Fi.

Link fixed.

 

[The Don]

If people advocate for killing Dump: 'Libs are bloodthirsty radicals who fantasize about murdering political opponents!'
If people don't advocate for killing Dump: 'Libs are just pretending that Dump is fascist!'

Love obvious bad-faith pearl-clutching.

And if Trump himself advocates second amendment solutions to dealing with political opponents, it's just a rhetorical device.

 

[PitPat]

Oh, I've done that. I know Lee Jussim at Rutgers personally and have sat down with him to discuss this study that he collaborated on with NCRI.

Then maybe you can ask him why they don't have any leadership contact information easily found on their website?

 

[jt512]

Then maybe you can ask him why they don't have any leadership contact information?

Probably because their leadership doesn't want to get phone calls and email from every random idiot on the internet. Many organizations only provide an online contact form. The Democratic polling firm Blueprint, for instance. Are they hacks to?

 

[PitPat]

Probably because their leadership doesn't want to get phone calls and email from every random idiot on the internet. Many organizations only provide an online contact form. The Democratic polling firm Blueprint, for instance.
Are they hacks to?

How can I take you seriously if you can't speak simple English?

Right. Probably that. The last thing any credible research organization wants is to provide is a simple phone number for reference if you're not in the media.

 

[jt512]

How can I take you seriously if you can't speak simple English?

Right. Probably that. The last thing any credible research organization wants is to provide is a simple phone number for reference if you're not in the media.

So, you're saying that Blueprint is a hack organization?

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh, I've done that. I know Lee Jussim at Rutgers personally and have sat down with him to discuss this study that he collaborated on with NCRI.

Forgive me if I don't click on a link to "networkcontagion.us". You don't have a link to this study on a reputable university website?

 

[jt512]

Forgive me if I don't click on a link to "networkcontagion.us". You don't have a link to this study on a reputable university website?

I love the defense mechanisms: the (brief) report doesn't have an abstract, the polling firm doesn't list the email addresses of their principles, I don't like the name of the organization's website.

Normally, studies are not posted on university websites. The report I linked to was published by NCRI and was intended for a non-academic audience. The study was a collaboration between NCRI and Rutgers University. According to Lee Jussim (the co-PI from Rutgers), they will be following up with a more-technical peer-reviewed academic paper.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Yeah, but why network contagion? Looking to build a botnet?

 

[arthwollipot]

Normally, studies are not posted on university websites.

You know what I mean. What is "network contagion" anyway and why should I trust a site with such an obviously dodgy name?

...they will be following up with a more-technical peer-reviewed academic paper.

Oh good. So this one isn't even peer-reviewed. Stop wasting my time.

 

[jt512]

Yeah, but why network contagion? Looking to build a botnet?

No. Kind of the opposite, to the extent I understand it. They specialize in social network analysis to understand how misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremisms spread and are amplified by social media.

 

[jt512]

You know what I mean. What is "network contagion" anyway and why should I trust a site with such an obviously dodgy name?

Oh good. So this one isn't even peer-reviewed. Stop wasting my time.

This from the guy whose go-to "evidence" is a post on Bluesky.

Again, I love the defense mechanisms.

 

[arthwollipot]

No. Kind of the opposite, to the extent I understand it. They specialize in social network analysis to understand how misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremisms spread and are amplified by social media.

Then they chose a ridiculously stupid name for it. Also, as you "understand" it? You don't even know that much about the organisation you're linking to?

This from the guy whose go-to "evidence" is a post on Bluesky.

Bluesky is a medium. Did you notice what the post actually said?

 

[jt512]

Then they chose a ridiculously stupid name for it.

Since they actually research network contagion, it doesn't seem like such a bad name.

Also, as you "understand" it? You don't even know that much about the organisation you're linking to?

I was linking to a report.

Bluesky is a medium. Did you notice what the post actually said?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Or they realize that such violent action can lead to worse outcomes since the Orange Weakling
is a symptom rather than the disease.

Because they aren't the raging internet tough guys some people project onto them, they can see a larger picture and are guided by principle rather than blind emotional reaction.

Exactly. Trump is a result of a bigger system failure, which is not very satisfying for human brains because it cannot be made into a story of heroes and villains, or good vs evil.

 

[catsmate]

I've never heard of NCRI and read the study (or skimmed it enough). Weird that it could even pass an internal review board.

Not sure what the point is, it almost feels like a very complicated joke. Even though it has the features of a legitimate study with footnotes and technical jargon.

Honestly I think it's just a bunch of horse hockey with a preconceived result in mind. That there's no methodology section kind of gives it away.

They have a definite right-wing bias, a history of equating right/left threats when they are not comparable and very against "internal dissent". Naturally the also oppose "DEI" measures.

 

[catsmate]

If they really believed that Trump was another Hitler, and that he was leading the United States down the path to Nazi Germany, they should support/advocate/work towards his assassination. But they don't really believe that, they just want to fantasize that they're the modern-day Sophie Scholl, bravely standing up to a tyrant.

As opposed to all those grovelling to support your Rapist-in-Chief....