Maybe that’s a sign to focus on quality and not quantity? I mean there’s low-effort and then there’s low-effort with typos.

Wasn’t talking to you, bud.

Feel free to stop responding and commenting on my posts and comments if you don’t want to hear replies from me. Thanks!

Wait, you didn’t reply and you edited your comment to add the “e” to the end of “syndrom” but you’re still spelling it “charactor”?!

Bwahahahahahaha! Oh, that’s just precious. 🤣

“main charactor” syndrom

If you’re going to quote what I said, could you at least spell it correctly? I thought you’d be well experienced copying and pasting by now?

If it makes you feel any better - you and I often disagree but I’ve been a fan of Roan’s since 2020 and Pink Pony Club and I try and upvote your posts about her when I see them 🙂

“But within the context of our broken electoral college system, we know that voting a third party is ultimately inadvertently supporting Trump”

Wow, that’s going to be crushing news to certain folks who clog our feeds with claims to the contrary.

On a serious note, I am happy that they recognize this and encourage everyone to pressure the new administration next year to address this. Democrats are imperfect but are at least susceptible to popular and organized pressure. The same cannot be said for the GOP or even more especially Trump. And push for some form of ranked choice voting and getting rid of the electoral college.

Go back and read what I wrote again. I never even talked about any purported reason for you sharing it. I simply pointed out that what the article presented is indeed something that sane people would worry about and compared it to your well known penchant for saying you have no concerns with Trump getting elected.

Between your misguided reply to a three day old comment where I clearly did read and understand the article, and your copypasta wall of text that talked about a dozen different things but didn’t address the point I raised, I honestly can’t tell how much of your schtick is sealioning and how much is just incredibly poor reading comprehension.

You’re the one that brought up possible motivations, not me. My original comment was simply agreeing that any sane person would find the situation described in the article worrying and how you famously don’t share that worry. So if you don’t think Trump is anything to worry about, why did you find the article worth sharing? Or was it that you were desperate to post anything that wasn’t downvoted into oblivion?

I don’t think you’re a Russian operative (they’re honestly much better at this than you are, but it’s true that their standards are slipping). I just think you have the worst case of main character syndrome I’ve ever seen and you love the attention that comes with intentionally playing the heel. And that’s because you never attempt to discuss a single issue with any forthrightness or honesty. If you weren’t just playing a character, you’d actually try and make a case for your beliefs. Instead you spend your time reinforcing your self-induced martyrdom and engaging in bad faith with everyone that bothers to respond to you. You profess to wonder why people react the way they do to your posts and comments and yet you keep engaging in the kind of behavior that demands such a response. Your comments especially bring no value to the community and the majority of your many, many posts are transparent attempts to support an agenda with just enough other stuff to offer (im)plausible deniability. Whether that agenda is even for real or just because you enjoy being a perpetually online edgelord is unknowable to anyone but you - but from the outside it’s certainly unflattering either way.

I don’t think anyone has a problem with shitty opinions. I think the bigger problem is a pattern of behavior that impairs the community.

1. Copying and pasting the same low effort text multiple times in replies
2. Refusal to engage in good faith discussions/interactions
3. Excessive volume of low quality posts and comments
4. Rampant sealioning in comments
5. Outright trolling which you all have only moderated a portion of

Overall you have a user that disrupts the community in a variety of ways and contributes nothing of value - especially in their comments. I think at least a temporary ban has been justified for quite some time.

Nothing likely a timely response 🤣

And yes, your point is? It’s well known how uncaring you are about Trump winning and the lack of empathy you show to anyone else who is concerned. After all this time of “Don’t talk to me about the articles I share because I often share about things I don’t care about” - are we now to believe there is an agenda to your posts? If so, why don’t you illuminate us all?

I know I probably shouldn’t engage, but I am curious. Do you believe Scientific American has some sort of ideological agenda?

Bold idea, right?! Meanwhile the tech bros in charge of those sites are like “We’ve tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas!”

In general I don’t think so, and there’s only about one to three accounts that downvote most things I post/comment so I don’t think it’s that. I think I’m leaning towards reactionary downvotes for anything that mentions “polls” - which is a shame, as while I don’t think polls are terribly good at being reliably predictive of the results, I think they’re fairly good when used for tracking changes in momentum and at least more reliable when analyzed in aggregate with competent and rigorous weighting based on past performance. And this article is great about explaining how that’s done by the only folks who’ve been shown to be any good at it.

I am just as confused. Most of my /politics posts and comments are relatively well upvoted, but I guess there’s a sizable contingent who just hate any mention of polls at all or have it out for Nate Silver. I was at least expecting a few more comments about how Silver ranked some pollsters and whether folks thought those assessments were accurate. 🤷🏼‍♂️

I was actually excited to share as I hadn’t seen this explained as well before. <shrugs> Live and learn I guess.

It challenges their idea of existing power structures and as usual that scares the bejeesus out of them.

That was the link I gave in the comments about their current analysis based on aggregated polling. If you’re only getting a few paragraphs, I’m guessing you’re using reader view? (I default to it too) Unfortunately a bunch of news-type websites now essentially break reader view and only show a snippet. If you view outside reader, you should be able to see the polling analysis.

I mean, you can just close the pop up and still read the full article? Or do you see something different?

This was based on an average of Gallup’s regular polls which has several methodological disadvantages. Pew Research’s numbers show an even split and is considered a much more reliable source https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/changing-partisan-coalitions-in-a-politically-divided-nation/

*yet