This morning, I wrote on the whiteboard that today was the last day to register online to vote. Wrote it in big, blue letters and left it up for two hours. When my student who told me last week that she hadn't registered came in, I pointed out the sign to her... just to make damned sure she saw it. When I went in for my afternoon class, I asked an early student if he had voted. "No". Was he registered? "No". I told him all he needed to do was register online, quick and painless, but today was the very last day to do it without having to go in person and stand in a long line. Guess what, he registered right then and there on his iPhone. He even commented about how easy it was.
And that takes care of my patriotic duty for the day!
I asked her yesterday before class if she had voted. "No". I asked her if she was registered. "No". I thought there was still time, but another student pointed out that the last day to register to vote in the mid-terms was Monday. What really gets me is that this student is extremely conscientious in her work. She pays attention, asks good questions, keeps up with everything, and turns in good essays. She is one student whom I felt I could rely on to take voting seriously. I'm feeling disappointed in my students and myself. I'm disappointed in her for not realizing the importance of her vote. I'm disappointed in myself because I feel I've failed to remind my students of that importance.
This story suggests a straightforward solution: If only we crossed the informational aisle, if only the liberals would watch a bit of Fox and the conservatives would spend some time with Rachel Maddow, we would realize the other side is more like us than we thought, that they make some good points too, and our enmity and polarization would ebb.
Beginning in October 2017, a group of political scientists and sociologists decided to test this theory. In the largest study of its kind ever conducted, they paid 1,220 regular Twitter users who identified as either Democrats or Republicans to follow a bot retweeting elected officials, media figures, and opinion leaders from the other side. The participants took regular surveys asking about their views on 10 issues ranging from immigration to government waste to corporate profits to LGBTQ rights. Those surveys this will be important later let them mark their view on a 7-point scale ranging from most conservative to most liberal.
The researchers were testing the collision between two popular models. In one, contact between opposing groups can challenge stereotypes that develop in the absence of positive interactions between them. In the other, exposure to those with opposing political views may create backfire effects that exacerbate political polarization.
The backfire theorists won the day. The results of the month-long exposure to popular, authoritative voices from the other side of the aisle was an increase in issue-based polarization. We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative posttreatment, write the authors. Democrats exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes after following a conservative Twitter bot, although these effects are not statistically significant.
There is a lot more info at the link. This is just a quick summary to get you interested.
They were running banners at the bottom of the screen saying "Blue State Voter: Dems inept but hearts in the right place" and "Blue State Voter: Dems poor on messaging".
We don't need this shit! Especially not right now! How about running banners at the bottom of the screen saying "Trump aided and abetted first degree murder"? Huh? Why is it not possible to for them to tell the truth? Why do they resort to this kind of bullshittery to make us look bad right before an election?
I'm pissed at CNN!
Get it through your heads, ignore the fat fucker! You can easily discuss his lies without playing a clip every time! And how many times do I need to see the 60 Minutes interview when I didn't want to see it the first time????
Here, maybe this will convince you:
In a recent series of studies, Kate Diebels and Mark Leary set out to find out. In their first study, they found that only 20.3% of participants had thought about the oneness of all things "often" or "many times", while 25.9% of people "seldom" thought about the oneness of all things, and 12.5% of people "never" had thought about it.
Those who scored higher on this scale were much more likely to have an identity that extends beyond the individual to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, nature, and even the cosmos. In fact, a belief in oneness was more strongly related to feeling connected with distant people and aspects of the natural world than with people with whom one is close! Also, while a belief in oneness was related to actual experiences of oneness ("mystical experiences" ), there was no relationship between a belief in oneness and feeling closer to God during a spiritual experience.
Read the whole article at the link: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/what-would-happen-if-everyone-truly-believed-everything-is-one/
Well, I have certainly given quite a bit of thought about oneness. What about you?
He's ok with his terrorist friends in Saudi carrying out torture, murder, and dismemberment of a WaPo reporter because Rump has imaginary big money deals with the Saudi government. He's a sick bastard. Sick, sick, sick!
This fucker would be completely fine dealing with Bin Laden if he could make a dollar out of it. Make no mistake about it. Our president sponsors terrorism.
This says it all:
Profile InformationMember since: Sun Jan 1, 2017, 05:42 PM
Number of posts: 17,984
- 2019 (147)
- 2018 (194)
- 2017 (298)