Saturday Assorted Links

1. Another dude points to the blatant ridiculousness of the Upshot’s model of North Carolina’s unaffiliated voters. If current trends continue, Trump wins North Carolina by 2 points (a far cry from The Upshot’s 6-point Clinton win). On the first day of more than 100 new polling locations being open, Whites are five points’ worth of the electorate more Democratic, but Black turnout is five points’ worth of the electorate down. Stalemate. Before the 100+ new polling locations being open, this looked like a 4-point Trump win (Black turnout eight points’ worth of the electorate down, Whites six points’ worth of the electorate more Democratic).

2. Clinton ten years ago proposed rigging Palestine election

3. The most damaging Wikileaks (so far)

4. Cigarette-smoking robot

5. Africans most likely to believe citizens can influence government

6. Boris Johnson; hack

7. Zach Beauchamp, idiot

8. Trump, Clinton, tied in Nevada; Clinton more polarizing figure than Trump

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

2 thoughts on “Saturday Assorted Links”

  1. 7. Whether the world is better or worse now than at some point in history is and probably always has been a complex and hotly debated subject.

    Things can be better in some places and worse in other places–even from one part of town to the next. Also, things can be better in some ways and worse in other ways; it depends on your metric. And then there’s also the problem of making apples to apples comparisons across time, since whatever metric you choose will never be perfectly calibrated to account for all the differences between both time periods.

    Curious to know: if you think someone is an idiot for saying things are better now than they used to be, and if we take for granted that there have always been people saying that things are worse now than they used to be, how far back in time would you need to go before you’d be calling those people idiots? If you wrote your reasons for calling those people idiots out in paragraph form, wouldn’t it read like a Beauchamp article?

    Merely taking one side in the “Are we better off today?” debate doesn’t qualify someone as an idiot. (I’m not familiar with Beauchamp, so he might be an idiot for other reasons. Or maybe he said something else idiotic that wasn’t clear from your link.)

    1. My issue was with Zach Beauchamp, who remains an idiot no matter whether he’s right (by coincidence) or not. I know him to be an idiot from reading numerous idiocies he has written. He’s the most wrong writer at Vox.com

      My specific issue in this case was with the article titles, which are excellent examples of missing the point, even if the case made in those articles is correct (which, having some familiarity with Beauchamp’s other pieces, it probably isn’t, but there’s no good reason to even bother to look).

      I regret not making myself more explicit about this.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s