this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024

-87 points (8.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2522 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-87

Democrats See 103 Percent Increase in Pennsylvania Voters Leaving the Party (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Weekly updated data provided by Pennsylvania's Department of State shows the party breakdown of registered voters in the state as of Monday: 3,958,835 Democrats, 3,646,110 Republicans, 1,085,677 unaffiliated and 346,211 with "other" affiliations.

This year, the state-released data shows that 51,937 registered Democrats changed their affiliation to "other," and 61,126 switched to Republican, for a total of 113,063 leaving the party.

On the other hand, Republicans have seen a significant but smaller number of members leave the party, with 29,038 registered Republicans changing their affiliation—13,196 to "other" and 15,842 to Democrat—in 2023. This year, 48,702 Republicans switched parties, with 24,046 changing to "other" and 24,656 becoming Democrats, around a 67 percent increase in Republicans leaving the party. Read more 2024 Election

blyat

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Hey @[email protected] and @[email protected]: When I was sending that code to parse Wikipedia's sources list for a possibly better fact-checking scanner, one of the notable things that I found out is that Wikipedia regards Newsweek as unreliable. It used to be reliable, as most media outlets are, but they say that since an ownership change a few years ago, they're not. I have to say, now that I've been paying attention, their stories definitely seem to have very little to do with factual information, and quite a lot to do with amassing clicks or communicating a particular partisan message which isn't true, or both. Case in point, this explicitly propaganda-framed article.

I don't see a community rule which is specifically against unreliable articles, as measured by any source, but how would you feel about that? In conjunction with a more robust standard for what is and isn't reliable? In my judgement, this link is clearly in violation of "Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed."

Also, why is this guy still allowed to post? It seems weird. He's so openly spamming the community with unwelcome trolling and propaganda that it seems strange that he's still being welcomed with open arms. In what way is this improving the community to have him putting up a steady flow of posts, and having every one met with universal downvotes and jeering?

It's a broader question than this one post, but this post is a good example in reference to both questions.

[+] [email protected] -27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

Let me clarify a few things. I’ve been accused of all kinds of things over the past several days.

I’ve been called a Russian troll, a MAGA supporter, and even accused of being "proud to be aligned with KKK grand wizard David Duke," which is especially ridiculous since my mother is black. I’ve also been accused of not voting because people assume I’m not in the U.S., of trolling simply because I disagree with someone, and of posting "every 17 minutes," which is just laughable considering the timestamps are right there for anyone to see.

I've been accused of channeling "punchable face energy," and told that single word that comes out of my mouth is "dripping with disingenuity." And having multiple accounts. Of being a team of people. Russian words are directed my way.

When I post links to back up my points, I get mocked for “acting like a 12-year-old” just for answering a question and posting links. If I don't respond, I get accused of ignoring people, and when I do respond, it's apparently too much and "only a bot" could reply so frequently. Or that I am craving attention. or that I am "arguing in bad faith."

I've been asked to tell people why I post something, and if I answer, they say I'm lying or they say "Oh your copy/pasta standard response." If I don't, then they say variations of, "Because we all know the true answer, you're so transparent!"

I’ve even had my name mentioned in threads for articles I didn’t even post, with people mocking me for “losing my touch on posting” or joking about “summoning me.”

Some users keep daily stats on my posts and downvotes, updating them obsessively and put it in every comment thread of my posts. If I try to explain myself, I’m accused of playing the victim or having "main character syndrome."

Despite all this, some people still refuse to block me because they claim they want to “make others aware” of me.

One guy just posted four paragraphs of AI-generated nonsense in response to a post I made. When someone asked him why he did that, he admitted that he did it just to see if he could get a reaction to me and seemed disappointed that I didn't reply to the comment.

All of this in just the last few days.

Here's a fun look, start here. People mocking me for an article that I didn't even post: https://lemmy.world/comment/12907842

Under same article that I didn't post, mad because I am not engaging them: https://lemmy.world/comment/12911504

More people mocking me and using russian reference, for yet another article I didn't even post: https://lemmy.world/comment/12916672

Mod log of comments removed: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252

So, no, I'm not trolling. It's just that you're annoyed by me. There's a difference. Trolling is posting stuff TO annoy you--I don't do that. You being annoyed by me, is just you being annoyed by me. I have no control over that. And you can block me too.

In fact, I deal with trolling and baiting daily, but I’m still here engaging in the conversation.

This community shouldn't be just for people who are liked or who only post articles that everyone agrees with. This community is a political news community, it's not a "Pro-Harris Articles Only!" community. The number pro-Harris articles here far far outnumber any other articles. So I'm not spamming. I'm posting articles you don't like.

And for the record, I HAVE posted pro-Harris articles and anti-Trump articles, and anti-third party articles, and they get downvoted too! Because people just downvote any article posted by me, regardless of content.

This community is supposed to be a place for discussion, and I think we need to keep it that way, without resorting to personal attacks or creating an echo chamber. I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks. Take a look at the links I provided.

I get no preferential treatment from the mods. They treat me just like everyone else. They have removed comments of mine, and article postings of mine if they didn't agree with the source.

If they feel Newsweek isn't a reliable source because of the information you have given them, then I won't post articles from Newsweek any longer. It's that simple. Thank you! :)

EDIT: Actually, I've received a lot of cool, supportive DMs and even a couple public comments, so it turns out more people care about what I have to say than I thought, and not everyone wants this to be an echo chamber! Yay!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

posting “every 17 minutes,” which is just laughable considering the timestamps are right there for anyone to see.

Lol because if someone mentions an average rate versus doing some complex analysis of your use patterns, they're obviously lying. Because that's right folks: math lies!

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This sounds extremely whiny and devoid of any self awareness. It would be a lot easier to think about why you're getting all the pushback than it would be to write countless essays about how innocent you are and how mean everyone else is.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Never once has it crossed your mind to self reflect or stop pissing people off. Probably because the only reason you use the platform is to piss people off.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Amen brother! I'm so glad that self reflection can never hold you back! Now you get back out there and spread the message of the Jesus-satan!!!1

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Aw, someone is upset! They really struck a nerve with their comment, didn't they?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Aww, someone is a bit in his feelings, isn't he? And such a roll call of the abuse you've had to endure! Truly harrowing!

But there seems to be something totally lacking. Anything that showed you had the slightest bit of self awareness. You claim no motive for sharing, but just about everyone else sees what you're doing. You claim innocence, "I didn't write the article" but when asked repeatedly to explain why you found it interesting, you have literally never answered, only saying "I don't have to explain anything!". Which is true, in so far as when you don't explain your motivations, people will fill in the blanks.

Everyone else here who is a regular or even occasional poster has "tells" of one type or another. We're human, and by definition that means we have biases. I generally can often guess who posted something without even looking at the user name, and that's fine. And that's just as true of other people guessing when I've posted something. The rest of us engage with posts and comments in a way that matches our personal views.

But supposedly not you. You claim no bias, no agenda and spend most of your time in the comments being disingenuous - not only about your agenda (which is plain to see), but in claiming you have no motive for what you do. That's not genuine human behavior, which is probably why there's so many who believe you're a bot. Your behavior in posting and commenting falls smack dab in the uncanny valley. The only other explanation is that you're not being honest.

As for the rest, please don't pretend that you haven't been trolling yourself. The modlog is evidence enough for that.

You keep acting like it's the articles you post that are the problem when it's your behavior in the comments that makes people angry. I don't think I've ever seen a genuine conversation with you involved. It's obfuscation, sealioning, deflection, and playing the victim.

And don't do your usual "Just block me if you don't like it!" When people see someone pollute a shared communal space, they should call it out, not turn a blind eye to it. Otherwise it's just another example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

You have every right to keep posting (as long as the mods are willing to shoulder the extra work you create), but if you do, do it honestly. Stand up for what you believe in, even if folks say you're wrong. Be an advocate for ideas, people, and movements. Explain why you think what you do - the only cost is the potential for someone to change your mind, and the benefit is you might change someone else's mind.

But don't be dishonest about why you're doing whatever it is you think you're doing here. Don't hide behind "I didn't write the article" and "I don't have to explain anything to anyone". You might still get downvoted to oblivion, but you might not.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you for explaining exactly how I feel. This dude is a turd.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I honestly at this point can't tell how much is intentional trolling and how much is that he just doesn't know any better/doesn't want to know any better. If it's the latter, I do feel sorry for him a little as he's probably neurodivergent like myself but doesn't have any tools to deal with it or even awareness of the problem. But then he'll do something that'll convince me it's all an act and he just enjoys playing the heel.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Let me clarify one thing. You are a troll. You search the web to find click bait articles from sources that will not get you banned to troll people. That is who you are. You can say whatever you want and weave within the rules, but we know what you are doing. We will continue to down vote your articles so everyone knows they are click bait garbage.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s public forum, and I can express my opinions or ask questions even if you may disagree with them. As many here do. And as you have done just now.

Thank you, friend! :)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Turns out that when you spam dumb articles all day, people start to get sick of it. Weird.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Preach it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

103% ? All of them, plus they killed 6 independents? What a stupid title.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

103% increase. The number of people leaving increased by a factor of 1+1.03 = 2.03. Which is to say, the number of people leaving more than doubled, which would have been a better title, but either way there is nothing wrong with math in the title per se.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

103% sounds like a lot. 60k outof 4 million is not a lot. Title is stupid clickbait.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In other words, it jumped from about 0.5% to 1.5%.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

How did you get the exact right answer?

There are 3.9 million Democratic-registered voters in PA, compared to 3.6 million Republicans, and 61,126 of them switched their registration to Republican this year. That's 1.5%. It came from 0.9%, not 0.5%, but your ending answer was spot-on.

I can't for the life of me figure out where Newsweek got the 103% increase, since it was 36,341 voters switching to Republican last year, and 61,126 isn't a 103% increase over that. It is, as Newsweek notes, "nearly twice," which is incompatible with 103%, so maybe they are just making up random numbers. I don't know.

I could also, as a separate way of illustrating how totally worthless this whole article is, total up the people who switched their registration from Republican to Democratic in 2023, and in 2024, and measure how much the number went up by, since it wasn't an election year last year and so obviously the numbers are going to go up in the year where it matters. But what would be the point? I don't want to do that, because I'm not a partisan hack trying to make a disingenuous point.

Source: https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/dos/resources/voting-and-elections/voting-and-election-statistics/currentvotestats.xls

Edit: @[email protected] figured it out. I needed to include the "other" affliliations, not just R and D. I could redo the math to see if it adds up to 103% that way, but as I mentioned, the whole comparison is useless and dishonest anyway, even with the right numbers, so why bother?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My intent was to point out how ridiculous the "103% increase" line is, not to suggest the comparison was valid in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It's all good. I was only surprised that you seemed to have arrived at exactly the answer, clearly just by making up numbers to make a point. I was trying to agree with you and add a little data.

Thank you, friend! :)

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

oh, fuck off.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago

Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Newsweek:

MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-see-103-percent-increase-pennsylvania-voters-leaving-party-1970300

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

load more comments