40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 6,107
Member is Online
|
Post by 40oz on Oct 27, 2020 22:56:28 GMT -5
Data is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Imagine consumer demands are the lighthouse. If I can put together all the pieces surrounding the lighthouse, I don't really need all the pieces of the light house to figure out what the picture is.  The company I work for has big, big contracts with large marketing and business management companies. My company is contracted to program virtual surveys to send to survey takers called "samples." These companies contract us to program their surveys so they can learn as much personal information about their consumers as humanly possible. Many major retailers that are managed by these large marketing companies use this aggregated data to plan their marketing campaigns for the next fiscal year. I've helped contribute to research projects that collect massive waves of responses to seemingly innocuous questions. I've seen and tested surveys with backend logical expressions that can estimate a person's income level and what zip code they live in with surprising accuracy based purely on the kinds of snacks they buy at a grocery store. I hate that I do this, I feel like I'm helping make the world worse. I'd rather be making Doom maps, but if I don't then I don't get to live in my house and eat food daily. Large media platforms collect data points by clicks and shares and retweets etc. etc. They don't need a company like the one I work for because their platform is digital, so they can track who's reading their articles, how long they spend reading it, what other articles they read and probably a bunch of other seemingly unnoticeable things I don't know about while I browse carelessly over the internet. If they have the money, (which they do,) they can arrange contracts with other media platforms such as google to know what their readers search for, what accounts and pages and other media formats they subscribe to and other general information they can get to triangulate what exactly they need to be writing to get their words read by as many people as possible. Donald Trump has a lot of money, and he can afford the best resources, and the top resource in big business is data. It's Brad Parscale's mission to get people to vote for Trump. That's his job. He says it in is own twitter bio. Donald Trump has a fuck ton of money, so I know he spares no expense. They certainly pay handsomely for whatever resources he needs to get as close to the voter's head as possible. Through a conclusion drawn from the results of expensive top-of-the-line aggregated data, he wrote an article that describes a nameless enemy who's purpose is to make the average Trump supporter feel alienated by liberal media and big government. It's supposed to be infuriating. It's supposed to be shocking and revolting such that you can't keep this information to yourself. It's meant to appeal to you on an emotional level so you can't not share it to your family and friends to protect them. Appealing on an emotional level to provoke people to react is consistent with fascist propaganda campaigns in history. But because we're dealing with much more money and resources than the propaganda campaigns of the past, they've gotten significantly better at obfuscating it using data. We're not immune to propaganda, it's on all sides. I don't need to entertain Brad Parscale's argument, because I know what his motivations are for writing the article. He fills his article with data points that service the "Donald is not as bad as liberal media" message, but also neglects the waves of data points that negate his report because he's not a scholar (I didn't document them for you because I'm not a scholar either.) It's not his job to tell either of us the truth. He has a goal to make unsuspecting readers into Trump supporters without them knowing it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2020 23:42:16 GMT -5
Part of me feels like this was a backhanded way for you to tell us what your current profession is. Make no mistake, I'm not criticizing it or making light of it. Good for you for being gainfully employed. No one is disagreeing with you about how data is used. On the contrary, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
But just for a moment, if we could go beyond that and focus on the fact that, as you point out, propaganda is "on all sides". Let's key in on that. So you have one campaign saying one thing, designed to attract, retain, and harden its base and perhaps some undecided voters. Then you have another campaign saying another thing, designed to do the same thing. Both are using data, both have an agenda, both are shooting for an outcome that benefits them.
So in the above scenario, what I'm not hearing from you is the admission that one side might be correct. You seem to be saying, "I am allowed to dismiss someone's argument simply because I know their motivations." But regardless of motivations, which might be nefarious, self-serving, or something totally unrelated, it doesn't change the fact that the argument itself could be correct.
Example: Let's say we have a gentleman named Theophilus. I happen to despise Theophilus because he works for a watchdog group that exposed my bad business practices, costing me my job. So I write an article in which I reveal that Theophilus, who is a manager, is rigging the payroll system and the promotions so that his employees of a certain race get paid more and get promoted more. I lay out my reasons for asserting this, which include incriminating emails from Theophilus, testimonies from his former employees, leaked data showing employee pay scales, and other data. Now 40oz, you would read my article, look me up, and then say to yourself: "I don't need to entertain this asshole's argument because he's a prick himself. He got what he deserved when Theophilus exposed his shady business practices, and now he just wants revenge." And by God, you would be correct!!! But my dear fellow, you would also be remiss, because by overlooking my argument, you would also overlook the fact that Theophilus is indeed guilty of what I am claiming, even though my motivations for exposing him are purely vengeful and selfish.
You mentioned "waves of data points" that contradict Brad's point, so the first step would be to put forth some of those waves so that we can see whether or not Brad's argument has merit. You've not done that, so regardless of Brad's motivations for writing and regardless of how he used data to create the desired effect, I am inclined to believe him until I see evidence that contradicts what he has asserted.
|
|
Lobo
Doomer
Posts: 594 
|
Post by Lobo on Oct 28, 2020 2:04:42 GMT -5
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
|
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 6,107
Member is Online
|
Post by 40oz on Oct 28, 2020 11:15:19 GMT -5
Part of me feels like this was a backhanded way for you to tell us what your current profession is. I need the money to live. I do the job even though I hate what it's doing to the world. Over the long term it fucks with people's privacy and their mental health. The backhanded way of telling you my profession is to remind you that people such as Brad Parscale and myeslf do things for money that don't help the world or the people in it in a positive way. It's destructive, but its the price I pay for wanting to live. I feel the same way about Food Service and many large industrys that are job creators. Brad's article is not giving you a clear perspective of the world because he gets his paychecks from someone who's sole purpose this year is to win the election. The network of political propaganda is not going to arm you with the tools to destroy them. Make no mistake, I'm not criticizing it or making light of it. Good for you for being gainfully employed. No one is disagreeing with you about how data is used. On the contrary, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Thank you. But just for a moment, if we could go beyond that and focus on the fact that, as you point out, propaganda is "on all sides". Let's key in on that. So you have one campaign saying one thing, designed to attract, retain, and harden its base and perhaps some undecided voters. Then you have another campaign saying another thing, designed to do the same thing. Both are using data, both have an agenda, both are shooting for an outcome that benefits them. Yes. So in the above scenario, what I'm not hearing from you is the admission that one side might be correct. You seem to be saying, "I am allowed to dismiss someone's argument simply because I know their motivations." But regardless of motivations, which might be nefarious, self-serving, or something totally unrelated, it doesn't change the fact that the argument itself could be correct. Yes. Neither of them are correct. It's not a binary system where you have to pick one or the other. There's a path forward that is hidden from view that's being covered with the oversaturation of content that consistently hammers you with the idea that there's only a left and a right. They are not being truthful because of their motivations. That's why it is propaganda. They may be basing their opinions on facts, but they draw the wrong conclusions and interpretations and put them in the titles of the articles to get the attention of people who will listen to them and spread their message for them. Your doing Brad's work by being his mouthpiece for him, and he's not even paying you for it! That's what is so insidious about data. You mentioned "waves of data points" that contradict Brad's point, so the first step would be to put forth some of those waves so that we can see whether or not Brad's argument has merit. You've not done that, so regardless of Brad's motivations for writing and regardless of how he used data to create the desired effect, I am inclined to believe him until I see evidence that contradicts what he has asserted. Bob, I don't give a fuck about Brad's argument. He's not having a conversation in the pursuit of truth. He's not a Doomer. He's not even here right now. I don't give a shit about what he says. I care about you! You're a Doomer. I care about your opinions. I care about your personal experiences. That's why I administrate this forum. To give people like you a chance to speak even when its fucking annoying. I dont like dealing with you when you're mouthing off shit you heard in the news from these assholes who make a lot more money than you. You have the capacity to form your own opinions without borrowing them from conservative media to relay here. I don't want to talk to Brad. I only care about what you have to say. |
|
|
|
Post by dr_st on Oct 28, 2020 13:19:40 GMT -5
I dont like dealing with you when you're mouthing off shit you heard in the news from these assholes who make a lot more money than you. You have the capacity to form your own opinions without borrowing them from conservative media to relay here. It sounds like you make two assumptions here: - If someone who is a proclaimed conservative says something, then it must be false "because they have an agenda".
- People who support conservative agendas are doing so because they are "borrowing" or "parroting" stuff they hear from the conservative media, not because they actually think with their own brain.
It may not be what you actually think, but it sure sounds like it. |
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 6,107
Member is Online
|
Post by 40oz on Oct 28, 2020 13:41:15 GMT -5
It sounds like you make two assumptions here: - If someone who is a proclaimed conservative says something, then it must be false "because they have an agenda".
- People who support conservative agendas are doing so because they are "borrowing" or "parroting" stuff they hear from the conservative media, not because they actually think with their own brain.
It may not be what you actually think, but it sure sounds like it. 1. Again, any proclaimed conservative does not have access to the kinds of resources Brad Parscale has. He's a trusted individual who has media resources and funding at his disposal because he works at a very high level in Donald Trumps campaign. Don't reduce his credentials to being a humble Trump supporter. He's not a normal guy like your or me with some random thoughts to share. He's a professional at what he does. That's why Trump hired him. 2. Yes, there's some truth to that. I've heard these same arguments over and over, both here and from my other conservative friends and neighbors in my personal life, often using the same vocabulary and citing studies that they don't know the details of, because they didn't read the research reports themselves. They just heard the conclusions from some fast-talking debate hack and believed it was true. I've often seen news media from both sides draw complete opposite conclusions from the exact same set of facts. I'm not inclined to believe that this is some massive random phenomenon of parallel thinking across conservatives (or liberals) when I hear the exact things after tuning into the media resources they tend to cite as irrefutable fact. |
|
|
|
Post by dr_st on Oct 28, 2020 13:55:03 GMT -5
That's the point. The exact same phenomena (high-profile campaigners with vast resources, or "lay people" who only "skim" the information and "parrot" arguments without thinking, or the ability to draw opposite conclusions from the same facts) are obviously present on both sides (and in a multi-partisan system, on all sides). You say it yourself, yet in this discussion you seemingly only focused on the conservatives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2020 14:06:02 GMT -5
Bob, I don't give a fuck about Brad's argument. He's not having a conversation in the pursuit of truth. He's not a Doomer. He's not even here right now. I don't give a shit about what he says. I care about you! You're a Doomer. I care about your opinions. I care about your personal experiences. That's why I administrate this forum. To give people like you a chance to speak even when its fucking annoying. I dont like dealing with you when you're mouthing off shit you heard in the news from these assholes who make a lot more money than you. You have the capacity to form your own opinions without borrowing them from conservative media to relay here. I don't want to talk to Brad. I only care about what you have to say. If it's annoying you this badly, all you had to do was say so in the beginning. What I get from this is that you don't want people posting external links to articles that argue a conservative political point unless the author also plays Doom. Not a problem. In the future I won't link anymore articles, unless I happen to find out that Ben Shapiro, Dinesh D'Souza, or Mark Levin have at least completed Knee Deep in the Dead. |
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 6,107
Member is Online
|
Post by 40oz on Oct 28, 2020 15:07:23 GMT -5
If it's annoying you this badly, all you had to do was say so in the beginning. What I get from this is that you don't want people posting external links to articles that argue a conservative political point unless the author also plays Doom. Not a problem. In the future I won't link anymore articles, unless I happen to find out that Ben Shapiro, Dinesh D'Souza, or Mark Levin have at least completed Knee Deep in the Dead. ok fine. That's the point. The exact same phenomena (high-profile campaigners with vast resources, or "lay people" who only "skim" the information and "parrot" arguments without thinking, or the ability to draw opposite conclusions from the same facts) are obviously present on both sides (and in a multi-partisan system, on all sides). You say it yourself, yet in this discussion you seemingly only focused on the conservatives. This forum doesn't attract many liberals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2020 15:07:43 GMT -5
I don't trust the mainstream presstitute media. In fact, I don't like big corporations in general, save for a tiny few. I trust and try to support the little guy as much as possible. Whenever I read a news article, I always take it with a grain of salt and then listen to my favorite YouTubers to form my opinion, some of whom are leftists. I have always believed in the power of small business with Id from the 90s (and perhaps even current Id) being the pinnacle.
It's the little guy that always suffers and I don't like it when someone with more power gets a big dick and decides to bully the little guy just because they might think differently. Whether it's the government, a big corporation or some forum moderator makes no difference to me.
|
|
peerdolius
Doomer
I met God and he was THOD - Viper
Posts: 181
|
Post by peerdolius on Oct 28, 2020 19:51:45 GMT -5
So for the people that don't know what the Shadowman incident was (such as myself), what happened? If you don't mind me asking of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2020 20:55:10 GMT -5
So for the people that don't know what the Shadowman incident was (such as myself), what happened? If you don't mind me asking of course. Start here: doomer.boards.net/post/23665/thread |
|
peerdolius
Doomer
I met God and he was THOD - Viper
Posts: 181
|
Post by peerdolius on Oct 28, 2020 22:47:16 GMT -5
Jesus christ now this is a rabbit hole
One hour later
Damn that was a wild read. What's crazy is that nobody would have really cared as much if he just never said anything about who those girls were or even that they were based on real people. Then they'd just be naked women on crosses, just another (albeit NSFW) gore decoration.
I think the easter egg's a bit fucked but he shouldn'tve gotten banned for that.
|
|
