[PREV - PENDULUM_SHOVE]    [TOP]

POLITICAL_ANIMALISM


                                             November 10, 2006


In the weeks before the election I chose to
spend a lot of time on slashdot.org behaving
as a political animal.

                                        http://slashdot.org/~doom

As for why:

o  Slashdot, for all it's flaws, is a national
   (actually world-wide) forum where I'm a "well
   respected", experienced member.  It may have
   been my best shot at being influential.

o  There are at least two different things that
   "got my blood up", that made me ready to
   fight:

  (1)  I'm pretty sure that the slashdot discussion
       forums were under attack by hired gun
       Republican sock-puppets (I call them "The         THE_ROVERS
       Rover Boys", with what accuracy I know not).
       An astro-turf campaign on my home turf?  I
       was determined to give these guys a hard
       time.
          
  (2)  I'd been reading up on the 2004 election    
       fraud issue, and I was convinced that        
       I'd been conned: in the aftermath of the        LAST_EXIT_FOR_DEMOCRACY
       election I had eventually decided that the 
       evidence for fraud was much shakey.
                                          
       I now think it quite likely the
       Republicans had stolen a presidential
       election (if not two in a row), and
       both the Democrats and the press
       (including a large part of the
       "liberal press") had just rolled over
       and played dead.        
                                                
                               
Mostly the Rover Boys were pretty easy to deal
with... they seemed to have a list of a small number of
talking points on the election fraud issue, and the
points really just weren't that good: 
                               
  (1) "polls are so *inaccurate*" 
  (2) "Democrats do it too"    
  (3) "you're just a conspiracy nut like those 9/11 truthies", and so on.  
                               
These guys also didn't seem to be very good at
dealing with follow-ups (I have a theory that
their political instincts are still tuned up
for Old Media where you can get in a jab and
not have to worry about an immediate
counter-jab).                  
                               
But every so often, one of them
would say something that was a 
little harder for me to deal   
with, something that would             
really require some research for       A particular difficulty for me is the 
me to deal with throughly to my        Blumenthal site, mysterypollster.com, 
satisfaction --                        which has a lot of material that I'm  
                                       just not that familiar with, even now.
                                         
                                         
                                        
                                          
                                      
One of the great drawbacks of slashdot
is that everything moves *fast* there.
When a controversial story goes up, the
discussion board rapidly explodes into
hundreds of posts, none of which are
going to be read by anyone a day later.
                               
You can't just let something sit and
reply to it tomorrow, the way you might
with a usenet discussion; if you're
going to do it at all, you've got to do          
it *now*: so I made a conscious                  
decision to be a little sloppy and to            EMPTY_HAND
fight a little dirty (by my standards).
                               
For example, instead of checking to
make sure I had it right, I might bluff
and write a response first, and *then*
back-up and check, and possibly write a
second response later if it seemed
needed.

Yes, I care about truth, but having
gotten a strong impression of what I
thought was true, I was willing to
exaggerate my case, because there
were election deadlines looming, and
the slashdot dynamic was pressing
down on me to move quickly...

There were times where I would dance
around blank areas in my knowledge,
to avoid sounding grossly ignorant.
Or I would oversimplify on purpose,
to avoid complicating a rhetorical
point.

         For example:
                             
         There's a popular factoid: "80%             
         of the vote in 2004 was counted on    
         electronic voting machines",          
         which I passed on once or twice.      
                                         
         But that conflates the stats for
         the Diebold Accu-Vote machines
         with the stats for the ES&S
         optical scanner systems -- those
         are certainly not perfect, but at
         least they *do* have a paper trail.
         
         That "80%" figure is probably
         quite correct, and yet also,
         in all honesty it could be
         that it overstates the
         magnitude of the problem.

                 But I didn't feel like
                 I had time for that kind
                 honesty at the time --

                 I played along with this
                 "talking point", but in
                 retrospect I think that was
                 a mistake -- that's the
                 sort of "cute" maneuver
                 that makes me angry when I
                 find out someone has pulled
                 it on me.


--------
[NEXT - EMPTY_HAND]