#public opinion

[politijohn]

Begging to lose an election when you ignore voters this badly…

[huariqueje]

“LIED-ABOUT WARS Advertising campaigns, marketing schemes. The target is public opinion. Wars are sold the same way cars are, by lying. In August 1964, President Lyndon Johnson accused the Vietnamese of attacking two U.S. warships in the Tonkin Gulf. Then the president invaded Vietnam, sending planes and troops. He was acclaimed by journalists and by politicians, and his popularity sky-rocketed. The Democrats in power and the Republicans out of power became a single party united against Communist aggression. After the war had slaughtered Vietnamese in vast numbers, most of them women and children, Johnson’s secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, confessed that the Tonkin Gulf attack had never occurred. The dead did not revive. In March 2003, President George W. Bush accused Iraq of being on the verge of destroying the world with its weapons of mass destruction, “the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Then the president invaded Iraq, sending planes and troops. He was acclaimed by journalists and by politicians, and his popularity sky-rocketed. The Republicans in power and the Democrats out of power became a single party united against terrorist aggression. After the war had slaughtered Iraqis in vast numbers, most of them women and children, Bush confessed that the weapons of mass destruction never existed. “The most lethal weapons ever devised” were his own speeches. In the following elections, he won a second term. In my childhood, my mother used to tell me that a lie has no feet. She was misinformed.”

― Eduardo Galeano, Mirrors: Stories of Almost Everyone

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

BuT tHe PuBlIc DoNt SuPpOrT tHe StRiKeS

[miracle-negative]

Hello guys! My final exam is about a month away- (*Cryinggg)

So, I'm going to post only artwork until the exam is over

Thx always everyone, Hav3 a miracle day!

[theculturedmarxist]

[feckcops]

The public wants to save the planet – as long as it doesn’t personally inconvenience them

“Back in July, Just Stop Oil (JSO) experienced something unusual – they found they were the ones being protested. An alternative group called Just Stop Pissing People Off attempted to block Just Stop Oil from engaging in disruptive protests and interrupted their events, saying that the climate crisis is real but that JSO is distracting and alienating people. The counter-protests tell us a great deal about Britain’s contradictory attitude to the climate crisis.

“Broadly, Brits understand that the climate crisis climate change is a major problem. 65% of us are worried about the climate crisis (versus just 28% who aren’t) while the same proportion supports the government’s aim of reducing Britain’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050 ... Eight in 10 back more tree planting, subsidies for energy-efficient homes and higher taxes for high-carbon companies. 62% would support a requirement for all energy production to come from renewable sources. But this enthusiasm has its limits.

“When asked if they would back policies that would impose limits on what they personally can do, Brits quickly turn against them. For instance, two-thirds oppose the idea of a limit on how much meat they can buy, and a majority oppose banning petrol and diesel cars ... Even though 62% of voters back the idea of requiring all energy to be renewable, just 39% want to ban new North Sea oil fields, and a mere 32% want to prohibit the sale of gas boilers ...

“The British public is not as supportive of action on the climate crisis as many environmentalists would hope. We favour general, uncontentious ideas – net zero, tree-planting, tax rises on high-carbon companies – but when asked for our opinion on a climate policy that would directly affect us personally, we baulk. This is partly due to worries about the cost of living, but it’s also about avoiding personal inconvenience.

“Just Stop Pissing Everyone Off perfectly encapsulates the British attitude to the climate crisis: sure, it’s a problem, but not ours. As Homer Simpson once asked: ‘Can’t someone else do it?’”

[pratchettquotes]

"Your Ankh-Morpork soldiers aren't in a position to protect you, however."

"Sir, you are right. You could have me killed right now," said de Worde simply. "You know that. I know that. But you won't, for three reasons. The officers of Borogravia tend towards honor. Everyone says that. That's why they don't surrender. And I bleed most distressingly. And you don't need to, because everyone's interested in you! Suddenly, it's all changed!"

"Interested in us?"

"Sir, in a sense you could help a lot right now. Apparently, people back in Ankh-Morpork were amazed when...look, have you heard about what we call 'human interest,' sir?"

"No."

De Worde tried to explain. Blouse listened with his mouth open, and at the end, said:

"Have I got this right? Although many people have been killed and wounded in this wretched war, it's not been of much 'interest' to your readers? But it is now, just because of us? Because of a little skirmish in a town they've never heard of? And because of it, we're suddenly a 'plucky little country' and people are telling your newspaper that your great city should be on our side?"

"Yes, Lieutenant. We put out a second edition last night, you see."

Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment

[reality-detective]

[reasonsforhope]

"Major AI companies are racing to build superintelligent AI — for the benefit of you and me, they say. But did they ever pause to ask whether we actually want that?

Americans, by and large, don’t want it.

That’s the upshot of a new poll shared exclusively with Vox. The poll, commissioned by the think tank AI Policy Institute and conducted by YouGov, surveyed 1,118 Americans from across the age, gender, race, and political spectrums in early September. It reveals that 63 percent of voters say regulation should aim to actively prevent AI superintelligence.

Companies like OpenAI have made it clear that superintelligent AI — a system that is smarter than humans — is exactly what they’re trying to build. They call it artificial general intelligence (AGI) and they take it for granted that AGI should exist. “Our mission,” OpenAI’s website says, “is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.”

But there’s a deeply weird and seldom remarked upon fact here: It’s not at all obvious that we should want to create AGI — which, as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will be the first to tell you, comes with major risks, including the risk that all of humanity gets wiped out. And yet a handful of CEOs have decided, on behalf of everyone else, that AGI should exist.

Now, the only thing that gets discussed in public debate is how to control a hypothetical superhuman intelligence — not whether we actually want it. A premise has been ceded here that arguably never should have been...

Building AGI is a deeply political move. Why aren’t we treating it that way?

...Americans have learned a thing or two from the past decade in tech, and especially from the disastrous consequences of social media. They increasingly distrust tech executives and the idea that tech progress is positive by default. And they’re questioning whether the potential benefits of AGI justify the potential costs of developing it. After all, CEOs like Altman readily proclaim that AGI may well usher in mass unemployment, break the economic system, and change the entire world order. That’s if it doesn’t render us all extinct.

In the new AI Policy Institute/YouGov poll, the "better us [to have and invent it] than China” argument was presented five different ways in five different questions. Strikingly, each time, the majority of respondents rejected the argument. For example, 67 percent of voters said we should restrict how powerful AI models can become, even though that risks making American companies fall behind China. Only 14 percent disagreed.

Naturally, with any poll about a technology that doesn’t yet exist, there’s a bit of a challenge in interpreting the responses. But what a strong majority of the American public seems to be saying here is: just because we’re worried about a foreign power getting ahead, doesn’t mean that it makes sense to unleash upon ourselves a technology we think will severely harm us.

AGI, it turns out, is just not a popular idea in America.

“As we’re asking these poll questions and getting such lopsided results, it’s honestly a little bit surprising to me to see how lopsided it is,” Daniel Colson, the executive director of the AI Policy Institute, told me. “There’s actually quite a large disconnect between a lot of the elite discourse or discourse in the labs and what the American public wants.”

-via Vox, September 19, 2023

[groundrunner100]

Damn answer limit….

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

Most people are “very” or “extremely” concerned about the state of the natural world, a new global public opinion survey shows. 

Roughly 70 percent of 22,000 people polled online earlier this year agreed that human activities were pushing the Earth past “tipping points,” thresholds beyond which nature cannot recover, like loss of the Amazon rainforest or collapse of the Atlantic Ocean’s currents. The same number of respondents said the world needs to reduce carbon emissions within the next decade. 

Just under 40 percent of respondents said technological advances can solve environmental challenges. 

The Global Commons survey, conducted for two collectives of “economic thinkers” and scientists known as Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance, polled people across 22 countries, including low-, middle- and high-income nations. The survey’s stated aim was to assess public opinion about “societal transformations” and “planetary stewardship.”

The results, released Thursday, highlight that people living under diverse circumstances seem to share worries about the health of ecosystems and the environmental problems future generations will inherit. 

But there were some regional differences. People living in emerging economies, including Kenya and India, perceived themselves to be more exposed to environmental and climate shocks, like drought, flooding and extreme weather. That group expressed higher levels of concern about the environment, though 59 percent of all respondents said they are “very” or “extremely” worried about “the state of nature today,” and another 29 percent are at least somewhat concerned.  

Americans are included in the global majority, but a more complex picture emerged in the details of the survey, conducted by Ipsos.

Roughly one in two Americans said they are not very or not at all exposed to environmental and climate change risks. Those perceptions contrast sharply with empirical evidence showing that climate change is having an impact in nearly every corner of the United States. A warming planet has intensified hurricanes battering coasts, droughts striking middle American farms and wildfires threatening homes and air quality across the country. And climate shocks are driving up prices of some food, like chocolate and olive oil, and consumer goods. 

Americans also largely believe they do not bear responsibility for global environmental problems. Only about 15 percent of U.S. respondents said that high- and middle-income Americans share responsibility for climate change and natural destruction. Instead, they attribute the most blame to businesses and governments of wealthy countries. 

Those survey responses suggest that at least half of Americans may not feel they have any skin in the game when it comes to addressing global environmental problems, according to Geoff Dabelko, a professor at Ohio University and expert in environmental policy and security. 

Translating concern about the environment to actual change requires people to believe they have something at stake, Dabelko said. “It’s troubling that Americans aren’t making that connection.”

[eretzyisrael]

Source

[zee-aka-pretty]

Guys, I genuinely want your opinion on something.

I've got this friend. She had the biggest crush on a guy at her workplace. He then confessed to her that, he likes her too. Isn't it great? but the catch was, this guy was resigning and leaving the country in a week. And he didn't want a long-distance relationship.

So they were in this, weird phase, where they weren't dating, but they both had feelings and knew about it, and just generally going on outings that weren't actually dates. because they're not dating. right.

And then. The dude finally left, leaving my friend's heart in shambles. And she texted me, that they went on One Official Date, the day before he flew, and now they're not dating again. Because he doesn't want to. But they'll stay friends!

Now, my friend, texted him and he had responded with a snap. and then promptly left her on read.

When my friend told me about this, I told her "maybe he's setting down! maybe it's the jetlag!" And she responded with, "idk mn, he's not here"

I then asked her to define "how long can a person take to reply to a msg?"

She said "Max 1 hr... No one is too busy to not reply to a text unless that one is not important"

I did gently tell her that it would be unreasonable to expect from some ppl, but she followed it up with "But how do I feel when u see their last seen was few minutes ago and u aare on delivered"

I honestly do not care, nor do I check that far into other people's status online. However, seeing that my mother also looks into my dad's whereabouts in the same manner, and my eldest sisters check on their husbands the same way, I wonder if I'm the odd one out here. I recently had a colleague at work with a long-distance relationship agree that they do the same as well.

Does it mean that I don't care enough? or are they being unreasonable? I am, at a loss here, and would like to know what the tumblr community thinks about this.

[heartofbusan]

"This story reveals a new playbook for waging a far-reaching and largely undetectable smear campaign in the digital age." Megan Twohey, NYT investagative reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jE4.sYdZ.Ah3sVs-lnJ9z&smid=url-share

Being uninterested in current US celebrity gossip means that this story kind of whizzed past me this summer. I didn't sit up to take notice. Neither of these people is Jimin, so I tuned it out. Yesterday's court filing, however, finally caught my attention. That's revealed is fascinating if not outrightly horrifying.

The media has fully invested in our attention. It's become their biggest commodity and tool. Propaganda at its finest. We've seen cases like this before where two parties start up a smear campaign to tarnish someone's good reputation to sway public opinion. Oftentimes, these cases are a battle between a man and a woman. Think of Brad Pitt vs. Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard or, more recently, Trumpelstiltskin vs. Ms. Harris. Can we even go as far as to include MHJ and Hybe/Bang in this category? Or, the people vs. anyone they want to tarnish?

Public opinion is such a fickle thing. It's entirely malleable in the hands of the 'right' people. Anyone willing and unscrupulous enough to go the extra mile.

Park Jimin was just as recently as last week been the target of online hate campaigns. Helloo Min Yoongi? Kim Namjoon?!?! Basically, every Tannie has been wrung through the wringer like this to serve a voracious narrative. In their case, it was other fandoms fanning the flames of hate for the media to serve, but it's all meant to destroy a person's reputation.

I bring this article up because it's a good reminder of how much influence PR firms have when they want to change a narrative in order to suit their highest bidder. It makes me wonder how much of the bad press we hear (chatter online) is fully fabricated, maybe partly based on the public's incentive to dislike a certain person, and how important it is to read between the lines. To stay critical in your online interactions and in your dissemina of reports. Keep thinking for yourself. Your opinion can't become cement, in either direction.

Isn't it funny how PR playbooks have been exposed this year? Remember MHJ and her text exchanges about how best to go on the attack? Her confidence when talking to her co-conspirator as opposed to her demeanor during her presser? We are the ones being catered to! Our dumb minds are unwilling or unable to parse through to the truth. It's not surprising seeing as it's often very hard to figure out who's lying about whom.

I know some people love certainty, look at the nonsense questions most jikook bloggers get asked about, but it's better to stay flexible in how secure you feel about anything so as not to be surprised or dissapointed in the long run. Trust your gut when it comes to forming an opinion on someone or something and ask yourself, 'Why?' Why am I being asked to hate or voice my dislike on a celebrity whom I know nothing about? Why am I being driven towards a conclusion that serves but ONE narrative?

Come on, people, this happens to 'us' in this K-pop/ARMY fandom community as well..if not worse.