I like threads, but I think what threads needs is more adoption first, and then a case study on the ways in which it comes to be used, rather than asking people to think of new ways for it to be used in the abstract.
I really like the idea of Prof. Nesson co-teaching the seminar with the MIT professor before giving students the opportunity to pitch their own ideas. I'm wondering if we could know more about the funding process and what the next steps for submitting the proposal are
I love the idea. One major hiccup that I find with the use of Threads is that there is no way to tell people that you are interested in a Threads discussion. So it is really good for classroom dialogue but less useful for use as a sounding board for ideas when you can't get enough people on the board.
What we need to work on, in my opinion, is how people in a classroom setting react to things said in threads. i think complicating the threads space wouldn't make it any better. Know im in the minority here
What about a general threads app schoolwide that only enters about 5 people per room. So that the chat doesn't get overrun. and you can bounce from a specific thread if you are not engaged in the conversation
Would it be a lot less comfortable to use if we were back in a classroom and people were afraid others were reading what they were typing? Of course this would only apply to using it concurrently with class
I like the theory behind Nesson's idea, but I think Nesson’s pedagogy is actually a bit misguided. I’ve talked with many students over the years who have been in Nesson's classes or are currently in one of his classes and they don't feel they are safe spaces for the types of discussions we have. Rather, while the nymity space is great, the live space lacks the structure to enable these difficult conversations to be had in a meaningful way. So, the combination doesn't work effectively -- there should be a focus on doing both.
Alderaan how do you expect half the country to accept that given all the irregularities? If Biden won let Republicans in to see all the middle of hte night votes that purportedly went 100% Biden in some instances.
Is anyone else mindblower that in 2020 this is the best system we have for counting votes. Like people sitting in rooms all night manually taking each one out of the envelope. It seems absurd that this can't be machine counted immediately or done through some sort of secure online system
Does no one realize they count mail in all at once and in person all at once? It's obvious people who mail in lean more to one party compared to in person voters. Don't pretend as though it's an irregularity when it's an easily understandable fact
I get a real kick out of the idea that I show up with a new name each day. I feel like I am a new person each time I take to threads. I can express opinions today contrary to yesterday which is great. I can be a republican one day and democrat the next. I can even choose rep v dem on given issues in the same day.
Biden and Obama spied on Trump's campaign. Come on. Trump is worse in that he actively damages the norms. Dems are worse in that they sanctimoniously pretend to follow the norms when they are no different.
For 100s of years we've trusted the states to do their due diligence. These are purple states that do not lean one way or the other yet only one party is screaming that there's irregularities. That's not just being a sore loser that's dangerous to our democracy. we don't even know who won yet. Calm down and get some perspective!
I think there is harm being caused by the idea that all people who voted for Trump (or insert other candidate) are awful people. I see people posting about it on social media a lot about how they will remember the people who supported him and will never be friends with them again or whatever and I think that is damaging to the country coming back together.
@Sullust I'm not even pro-Trump but I hate the idea of just discounting 48% of the country as mean/sexist/whatever and I'm worried about what's going to happen with that. I think it's an overreaction. Do you have any ideas how to fix this?
Essentially nobody but the New York Post was willing to even ask a question about Biden's son. Twitter locked accounts and deleted any attempt to tweet about it. You think people are stupid? They see what is happening.
There is a double-standard by tech (way overblown by the right I think) but it's in part because of fear of repeating last election where they propagated a bunch of misinformation like pizzagate. What are you going to do though?
The corruption on both sides is horrible. The reason I'm particularly worried about it from the left is that (a) it is not acknowledged in the same way (b) the left controls the main channels of thought and speech in this country (MSM, social media).
One more thought for now: FWIW I'm not convinced the right would be better stewards of the MSM/academica/social media etc. if they held those levers of power. But I think we all should be troubled by efforts to curtail speech, thought, etc., from *whatever* the source, and right now the censorship, cancel culture, etc. is unquestionably coming from the left.
Athos – threads should be a forum for introducing an argument. that's it. then the professor should assign a group of students to defend and oppose that position in class. that way people can learn in class. at this point threads is just a place for people to argue their own position as truth and learn nothing
Houtborg – then we agree. that's not what's happening here. you fix that when prof gets involved and randomly assigns a position to each student. The idea gets out -- there's no fear of being canceled.
Agreed that if this just becomes a shouting match then it's useless but I don't think that is where this is at right now, I think there is a mostly respectful if admittedly impasioned back and forth between people who disagree but are being required to engage rationally with each others' opinions and use their reason to try to make their case before their peers
I think we have hit upon an important point. I heard that law school makes you defend all sorts of opinions even those you may disagree with. Ive yet to see that in a class. it would be a great exercise in critical thinking
I see the utility of threads outside that though. there is something about actually getting to articulate your beliefs and make arguments for them that threads makes possible to an extend that classes don't for most people
With the thing about taking other people's opinions and arguing for them on Zoom. Don't people think there would be a lack of comfort with possibly being recorded and taken out of context? Especially if threads brings out hot takes
You realize the probability of nobody in a 50 person classroom saying something in that 1 in a million chance someone in that class is a SCOTUS nominee is like 1 in a billion right? so for a 1 in a billion chance we shouldn't do something that benefits everyone?
*video leaks* *nobody speaks up* *you're accused of defending a position you took in a law school classroom* *you say "hey, actually, we were just arguing a position assigned to us–here's a written document signed by everyone in the class saying we agreed to do so*
It's funny but I'm just not sure what it accomplishes. I actually GIF use is corrosive. It does not attempt to engage with and refute an argument/debunk it on its merits - it usually attempts to mock/ridicule.
Oral argument > GIFs. Written is best. Realize of course that it is not practical to carry the majority of our discuourse through bland written words. But just imagine for example how much better the argumentation would have been in the political debates had they been written (again, not claiming this is at all practical). So much of the theatre is because it's oral. People talked about Trump's interruptions and the mute button and the fly and Kamala's body language and "I'm speaking" and "come on man" etc etc etc - all such a waste
It would be great to get some clarity on grading/ final paper. It's a bit stressful this semester not really knowing how everything will work out so it would nice to get some more info sooner rather than later
To me the greatest tragedy of the Trump presidency is that, to my dismay, he has proven to be so remarkably right about so many of the issues he has sounded the alarm upon - and yet, because he is so *wrong* about so much (and because he speaks so crassly), we are incapable of accepting the fundamental truths he is speaking. It is indeed a supreme irony - a tragedy - that the man who promised to drain the swamp is himself so corrupt. But put somebody of honorable character and intellect in his stead and I think we would lose the blinders and realize how fundamentally correct he is about nearly all of the basic grievances he is raising – even if he exaggerates their scope or raises them in a partial, self-serving manner.
Trump, for instance, is right about the media: on the whole, they *are* corrupt. Same for big tech. Samefor the military-industry complex. Same for politicians on *both* sides. Et cetera et cetera. Sure, much of what Trump et. al. say is bogus. But we are only fooling ourselves if we simply block our eyes and shut our ears (as the MSM, big tech, academia et al are teaching us to do) to the reams of actual evidence he points to when crying foul.
This election is but the latest example. Perhaps Biden won. Almost certainly, the voting fraud Trump is pointing to is not as consequential as he claims. But I just do not understand how you can look at some of the evidence Rs are pointing to and just dismiss it as baseless out of hand. Seriously put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself if your opinion would be the same if it was Republicans doing this. (And *yes* for what it is worth I *do* believe Republicans engage in voter suppression, election interference, etc. as well. I think I would be a much stupider and less honest person if I didn’t admit that. It is incomprehensible to me that all those in the establishment left who fancy themselves as people of intellectual honesty and integrity cannot do the same).
I challenge you to look at some of the issues being flagged in these links (random small sampling) and insist with a straight face that there is not at least possibly an issue here. If we permit (or even celebrate!) the active censorship or coverup of these issues by big tech and MSM, and in mainstream discourse, then we are killing our capacity for free and honest thought and speech. Those to me are the most fundamental freedoms of all – free thought and speech. They should be important enough to fight for them regardless of which side of the aisle they are coming from; if we don’t, the day *will* come when the thought police we unleashed on our political opponents end up turning against us. We’ll regret it.
A Twitter user called Essential Fleccas claims that three people who are already dead voted for Joe Biden in Michigan. According to the video published by the handle, June Aiken (120 years old), Donna Brydges (119 years old) and William Bradley (118 years old) voted for Biden via absentee ballots. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, also claimed that dead people voted in Michigan. This false information is used as evidence of voter fraud.
We found that all three people are alive and most likely are relatives of the people born in the early 1900s and inherited relatives' names. William Tarnley Bradley lives in Michigan, and he is 61 years old. His ZIP code is the same as the ZIP code of his passed relative, William Bradley, born in 1902. Donna Bridges lives in Michigan, Ludington, and is 75 years old and June Aiken lives in Michigan and is 94 years old.
Polaris - it's OP here (Tethys). I hope you are correct about those specific people. It is strange that (to my knowledge/research) not one of them has surfaced to clear the record. Can be sure the MSM is searching hard for them and would give them all the air time they want.
To be clear I do not have a vested interest in believing there was fraud. Quite the contrary. I do want Trump to win (despite my many, many reservations about him) because I believe, on balance, that his policies would be better for the country (shocking, I know). But I do NOT want to believe that an election could be stolen. If that is true it is far, far more damaging than whatever damage I believe Joe Biden could inflict through his policies - obviously!
More than anything else I want the truth to come out and I want to live in an environment where I feel like it is not being actively suppressed if its gets in the way of one's political preferences. Maybe you are right about those three voters. I want to believe it. I am not convinced yet. But at any rate this is a drop in the bucket.
There are just too many big questions here. Observers not being allowed to watch ballots within eyesight. AG claiming before election that Trump can't possibly win. Election officials wearing Biden paraphernalia, cheering when R observers are sent out, tweeting that we need Biden to win in a landslide. Eyewitness accounts of ballot harvesting. Unprecedented sudden stops in ballot counting and releases coupled with odd explanations (not in all cases but in several). Etc. Etc. My quick summary does not do it justice. I hope the courts will.
I hope in my heart that team Trump is just lying about this all - in which case I do NOT want Trump to be president. But my personal assessment as someone who came into his presidency disliking him is that in most cases where it's been MSM/pollsters/academia/Big Tech/cultural elites against him over the past four years, he's been mostly vindicated and they've mostly been exposed for the partisan shills that they are. I have next to no faith that the Democrat run election machinery in the states in question would steal this election if they thought they could get away with it. If the Democrat establishment would do it to Sanders they absolutely would do it to Trump.