General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI very much needed to see this quote, this 4th of July:
From Samuel Adams:
"It does not take a majority to prevail....but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Cha
(297,799 posts)Complacency is not an option
Cha
(297,799 posts)of the horror to come to America over 200 years later when his quote reached its zenith.
Paladin
(28,277 posts)Freddie
(9,275 posts)Somehow don't think this is what Sam had in mind.
calimary
(81,527 posts)The political arsonists on the far right have succeeded in burning down everything they see.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,047 posts)https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-tipping-point-large-scale-social-change
(emphasis added)
Research Finds Tipping Point for Large-scale Social Change
Research Related People: Damon Centola, Ph.D.
When organizations turn a blind eye to sexual harassment in the workplace, how many people need to take a stand before the behavior is no longer seen as normal?
According to a new paper published to be published tomorrow in Science (link is external), there is a quantifiable answer: roughly 25% of people need to take a stand before large-scale social change occurs. This idea of a social tipping point applies to standards in the workplace, and any type of movement or initiative.
Online, people develop norms about everything from what type of content is acceptable to post on social media, to how civil or uncivil to be in their language. We have recently seen how public attitudes can and do shift on issues like gay marriage, gun laws, or race and gender equality, as well as what beliefs are or arent publicly acceptable to voice.
Over the past 50 years, many studies of organizations and community change have attempted to identify the critical size needed for a tipping point, purely based on observation. These studies have speculated that tipping points can range anywhere between 10% and 40%.
...
The implications for large-scale behavior change are also the subject of Centolas new book, How Behavior Spreads: The Science of Complex Contagion (link is external), which will be published next week by Princeton University Press.
The full text of "Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention" can be found here. (link is external)
Media Contact: Julie Sloane, julie.sloane@asc.upenn.edu (link sends e-mail), 215-746-1798
lastlib
(23,322 posts)Change WILL come!
VOTE for your Lives!!
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,047 posts)Javaman
(62,534 posts)It's never the the majority that takes control, it's the most vocal minority that does
eppur_se_muova
(36,305 posts)RWers have succeeded in provoking a tireless minority into misinformed, ill-conceived outrage, and they have proven very effective at keeping brushfires burning -- but they are not brushfires of freedom, only brushfires of "we won the election, so suck it".
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)We can't wait for anyone else.
VOTE, dammit!
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)Trump only "won" by approx. 78,000 votes in 3 states. AND, the majority of Americans support typical Democratic policies and agenda.
Further:
Hillary didn't lose because she was less POPULAR. She lost because of James Comey's letters and because of some even more important factors -- more important because they're not going away. They will be used against us in every election going forward, unless we can stop them.
The big problems are voter suppression, Russian meddling, and targeted voter propaganda through Twitter, Google, Facebook, and other forms of social media. There is no question that the Trump campaign, through Cambridge Analytica, did this -- and that the Russians did this. The only question is how much they conspired together in the propaganda campaign.
We need to figure out how to defend the democratic process from fake news and micro-targeted AI propaganda -- or lose our democracy. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029576691
Here is how they stole the election, well this and KGB operatives V Crosscheck in action:
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/
23:00 6/25/2017
PALMER: Rigged election: Donald Trump won every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/rigged-election-donald-trump-won-every-surprise-swing-state-by-the-same-1-margin/118/
The most commonly posited explanation of Donald Trumps shocking election victory was that every professional pollster in the nation despite each working independently and using differing methodologies somehow managed to overlook the same pockets of Trump voters in these states. If such pockets did exist, they would have existed in varying sizes in each of the four states, thus resulting in different sized wins in each.
Ask any statistician and theyll tell you that a reasonable distribution of the results would have been Trump winning one of the states by one percent, won one of them by perhaps three percent, won one of them by two percent, lost one of them by one percent, or something along those lines. But instead the voting tallies looked startlingly different from any natural distribution. In fact they looked startlingly the same.
According to the New York Times, the voting results broke down like this: Trump won Florida by just over one percent of the vote. He also won Pennsylvania by just over one percent. He won Michigan by just under one percent. And he won Wisconsin by precisely one percent. Thats not how numbers tend to work in the real world.
On its own, this kind of suspiciously consistent numerical dispersion across the four states that decided the election would be something that could be written off as a mere fluke. But when you put it within the context of the numerous other ways in which the voting tallies make no mathematical sense, it points to the numbers having been rigged or altered.
MikeFarb @mikefarb1
#unhackthevote
Did Trump win Michigan? I don' think so.
Won by 10,704 but wait
75,355 Ballots Thrown Out
87 Machines Broke Down in Detrioit
Link to tweet
Ron Baiman (Ph. D.): U.S. 2016 Unadjusted Exit Poll Discrepancies.... (Affadavit)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210343625
Updated, Expanded and Corrected Affidavit Version: U.S. 2016 Unadjusted Exit Poll Discrepancies Fit Chronic Republican Vote Count Rigging, not Random Statistical, Patterns https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319205877_Updated_Expanded_and_Corrected_Affidavit_Version_US_2016_Unadjusted_Exit_Poll_Discrepancies_Fit_Chronic_Republican_Vote_-_Count_Rigging_not_Random_Statistical_Patterns