There's already been a fair bit written about the "freeping" of a recent poll by "The Beaver," asking Canadians who they thought was the worst Canadian -- both Red Tory and Stageleft weigh in on the infantile tendency of Canada's jackass-o-sphere to want to turn to shit everything they touch. But there's more here than meets the eye.
As many (including your humble scribe) have pointed out, it is eye-rollingly obvious that you can't freep an online poll, make a mess of the results, then turn around and use those very results as if they have any significance. You know, like Blogging Tory and creepy fetus fetishist SUZANNE does in Stageleft's comments section:
What…we’re not allowed to vote? We’re not allowed to campaign for our choices?
Freeping doesn’t necessarily involve cheating, as it has been said elsewhere. Forwarding the contest on to acquaintances and suggesting they vote for Trudeau is not cheating. Blogging about the contest and asking that people vote for my choice is not cheating.
I’m proud because we got our guy to be chosen number one, and it shatters the myth that Trudeau was universally loved and no one really questions his beliefs. In the mind of the media, he embodies the quintessential Canadian, but many people disagree with that, and I’m glad we got that point across.
I’m also proud that Henry Morgentaler made it to number 3. I really wasn’t expecting him to poll that high.
Holy fuck. What kind of colossal moron do you have to be to have written that? In particular, appreciate the breathtaking dumbassitude in this passage:
I’m proud because we got our guy to be chosen number one, and it shatters the myth that Trudeau was universally loved and no one really questions his beliefs.
In other words, in the space of a single sentence, SUZANNE admits to having fucked up the results of that poll, then uses that as proof that Trudeau wasn't popular. I'm not sure there's even a word in the English language to describe that kind of idiocy, but that's not why we're here.
SUZANNE claims that all that freeping wasn't "cheating" and, in fact, she's right. If you offer your readers an online poll, and you don't put proper safeguards in place to make it moron-proof, well, you get what you deserve. But what SUZANNE doesn't appreciate (aside from anything resembling logical thought) is that there are times when freeping is appropriate, and times when it's not.
Every year, Major League Baseball has an All-Star game, and part of the selection process involves the fans voting their brains out to get their chosen player into the game. Not surprisingly, this generates massive campaigns in each city, where viewers work mightily to stuff those online ballot boxes to make sure their favourite player is selected. Sure, it's pretty much freeping but, in this case, there's a reason -- you're trying to affect the selection of the team, which means that there is at least some benefit to you.
The same can be said for that crappy TV show "Canadian Idol," where the whole point is to convince viewers to vote for you. And, once again, that's part of the process -- there's nothing subtle or surreptitious about it. But what about that "Beaver" poll?
Quite simply, there's no obvious benefit to freeping such a poll. There are no prizes at stake, no team membership on the line, no recording contract waiting at the end. What that poll represented was an attempt to learn what Canadians thought, nothing more. So to have freeped that poll is the equivalent of online, drive-by vandalism -- those freepers got nothing out of making a mess of that poll, other than a perverse satisfaction in having destroyed someone else's time and effort to learn something about Canada. But it doesn't end there.
If you truly wanted to distort the results of a poll like that and be able to use those distorted results to make an argument for something, there's one thing that's kind of essential -- you can't brag about it afterwards. Really, do I have to explain that? Said freeping really loses all its value when you strut around afterwards, crowing about how proud you are of it. But even that isn't the best part.
Given how pointless that whole SUZANNE-inspired, online vandalism was, one has to ask -- what was it that was lost here? And the answer is obvious -- what was lost was a chance to learn who Canadians thought was a truly bad person. And it's not at all clear why Canada's conservatives wouldn't be interested in knowing that as well, but in trashing that poll, they clearly threw away the opportunity to learn something. And that, I think, is what distinguishes Canada's conservatives from normal people:
They're not only ignorant, but they're proud of it. Given the chance to actually learn something about Canada, they prefer to just trash that opportunity. In short, they actually prefer their contrived, fictional world to the real one. Quite simply, they're stupid, they're proud of it, and they'll crow about that to anyone who'll listen.
Where I come from, that pretty much defines the word "pathetic."
31 comments:
What they're trying to do is skew the evidence to convince everybody else that this IS what Canada is really like. They don't want the evidence to show otherwise, if that's what it would show without freeping. They want the result they want, and if a one-person-one-vote method might NOT produce that result, why then, they freep.
The reasoning is that if the results show that "most Canadians" think Trudeau was a bad guy, then those who don't think so will go all sheepish and uncomfortable, and leap to follow the crowd, and decide that they think Trudeau was a bad guy too.
And then, in the Cons' minds, it will become true. They really, truly believe they are making something real and factual by doing this. They are creating a world.
Plus, if they can make it look like the "majority" of Canadians think like they do, they'll have much more free reign (they believe) to ram their beliefs down everyone's throat.
The most deplorable thing about Suzanne's 'if they see it in print, they'll believe it' campaign, is that she and her ilk are so damn, deadly SERIOUS about needing to do this and the pride engendered doing it. Like they took a whack at Satan himself.
Trouble is, The poll was also freeped by the less than serious fans of a Canadian musician, who came in second in the standings. They *know* they were vandals and a good time was had by all in the free publicity their boy got.
Soooo...Morgentaler lost out to a Canadian musician in levels of evilnility. What does that say about Suzanne's Pope Granted Hubris? Because for some reason, she keeps skipping over the turrible bohemian lad to point out that Morgentaler was also reviled, reviled I say!
Okay, Trudeau was really really really bad.
And Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmolka were sort of unsavoury.
So VOTE FOR STEPHEN HARPER!! LOL!! OMG!!
phyl and niles:
In all fairness, I have to admit that even I don't think Suzanne is so stupid as to believe that her freeped poll represents reality. And yet, she keeps writing about it as if she did.
I'm genuinely baffled about her motivation for this. Given that there was no actual benefit to her or her co-freepers, one can only conclude that they enjoy being vandals and trashing things, and that they're proud of it.
Weird. And scary.
Bad news for Canada from the labor-sponsored Democratic debate. Everyone but Obama wants to scuttle NAFTA. Obama sez he thinks he can sit Stephen and the president of Mexico down and read them the riot act about the rights of organized labor and the environment. But Obama seems tobe the only one who wants to save NAFTA. So — — — get your money out of loonies. Canada's boom is going to bust if the Democrats win the next election.
First, I wouldn't believe anything a politician says this far in advance. Second, and more importantly, if NAFTA is abolished, is the US suddenly going to find a new source for oil and timber? Of course they aren't. The US is hopelessy dependent on our natural resources (and the cheap labour in Mexico/illegals in the US). We are hopelessly dependent on selling these natural resources to them. If NAFTA goes away (please please), not much changes. NAFTA made businesses richer; little to no benefit made it as far as the middle class, and certainly not the expanding lower class.
Canada's dollar goes up because other places have to buy our currency to get our oil/gas/timber. Again, this does not change if suddenly we get to charge a small tax on exports. And Canada's dollar isn't really all that strong. It's pretty flat against other currencies like the Euro and Pound. The fact that the US dollar is sinking into oblivion makes us feel good because we're the only ones in the world who measure our currency against them (and no one else, in teh media at least).
The left cornered the market on the "freeping" tactic long ago. Is it so wrong that the right has taken advantage of the same?
Oh wait... I just caught on... It is a problem of the right uses it... It takes your advantage away...
um, richard, you poor dim mook. freep. an abbreviation of free republic, right wing mouthpieces from south of the border. the term originates with the special, right wing tactic of storming online polls and generate false results. jeeziz man, give your head a shake.
The "freepers" named it but to look at the true origins we need to look way back to some leftist heroes:
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth" (paraphrased)
Who was it that said that? Lenon? Stalin? Marx?
Richard also missed the point: THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO BE GAINED!!! Sorry to yell, but it's theraputic sometimes. It's an advantage only in the imaginary competitive world of online political groups, where they like to play for also imaginary 'gotcha' points. 99%+ of the voting public don't care. Hell, a lot of the online readers don't care. The places that host the polls don't care (exccept extra traffic = good for them).
Yes, "lefties" have stacked a few online polls over the years. But it accomplishes nothing. It's not a problem when people do it (what do I care?), only when people claim the results are meaningful. If you vote 50 times electing grade 2 class president, you don't get to gloat when you win, especially if you brag, in advance, about what you were going to do.
Petty internet tricks like stacking a meaningless poll is one of the reasons people stay away from online communities. Pointless jackoff-ery all around.
Richard also missed the point: THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO BE GAINED!!! Sorry to yell, but it's theraputic sometimes. It's an advantage only in the imaginary competitive world of online political groups, where they like to play for also imaginary 'gotcha' points. 99%+ of the voting public don't care.
I would agree but for the fact that the MSM has carried the story and subsequently broadcast the poll results to everyone...
There goes Richard and his relative morality,.. so Dicky can you line some proof that the "left" were the ones who started "freeping" on-line polls first,... or are you going to take Annie Coulter debate approach and ask us to disprove statement?
Oh, and Dickie, by "left" I mean left of Center, not to your left, since almost everything in the entire universe is to the left of you.
"any man who quotes that retard Joel Johanson is questionable in his intelligence"
so Dicky can you line some proof that the "left" were the ones who started "freeping" on-line polls first,...
You'll have to go back to before on-line polls were invented zorph... I think Stalin, Lenon and Marx were long dead before the advent of the internets...
Richard, I'm confused as to what John Lennon (you forgot an "n") has to do with the argument.
But we don't have to go back that far to find electronic polls that have falsified results. We only have to go back to Ohio in late 2004 for that... I think you'll find the 2004 US elections have a lot more to do with Stalin than the Beaver's freeped poll, at that.
Or maybe you agree that Chris Hannah is the second-worst Canadian of all time. I certainly think John K. Samson is better off without him -- but that's just a personal take on the Canadian pop-punk scene.
Yes, Richard, Stalin invented lying and, as "lefties", we are therefore responsible for it.
...so stupid...
Give me a break. Freeping is OK when it's done to a mindless entertainment poll but not when it's done to a more serious history publication's online poll???
Tha's akin to saying it's OK to commit armed robbery at Wal-Mart but not at the Mom and Pop variety store down the street... because we don't like Wal-Mart but Mom and Pop are our friends.
It's either bad or it isn't. And if it's bad in one forum, it's bad in another.
I was wrong ... there is a level of stupid below SUZANNE.
I am a Beaver reader and contributor. I'm rather attached to the publication, and though I thought this was a stupid stunt with predictable results, I did pray that their poll would fall below the notice of the blogging community on either side because I was curious to see who Canadians thought was the worst Canadian, and hoping for something thought provoking (the Air India bombers above Homolka/Bernardo, for instance). But no, you all (left and right) turned it into another pissing contest. F**k you all.
Sorry, Mark -- let me get this straight. You're pissed off with the people who freeped the poll, as well as the people who were pissed off with the people who freeped the poll?
I understand your frustration, but lashing out at everyone "left and right" doesn't seem very useful.
You're completely correct: I am venting my frustration, and of course it's not useful. But I stick with my "left and right" comment: Harper and Mulroney being on the list is evidence of freeping to me as well, or at the very least a similar urge to score cheap points that debases the whole exercise.
The lack of space here left me with no room to add that I agree wholeheartedly with CC's description of this as "vandalism" - but it was not only perpetrated by those on the right (though they are the one's gloating about it).
Mark:
Did it ever occur to you that anyone who voted for Stephen Harper did it because they truly believed he was one of the worst Canadians of all time?
From the softwood lumber deal giveaway to the Security and Prosperity Partnership to every other way he's selling off Canada to the U.S., it's not a stretch to suggest he may be the most damaging politician ever to run this country.
The Right clearly freeped that poll -- they admit it, and they're proud of it.
The Left has done no such bragging, so maybe you should take a couple more horse tranquilizers and think long and hard about whether you really want to draw an equivalence here.
(Richard said) - The "freepers" named it but to look at the true origins we need to look way back to some leftist heroes: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth" (paraphrased) Who was it that said that? Lenon? Stalin? Marx?
Goebbels said it as well, but what’s your point? If some other group or person did it first, no one should object when anyone else does it? That’s ridiculous and simply an ineffective way of trying to shift attention away from your own uncomfortable position - an indefensible position.
Furthermore, what do Marxists-Leninists and supporters of Stalin have to do with Liberal views? Quite often I read where some neo-con blogger lumps anyone left of their far extreme right as leftist and tosses in Communists, Leninists, just about anyone who isn’t WASP-neo-con. Are those of you who do this really so ignorant of political ideologies?
Richard, Lenin (that’s how his name is spelled) Marx, Stalin all promoted totalitarian regimes. Stevie harper’s style of politics has often been termed “Orwellian,” which is totalitarian: scripted, controlled messages, repeating the same phrases over and over, building up blind patriotism by waving “the troops” as our banner while ignoring questions concerning why they are really fighting and diverting attention from other national issue, wiping out and re-writing history in an attempt to diminish the accomplishments of others while elevating their through distortion (closing departmental sites, claiming to have united the country, etc.). “Tough on this and that,” “made in Canada solution,” “getting things done,” “it’s what Canadians want,” and the ever famous “13 years of Liberal mismanagement and neglect” - those are CPC phrases - mindless, empty, the lie repeated often enough in the hope (of CPC) that it becomes truth.
Richard : "the MSM has carried the story and subsequently broadcast the poll results to everyone..."
And how does this help you?
I will grant you that it is possible that people could have voted Harper "worst" sincerely. I would argue that the examples you cite make him "worst" - other Canadians advocate and in fact did worse sell-offs. The fact that this is easy to do, without even a lot of thought (though I would need Google to confirm details) indicates that Harper's placement is as partisan as Trudeau's.
Also, I'd like to retract my "f**k you all" comment. Makes me a hypocrite for wanting non-slanging debate, and I apologize.
OK, we're cool, then. Carry on.
Seems to me this could all be avoided by proper coding techniques. Just record the IP address of everyone who votes and if they already voted discard their vote. Or require a time delay or a login or something.
Not going to completely prevent determined cheaters of course, but it will at least make it a little difficult for amateur morons to pull a ballot boxing stunt like this.
e in md, that would go a long way to making polls like this truly representative of reality. (Of course, there are other problems with regarding the voters a really representative sample in the first place, which have nothing to do with ideologies, but rather with methodology. But that's something else.)
It would also help if voters had to vote with their real names, which would be checked for veracity before their vote would be allowed to count. That would work better with reputable institutions, and would never work with less solid ones.
So a poll like this is meaningless no matter what.
But I agree with the criticism that it's idiotic to blame both the freepers and the people who get upset with them, as though each attitude is at fault. I'm not sure what Mark would prefer -- that we just let this idiocy go and never mention it no matter how unethical it is? And that's supposed to help bring us back to a civil, honest society in what way exactly...?
Look, I honestly wasn't upset with people for being upset with the freepers - this was a place where it was being discussed, by people who saw it as wrong.
I came here to read the posts, got annoyed by Richard in particular and posted-half cocked.
I was pissed at anyone (but let me emphasize, MAINLY the organized freepers) who used it to validate their own manias, rather than as a semi-serious exercise in histiography. That includes the people who knee-jerk picked Homolka-Bernardo and Olsen over more prolific killers.
We're more-or-less fellow travellers on this topic, even if our reasons are somewhat different. My post probably belonged elsewhere. I used to love the magazine, believe strongly in the CNHS mission, and hate to see both willfully distorted by anyone. Hands off my Beaver! (someone had to say it)
I sense, Mark, that most of us here are on the same page here. I for one would be interested in knowing if Trudeau is really hated by a sizeable proportion of Canadians, as compared to, say, Mulroney.
Suffice it to say that Richard doesn't, um, fit in, here. On earth. Where reality is kept. Of course, his URLs redirect to places like NAMBLA and Stormfront, so we just try to ignore him and get on as best we can.
mark:
As m@ points out, Richard is not one of your "fellow travellers." Rather, he's a demented, right-wing loon who's idea of civil discourse involves registering "look-alike" domains of bloggers he doesn't like and redirecting them to sites related to white supremacy and pedophilia.
He definitely isn't one of the "in" crowd at this blog. Nor one of the sane crowd.
Post a Comment