This type of thinking is exactly why we are where we are today with Trump.
It's not an endorsement to have a conversation, for God's sake. People seem to have forgotten that freedom of speech includes the freedom to sound as stupid as you want. If it's so glaringly obvious to you that it's dumb, then have the confidence that others will find it dumb too. Don't deny people the opportunity to even talk with them because they're interested in what others have to say. You end up driving people underground, which is even more dangerous, like what happened with the Trump supporters, who were too afraid to even talk about the issues that were motivating them.
Wrong. All the polls said Clinton would win, some by a large margin. A significant number of Trump voters weren't ready to admit even to pollsters that they were going to vote for Trump. But they voted for him in the voting booths.
Edit: How did we get talking about the US Presidential polls on a submission about telomeres? Let's try to keep discussions on topic as much as possible rather than moving into inflammatory territory (as you did upthread) just because we might be able to tie it in somehow, no matter what's been said upthread.
Original comment:
Polling is inexact. It's a sample. Just as many people misunderstand how "theory" is used in science compared with in conversational speech, or how <particular topic you have knowledge about> is misrepresented in the news, and general public misunderstandings of statistics, and that the line between polls and predictions wasn't made clear. All of that can and should be improved.
I wonder what the demographic breakdown is of people who refuse to answer a phone call from an unknown number, or refuse to answer polls or surveys if they do pick up?
There's a lot of miscommunication going on with people not listening to each other. It's great that you are engaging in the conversation. Using the polls in the non-nuanced way you are here is just as bad as how the polls were used. As you mention upthread, there's a lot of assumptions being made all around, attributing positions and beliefs beyond what's actually being expressed. Let's engage each other honestly and with charity, and find some common understanding, if not agreement.
Would you elaborate what you mean by this? Does your comment mean anything more than an endorsement of a third-party candidate? Given that it's taking this thread even further off-topic, I hope it does :)
Is being presented with polls that aren't in your favor suppression now? I didn't learn this definition of being suppressed until this election from trump supporters, according to whom predictions against you are some form of bullying or suppression.
And what evidence do you have that there was an undue number of "shy" trump voters? There are some every time around. This [1] article says there's not much evidence of shy voters accounting for trump's victory.
Why should I believe the presidential candidate of half the country's voters was some underground repressed phenomenon?
You are conflating minority viewpoints with reputability. No serious media source would invite a conspiracy theorist with no credibility. Differing viewpoints are an important part of any discussion.
Stop changing the subject. The issue that you brought up is whether or not Joe Rogan giving air time to something is endorsing it. Which it isn't. It's having a conversation on a podcast.
And why are you comparing Joe Rogan to a "serious media source"? He's a comedian with a podcast, who can talk to whomever he wants that he deems interesting.
The concept of "platform" (and thus no-platforming) is an area where IMO ostensibly progressive society has gone off the rails. It starts with good intentions, maybe as a reaction to the silliness of giving equal time to scientists and unqualified critics on mainstream media.
But then it morphs into this idea that thinking and talking about an idea, or being seen with people who hold an idea, without foaming at the mouth against it is the same as endorsing it, and that is a very dangerous place to be.
Hah! The interesting thing about 'reputability' is this - Your ideas have to be in about the same ballpark as mine. If they are any more, then you're just a crazy conspiracy theorist who I shan't waste my time on. Any less, then you're just one of the sheeple who believes in the propaganda and will not question, so no point in wasting time in engaging in a conversation.
It's not an endorsement to have a conversation, for God's sake. People seem to have forgotten that freedom of speech includes the freedom to sound as stupid as you want. If it's so glaringly obvious to you that it's dumb, then have the confidence that others will find it dumb too. Don't deny people the opportunity to even talk with them because they're interested in what others have to say. You end up driving people underground, which is even more dangerous, like what happened with the Trump supporters, who were too afraid to even talk about the issues that were motivating them.