StrikeNinja24
Banned
Thread title revised to accurately represent poll data
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Poll indicates Clinton and Trump voters' contrasting views on likelihood of a woman POTUS in their lifetime, personal hopes
- Thread starter StrikeNinja24
- Start date
This is the question on the survey. Do you personally hope that the United States elects a woman President of the United States in your lifetime, or not? I would answer no to this. Not because I dont want a female president, more that i dont care either way. Why would I hope for a female or male president? I hope for a good president. This whole spin that the people that said no don't want a female president is stupid.
Dr. Claus
Banned
Not surprised given the poster. Either way, there was only 1500 total that were polled (478 of which voted for Trump and a total of 518 that were conservative). This was a poorly put together article and an embarrassing attempt at trying to push some inane agenda.
Last edited:
strange headache
Banned
Here is the poll in question:
What I find remarkable is that 30% of women don't 'hope' for a female president. I'd say the problem is with how the question is formulated. Hope is too much of a colored word for the result to make sense. I don't 'hope' for a leader to be a specific identity, because I don't really care about these immutable characteristics. I'd much rather prefer a competent leader.
I'd say that's also the reason why so many women reacted negatively to that question, because they don't want to be reduced to their gender. It's also no wonder that 95% of Hillary voters would react positively to that question, since she ran a political campaign that was heavily influenced by identity politics.
I wonder what the results would be if the question was formulated otherwise: "Would you mind the gender of a competent President of the United States?" or "would you object to a female, yet competent President...?", something like that.
What I find remarkable is that 30% of women don't 'hope' for a female president. I'd say the problem is with how the question is formulated. Hope is too much of a colored word for the result to make sense. I don't 'hope' for a leader to be a specific identity, because I don't really care about these immutable characteristics. I'd much rather prefer a competent leader.
I'd say that's also the reason why so many women reacted negatively to that question, because they don't want to be reduced to their gender. It's also no wonder that 95% of Hillary voters would react positively to that question, since she ran a political campaign that was heavily influenced by identity politics.
I wonder what the results would be if the question was formulated otherwise: "Would you mind the gender of a competent President of the United States?" or "would you object to a female, yet competent President...?", something like that.
Last edited:
TrainedRage
Banned
Would I vote for a female candidate for president... Absolutely.
Would I do it JUST because she is a woman... Absolutely NOT.
Would I do it JUST because she is a woman... Absolutely NOT.
LegendOfKage
Member
Based on the thread title, I was about to report this thread, until I saw the name of the person who created it.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
I laughed but I thought we were moving away from mods trying to influence discussion. Dudes just going to get dogpiled now it's mod approved.
Papa
Banned
There is a sweet irony in that, considering he denied it ever happened on the old GAF.
LegendOfKage
Member
I would like to ask the conservatives in this poll who they would rather have as the current president:
Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin. How many honestly wouldn't say Palin? It's not about gender. It never has been, and constantly suggesting otherwise is a large part of why Hillary lost.
Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin. How many honestly wouldn't say Palin? It's not about gender. It never has been, and constantly suggesting otherwise is a large part of why Hillary lost.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
The fuck are you talking about?
"Mod approved"? The op made the title up all on his lonesome.
*redacted*
This all the way.
But in 2018, according to the far left this just makes you a bigoted misogynist.
If your vote is dependant on what is or isn't flopping around between the candidates legs than you are neither mature enough nor mentally fit to even vote in the first place.
Last edited:
Air Zombie Meat
Member
You're wrong. The title was changed.
Papa
Banned
Nah, the original title was something like “60 percent of Trump voters don’t want to see a woman president in their lifetime.”
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Didn't show the usual edited by mod note. My bad.
That said, conflating "not hoping" and "do not want" is fucking asinine S StrikeNinja24 and you know it...
Last edited:
TrainedRage
Banned
LMFAO that Mod edit is savage.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Hey, I didn't make the poll.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Yeah? What does that prove?
While I think the OP’s post was hopelessly partisan bait with little substance, I don’t think the mods should be doing fucking dumb shit like inserting hot takes in titles to make fun of users. It was one of the ways that old gaf moderators encouraged dogpiling and gave the perception that mods were picking sides.
Dear moderators, if you think a thread has a problem, edit the OP, put up a warning or lock it with a professional message like you generally do. Don’t make personal attacks against users because you disagree with them. This title edit is literally just the mod making fun of OP’s posting habits. It isn’t informative. It doesn’t help the OP post better or guide the community on better engagement.
It’s practically a shitpost turned into a title. Why the hell is that ok from moderators? I thought we were done with this old gaf shit.
And before you call me/ban me for publicly criticizing moderators; maybe moderators should exercise better judgment when editing public OP titles given that thread titles often influence discussion in the thread.
EDIT: saw the mod edit. I disagree. No, don’t “shame” the op. That is not productive. Lock the thread for being partisan garbage, which is what it is. Shaming op just makes some people focus on “oh shit that librul/conservatard got owned it’s funny lol!” instead of “huh, maybe I shouldn’t post garbage partisan shit” because there is no explanation that the thread sucks because it is clickbait.
Dear moderators, if you think a thread has a problem, edit the OP, put up a warning or lock it with a professional message like you generally do. Don’t make personal attacks against users because you disagree with them. This title edit is literally just the mod making fun of OP’s posting habits. It isn’t informative. It doesn’t help the OP post better or guide the community on better engagement.
It’s practically a shitpost turned into a title. Why the hell is that ok from moderators? I thought we were done with this old gaf shit.
And before you call me/ban me for publicly criticizing moderators; maybe moderators should exercise better judgment when editing public OP titles given that thread titles often influence discussion in the thread.
EDIT: saw the mod edit. I disagree. No, don’t “shame” the op. That is not productive. Lock the thread for being partisan garbage, which is what it is. Shaming op just makes some people focus on “oh shit that librul/conservatard got owned it’s funny lol!” instead of “huh, maybe I shouldn’t post garbage partisan shit” because there is no explanation that the thread sucks because it is clickbait.
Last edited:
Musky_Cheese
Banned
I think they were just having a little fun. Chill out
I don’t think so. We should hold leadership accountable. Complacency about moderating standards was a problem on old gaf with some mods playing favorites and clearly being impartial. I’m not saying that was the intent here, but this does not send an impartial message. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen here.
Last edited:
Vicetrailia
Banned
I don't mind the mod changing the title because they do it consistently for disengenuos topics.
Crew 511A
Member
That's absolutely not true.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Mod edit said it was to be silly. Nothing to hold accountable.
Unknown Quantity
Member
Lock the thread or delete.
The rest including the demotion is old gaf nonsense in the other direction.
Why are there no new strikeninja24 threads.
Resist!
The rest including the demotion is old gaf nonsense in the other direction.
Why are there no new strikeninja24 threads.
Resist!
Musky_Cheese
Banned
60% of trump voters polled don’t want to vote for a woman... or something
dolabla
Member
Good grief, lol.
Papa
Banned
I didn’t realise he was demoted. I think that’s a bit petty and should probably be reversed. In general, I think Strike’s opinions are poorly informed and ideologically conditioned, but I wouldn’t want to see him banned or permanently prevented from making threads. That’s how we end up with an echo chamber again.
Dr. Claus
Banned
I think it has been a long time coming. Strike has had a history of instigating arguments, throwing petty insults, and making low effort posts and threads (such as this one). Though I do think the mods went overboard with the title change.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Perhaps he deserves another chance NEOGAF...
Papa
Banned
I know, I’ve seen it too, but if he should be banned/juniored, it should be for those instances, not this.
Low effort Strike. I said if you wanted a real conversation, pick an adult topic and lets have at it.
You instead went with this? C'mon man. I love a good conversation, but this is low effort and embarrassing.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
You know, after I posted that I knew it looked wrong. I was addressing StrikeNinja and that was the post that showed the original topic title.
Nothing to do with you, sorry about that.
Texas Pride
Banned
OP is just a poor fisherman tossing bait out on the daily. Liberals gotta eat too.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Hey sometimes I like having fun too ya know.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
No problem. All good.
dolabla
Member
I agree. I wouldn't want to see to him banned. We definitely don't want another echo chamber.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
And it's very easy to start.
Hoya Destroyer
Member
So many first world countries have had female leaders now, that I dont think it'll really be a big deal when it eventually happens in the US too.
O.v.e.rlord
Banned
It’s funnier for sure.
dragonfart28
Banned
I'm sure a female president won't compromise any quality. Especially with the low bar the U.S. has to deal with, it really couldn't get any worse.
Similar threads
- Locked