[riskable]

I read a number of articles and they're alright but I think you're boiling down people's opinions on these things a bit too much. "Those who oppose..." "Those who support..." are just made-up by your staff. You don't really know that's what people who oppose/support something actually believe. For all you know the reason why someone supports a given bill is because a source they trust says they should support it. The assumption that people have reasoned themselves into supporting/opposing any given thing is a great big one.

You may be able to fix this just by changing your wording a bit. I don't know though.

As an example, I spoke with someone recently here in Florida that supported the "don't say Gay" bill for no other reason than, "it pisses off liberals." There's far more tribal support/opposition to things that have nothing to do with logic or reason. My neighbor is a prime example.

Related to that bill in particular, I feel you got it wrong with, "Those who support (the "don't say gay bill"):

> "Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Instead, parents should be the ones in charge of their children’s education — especially when it comes to determining what topics their children are ready for."

This is just my opinion here but I really feel this completely misses the boat in regards to the opposition's argument. They don't feel that "parents should be in charge of their children's education" because that would mean that some gay couple with an adopted child could make those sorts of decisions. They don't want that at all!

Also, who's to say that teaching (or even discussing with) K-3 kids basic facts about sexuality is bad for them? Those that support the bill do! That is their argument: That their beliefs about sexual education are the only ones that are acceptable. Not that they think, "parents should be in charge..."

"Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Believe that teaching children about sexuality or gender identity is morally wrong and such topics should be prohibited from classrooms."

[escapedmoose]

Came here to say this. The breakdowns seem… not very accurate. In most cases, the problem is not that I disagree with the statements selected for the opposition, it’s that the statements selected for them aren’t the arguments I’ve heard from the people themselves. And the arguments supposedly on my side aren’t even close to my own. Makes me question the methods here.

[ShaunCammack]

Here's an outline of our method, which might help explain this (And please feel free criticize it):

First, we look at news aggregators and twitter trends to see what the big stories of the day might be.

Then we pull a bunch of tweets with our social media listening tool and try evaluate the story on three criteria: Momentum (is it trending and growing), Partisanship (are two sides talking about it), and Emotion (Is the story morally animating).

Then we collect data by pulling tweets through our tool, and focusing on the most widely shared and engaged tweets, and sort them into pro/con (or whatever division fits the story.

Then it's analysis. We identify the facts each side is referencing, the affected values and emotions from either side, and whatever the key source of division is (if there is one.

Like any methodology, this has its limitations. It only looks at twitter, for example. If there is an argument or position out there that doesn't come through in the data, then we can't really assume it's there (although we do use broader ideas to contextualize and explain the data).

[escapedmoose]

Oh, that actually explains a lot. I don’t use Twitter, nor do most of the people I talk to about these things. Frankly, most of the stuff I see on Twitter sounds to me like it was composed by an insane person. If you used more of a “boots on the ground” approach and interviewed people who aren’t chronically online, your findings might ring more true with people like me. But maybe that’s not your goal? Nothing wrong with using Twitter as your basis, but I think the site as a whole will feel “off” to a lot of people unless you make it very clear that your data is Twitter-based.

[ShaunCammack]

I would love to have the resources to do interviews and fieldwork. But we try and get these posts out within 6 hours of them trending, before the antagonistic narratives solidify and people move on to the next topic.

And although a fraction of the country uses twitter, we think it has a much larger influence. Twitter is like a narrative breeding ground, and those narratives are then picked up by journalists, which are then propagated in mainstream media and broadcast to people who aren't on twitter.

That's at least our thinking. We should probably be more explicit about what our methodology is (and why)

[escapedmoose]

That makes perfect sense, and I believe you’re right about the eventual influence that trickles down from Twitter (though I think a lot of the vitriol gets diluted in the process). n=1, I would have had a much better initial impression of the site if the Twitter connection/methodology was more explicit. Especially if you explained your purpose for the connection, as you’ve done here.

[notduncansmith]

This is a great point. It’s also worth considering the impact that Twitter’s algorithms have on which posts get engagement and correspondingly show up in searches for prominent opinions. You may want to curate certain Twitter accounts that accurately represent the stances of various factions (various members of government, celebrities/influencers, publications with various degrees of partisanship, etc) to check in on for takes on narratives, in addition to talking to more non-Twitter people.

[netsharc]

This assumes people's stated reasons for supporting/hating things are their actual reasons. As I said in another thread: a lot of times people just grasp the closest semi-logical explanation for the decisions that makes them look decent, because in their mind of course they're a decent person.

Like some Europeans enthusiastically welcoming Ukranian refugees although they were hostile towards Middle Eastern refugees. So they rationalize by saying these are women and children, and the M.E. refugees were men who should've stayed and faced (fought) their government's bullets.

IMO the Republican's reasons for a lot of things is just to retain power. Things like voter disenfrachisement, or opposing anything the Dems wants, because if the Dems get things pushed through, and people like it, it will make them (GOP) look bad.

Will you start writing "The reason this side opposes this is because they want to sabotage it for the other side and make them look bad, who cares about the public who's getting screwed"? You won't be seeing this on Twitter...

[nerdponx]

> As an example, I spoke with someone recently here in Florida that supported the "don't say Gay" bill for no other reason than, "it pisses off liberals." There's far more tribal support/opposition to things that have nothing to do with logic or reason. My neighbor is a prime example.

I think the lesson here is that not everyone has a rational, logical, or considerate reason for supporting what they support. Showing "contrasting views" is more than just putting two earnest-but-incompatible opinions side by side on a webpage.

You also need to include stuff like "I support this bill because it triggers snowflake liberals / gets back at those evil conservatives" and "I support this bill because I am smart and it sounds like a good idea."

> "Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Instead, parents should be the ones in charge of their children’s education — especially when it comes to determining what topics their children are ready for."

You also need to be able and willing to see through euphemisms, coded speech, and dogwhistles.

[octopoc]

I believe in parent rights. That is not a euphemism, coded speech, or dogwhistling. I believe the parents are responsible for raising their own children, I want to be the one to explain sex to them. I don't want the school to do it. This is one example of where the Narrative Project is spot on, at least for me and pretty much every conservative I know.

[etchalon]

Was there some large news story about Grade 3 teachers explaining the intricacies of docking that I missed?

[nerdponx]

I believe in the importance of law and order in society, but I still freely admit that "law and order" rhetoric usually means something specific and carries a handful of specific implications.

[riskable]

> I want to be the one to explain sex to them

There's two problems with this:

1) Parents often don't do that. Resulting in all sorts of societal problems e.g. increased teenage pregnancy, STDs, suicides, etc. We can argue about the age at which they need to learn about sex but ultimately they do have to learn about it and no, parents can't be trusted to teach these sorts of things (if history is any guide!).

2) You assume that the bill in question only prevents discussions of sex (as in, intercourse). That's not the only thing it prohibits. It prohibits discussions of sexuality. As in, you can't even acknowledge that same-sex relationships or transgendered people even exist. Sounds like it wouldn't come up? Think again: Teachers and students don't just exist inside a classroom. They will encounter each other regularly in the community. If some kid sees a (male) teacher kissing their husband in the Walmart parking lot how is the teacher supposed to respond to that when asked about it in school the next day?

You can say that the teacher should tell the kid to mind their own business or some other, "avoid talking about it by all means possible" excuse but it still puts the teacher at risk. In fact, schools might not even hire gay or transgendered teachers just to avoid that risk... Which is one of the big problems with the bill: It gives school administrators an excuse not to hire someone based on sex.

Remember: The bill isn't about curriculum. No Florida curriculum for K-3 has any sex-related material. It's a tool for religious/conservative parents to attack gay and transgendered teachers.

[all2]

[flagged]

[nerdponx]

In this context, a "don't say gay" bill sounds like the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

Perhaps sex in its entirety should not be taught before 5th grade. That's when I learned it in school. I always thought it seemed a bit early, but I suspect it was done in order to get ahead of wet kids might be exposed to from 8th graders when they moved up to middle school.

But preventing discussion of sexuality does nothing about the general problem of teaching sex education too early. It's just piling worse on top of bad.

I see no merit in banning discussion of topics like "sometimes men love men instead of women". That's literally a fact about the world, even if you think it's an abomination or whatever.

Moreover, let's extend the parent-choice principle further. Should teaching evolution in schools be exempt because some parents don't believe in it? What about the germ theory of disease? It's simply not a logically-sound or morally-consistent justification for a "don't say gay" law.

[Aeolun]

> Nothing. The point is that it is the parents' responsibility to address these issues.

What are they going to say? “I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to talk about that. Ask your parents?”

[netsharc]

> I think the lesson here is that not everyone has a rational, logical, or considerate reason for supporting what they support.

Agree. And a lot of times people just grasp the closest semi-logical explanation for the decisions that makes them look decent, because in their mind of course they're a decent person.

Like some Europeans enthusiastically welcoming Ukranian refugees although they were hostile towards Middle Eastern refugees. So they rationalize by saying these are women and children, and the M.E. refugees were men who should've stayed and faced (fought) their government's bullets...

[quantumwannabe]

Whenever someone says they support something "to own the libs/cons", what they really mean is "I don't want to discuss this with you". The vast majority of the time, people have real reasons behind their positions. If they don't believe you are genuine and just want a fight, then they might as well end the conversation as quickly as possible.

In your specific example, the website did a good job summarizing the pro-bill perspective, and you did a terrible job. The entire second half of your comment is you projecting your own opinions onto people who disagree with you, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone told you that they support it to "piss off liberals" just to get you to shut up and move on.