By now, you've probably read the headlines: “15 to 25 percent chance of attack on MP Benjamin Doyle.” Another piece by the NZ Herald, another round of hand-wringing, and yet another attempt to cast a deeply polarising figure as a helpless victim of public hysteria.
And of course the Herald article was by the completely unbiassed and totally impartial David Fisher who resorts to referring to the discredited Sanjana Hattotuwa as an "authority"
Very predictable.
I have a discussion of another piece written by Fisher on "A Halflings View" entitled "The Disinformation Paradox" in which I do the investigative work that Fisher did not.
I’ll give it a proper read on my break, but I really enjoyed your piece Judicial Constraints this morning. It’s striking how freedom of speech seems nonexistent when you’re a sitting judge.
These figures come from Hattotuwa who is an expert practitioner in pseudoscience.
The disinformation projects work was an absolute joke. They constantly reference themselves and mainstream media articles.....and conflate mainstream with truthfull and accurate. They don't share their data sets (if they actually have any). They couch themselves in science terms but they often misuse them and misunderstand them.
Stochastic terrorism is some more of this made up bollicks. It is a sciency sounding way of thin skinned, fearful people saying "words are hurty".
It is difficult enough to generate statistical probablities for certain outcomes from extensive and real data sets, in very simplified conditions. The chances that you can predict a real world outcome, in the 15-25% range, based on social media surfing is frankly ludicrous and anyone who publishes that sort of nonsense clearly has no understanding of science, statistics or psychology.
The best way to hurt a newspaper is don't buy it. I am astonished that people still do. The Herald is less useful than used toilet paper in that you get more muck on than you take off.
Wake up Kiwis and look for fair and balanced media like this (and other) substacks.
If he does advocate sex with kids and his leaders knew about it and his sexual subset and were happy with his views, beliefs, friends and gave him that role with children.
Does that apply to them too. ??
What about the journalists and editors protecting and lionising him ?
Does 25% count for them too !
Isn’t that an indictment of NZ society, that it’s only 25% chance.
Brilliantly said
And of course the Herald article was by the completely unbiassed and totally impartial David Fisher who resorts to referring to the discredited Sanjana Hattotuwa as an "authority"
Very predictable.
I have a discussion of another piece written by Fisher on "A Halflings View" entitled "The Disinformation Paradox" in which I do the investigative work that Fisher did not.
I’ll give it a proper read on my break, but I really enjoyed your piece Judicial Constraints this morning. It’s striking how freedom of speech seems nonexistent when you’re a sitting judge.
These figures come from Hattotuwa who is an expert practitioner in pseudoscience.
The disinformation projects work was an absolute joke. They constantly reference themselves and mainstream media articles.....and conflate mainstream with truthfull and accurate. They don't share their data sets (if they actually have any). They couch themselves in science terms but they often misuse them and misunderstand them.
Stochastic terrorism is some more of this made up bollicks. It is a sciency sounding way of thin skinned, fearful people saying "words are hurty".
It is difficult enough to generate statistical probablities for certain outcomes from extensive and real data sets, in very simplified conditions. The chances that you can predict a real world outcome, in the 15-25% range, based on social media surfing is frankly ludicrous and anyone who publishes that sort of nonsense clearly has no understanding of science, statistics or psychology.
Hi Matua,
Good balanced article, thank you
The best way to hurt a newspaper is don't buy it. I am astonished that people still do. The Herald is less useful than used toilet paper in that you get more muck on than you take off.
Wake up Kiwis and look for fair and balanced media like this (and other) substacks.
Cheers
Alan Yardley
25%. Risk of vigilante action against him.
If he does advocate sex with kids and his leaders knew about it and his sexual subset and were happy with his views, beliefs, friends and gave him that role with children.
Does that apply to them too. ??
What about the journalists and editors protecting and lionising him ?
Does 25% count for them too !
Isn’t that an indictment of NZ society, that it’s only 25% chance.
And if he and his sexual subset have had sex with kids.
Do they all deserve 100% ??
Mr Doyle showed a complete lack of judgement in choosing "to live his most authentic life" in such a fishbowl as Parliament.