Polls

Is That Poll That Found College Students Don't Value Free Speech Really 'Junk Science'? Not So Fast

Or how writing about survey methodology can go wrong fast

|

a college graduation
Kit / Grads Absorb the News

"It should never have appeared in the press," blared an article from The Guardian's Lois Beckett last week—seeming to refer to the findings of a recent Brookings Institution survey of college students that had been reported on widely, including here at Reason.

According to the lead researcher in that study, John Villasenor of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), "The survey results establish with data what has been clear anecdotally to anyone who has been observing campus dynamics in recent years: Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses." Among other things, the poll found that 44 percent of students at four-year universities don't know the First Amendment protects so-called hate speech from censorship.

Beckett's suggestion—amplified by a number of others, including Daniel Drezner at The Washington Post—is that these numbers should not be trusted. The Brookings poll "was not administered to a randomly selected group of college students nationwide, what statisticians call a 'probability sample,'" she wrote. "Instead, it was given to an opt-in online panel of people who identified as current college students."

So what? Should you disregard the findings? Do we consider the survey "debunked"? My answer is no. The meat of Beckett's critique—that the poll didn't draw a random sample of college students—is grounded in real science. Random sampling is the gold-standard methodology in survey research, and this study did not use it. But it would not be accurate to say there's a consensus in the field that no other kinds of polls are ever valid or worth citing, something the Beckett piece strongly implies.

These days, lots of well-respected outfits are doing sophisticated work outside the confines of traditional probability polls. All surveys can be done well or poorly, and some online surveys really are garbage. Nonetheless, it's a stretch to claim that any poll that uses an opt-in panel is necessarily junk, and it's far from clear from the facts presented in the Guardian story that the study in question should be included among the bad ones.

That's the short answer, and perhaps I should leave it there. But for those who might be interested in the nitty-gritty details behind this dispute, I'll go a little further below the fold.

The charges being leveled here are threefold: that the methodology section appended to the study is overly vague; that because the poll was done via an opt-in nonprobability web panel, its findings are not trustworthy; and that Villasenor estimated a "margin of error" for the poll, a no-no for this type of research.

The first complaint is fair enough. The author says that he "requested that UCLA contract with a vendor for the data collection," omitting whom the school contracted with and how the survey was actually conducted. Disclosing that sort of thing is an important part of research transparency, so it's understandable that its absence raised questions. But of course, this doesn't necessarily mean the results are bad, only that there's good reason to seek more clarity. Catherine Rampell did that, and laid out her findings, in this piece for The Washington Post.

The second complaint is the serious one. And here it helps to have a sense of the history of online polling efforts.

For years, most good survey researchers eschewed nonprobability polling on the grounds that drawing a random sample (i.e., one where everyone has an equal chance of being interviewed) is how you know that the opinions of the relatively small number of people you actually hear from are reflective of the opinions of the population as a whole.

"I think most of us who have been part of the survey research community for more than 10 years were trained with exactly that notion—that the center of truth starts with random sampling," says Mark Blumenthal, the Pollster.com founder who now heads election polling at SurveyMonkey, a company that (in addition to the peer-to-peer web surveys you may be familiar with) offers an online nonprobability panel like the one the Brookings survey relied on. "But many of us have evolved in our thinking?."

Probability sampling is indeed the ideal. Unfortunately, as I've written about fairly extensively, getting a truly random group of people to answer your questions is difficult to the point of being almost impossible in an age when so many refuse to pick up their phones and answer their doors. Even the very best polling companies have seen response rates plummet into the single digits, meaning their raw numbers have to be adjusted ("weighted," in pollster parlance) more aggressively to try to approximate a representative sample. And it's becoming more and more expensive over time.

Under these conditions, researchers began to look for creative alternative ways to estimate public opinion—silver standards, one might say, to random sampling's gold. One of the main methods that has emerged is the online nonprobability panel–based poll.

"All forms of surveys today—whether they start with a probability sample or not—the completed sample is not truly random, and there has to be some sort of correction," Blumenthal says. "We believe we can offer something of similar quality, at a very different price point [compared to traditional probability sampling], and with more speed."

A number of companies are now working in this sphere. The British firm YouGov, probably the best in class when it comes to this type of online panel research, partners with such outlets as The New York Times, CBS News, and The Economist to conduct surveys. In 2013, the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) cautiously authorized nonprobability polling and began building out a framework to govern its use. Sandy Berry of Rand Survey Research Group, the company UCLA brought in to oversee Villasenor's study, tells me the methodology they used "is consistent with" AAPOR best practices.

None of which means there are no legitimate critics of nonprobability survey research still out there. Cliff Zukin, a former AAPOR president quoted in the Guardian story, says nonprobability research should be reserved for internal decision-making purposes. If a number is going to be released publicly, he believes it should employ the best methodology available—and for now, that means probability sampling.

"I might not feel the same way in two years," Zukin says. "There's a lot of research being done, and [nonprobability surveys have] gotten much better than they used to be, but there's still a gap?."

How big of a gap? It's extremely hard to say. In 2016, Pew Research Center released a landmark report on the state of nonprobability survey research. Interestingly, it found that Pew's own probability-based panel (where researchers go to great lengths and enormous expense to try to reach a truly random sample of people) did not outperform all of the nonprobability polls on all of the metrics. "While the differences between probability and nonprobability samples may be clear conceptually," the authors concluded, "the practical reality is more complicated."

Among other things, that report saw what researchers have long understood: that web-only research is, for obvious reasons, weakest at estimating the opinions of groups that aren't as active online, such as the elderly, Latinos, and very low-income populations. On the flip side, tech-savvy college kids (the population the Brookings study was looking at) are arguably particularly well-suited to being reached this way.

And that brings us to the third complaint.

It's accurate to point out, as Beckett does, that it doesn't make sense to report a margin of sampling error for a survey that wasn't drawn from a random sample. I emailed AAPOR Vice President David Dutwin, who confirmed that "AAPOR does not advocate using margin of error in non-probability samples." He hurried to add, however, that "some form of error estimation has to be used to assess statistical inference [and] at this time there is no universally accepted measure of error that survey researchers use to apply to non-probability samples."

So Villasenor deviated from the standard of not using the same term ("margin of error") to discuss the uncertainty associated with nonprobability surveys as is customarily used for probability surveys. Rand SRG's Berry concedes this was a mistake on his part*. But is that enough to render the poll "junk science"?

Personally, I think not.

*UPDATE: Villasenor emailed me wishing to have noted that his original writeup said the margin of error can be estimated only "to the extent" the weighted demographics of his interviews are "probabilistically representative." He writes: "Stating the margin of error that would apply in the case of a theoretically perfect sample, accompanied by the appropriate caveat, which I gave, provides more information than staying silent on the issue. It provides information on the limiting case."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

167 responses to “Is That Poll That Found College Students Don't Value Free Speech Really 'Junk Science'? Not So Fast

    1. Excellent

    2. Thanks for the link. I have never seen so comprehensive a takedown of extreme social conservatives.
      He’s talking about the oppression at Oxford 700 years ago, but is was infinitely more vicious in countries enslaved by the (un)Holy Inquisition.

      1. More importantly, he’s talking about NOW.

        1. He’s celebrating the change, the advances in human liberty and tolerance, away from the theocratic state.. We still have a long way to go, from the oppression he begins with. — in the larger world outside Oxford, Our own founders achieved a great advance away from the theocratic state in a single step, our Constitution. They were mostly British, of course, but still an achievement when the Inquisition was still raging in Europe, until roughly our Civil War.

          1. Mostly agree, Michael. Too few realize the impact of the barbaric Inquisition on our Founders and colonists, many who came here to escape religious persecution. Both ways. Murray Rothbard’s American History describes all the hatred aimed at Catholics. One stays with me, that Catholics were whipped out of town when discovered. And Salem on this continent.

            In some regards, religious liberty may have been the greatest advance.

            1. Hihn, you’ve got to retire this sock. Everyone knows it’s you, and I’m seriously worried about what it’s doing to your already fragile mental state. Take better care of yourself, old man.

              1. They’re right.

                It is amazing how the conservatives on this board accuse the libertarians/liberals of being “socks”.

                Just adjust your MAGA! hat so you can see clearly.

                1. Conservatives are about imposing their views by force.
                  Not all, just the bullies and aggressors.

                  1. You’re a fucking idiot.

                    1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                      Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                      He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                      He’s all growed up now!

                      Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                      You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                      Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                      Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                      Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                      Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                      Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                      Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                      Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                      Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                      BEST FOR LAST
                      Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                      Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                      Daddy?

                      Daddy?
                      Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                      Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

                2. It’s a sock, moron. He even uses the same bolded narration of his own thoughts.

                  1. MORE AGGRESSION BY A STALKING BULLY (sigh)

                    It is amazing how the conservatives on this board accuse the libertarians/liberals
                    of being “socks”.

                    It’s a sock, moron. He even uses the same bolded narration of his own thoughts.

                    Only to call attention to verbal assaults by vicious thugs like you, where only “morons” fail to conform. For all of human history, authoritarian hammers see non-puppets as nails.

                    Like thug-Sevo, he repeatedly attacks … not a comment … but the person. WTF?
                    Unprovoked assaults … bullying … shoutng down the “enemy” …. the compulsion of authoritarian minds. CONFORM OR SUFFER THE WRATH OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS MILITANTS, right and left.

                    Left – Right = Zero.

                    1. Whine some more, idiot.

                    2. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                      Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                      He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                      He’s all growed up now!

                      Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                      You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                      Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                      Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                      Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                      Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                      Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                      Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                      Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                      Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                      BEST FOR LAST
                      Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                      Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                      Daddy?

                      Daddy?
                      Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                      Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

                  2. MarkLastname|10.2.17 @ 12:10AM|#
                    He even uses the same bolded narration of his own thoughts.

                    CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW, BULLY?

              2. Bully commits aggression … on a libertarian website. Who explains that to him (or her)?.

                Procyon Rotor
                your already fragile mental state … old man.

                And so adult! (snort)
                ace

                1. Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature.

                  1. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#
                    Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature.

                    Jamming it up one’s ass is not :”whining”
                    Bend over. I’ll show you.

                    Launching four unprovoked personal attack makes you a bully and a stalker
                    An authoritarian mentality ,.. launching multiple aggressions… on a libertarian website ….where a core moral value in the Non-Aggression Principle, MATURE!!!

                    That’s ‘s like me, going to your home at Infowars … and posting the same thing four times.

                    FINROD IS A FUCKING BULLY

                    FINROD IS A FUCKING BULLY

                    FINROD IS A FUCKING BULLY

                    FINROD IS A FUCKING BULLY

                    I’d never even consider doing that because ….
                    I’m soooo mature

                    Sorry for my whining,
                    Your secret admirer.
                    XOXOXOXOXO

                  2. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                    Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                    He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                    He’s all growed up now!

                    Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                    You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                    Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                    Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                    Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                    Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                    Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                    Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                    Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                    Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                    BEST FOR LAST
                    Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                    Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                    Daddy?

                    Daddy?
                    Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                    Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

              3. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.startonlinejob.com

      2. The man in the video literally named names regarding conservative laws of the past AND left-wing campus rules of the present. He doesn’t need you spin doctoring for him. Or restating the obvious references to the conservative side. Now will you prove any point with anyone by pretending he never mentioned the present day left-wing examples.

        1. Part 1 of 2 (lol)

          Now will you prove any point with anyone by pretending he never mentioned the present day left-wing examples.

          (smirk) I don’t deny it. So YOU LOSE IMMEDIATELY . And I’m just starting with you.

          I’ll now explain why your “point” is typical rightwing tribal bullshit … that FAILS to rebut a SINGLE word I said, not one … in your FAILED diversion from MY point. (while laughing at you)

          What did I say?

          Thanks for the link. I have never seen so comprehensive a takedown of extreme social conservatives.
          He’s talking about the oppression at Oxford 700 years ago, but is was infinitely more vicious in countries enslaved by the (un)Holy Inquisition.

          (I cited the Inquisition because it continued well past our Constitution which is WHY the Founders erected the Wall of Separation)

          I’m calling you out for diversion and cowardice
          1) Do YOU pretend the oppression 700 years ago was NOT what we now call extreme social conservatism? (the moral atrocity of church/state collusion)

          2) Do YOU deny that today’s extreme socons seek to reunite church and state? (including BLATANT lies about what our Founders believed at the time, and what they intended in the First Amendment?).

          3) I DARE you to defend why i cannot mention ANYTHING about the video, without mentioning EVERY point he made. If not every point, what is the minimum to seek your blessing — and why I should give a flying fuck.

          Cont’d

          1. Part 2 of 2
            4) I DARE you to deny that oppression and censorship DOES trace to the right, both here and in the West. (I entered college in the Fall of 1960, and WE created the Free Speech Movement .,.. against the oppressive right)

            5) I DARE you to defend your False Equivalence (bullshit) that today’s “left-wing campus rules” are in ANY way even CLOSE to the moral atrocities of church and state united… or that there is ANY credible attempt to have THOSE oppressive rules enforced by an all-powerful state.

            I DO NOT NEED TO JUSTIFY ANYTHING TO YOU. But this will explain why your “point” is both hysterical and … pointless.

            The insanity of campus censorship is noted in Reason, multiple times per day, on average. When have you EVER seen the 700-year oppression by the right — who STILL demand a theocracy?

            Do YOU pretend to ignore THAT? (Note that is a QUESTION, not a BIGOTED assumptionproving my point about your ilk)

            I do apologize for failing to express my hatred for “Benghazi” and “Kenya.” But I’m not a goober of EITHER the left or right, because
            Left – Right = Zero

            1. who STILL demand a theocracy?

              You’ve lost it (if you ever had it to begin with).

              1. (lol)

            2. Please, whine some more about things that happened 700 years ago. It makes you look oh so relevant in the 21st Century,

              1. Please, whine some more about things that happened 700 years ago

                The professor did that., whiner
                Weiner?
                Jamming it up your ass is not whining. Here:
                https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

              2. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                He’s all growed up now!

                Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                BEST FOR LAST
                Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature.
                Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                Daddy?

                Daddy?
                Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

    3. I think it was Diane Reynolds posting that actually.

      1. “I think it was Diane Reynolds posting that actually.”
        (Paul), I apologize, and extend my thanks again.

      2. don’t trust anything from Diane Reynolds.

    4. Not me, but it looks good.

  1. Just because they’re screaming truth to power with their fingers in their ears, doesn’t mean they’re against speech. They deeply value correct speech.

  2. You’re missing a major point. The extent to which non-probability sampling methods are sometimes good depends on fairly sophisticated weighting methods and sampling procedures. That’s what SurveyMonkey and YouGov do for their political polling. It requires detailed knowledge of the population of interest, which will be very tough for the population of college students?what is the proportion of community college attendees in the Southwest who are 18-year-old Democratic women who are moderately interested in politics? That’s the kind of information these pollsters use for weighting, and it’s just not available for a niche population like that.

    At any rate, the only discussion of weighting by Villasenor is to fix the vast oversample of women. He doesn’t even know what vendor was used, by all indications. He had to use RAND as middleman because they have an IRB. Chances are the sample was chosen on a very ad hoc basis, sending invites to all self-identified college students who signed up for some online survey firm’s panel and then using all who accepted the invite until they reached the number that was paid for. The survey could just happen to produce correct estimates, but the true margin of error is probably about 20 points in both directions because it’s almost certain the members of the panel are poor representatives of the larger college student population.

    1. I agree and I don’t even feel a need to defend the study. I’m hoping someone does a more rigorous study in the future, and as I said below, I hope that freedom of speech hasn’t lost its cache.

      1. Sometimes, you have to clear the cache.

        1. You have quite the cachet, DenverJ.

          (slow clap)

    2. I agree as well.

      “Stating the margin of error that would apply in the case of a theoretically perfect sample, accompanied by the appropriate caveat, which I gave, provides more information than staying silent on the issue. It provides information on the limiting case.”

      Excuse me, but why? Stating the lowest possible margin of error, when all we know about the real margin of error (which doesn’t even meet the definition of “margin of error”) is that it’s larger, possibly “infinite”–in other words, that the study is useless–is actively misleading. What was it that Wittgenstein dude used to say? Oh, yeah: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

  3. Any chance you could link to a study discussing the math of nonprobablistic surveying?

  4. The Brookings poll “was not administered to a randomly selected group of college students nationwide, what statisticians call a ‘probability sample,'” she wrote. “Instead, it was given to an opt-in online panel of people who identified as current college students.”

    Gee, where have i seen that method used before….hmmm

    amazing how journalists suddenly re-discover basic understanding of survey methods when the conclusions are less than favorable for their narratives.

  5. as a side note:

    when i was in consulting, part of my job was as a middleman for enormous amounts of primary survey research of various types. I used a dozen vendors who did everything from phone bank/panel/random face-to-face/door-to-door/mail-ins, etc. the works. and everything method had its associated degrees of reliability/implied error, qualitative utility, etc.

    The value i provided clients was mostly in hearing what they wanted to accomplish/questions they wanted to answer, and then suggesting the means to get useful data towards that end. Often, involving at least ‘2 passes’ using complementary methods… one to get a rough range of general population opinion framing, the other to dial down to specific groups that mattered the most.

    to that latter point – its sort of the thing about polling/survey work in general that is overlooked. *most people’s opinions don’t really matter*;

    or – considered another way – many people don’t really have an opinion in the first place. They don’t even think about it until they’re asked, and their answer isn’t really revealing anything true, its just how they feel at that moment.

    by contrast, a small number of people care a lot. and their opinions often shape those of ‘non-carers’.

    if your survey can’t distinguish the strength with which any given opinion is held, its a shitty survey.

    what irritates me about journalists is that they don’t realize all polling is pretty shit; even the ‘good stuff’. (cont)

    1. (cont’) …. what i mean by that… even when the poll/survey is random/properly weighted…

      …they don’t really think too hard about what exactly is trying to be assessed, and whether just “asking Yea/Nay” questions is the right way to assess that. Sure, ‘its a method’, but just because a method is methodical and scientifically applied doesn’t make the right method for the question.

      basically, all you will learn in any question asking exercise is some version of stated-preference. unless you also compare that to some other data that approaches the subject from a different angle – looking at behavior, for instance, and/or opinions about related, complementary ideas… its just ‘some data’ which may or may not have any particular significance.

      in the question of whether students value free speech… a survey is all well and good, but i’d be far more interested in seeing how groups of differently composed groups (large, medium, small) behaved when asked to debate a topic –

      – would the range of offered opinions *narrow* the larger the group became? would people self-censor ideas when exposed to larger peer-pressure?

      i think plenty of psych-study data already shows this to be the case; the question would be, does the current population hew more-strongly to consensus than previous ones? are they faster/more likely to self-censor?

      tl;dr: the rigor of survey methodology still doesn’t make surveying much more significant; it just makes them slightly less-shitty

    2. “their answer isn’t really revealing anything true, its just how they feel at that moment.”

      That’s about as deep as most people are ever willing to go on most all topics.

      1. aka ‘stated preference’

        you can usually validate it/qualify it with other data.

        Just because people are shallow, and their response indicate “how they see themselves“, and not “who they really are/or what they really believe“…

        ….doesn’t mean the ‘how they see themselves’-part is completely useless. Its just a data point that can be used to compare to other similarly-gathered data.

        1. I understand your argument and it makes sense. Do you have any papers that go in depth in the math of these analysis? Or does an overview of these types of statistical methods?

          1. Not really. I had a shelf full of books on designing questionnaires, and a bunch of templates for SPSS. but i can’t really think of any single paper/book that provides a soup-to-nuts overview on “how to match research objectives to research-method”

            my argument isn’t really about statistical analysis in any case. its more about how surveys – as a research method – aren’t, by themselves, all that interesting or significant unless combined with some other forms of validating-data.

            a lot of the work i did in that firm was related to consumer new product development, or new category market segmentation, stuff like that, and the most common analytical techniques used were multivariate/conjoint analysis

            in my case, the questions people were usually trying to answer was “what do [X group of] people want from [y product category/segment]”; and the work would go from identifying/quantifying market opportunity, to helping design the product-features to address it.

            but sometimes it was more straight opinion-gathering. more like, corporations “periodically sniffing at their consumers” and trying to understand how they think about all kinds of stuff. I personally hated that stuff (i preferred working for the business strategy people, not the marketing/advertising folks) and its why I got out of the market research business

  6. Among other things, the poll found that 44 percent of students at four-year universities don’t know the First Amendment protects so-called hate speech from censorship.

    The authoritarian right may be even worse … if their Kaepernick hysteria in Reason’s commentariat is representative.

    Still true, Left – Right = Zero

    1. why do you assume that 44% is entirely left-wing?

      1. Why do you assume I did????

        1. the poll found that 44 percent of students at four-year universities don’t know the First Amendment protects so-called hate speech from censorship.

          The authoritarian right may be even worse

          that statement seems to assume the 44% is representative of something not-inclusive of “the authoritarian right”

          1. False assumption. Imagine a mixed aggregate, where one segment is the worst (of the average)..

          2. Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant among the population as a whole. But this:

            “Of the 1,500 respondents, 697 identified a Democrats, 261 as Republicans, and 431 as Independents. Another 111 respondents stated “Don’t Know”

            The sample of Republicans was quite small, relative to Democrats, a tad more than 1/3, and independents. Liberty University was not included! Also independents should outnumber both parties. It seems skewed left, which implies overly liberal campuses. And it is Brookings.

            I just checked Pew, which shows college students tracking with overall voters. Republicans and Democrats roughly equal. Independents a good deal larger than either –likely including most of the libertarian majority.

            1. it is Brookings.

              you think a liberal think tank is too hard on liberals? or that they are incompetent of running a trustworthy survey?

              I’m not sure how any of this helps substantiate your suspicion that an “authoritarian right” has less knowledge of or support for the 1st Amendment.

              if you want better and more-consistent research on that topic, there is some here There might be better cherries for you to pick there, as they found:

              In 2017, less than 16 percent of self-described Liberals agreed that the First Amendment goes too far in the freedoms it guarantees (15.8 percent) compared to about one-quarter of both Moderates (26.3 percent) and Conservatives (24.6 percent)….

              if there’s any take-away, its that surveys can get very different answers depending on how the questions are phrased. (there is nothing at all about “hate speech” in the above)

              1. you think a liberal think tank is too hard on liberals? or that they are incompetent of running a trustworthy survey

                Errr, no,

                I’m not sure how any of this helps substantiate your suspicion that an “authoritarian right” has less knowledge of or support for the 1st Amendment.

                50 years as a libertarian. And you’ve confused the issue, which is free speech, only part of the First Amendment. It also includes freedom of and from religion, the right to peacefully assemble, freedom of the press, and that rights and grievances thing.

                You’ve also confused “authoritarian right” with conservatives overall.
                And your snippet says conservatives are more authoritarian than liberals, OVERALL, which is NOT my point and hardly advances yours (if I assume it correctly). Conservatives are also more authoritarian on leakers, FAR more on Islamophobia.

                I didn’t actually count, but it seems like only 10% or less of the questions even break out subtotals by liberals/conservatives/moderates. And … nothing at all on free speech. I wasted way too much time with it, searching for relevance, finding none.

                1. well, i apologize for trying to make sense of your random, unsubstantiated comment. cheers.

                2. your snippet says

                  I was actually directing you at their entire body of research (of which that report is only 1 annual example), not the excepted portion, which was simply trying to help show that results vary depending on how questions are framed.

                  ta.

                  1. So you knowingly posted a useless snippet … which said the exact opposite of your (apparent) position.

                    I was actually directing you at their entire body of research (of which that report is only 1 annual example)

                    Then why did you link to a useless snippet, and to an irrelevant report when you wanted to direct me to the entire body of research, which would seem to be even LESS relevant..

                    your random, unsubstantiated comment.

                    The topic of which you forgot. Then you admit posting an irrelevant snippet, and linking to a specific report — which was irrelevant — when you wanted me to see the entire body of research — which would be even less relevant. To the topic YOU raised, then forgot.

                    which was simply trying to help show that results vary depending on how questions are framed.

                    ANOTHER fail, since each question was asked in only one way. Obviously, different TOPICS would be phrased differently. And that, too, would have nothing to do with — the free speech issue that YOU raised. But you forgot your own issue and posted an irrelevant snippet and report,

                    I wasted a lot of time on your useless link, giving you the benefit of doubt. But, since you violated my trust, I now know not to be suckered again.

                    1. Michael, I’ve always appreciated your input, but i’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me entirely here. I was simply trying to help you find statistical evidence for your claim about the ‘Authoritarian Right’ and their attitude toward the 1st amendment.

                      the newseum institute is one of the only people who has done consistent research about popular opinions re: the first amdnt, as their preamble in the linked research pointed out:

                      The Newseum Institute has supported an annual national survey of American attitudes about the First Amendment since 1997. The State of the First Amendment: 2017 is the 20th survey in this series.This year’s annual survey repeats some of the questions that have been asked since 1997 and includes some new questions as well. This report summarizes the findings from the 2017 survey and, where appropriate, depicts how attitudes have changed over time.

                      If there is anywhere you might find some evidence for your assertion, it is surely in their body of research, which can be found here

                      Hope you are well, and please give my regards to Mrs Hihn, or the Hihn children, or whomever still speaks to you. cheers.

                    2. GILMORE?|9.30.17 @ 10:13PM|#
                      “Michael, I’ve always appreciated your input,”
                      You’d be pretty much alone there, but have at it.

                    3. oh, sevo. your facetiousness-meter needs re-calibrating.

                    4. OK, and sarc would have done it too.

        2. if you look on the data @ , they did split out Democrat students from Republican students

          the #s showed that it was actually democrats who split more-heavily on the side of ‘not believing hate speech was included’

          “hate speech is protected by 1A” – Dems, 39% yes; Reps 44% yes;
          “hate speech is not protected by the 1A” – Dems 41% yes; Reps 39% yes;

          i don’t see how you’d gather that any ‘authoritarian right’ would be hidden somewhere in there, unreflected in the data..

          1. False assumption. “In there.” (If I read him correctly)

            1. (If I read him correctly)

              You did here, but not in your first one!

              1. Mike, your mental facilities are no longer up to maintaining the fiction.
                Fuck off, Mike. Just go. You no longer have anything to offer and you are embarrassing yourself, assuming you are still capable of embarrassment.
                Go or STFU.

                1. Come on, Sevo. You would deny us this entertainment? Assuming Michael is not succumbing to some sort of dementia (which would make me feel really bad), this is great stuff.

                  1. “Assuming Michael is not succumbing to some sort of dementia (which would make me feel really bad), this is great stuff.”
                    I’m afraid this assumption is no longer valid; Mike is beginning to be both a caricature of himself, and starting new socks and then forgetting he did so in the span of half an hour.
                    I’m an old fart; I hope when I’ve lost the ability to keep track of my claims, I quite making those claims. Mike seems beyond that concern; he no longer even knows.
                    Pathetic.

                    1. Why are you stalking me down the page, bullying?
                      Why are you the ONLY thug shouting people down, “ordering” them to leave?
                      Who the fuck appointed you to evict people here?. Libertarian websites do not have a Gestapo.
                      Why is your bullying and aggression so compulsive?

                      Do you know how hard I laugh .. when you claim I have a mental condition … as you are in a full meltdown, totally out of control? All that rage and hatred, seven times on a single page.

                      The authoritarian mentality.

                  2. They launch their bullying and aggressions in a pack, like wild dogs.
                    Thereby shaming their own parents. But the authoritarian mentality (sigh)

                    Assuming Michael is not succumbing to some sort of dementia

                2. Show of hands. Is this aggression and bullying (even without the potty mouth)?

                  Mike, your mental facilities are no longer up to maintaining the fiction.
                  Fuck off, Mike. Just go. You no longer have anything to offer and you are embarrassing yourself, assuming you are still capable of embarrassment.
                  Go or STF

                  Anyone else trying to drive away commenters?
                  Anyone else act like a 12-year old bully?
                  Anyone else shit all over NAP?
                  I didn’t think so.

                3. Sevo,
                  (sneer)
                  https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6983111

                  1. Whine some more, fuckhead.

                    1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                      Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                      He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                      He’s all growed up now!

                      Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                      You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                      Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                      Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                      Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                      Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                      Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                      Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                      Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                      Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                      BEST FOR LAST
                      Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                      Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                      Daddy?

                      Daddy?
                      Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                      Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

    2. “The authoritarian right may be even worse … if their Kaepernick hysteria in Reason’s commentariat is representative.”

      Pretty sure you can find a brush much finer than that even in the smallest hardware store.
      If you look for it, that is.

      1. Unless it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide?

        This is Reason, right? The Reason commentariat is hardly a small brush. At Reason.

        1. David Nolan|9.30.17 @ 5:45PM|#
          “Unless it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide?”
          Do you speak English? I’d prefer that.

          “This is Reason, right? The Reason commentariat is hardly a small brush. At Reason.”
          It’s a bunch of small brushes, which is the reason I suggest you try a finer one while characterizing it.

          1. Do you speak English? I’d prefer that.

            That’s gibberish from Mad Magazine, several years ago, and my standard response to gibberish.

            “This is Reason, right? The Reason commentariat is hardly a small brush. At Reason.”

            It’s a bunch of small brushes, which is the reason I suggest you try a finer one while characterizing it.

            Then you don’t understand your own analogy. And, apparently, cannot disagree honestly, so I shall ignore you. But feel free to pick your fights elsewhere.

            1. “Then you don’t understand your own analogy. And, apparently, cannot disagree honestly, so I shall ignore you. But feel free to pick your fights elsewhere.”

              Preferring not to deal with twits, I’ll return the favor.

              1. ^nerd fight

                1. “^nerd fight”
                  Nope, no fight at all. Nolan died, uh, X years ago (lemme check: 7, check Wiki).
                  This is some self-satisfied twit adopting the name of a libertarian, and you might well ask why. Perhaps in the hopes that posted stupidity might be accepted with more sympathy than it might be if it were posted by, oh, MNG or some other twit who has decided his/her rep has already colored the acceptance of the posts.
                  The lefty imbecile commie kid has tried this several times, as has turd. The lefty imbecile Tony has, at least, been honest enough to post his pathetic crap under the same handle.
                  I’m not going to ‘fight’ with some dishonest twit who, in an attempt to market his/her crap, adopted a handle taken from an honest libertarian.

                  1. How would a raging bully and aggressor know what an “honest libertarian” is?
                    Hint: we never launch serial aggressions, stalking targets for months.
                    And we NEVER order anyone off a web page.

                2. DenverJ|9.30.17 @ 9:27PM|#
                  “^nerd fight”

                  See above and below; Hihnfection under another name.

                  1. MORE stalking, aggression and childish insults … all based on his own pathetic LIE

                    https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6982857

                  2. Sevo,
                    (sneer)
                    https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6983111

            2. Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread.

              1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                He’s all growed up now!

                Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                BEST FOR LAST
                Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                Daddy?

                Daddy?
                Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

  7. probability-based panel … did not outperform all of the nonprobability polls on all of the metrics

    [thinking emojis]

    1. So it did as well or better on every one?

      1. No, it did worse on some, which is what you’d expect. That’s why error bars exist on even perfect samples.

  8. Sooo… Could we, like, have somebody just do the fancy-pants right-and-proper kind of survey, then?

    Inquiring minds want to know what un-inquiring minds don’t want to know.

    1. You just confused the crap out of those students!

    2. Another Millenial survey?

      1. Don’t let Trump see that!

  9. The poll is garbage. Online surveys are terrible at telling us things about the world. This is chapter 1 or week 1 statistics.

    1. Online surveys are terrible at telling us things about the world.

      nonsense. they tell you all sorts of stuff about the types of people who take online surveys.

    2. One problem with online surveys is that people that realize online surveys are garbage probably won’t participate anyway.

  10. We should be on our knees praying that it’s junk science, because if its not…

    1. “on our knees”? Hate speech! Theocracy!

      1. No, he’s disrespecting the national anthem, which hundreds of millions of Americans died to protect.

        1. To me, the larger sin is creating a distraction before a game that they are being paid millions of dollars to win.

          1. If their employers allow it, then it’s protected free speech vis a vis the govt – but not vis a vis the viewer, who can (and probably should) switch the channel, or go out and get some fresh air, or maybe watch paint dry – anything more interesting.

            1. Where, in the Constitution, does it say “distractions” nullify fundamental human rights?

              1. Point missed. Lily appears to be pointing out that viewers are free to not watch the distraction. The players may be free to protest – but everyone else is free to change the channel in response.

                1. ANOTHER unprovoked assault. (sigh)

                  Where, in the Constitution, does it say “distractions” nullify fundamental human rights?

                  Point missed.

                  Bend over. This will go up easier.

                  Lily appears to be pointing out that viewers are free to not watch the distraction.

                  Look again (smirk)
                  1) SHE NEVER SAYS DISTRAQCTIION
                  2) I said “distractions” (a direct quote)
                  3) So, I was NOT replying to her. Go back one, to AlmightyJB. Who DOES say.

                  To me, the larger sin is creating a distraction before a game?

                  You’re a frequent and experienced poster. Surely, by now, you MUST now that comments can be placed in the wrong position. You do look back up to Lily … but FAILED to see “distractions” does not appear EVEN THOUGH YOU INCLUDED IT!
                  AND …. MY POINT IS THE SAME AS HERS! DUH

                  And on the undeniable evidence, you are stalking me down the page, as you have been for months …. with REPEATED aggressions.

                  Aggression means little to you, but this is a libertarian website

                  You do have good ideas, and occasional valid objections, but you repeatedly humiliate yourself because, I believe, you’re too often on your muscle, belligerent, looking for a fight … instead of looking to contribute. Your biggest victim is … yourself.

                  I’m trying to be helpful, as the first step to self-renewal … fight your instinct to punish me for self-defense. Again.

  11. You can easily factor in error rates for such a poll. The objection really isn’t valid.

  12. Yeah everyone should be virulently defending Kaepernick who never protested as a starter when HIS games were on the line, only as a benchwarmer when being an attention whore didn’t effect his record as a starting QB. And who wore a Castro shirt to a presser (freakin’ prick). Oh and also this

    Such a freakin’ hero.

    1. Ok we’ll try the link again

      1. Wait, you’re telling me that there are reasons to question his commitment to Americanism? How were we supposed to know that, he gave no indication of that before!

      2. Ok we’ll try the link again

        Do you often swallow bullshit from wacky rightwing hate sites? Because tribalism!

        1. So, what in the link was untrue then?

          1. (LOL) There’s only ONE point at the link. Bullshit for GULLIBLE goobers.
            It opens stating he donated to a terrorist group. Followed by a media excerpt — UNSOURCED … which says THE EXACT OPPOSITE (OMFG)

            THIS is how easy it is to scam Mark’s ilk! (unedited text)

            Friday the Daily Mail reported that Colin Kaepernick donated $25,000 to a Chicago area group called Assata’s Daughters.

            Kaepernick, who is well known for his protests against police during the national anthem as a former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, made the donation as part of his pledge to donate $100,000 a month for 10 months to ‘organizations working in oppressed communities’?

            Kaepernick’s foundation specified that $2,500 of the donation would go to Cop Watch, a program that trains volunteers to follow and video police officers.

            Another $15,000 is earmarked for ‘teen workshops’.

            Assata’s Daughters is named for convicted murderer Joanne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur. The group’s website lists free programs they offer including one for elementary school girls

            WTF Mark??
            Assata’s Daughter’s appears from thin air!

            Are “teen workshops” the connection? TEENS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS???

            This is the same bullshit that you trolled here!
            https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6983258

            But he’ll keep stalking me. Because thug.

            Anything else?

            1. Go die in a fire, fuckwit.

              1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                He’s all growed up now!

                Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                BEST FOR LAST
                Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature.
                Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                Daddy?

                Daddy?
                Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

    2. The reason I busted the twit with the Nolan handle has to do with his/her claim that the reason commentariat was united in opposing Kaep’s bullshit.
      Nope. I for one give him a pass on that. He’s welcome to do whatever he pleases. But then he is also welcome to accept the consequences of doing so if his employer (not me) objects.
      BUT, I’m going to posit here:
      If Tom Brady kneeled during the anthem, he’d still have a job.
      Kaepernick would have also a job if he weren’t such a pathetic excuse for a QB.

      1. Sevo|10.1.17 @ 12:19AM|#
        “The reason I busted the twit with the Nolan handle…”
        Oh, FFS! I hadn’t checked back up-thread and there by 10PM, Mike the demented asshole has already claimed ownership:

        “David Nolan|9.30.17 @ 10:10PM|#
        Bully commits aggression … on a libertarian website. Who explains that to him (or her)?.”

        Mike, fuck off. You are not helping your brand here, proving you’re mental facilities are not what they used to be. I’m an atheist, but: ”You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go!”
        Fuck off, Mike.

        1. That is Sevo’s sixth aggression on the page.
          Typical alt-riight authoritarian thug.

          Anyone else trying to shout down a commenter?
          I didn’t think so.

          1. Mike, fuck off. No one was fooled by your pathetic sock; no one.
            Quit making a public fool of yourself.
            Just fuck off.

            1. MORE stalking, aggression and childish insults … all based on his own pathetic LIE

              https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6982857

              1. Mike, do you even know that link goes right back here? IOWs, it does nothing to support your claim?
                Do you know that Mike? Or does it come as a surprise?
                Do you have a wife? Does she know you are making and ass of yourself in public on the web?

                1. MORE stalking, aggression and childish insults … all based on his own pathetic LIE
                  https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6982857

                  Mike, do you even know that link goes right back here?

                  (snort) This page, but the SPECIFIC comment where YOU prove you’re a liar!!!. (OMFG)

                  ?IOWs, it does nothing to support your claim?

                  Bad bluff, chump.

                  I deeply enjoy baiting aggressors and bullies, especially the bulliest, which includes Sevo
                  They ALWAYS take the bait! Because they NEVER miss a chance to bully. It’s a compulsion.

                  Here, I set aside time, to lay more bait … with delight, when SEVO launched repeated verbal assaults on ….. MY HANDLE! Nothing I said. My handle! HOW EXCITING! If not for my atheism, I’d KNEEL AND PRAY for such a DELICIOUS opportunity.

                  I got a RECORD harvest. Do a page search for his name, and count the assaults.

                  Count ’em ELEVEN assaults, LOADED with rage, foul-mouth swearing and viciousness … because of my handle … not what I said ….. PLUS …. …. HE REPEATEDLY ORDERS ME OFF THE PAGE!

                  On what authority? His own authoritarian mentality. A self-appointed Guardian of Truth, Justice and the American Nazi Way.

                  (posted in defense of stalking and multiple aggressions for over 7 months. For cyber-bullies, it’s all about the attacks, which are manlier for them than their tiny little …. hands)

                  .

                  1. Eat shit and die, bloody idiot.

                    1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                      Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                      He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                      He’s all growed up now!

                      Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                      You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                      Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                      Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                      Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                      Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                      Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                      Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                      Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                      Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                      BEST FOR LAST
                      Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                      Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                      Daddy?

                      Daddy?
                      Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                      Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

      2. This is Sevo’s fifth aggression on the page. Bullies don’t follow NAP.

        The reason I busted the twit with the Nolan handle has to do with his/her claim that the reason commentariat was united in opposing Kaep’s bullshitTHIS bullshit is exposed HERE.
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6982669

        1. Speaking of NAP, I think I’ll take one.

          1. I’ll join you. Errrr, time-wise.

            1. I’m also awake late at night.

              1. “Also?”

      3. BREAKING NEWS!!!
        Sevo provides PROOF POSITIVE that his stalking, bullying and multiple aggressions on this page … plus ORDERING ME OFF THE WEB SITE
        (go figure)… are ALL based on this bullshit,

        The reason I busted the twit with the Nolan handle has to do with his/her claim that the reason commentariat was united in opposing Kaep’s bullshit.

        Note the Sevoism!
        He’s PISSED at ME … because I said … wait for it … the commentariat is united WITH HIM!

        What I actually said

        The authoritarian right may be even worse … if their Kaepernick hysteria in Reason’s commentariat is repreentative

        He even QUOTED ME SAYING THOSE WORDS! …. before LYING about them here

        So … I’m being stalked and bullied with multiple aggressions … because I SAID hysteria! So his own hysteria proves me correct! The more the merrier! (lol)

        Buy why? That’s crazy, even for him. Well, he barged in my quote … typical unprovoked aggression and insults … and wound up being humiliated . (He’s been doing that for months.)

        (Today’s lesson on cyber-bullying: Wait ’til you see the rage, aggression and insults NOW! Because as long as they keeps attacking, they’re WINNING! The nastier the better. Like Trump)

        1. Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining.

          1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

            Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

            He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

            He’s all growed up now!

            Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

            You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

            Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

            Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

            Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

            Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

            Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

            Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

            Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

            Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

            BEST FOR LAST
            Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

            Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

            Daddy?

            Daddy?
            Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

            Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

      4. It’s even worse than that. Kap would have had a job if he hadn’t opted out on his contract!

        1. Try again. Goobers be sayin’ that he wuz FIRED and DISGRACED for his actions.
          That’s why the black bastard personally donated a million dollars to dozens of organizations providing a wide variety of support for the disadvantaged living in the ghetto.

          What’s wrong with that darkie, making a personal commitment to actual values, instead of whining online? sheesh
          .,

          1. So, if someone donates money to help poor whites in addition to giving money to neo Nazi groups, that makes him a good guy?

            Kaeoernick gave money to a group that supports domestic terrorism. He supports socialist dictators too apparently. And yet you, the o e true libertarian, just love the guy.

            1. So, if someone donates money to help poor whites in addition to giving money to neo Nazi groups, that makes him a good guy?

              (snort) Poor BLACKS “living in the ghetto” As always, you BEGIN with a screwup.
              You’ve been suckered AGAIN by your tribal devotion to far-right conspiracy wackos.
              .

              .He supports socialist dictators too apparently.

              I wish my girlfriend was as eager to swallow as you are!.

              And yet you, the o e true libertarian, just love the guy.

              Your disgust for liberty is well known. And typical of the authoritarian right.
              (You forgot to mention Kenya and Benghazi)

              Here are links to REAL sources on his foundation, sucker,
              https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6982660

              (walks away laughing at the stalker)

              1. Go fuck yourself.

                1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

                  Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

                  He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

                  He’s all growed up now!

                  Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

                  You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

                  Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

                  Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

                  Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

                  Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

                  Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

                  Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

                  Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

                  Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

                  BEST FOR LAST
                  Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature.
                  Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

                  Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

                  Daddy?

                  Daddy?
                  Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

                  Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

      5. When you are a marginal player, you do not do or say anything to make yourself even less marketable.

        1. So why did you?

          1. Why are you continually embarrassing yourself here?

            1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

              Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

              He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

              He’s all growed up now!

              Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

              You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

              Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

              Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

              Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

              Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

              Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

              Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

              Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

              Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

              BEST FOR LAST
              Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

              Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

              Daddy?

              Daddy?
              Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

              Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

  13. It is junk science because it outs the left in a bad light.
    Everyone knows that all colleges fully respect free speech. First because they say so, and second because they are so careful in preventing people from speaking.
    There is no need for surveys, just ask Hillary of Nancy, and know that they have our best interests at heart, and would never let us go wrong. (well, maybe that one time they let us elect Trump; but that’s all)

  14. PS, I forgot, what’s the difference between “taking a knee” and plain old kneeling?

    1. It’s a football term — originally when a quarterback would “take a knee” to end the play, immediately after the snap..
      It’s used to run the clock down,.because the ball must be snapped within 40 seconds to avoid a penalty.
      It’s done near the end of the game, first down with less than 2:00 (or equivalent). It’s done by the team in the lead, so the players line up in a protective “victory formation” — which also protects each other from a hit. The defense tends to avoid a rush because they know the play will end in one second.

  15. The person posting on this thread as “David Nolan” is not actually David Nolan, the LP founder, who died in 2010.

    It is incredible that Reason is allowing him to commit identity theft here. Though he is toeing the party line so maybe they’re OK with it.

    1. It’s not identity theft (snort). Do you have anything other than more aggression. ANYTHING?
      ANYTHING AT ALL?

      1. Go die already, lying shithead.

        1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

          Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

          He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

          He’s all growed up now!

          Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

          You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

          Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

          Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

          Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

          Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

          Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

          Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

          Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

          Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

          BEST FOR LAST
          Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

          Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

          Daddy?

          Daddy?
          Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

          Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

  16. I see OJ has been let out – I’ll bet a fat dollar the first question a Fox reporter asks him is what he thinks about the NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem. And if OJ stabs the fucker in the face I would call it justifiable homicide.

    1. Right. Clearly OJ would be exercising his free speech rights.
      Oh, wait. He is a felon, he has no rights. Long live free America.

      1. Felons have free speech rights — regardless of whether you Longtobeffree — while somehow believing that murder is protected speech. Jerryskids is also a known authoritarian, a/k/a thug.
        But you got that out of your system, right?

  17. I deeply enjoy baiting aggressors and bullies, especially the bulliest, which includes Sevo
    They ALWAYS take the bait! Because they NEVER miss a chance to bully. A compulsion for aggressors)

    (This thread is now dead, I post this only so I can link to it from Sevo’s NEXT aggression — inevitable, since he’s been stalking and attacking me for months, with all the self-righteous zeal of the authoritarian right)

    Here, I set aside time, to lay more bait … with delight, when SEVO launched repeated verbal assaults on .my … HANDLE! Nothing I said. My handle! HOW EXCITING! If not for my atheism, I’d KNEEL AND PRAY for such a DELICIOUS opportunity.

    I got a RECORD harvest. Do a page search for his name, and count the assaults.

    Count ’em ELEVEN assaults, LOADED rage, foul-mouth swearing and viciousness … because of my handle … not what I said ….. PLUS …. …. HE REPEATEDLY ORDERS ME OFF THE PAGE! On what authority?
    His own authoritarian mentality. A self-appointed Guardian of Truth, Justice and the American Nazi Way.

    If my handle drives him insane, what about my….hair color? It’s brown. Have at it, Herr Sevo

    (posted in defense of stalking and multiple aggressions for over 7 months. I cannot be bullied, and he knows it. For cyber-bullies, it’s all about the attacks, which are manlier than their tiny little …. hands)

    1. Thanks for the entertainment.

      1. See!
        ANOTHER ONE took the bait!!!

    2. Go die, fucko.

      1. ***PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL STALKING CYBER-BULLY***

        Remember that kid in elementary school, on the school bus?

        He’d yell “shit” …. and giggle?

        He’s all growed up now!

        Go die, fucko Finrod|10.3.17 @ 6:00PM|#

        You’re a fucking idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:08PM|#

        Whine some more, idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:13PM|#

        Whine some more, fuckhead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:42PM|#

        Says the fuckwit spewing bullshit all over this thread Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:45PM|#

        Go die in a fire, fuckwit . Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:50PM|#

        Eat shit and die, bloody idiot. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:52PM|#

        Whiny fuckwit idiot just keeps on whining. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:53PM|#

        Go fuck yourself. Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:57PM|#

        Go die already, lying shithead Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:59PM|#

        BEST FOR LAST
        Yes, because whining like an infant makes you soooo mature.
        Finrod|10.3.17 @ 5:20PM|#

        Daddy, when I grow up, I wanna be just like him! I’ll be SO mature, right?

        Daddy?

        Daddy?
        Why are you rolling on the floor laughing?

        Til then, I’ll have this: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09…..nt_6986474

  18. Instead of debating the survey which wasn’t done correctly, why don’t those arguing about it just create another survey, do it the right way and see what the results are.

  19. RE: Is That Poll That Found College Students Don’t Value Free Speech Really ‘Junk Science’? Not So Fast

    Its not a matter of junk science.
    Its about throwing billions of dollars down a rat hole called public education so students graduating from high school doesn’t know what free speech truly means.
    But at least they know how to put a condom on a cucumber.

    1. Another off-topic, foaming rant ….

  20. I wonder if young people “these days” are more opposed to the first amendment as previous generations, or are they just more honest about it.

    In other words, older people would give platitudes about how awesome and free our country is, and how proud they are that people can say whatever they want, but then these same people would turn around and argue to ban free speech; such as flag burning, banning gay (or straight) internet porn, among other things they find offensive.

    Meanwhile, young people are more likely to just straight up say “you know what, screw the first amendment. If you say racist or non-PC things, I want to shut you up.” You know what. At least they’re honest about it. I think I have more respect for someone like that, someone who at least openly comes out as the enemy of freedom.

    1. Also, on a side note: I have another theory on whats behind all the speech codes and what not. The standard libertarian view of free speech is that a) you have the legal right to say whatever you want, but b) not free from the consequences of what you say. Ie: a private land owner (such as a mall that doesn’t like the shirt you’re wearing) has the right to ban you. You can rant whatever nonsense on the public street, standing on your soapbox, but you can’t enter private property and do that.

      I think to a large extent, a lot of college students (including public universities) just don’t see their campus as an extension of the street. They see it more as a private space, which they are a consumer, no different than a mall. So even if they share the idea behind the 1st amendment; if a college expels a student for saying something offensive, somehow they don’t see the college as an extension of the government. I think maybe thats where the disconnect is.

      1. they don’t see the college as an extension of the government. I think maybe thats where the disconnect is

        Good point, for many. But you’re a nit-picker! 🙂

        A neighbor’s student son sees it as equal rights for STUDENTS of public vs private universities. And he’s not even close to being a snowflake.

        This is tough for me, an activist in the Free Speech Movement of the 60s. My freshman class (1960) helped launch the whole protest movement, which was originally anti-authority on all fronts. Anti-war and.civil rights came later. So I see today as perhaps a greater threat, EMPOWERING authority.. I think we need to appeal to them on personal autonomy. The only real guarantee of “your” rights is that we all defend each other’s, equally. There is no such exchange with authority as the guarantor. The price of a free society for all. Can even make that sound proggie!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.