Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
President Trump President Trump

02-24-2017 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Are you saying that 19 year old female college students are more likely to be racist than the average population? Because that is one of the stupidest arguments I have heard in a while. If anything, the samples in these studies are going to under report racial prejudice.

This was the gotcha you came up with?
To sum it up again for you:
I think its ridiculous to make claims about the prevalence of racial prejudice in a whole country when working with a samplesize that consists of basically exclusively white, young, females in a university.

Have you any idea how skewed some of these experiments are if you reward the participants with course credits? This leads to situations where people have to partake in something like this in order to finish a course requirement.

Ill try to explain it to you in a hypothetical scenario, because maybe then you will see it more clearly due to not being attached to defending a ****ty study you posted.

Imagine you conduct a study into a random topic and in order to recruit participants you reward participants with 10 bucks. You end up with 55 participants, who are mostly male.

Now how representative is your study for the population of your country?

Probably not very representative, because your incentive (=10 bucks) leads to a selection bias. You will have literally no successfull business man, because nearly none of them is gonna participate due to lack of time and missing incentives. On the other hand, you will have many unemployed, broke people, who could use the 10 bucks and also have the time to participate.

Have I made my point clear enough?

This is a big problem in general in research, that the incentive to participate often leads to a selection bias.

Not to mention, that rating pictures on a self developed "Innocence Scale" and proclaiming that this is a valid operationalisation of racial prejudice is a bit presumptuous
02-24-2017 , 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
Mandates aren't real?
No. What is real Republicans control 52 Senate votes, 240 or so house votes and the President. Those elected made certain promises that those voting for them expect to be kept. What they can enact with those numbers is all that matters.
02-24-2017 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
2 posts deleted

mongidig - you need to make your case for youself if it's within the rules. You can't just provide those sorts of links as if they make your case. Also remember that you are responsible for the content of anything you link so please be careful.

aofrantic - just report the post please
Was there something bad in one of my links?

I thought I was making my case.
02-24-2017 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Trump lost by up to 8 million votes.
But the Falcons won the popular vote!

02-24-2017 , 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Four days ago mong told me he "rarely leads brietbart" when I accused him of getting most of his news from white nationalist sources. He's back to posting multiple links a day. I'm shocked!
There are different types of nationalism. White nationalism is bad. Breitbart promotes a healthy version of nationalism.
02-24-2017 , 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
Was there something bad in one of my links?

I thought I was making my case.
You've been told repeatedly that linking to white nationalist websites that you "rarely ever" read is not allowed.
02-24-2017 , 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
There are different types of nationalism. White nationalism is bad. Breitbart promotes a healthy version of nationalism.
Well, the head of brietbart wants to 'destroy the state.' A senior editor was just fired for pro pedastry opinions. They regularly post (like, multiple a day) articles that are misleading or flat out false to fear monger against minorities. How is this "healthy?"
Last time you tried to prop up Breitbart I showed you the difference between how they and a reputable news organization handles the Quebec shooting. Brietbart mentioned the brown witness with a scary name 5 times more in their article than the *actual shooter*.
02-24-2017 , 02:37 PM


LOL. Apparently a liberal activist handed them out and dumb Trumpkins started waving them. A+ trolling.

Speaking of which: Recent polling shows Putin's popularity rising BIGLY among Republicans which is just hilarious
02-24-2017 , 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Well, the head of brietbart wants to 'destroy the state.' A senior editor was just fired for pro pedastry opinions. They regularly post (like, multiple a day) articles that are misleading or flat out false to fear monger against minorities. How is this "healthy?"
Last time you tried to prop up Breitbart I showed you the difference between how they and a reputable news organization handles the Quebec shooting. Brietbart mentioned the brown witness with a scary name 5 times more in their article than the *actual shooter*.
I have not seen evidence of racism on Breitbart.
02-24-2017 , 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
White House asked FBI to publicly refute news reports on Trump-Russia connections and FBI refused



In b4 angry FAKE NEWS tweets, in b4 "no big deal" posts from baghdad bob
Trump surprised me and actually didn't go the "fake news" route:





He threw out a curveball and went with "okay, it's true, but THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TOLD ANYONE WE BROKE THE RULES"
02-24-2017 , 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
You've been told repeatedly that linking to white nationalist websites that you "rarely ever" read is not allowed.
Breitbart is legit. It is not white nationalist just because you disagree with them.
02-24-2017 , 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
No. What is real Republicans control 52 Senate votes, 240 or so house votes and the President. Those elected made certain promises that those voting for them expect to be kept. What they can enact with those numbers is all that matters.
Yeah, but what kind of people are they really?
02-24-2017 , 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
Breitbart is legit. It is not white nationalist just because you disagree with them.
They literally describe themselves as that. It's like denying Lebron James is a basketball player.
If you haven't seen racism on brietbart, you should genuinely get your eyes checked.
I "disagree" with them because they literally make up stories! You know, like the "Fake news" you have been dumb enough to believe CNN is.

This is a headline from that "legit" news site.
Quote:
Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy
Totally legit guys!
02-24-2017 , 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by halcyon229
To sum it up again for you:
I think its ridiculous to make claims about the prevalence of racial prejudice in a whole country when working with a samplesize that consists of basically exclusively white, young, females in a university.

Have you any idea how skewed some of these experiments are if you reward the participants with course credits? This leads to situations where people have to partake in something like this in order to finish a course requirement.

Ill try to explain it to you in a hypothetical scenario, because maybe then you will see it more clearly due to not being attached to defending a ****ty study you posted.

Imagine you conduct a study into a random topic and in order to recruit participants you reward participants with 10 bucks. You end up with 55 participants, who are mostly male.

Now how representative is your study for the population of your country?

Probably not very representative, because your incentive (=10 bucks) leads to a selection bias. You will have literally no successfull business man, because nearly none of them is gonna participate due to lack of time and missing incentives. On the other hand, you will have many unemployed, broke people, who could use the 10 bucks and also have the time to participate.

Have I made my point clear enough?
Your point is garbage. You seem to think that having a skewed sample is the reason for the results, but that assertion is nonsense for many reasons.

First, young people in college tend to be less racially prejudiced than the population at large.

Second, half the population is women, so even if they are the only ones who have racial prejudice (lol), society is still pretty damn racist. Even if it's only people who go to college who are racist (lol again), that's still a hell of a lot of people.

So, yes, if you wanted to quantify the level of prejudice in a society, you'd want a random sample. But even this unrepresentative group demonstrates that a significant prejudice exists.

Quote:
This is a big problem in general in research, that the incentive to participate often leads to a selection bias.

Not to mention, that rating pictures on a self developed "Innocence Scale" and proclaiming that this is a valid operationalisation of racial prejudice is a bit presumptuous
Hey, feel free to design your own studies to determine if racial prejudice exists. Somehow I doubt that's something you'd be interested in doing.
02-24-2017 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer


LOL. Apparently a liberal activist handed them out and dumb Trumpkins started waving them. A+ trolling.

Speaking of which: Recent polling shows Putin's popularity rising BIGLY among Republicans which is just hilarious
You act like you're hurting our feelings. I wasn't in attendance this day so...CARE!

BTW...how many of you are attending CPAC?
02-24-2017 , 02:46 PM
Trump scolds the media's use of anonymous sources just hours after holding a press briefing and demanding the media not name the sources

Quote:
President Donald Trump escalated his criticism of the news media Friday, taking direct aim this time at the use of anonymous sources. Reporters "shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name," he declared, just hours after members of his own staff held a press briefing and refused to allow their names to be used.
Quote:
Members of Trump's White House team regularly demand anonymity when talking to reporters.
This is, of course, a terrifying attack on a free and open press that conservatives would rail against if they weren't so enamored with their authoritarian strongman president.

By the way, Trump himself used a fairly anonymous friend named "Jim" as a source for claiming it's too dangerous to visit Paris anymore minutes after demanding the media not use anonymous sources.
02-24-2017 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
I wasn't in attendance this day so...CARE!
Some of us find being educated about what's going on outside of the space we occupy to be a virtue rather than a nuisance
02-24-2017 , 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
I have not seen evidence of racism on Breitbart.
02-24-2017 , 02:49 PM
Not finding evidence of racism on brietbart is like going to the bar and not finding evidence that alcohol is being served.
02-24-2017 , 02:55 PM
Now you're quoting from zerohedge? Jesus ****ing christ.
You realize O'Keefe is a convicted criminal and fraud, right? I know you don't because you're very, very uninformed, but I'd like to point that out to you.

Hahahaha, the BOMBSHELLS in this O'Keefe video are a dude saying that climate change is a settled argument and saying Obama is trustworthy. JFC.

Quote:
On March 5, 2013, O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to former California ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera for deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions, and acknowledged in the settlement that at the time he published his video he was unaware that Vera had notified the police about the incident. The settlement contained the following apology: "O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."
This is literally what this dude is most famous for. For editing and being a fraud to try to expose ACORN, which then cost him $100k.
His next sting? Whoops!

Quote:
O'Keefe said he entered Landrieu's office to investigate complaints that she was ignoring phone calls from constituents during the debate over President Barack Obama's health care bill.[65] The charges in the case were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses.[66][67] O'Keefe and the others pleaded guilty on May 26. O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences.[68]
Next up!

Quote:
After reviewing the unedited video, Scott Baker of The Blaze said that the NPR executives "seem to be fairly balanced people."[73] Several journalists wrote that they regretted having given O'Keefe's NPR videos wider circulation without scrutinizing them for themselves, given his past record and some of the objections that The Blaze first raised. They include Ben Smith, James Poniewozik, and Dave Weigel.[41] Journalist Chris Rovzar of New York Magazine, in reporting on the NPR video, wrote that O'Keefe's videos are "edited in a highly misleading way."[78]
02-24-2017 , 02:55 PM
lol Zerohedge. Good grief, mongo.
02-24-2017 , 02:56 PM
Chezlaw and I have discussed this and our current policy is to not allow links to Breitbart. Given their stated purposes and history of inaccurate/biased reporting, they cannot be considered a reliable source of accurate information.
02-24-2017 , 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
Chezlaw and I have discussed this and our current policy is to not allow links to Breitbart. Given their stated purposes and history of inaccurate/biased reporting, they cannot be considered a reliable source of accurate information.
How about links to convicted frauds that worked for Breitbart?
02-24-2017 , 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Your point is garbage. You seem to think that having a skewed sample is the reason for the results, but that assertion is nonsense for many reasons.

First, young people in college tend to be less racially prejudiced than the population at large.

Second, half the population is women, so even if they are the only ones who have racial prejudice (lol), society is still pretty damn racist. Even if it's only people who go to college who are racist (lol again), that's still a hell of a lot of people.

So, yes, if you wanted to quantify the level of prejudice in a society, you'd want a random sample. But even this unrepresentative group demonstrates that a significant prejudice exists.



Hey, feel free to design your own studies to determine if racial prejudice exists. Somehow I doubt that's something you'd be interested in doing.
Im not sure that it is true that young people in colleges tend to be less racially prejudiced than the general population. Id rather argue that prejudices get reduced during college due to getting into contact with people from different cultures, semesters abroad and (you wont believe it) diversity courses. Which are a requirement for many degrees these days!

But if you take a freshman I doubt that a significant difference in racial prejudice compared to the general population exists.

Yes, Id want a random sample! This is exactly why I think that your linked study is making presumptuous claims.

Why do you think that? Im busy with educating people on 2+2 and also have a job occasionally, but generally I see no reason to not conduct a study regarding racial prejudice.

By the way, I think racial prejudice exists! I just rather side with Wil that it is superior to work on the things in your control (=learn more, invest in your education, obtain valued skills, build a network, stay away from drugs or people with bad influence ...) instead of blaming it all on racial prejudice.

So I definitely dont deny the existence of racial prejudice, I just think focusing on the victimhood is a terrible, terrible strategy.
And the really SAD thing is that the people who do this ruin their own lifes and will realize the same thing sooner or later. Unless they are already too duped by the people who enforce this victimhood mentality.
02-24-2017 , 03:00 PM


This is a great way to get your supporters charged with wire-tapping.

      
m