|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Well, your previous post WAS directed at me, and talked about "narrative," then your very next post was, "of course, actual facts don't matter."
So if you meant to separate those two statements you went out of your way to link them.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
This does not follow. I said that the statement "9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation," is bogus. All other claims I made were directly related to that assertion.
Assigning me positions or motivations is neither probative nor helpful. But have fun with your strawman or whatever.
(1) Jobs that never existed cannot be lost.
(2) Increased production also increases jobs in the supply chain.
If you pretend that (1) is false, and ignore (2), then you aren't making an honest assessment of the situation at hand.
I'm not saying that automation is blameless in job loss, I'm saying that 9/10 production jobs in the IS have been lost to automation is bogus.
For someone who complains about people replying to them and changing the subject I am surprised you would respond in this manner.
I was talking about the 9/10 statistic you cited specifically. What do you have to back that up?
So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
So anybody from Georgia's 6th district? Looks like the repubs are spending top dollar on ads against the democrat candidate Jon Ossoff . Gotta admit I love their font at the end of the ad lol
OMG! That guy went to college at one point! And had some particularly nerdy interests and hobbies! TO SHAME!!!
Adding to CBD's point, Kennedy is still the tie-breaker on SCOTUS. Trump is just putting the court back in the state it was in before Scalia died. The court is effectively a toss up even after the new appointment.
If (Desna help us) RBG dies in the next 3.5 years (or 7.5 Weeping) then we will have a serious problem.
It is equally fair to say the party abandoned them and screwed us all by putting the republicans in charge.
I really hope the Democratic party can get its stuff together better than this thread. I really hope that they can find it in themselves to agree on some stuff, even if it's just broad strokes, and move in some direction. Rather than just be at each others' throats blaming different things for their failure and just picking out the flaws in each others' reasonings.
Sadly, this thread probably has far more coherent ideas for the future of the party than the democratic leadership does. And half of this thread thinks the party should die...
So much this. Maybe you didn't steal them, but your BFF put them in your pocket.
I'll start off by stipulating that I could be grossly underestimating the importance of the 3rd base coach; in which case I have read your statement incorrectly.
I think this is closer to "people don't know how powerful / influential party bosses are," rather than, "no one has heard of this particular party boss nor can they tell me what they actually do; therefore they are not very powerful."
The second option there is a complete non-sequitur, and it is very close to your analogy.
If I may offer a different analogy. It is more like the Lt. Governor of the state of Texas. Most people in Texas couldn't tell you who that guy is or pick him out of a line. Even less could describe his job and scope of power. But he is arguably the most powerful person in the State of Texas, even beyond the Governor. The Governor gets to appoint state positions, and declare emergencies, and sign laws, but the Lt Governor gets to write law and preside over the Texas Senate. That means he sets the agenda and creates the content. He is in a position to pull all the strings.
That is much closer to the party boss. No one can tell you who they are or what they do, but when it comes to brass tacks; that person has ALL the power.
This is a hugely important point since processes and outcomes are not the same. Intimidation, dissent-quelling, and silencing can be achieved through process regardless of outcomes. Kairos is a thing.
Actually, my original claim in September was that we should consider the possibility that there is a polling bias in favor of Clinton.
I never said wood chippers don't work, I said they were being used poorly in this case.
As for anti-vaxxers, There is a notable exception that I made a claim based on my own observation about the past which then proved to be correct in the future. Anti-vaxxers don't have evidence to demonstrate their claims. I do.
You are the one without evidence to the contrary. You are the one having difficulty coming to terms with reality. It sounds like you are actually the anti-vaxxer.
As soon as you are ready to strike an actual claim based of evidence rather than, "LALALA DONT BELIEVE YOU LALALALA," I have a significant amount of substantiating data and a one-way ANOVA to show you. But until then I am happy to stay with, "I don't have to know why a thing is to know that a thing is."
Edit: since no one else seems interested in this topic; if you want to continue, let's take it to PM.
Non sequitur much?
Quiche Lisp wrote:
I wouldn't (nor didn't) suggest that no intellectual honesty can be found in the party who opposes my views. However, There are several topics that I can discern very quickly about the intellectual honesty of the other side.
Doxxing, good or bad?
Treating those discussions as reasonable to have in a public forum is normalizing vileness.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
This presupposes that both sides will conduct themselves in an intellectually / academically honest manner. Currently in the United States this presupposition is complete farce. In an alternative facts / facts-don't-matter context having such a debate can only serve two purposes. (1) Normalizing an irrational (read: bigoted) position by treating it as a rational one, and (2) giving a pulpit to propagandists.
Be unconvinced, stick your hand in the wood chipper.
Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.
I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.
To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.
See, I'm arriving at conclusions based on observation. I observed what appeared to be a serious bias in favor of one candidate and then predicted a continuation of that trend into the future.
To be plain, there is a wood chipper. On the wood chipper is a sign that reads, "Safe to put your hand in."
Now I've seen signs before. Generally I am open to signage as a good conveyer of information. But I watch anyway. I observe people putting there hands into the wood chippper. I observe the result. It doesn't appear to be safe after all.
Now, to reach the opinion that the sign is wrong and it is in fact dangerous to put your hand in, I didn't have to look into who produced the sign, the model of wood chipper, the mechanics of wood chipper, or other wood chipper signs. I can still predict that people continuing to put their hands in the wood chipper will not be safe.
Essentially, I don't have to know why it is unsafe to know that it is unsafe.
If my observation isn't convincing then go ahead and put your hand in the wood chipper.
Or, Democrats, go ahead and keep trusting polls that tell you what you want to hear.
Actually, I formed my opinions live as it unfolded over the course of the last 18 months. I pulled up some information because I don't have eidetic memory. The information I pulled up was incorrect against my position. As in, the correct information supports my statement even more than the original information I presented.
So would you care to present some information that counters my argument or are you just going to blow smoke about how Sanders was under polled by 27% instead of 20% which makes my point somehow invalid?
I don't disagree with you about that. But it is still a dangerous place to be.
pres man wrote:
I agree, I think we get into a dangerous place when we start deciding that we know other people's best interests better than they do.
But, yeah, I made it up. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep the fantasy alive.
Edit, it does look like RCP flubbed a button on that page which I admit I didn't double check before posting earlier. Sanders actually won by 12 points. So yeah, I guess I was totally wrong about my point...
Right off the top of my head, there was a 20 point difference between polls and results for Sanders in Indiana. He was down by 10 and won by 10. There was a 10 point difference in Oregon where he was down by 5 and won by 5. Both of which were primaries, not caucuses.
That's 3 10+ point polling errors in favor of Clinton. If it isn't bias (i.e., just poor methodology) where are the reverse upsets against a supposed Sanders lead?
Those are just the big ones. That doesn't include where Sanders won in an upset with <5 point variance, or were Sanders out performed by >5 points but still lost. If I get time over the weekend I'll dig them up but they are there for you to find.
And if you really think Comey cost Clinton the election then you are one of the Democrats I'm talking about who is having a hard time being honest with themselves.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that main stream Democrats have a hard time being honest with themselves.
Late deciding voters? Or unwilling to self-report voters? When someone makes a prediction and turns out to be correct, they get the benefit of the doubt. In this case, Trump predicted the rust belt + Pennsylvania was in the bag for him when the polls made that statement laughable. He said because of a "silent majority." Or essentially, people unwilling to say outloud they would vote for him.
Look at the polls (the actual polls, not the aggregate estimators) 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 weeks out from the election, then look at the results Election Day. The polls were wrong.
The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead? How many times by MORE than 8 points? How many times did the polling error favor Bernie? You can't look at the primary season honestly and NOT see systemic polling bias in favor of Clinton, and nothing changed as far as polling between primaries and the general.
If you look back now, with the benefit of hindsight, and still can't see the polls were wrong (i.e., blaming it on reporting or saying that the nation-wide poll was close-ish) then you are having a problem accepting reality. AKA having a difficult time being honest with yourself.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Yeah, I have no need to engage with you on your fantasies about what I have or haven't bought into.
Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.
Generic Villain wrote:
I don't know. It's possible. But I have a pretty clear memory of an 8:00 AM (Central) Calculus II test (special integrations of trig functions) and someone getting up and leaving very upset in the middle of the test (I have no idea if that was related, but the timeline seems correct in retrospect.) Then after class heard some rumblings about a plane hitting the first tower but still very little info. Went to Physics and we covered projectile motion in class. (Instructor made a quip so it stuck) By the time that class was out at 11, the university had canceled classes for the rest of the day.
I mean, I guess it is possible that I filled in those blanks later. The woman who left the exam upset I could have mentally fudged the timeline to make myself believe that there was a correlation. But, for the rest, I don't think so.
I think the problem started when you thought that my reply to you meant that I disagreed with you.
The difference coming in that I think the democrats are responsible for the way they are perceived (vs being the republicans fault for perceiving them "wrongly") and I'm not sure that you or thejeff think that is the case.
Your question is irrelevant, the only thing that is important is perception. Democrats have a perception problem on this topic. It doesn't matter "What the most common words in HIllary Clinton's speeches," are. If it isn't selling, it isn't selling. The democrats need to own their image and that means managing more effectively.
So, anyway. I gave you a link to SHOW you the problem. The message Clinton gave didn't resonate. THAT's the problem.
Edit: I updated the link to go directly to the statistic I was talking about.
Absence of conversation carries a de facto meaning as well. Essentially *not* talking about the economic, social, health, and emotional realities/concerns of people leads them to (rightly or not) believe that the topics you *are* talking about are more important to you AND represent your priorities.
pres man wrote:
Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).
Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.
pres man wrote:
I think this is a great example of actually privileged individuals being completely ignorant about the actual reality of real human beings in the world.
Also, some people become alarmingly offended when a label is applied to them (while they think themselves fine as "normal"). Just ask about cis-gender.
Do you think there is any relation to it being such a clunky term? I mean trans-gender is also pretty clunky. When my dad transitioned in 2006 she had been living as a woman for about 7 years, but when she got the surgery it was still called, "sex reassignment surgery."
Now I believe the preferred term is "gender confirmation surgery." (EDIT: I realize that I was unclear that I meant this as indicative of a change in how we think about these topics, and that changing the name of the surgery is representative of a turning point in our thinking as a culture) Which kind of leaves "trans-gender" and "cis-gender" in an awkward place. I don't know that the terms actually do a good job of encapsulating what they are trying to get across.
Compare this to "hetrosexual" which I have never heard a heterosexual complain about being called / labeled.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
For what it is worth, BNW has said on more than one occasion (including in this thread) that it is the specific term "privilege" that draws his ire. And he even suggests "discriminated" would be more approachable.
The problem that I see is that "privilege" in the academic social equity sense has far different connotations from its use in common english. "Privilege" evokes wealth and leisurely lifestyle in common english. When academics tell the out-of-work divorcee with a back injury, no health insurance, no car insurance, child support arrears, and a landlord itching to boot him out of his home every 30 days that he is "privileged" it meets with a rightful, "F-you buddy." It also doesn't help that affluent college students / while collar workers tell him to, "check his privilege," and seem to actually mean it in the common english sense.
Essentially, beyond academia it is a non-starter term. But it is going to be difficult to get that guy on board with any social change that doesn't include him. When you need to be at (completely made up for demonstration purposes ==>) "Level 30" to be stable in life with room to breathe, the difference between level 10 and level 5 is moot. Yeah, he is sitting 5 levels ahead of the other person but that is still a far cry away from "privilege," and the academic sitting comfortably at level 50 telling him how "not being beaten by the police" is a "privilege" isn't helping to sell it.
At any rate; I don't think BNW (or myself for that matter) disagree with any of your positions on this matter. Me in particular, I don't have any issue with using "privilege," but I DO understand why so many people push back against it.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I would suggest that sampling and confirmation bias are strong in this response.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
While it may be comforting to believe this, it is far from the full answer. Democrats need to accept that Trump offered a message that people needed to hear so badly they were able to vote for him despite his clear and obvious faults.
There was also the time that Barbara Streisand combined the Triangle of Zinthar with the Triangle of Krewluck to form the Diamond of Pantheos and became Mecha-Streisand. And then Robert Smith and Sidney Poitier turn into a giant moth and turtle (respectively) and fight her.
Or the time that Mickey Mouse gains flight and a breath-weapon and terrorizes Denver CO.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Don't forget when Chef's mom captured Kenny's soul in a pot roast.
Then they shouldn't be telling media sources who they are planning to vote for. There should be a culture of silence about it. It should be an official rule of the Democratic Party that superdelegates are verboten to discuss their pick until 48 hours after the last primary. They should hold each other accountable by removing their superdelegate status if they indicate to anyone who they intend to vote for before that time.
I'm OK with superdelegate (not really, more like, I am prepared to accept the reality of them) but I'm not OK with one candidate being "behind" by 400+ delegates before the first vote is cast.
DM Beckett wrote:
Sorry, I seem to have stepped into my own miscommunication trap. I meant to say, "It looks like DM Beckett probably voted for HIllary (or abstained from voting) based on this quote."
I apparently flubbed that, so you know... carry on and stuff.
DM Beckett wrote:
anyone that voted for anyone else (which does not include me, by the way), besides Hillary
Except he says otherwise specifically.
EDIT: Also, I'm sorry for piling on after you apologized. I just know that it is frustrating to be accused of supporting the other guy just because you practice introspection and give a good faith attempt at academic honesty. Particularly when you go out of your way to state your affiliation.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.