Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

4,689 posts (4,734 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Squeakmaan wrote:
Sadly, that is due in large parts to very successful branding by republicans and aided in large parts by Sanders. It's patently false, but they are quite good at getting large groups to believe patently false ideas.
Which brings us back around to a comment I made on the third page of this thread.
BigDTBone wrote:
The problem is that Democrats suck at sales.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
What would you say is the base of the democratic party?

90's republicans


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

Looks like a fair amount of the youth are going for Le Pen.

Still not feeling confident about this.

On the radio yesterday I heard an interview with a French "political scientist," who said that there was no possible way that a populist movement could really take hold in France, and how people weren't stupid enough to let a shooting on the Champs-Élysées change their mind about a politician.

It was then that I knew Le Pen would win. Really no question at this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Trump is incompetent and unhinged. Pence is competent, but also unhinged. It's probably futile to predict which would end up being worse in practice; there are just too many variables.

There are not, to my knowledge, recordings of Pence bragging about committing sexual assault. So there's that...

He's just on the exact opposite end of the "women aren't people, they are just for men's uses" camp. He just avoids women because he may be seen as improper if he had even a professional relationship. He is incapable of picturing a woman as his chief of staff, for example. So he isn't any better than Trump in the war on women, he is just different.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
a well respected doctor

Unfortunately, this may not be true. Which is totally beside the point. His respectability and his profession should not be a consideration here. Though, as thejeff points out, it likely will be. His past will probably completely overwhelm the story and United will tiptoe out the back of the room during the mud slinging.


thejeff wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

They bumped four paying passengers for four United employees who needed to get to Louisville... which is apparently only a ~5 hour drive away. Why the f!ck didn't someone from United rent a damn car and drive the employees there?! How is that United employee more important than the doctor whose patients needed to be seen the next day and cwouldn't have time/be able to reschedule?!

Boycotting isn't enough. People from United and the CPD to be disciplined at a minimum, if not fired. And as for the CPD involved, they need to be investigated and their conduct written into their records; they absolutely should not be allowed to quit, so the investigation can be dropped, leaving their record clean to be re-hired at some other PD.

Well, if those employees needed to be in Louisville for a flight in 4 hours and not making it would lead to hundreds of other passengers being delayed ...

Perhaps they shouldn't overbook like that in the first place.

At this point, I think that chartering a plane for their employees (or booking them on a competitor) would have been cheaper than the ensuing fallout. In particular their Chinese market sales are looking to take a big hit.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Of course, actual facts don't matter. Just look at how many people blame Hillary Clinton for George Bush's trade deal.
This is a full-tilt strawman train running off the rails. Jesus.
Not every post is directed at you. There is a reason that was a stand alone post.

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:
Of course, actual facts don't matter. Just look at how many people blame Hillary Clinton for George Bush's trade deal.

This is a full-tilt strawman train running off the rails. Jesus.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Do you have some reason to think it's being ignored?
Doesn't fit his narrative of "Dey Took Er Jobs!"
Basically the same narrative that has people hating NAFTA.

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.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Do you have some reason to think it's being ignored?
Doesn't fit his narrative of "Dey Took Er Jobs!"

... ?


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.

Near as I can tell, it's probably based on this report. I haven't dug through the whole thing, but it looks like it's based on the last ~15 years and the basic argument is that manufacturing output has increased, but employment has shrunk. The difference between the workers that would have been needed at the old productivity rates and the actual numbers employed is what they're looking at.
So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.

I don't even under stand what you mean. "What-if"? How do you even talk about losses due to automation if you don't consider what it would have taken without the increased automation?

We are manufacturing more now than we were 15 years ago and we're using a lot less people to do it. No idea what "job expansion" you're talking about.

(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.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.

Watch this video and predict the number of forklift operators Amazon employs.

They do still employ a couple, but the number in comparison to a typical warehouse 10 or 15 years ago is very small. They aren't the only company to be using this kind of technology either. You better believe that UPS, Fedex, Walmart and Target are using more and more automated warehouses.

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?


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.

Near as I can tell, it's probably based on this report. I haven't dug through the whole thing, but it looks like it's based on the last ~15 years and the basic argument is that manufacturing output has increased, but employment has shrunk. The difference between the workers that would have been needed at the old productivity rates and the actual numbers employed is what they're looking at.

So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.


Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

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!!!


CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Much of the reason for the relative "sanity" of the GWB years was that the Democrats were not the party that was as far out in the wilderness as they are now. They had control of the House of Representatives and were an effective counter. Now they are a minority in both houses, and Trump is about to appoint his tie breaker to the Supreme Court. Unlike GWB, Trump has a unified party in control of Congress and he'll likely be rubberstamping a lot of bills they're going to be passing his way.
The House, Senate, and Supreme Court were all under GOP control from 2003 thru 2007... during GWB's presidency.

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.


thejeff wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Just as an aside, I think the term "purity" for caring about economically-progressive policies is misleading. In fact, the people pushing for those policies want LESS "purity," in the sense that they want more than one issue to be tackled -- economy as well as civil rights. In that sense, they're actually pushing for 50% less purity.

I know it's not intended as any kind of Orwellian double-speak, but that's how it strikes me.

Well, "purity" isn't intended to mean "cares about economically-progressive politics", but "will abandon the Democratic party if they're not sufficiently economically progressive, screwing us all over by putting the Republicans back in charge".

It is equally fair to say the party abandoned them and screwed us all by putting the republicans in charge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
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...


Samy wrote:
Quote:
If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?
I think you'll find most people who think you stole their car keys won't proceed anywhere until you give back their car keys, whether you stole them or not.

So much this. Maybe you didn't steal them, but your BFF put them in your pocket.


Irontruth wrote:

I bet if you asked most people who Debbie Wasserman-Schulz is/was and what responsibilities the DNC chair has, a lot of them wouldn't be able to tell you.

It's like arguing over the 3rd base coach of the Cleveland Indians and expecting that to significantly change the outcome of the World Series.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?
The case was dropped back in October. Prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence of crime to proceed.

being arrested for something you said is not cool either. I mean it's "only" armed people locking you up, strip searching you, throwing you in a cell with criminals, and threatening to send you to jail for a long time.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.

Tell the Air Traffic Controllers that.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

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.

I don't have to present evidence you're wrong. You've presented bad data, made assumptions based that bad data, then when confronted with the fact that you didn't have good data, claimed you were right all along anyways. I've already identified that your methodology at arriving at conclusions is sloppy and inaccurate. If your method of seeking answers provides a correct one, it is through luck or reliance on parroting things you've heard with no understanding.

To use your analogy, you don't actually know that the thing is a wood chipper. You've heard about wood chippers and think this might be one based on the vague description, but there's a chance it's a paper shredder too. You're also asserting that because you shouldn't put your hand in it, that the machine should be avoided at all costs and everyone should consider it useless. You're asserting that because there is a chance of danger, it is impossible for it to be useful.

In this instance, you are not Gregor Mendel. You are an anti-vaxxer.

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.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It kind of amuses me to have the discussion here keep switching back and forth between "It's the corporatism" and "It's the political correctness", with both those groups basically arguing with the same people and ignoring each other.
Corporatism drives out the far left and political corectness draws out the right of the party/middle of the country.

That's probably a fair assessment. Obviously Democrats should ditch both.

Become a labor/socialist party that never ever talks about racism or sexism or any kind of prejudice. That'll guarantee they sweep every state.

Add in some pacifism too, because everyone knows the US only uses the military for corporate ends. That'll get more votes.

Non sequitur much?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:
To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.
BigDTBone 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.

I disagree. It presupposes only that the audience is sophisticated enough to discriminate what is said, and to be able to evaluate the soundness of the speakers. I'm talking here about universities, and not about TV talk shows.

But I agree that if one wants to spread one's ideas, one of the best things to do is to find venues where those ideas can be discussed earnestly. I'm sure there are currently in the USA places (on the web, surely) where one can find intellectually honest Republicans or intellectually honest Democrats, or similarly honest independents, to debate controversial ideas.

If you posit a priori that there's no intellectual honesty to be found anywhere in the opposite party, you're creating the very same divisiveness which is currently tearing your country apart.

To an outside observer, the similarities between two irreconcilable enemies are often striking.

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.

For example:

Doxxing, good or bad?
Rape Culture or Boys will be Boys?
Homosexuality, an aberrant lifestyle guaranteed to bring unhappiness. Yes or No?

Treating those discussions as reasonable to have in a public forum is normalizing vileness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quiche Lisp wrote:

Regarding universities:

those institutions harken to the Middle Ages, when theologians and other learned persons engaged in regular debates called "disputatios", which pitted two speakers against one another, with all the rigour of logic and the sophistication of rethorics, with the goal of enlightening a broad audience about the subject matter at hand.

Students who refuse today to have strong debates held in their alma matter are, to my opinion, disrespecting and antagonizing the heart and soul of the institution which they are part of.

To refuse to be challenged about one's ideas, in a safe and learned environment, makes one weak and pusillanimous in his life at large. How sad.

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.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
3. How did it compare to other polls?
BigDTBone wrote:
EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.

Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?

Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.

You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.

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.

I bolded the relevant portion of your post.

It's an unconvincing argument.

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.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
3. How did it compare to other polls?
BigDTBone wrote:
EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.

Are you claiming there were two polls in Oregon?

Edit: even still, you're not actually comparing a poll to another poll. I'm calling you out on your lack of specifics. In that line, you still have no specifics.

You're making a claim to being right as you talk in vague generalities with implications of data, but no actual data. You're arriving at conclusions based on what you think is true, without actually looking at facts.

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.


Irontruth wrote:
You sound like you got lucky that reality happened

Also, just to get back to my original statement. If you can look back at the 2016 election, with the benefit of hindsight, and STILL not see a strong Clinton polling bias then you are having a hard time being honest with yourself.


Irontruth wrote:
3. How did it compare to other polls?
BigDTBone wrote:
EVERY MAJOR POLL had Clinton ahead by AT LEAST 5 points. It wasn't just one poll. It was the average, it was the trend.


Irontruth wrote:

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Also, pay up. I accept Paizo gift cards


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.

Sanders wins by 10.2 points, local news station poll 7-10 days before the vote shows Clinton in lead by 15

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...

Let me get this straight, you cited verifiably incorrect information and you're acting smug about it?

I literally just caught you forming opinions on invalid data. Maybe... just maybe, instead of acting like a know-it-all, do some research and actually think critically about some things.

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?


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.
Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.
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.
When we get to those who want Obamacare destroyed but think they'll be okay because they get their health insurance through the ACA, we can be pretty sure about it. Or those who think they'll actually get coal jobs back.

I don't disagree with you about that. But it is still a dangerous place to be.


pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.
Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.

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.


Irontruth wrote:

If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.

Sanders wins by 10.2 points, local news station poll 7-10 days before the vote shows Clinton in lead by 15

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...


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


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.
How many times did he? You tell me. The only big one I remember was Michigan.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

There wasn't really a large polling bias, though. There was a disastrous reporting bias about the polling.

(HRC won the national vote, and lost hard in late-deciding voters. Lead-up polls were basically right.)

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself
This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.
This is especially true once you buy into the republican narrative...

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.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself

This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.


Generic Villain wrote:

As a fellow psych grad I think they're interesting, certainly, but more as a "hey, did you know this cool fact?" sort of trivia thing. Fun and largely harmless factoids to bust out at parties or on first dates, but ultimately just one of the vagaries of the human mind.

That's not an effort to disparage your own interest of course. I think tons of things the human brain does are fascinating and would love to wax philosophical about them for hours if I could - my friends though? Usually not so much.

The phenomena that I find particularly disturbing isn't necessarily Mandela Effects, but it's close. People who misremember key moments in their own personal lives and, over time and as a a result of continually retelling themselves these false/revised histories, come to believe them as reality. That old adage of "everyone remembers where they were when they heard about JFK's assassination/the Challenger explosion/9/11"? Nope. Sorry, those crystal clear flashbulb memories are just as susceptible to self-deception as any other. There's a statistically significant chance that, in fact, every single person is remembering these events incorrectly. Think you know where you were and what you were doing when you heard about the Twin Towers? You're probably wrong.

That's spooky.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

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.

Reread the question. Please address the question.

I don't care about your theory of what the problem is, unless you can SHOW me the problem.

For example, here's an article that does a break down of key words in Clinton's speeches.

Huh, interesting that when I read that article, it seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. That's so weird. Perhaps you have something you can refute that with? Other than just your opinion that is.

Breaking voters down by issue, "improving economic conditions" break for Trump 48/43

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loch ness monster wrote:

!!! >.>

<.< !!!

^.^.....>.>

Seriously though can I get about tree fiddy?

Nice novelty alias. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

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:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?

Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

What do people think about the Brookings Institute's claim that the best way for anyone to move out of poverty is: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?

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.


Scythia wrote:
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

We can all agree that poverty sucks, and sucks more if you are a minority. But, that doesn't change the fact that humans are loss-averse by nature. We are irrational. When you frame the conversation around "privilege" that the majority must lose or give up to achieve equality, you are setting yourself against deep mental heuristics.

If progressives would apply all those psych principles we spent so much studying and what we now know about the mind, we could reframe the discussion in terms of the minority "handicap" instead. Something rich, white golfers can understand immediately, and poor, white Americans are less likely to resist.

Messaging matters. You can share all the same facts in two different ways and get wildly different responses.

It looks like the original post is now gone, but I've deliberately never used "privilege/privileged" because of that negative reaction. I had been trying to come at from the other side using "disadvantaged", but that will likely be provocative too. "Handicap" will likely be the same.

I am at a loss for describing or even acknowledging the basic inequities built into the system without pissing off those who don't face those same challenges. And we can't attempt to fix a problem if we can't even discuss it.

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:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.

And...

Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
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.

Maybe. But most Trump voters I know fall into two camps:

1. Blatant bigots, of the "Islam is evil" variety.
2. People who just really, really hated Clinton.

I would suggest that sampling and confirmation bias are strong in this response.

1 to 50 of 4,689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

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.