Let me know when Vermont actually has a representative minority population. Then let’s see the numbers.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?[/quote]
The point is that both sets of data rely on the integrity of the respondent. As far as I know there has never been a comprehensive study where a 3rd party does the measuring. [/quote]
By that line of reasoning, there should be even MORE people who could be categorized as racist. Those in the study SMH posted voluntarily self-identified as such. What part of a dick doctor measuring someone’s erect penis don’t you understand?[/quote]
Exactly, and the vast majority could also identify as Northern, Democrats, or both…
Dick doctors don’t measure, that is the point.The studies are based on the integrity of the respondent. [/quote]
Dude, you don’t understand how basic social science methodology works and I frankly don’t have the patience to explain it to you. The fact that you’re trying to equate between a qualitative and qualitative study is indicative of that much.
Some studies were self reported, others were measured by a laboratory attendant trained to do just that. Guess which ones had the smaller mean measurements?
[/quote]
Lol, I don’t really give a fuck if you don’t have the patience or not.
I have never heard or seen a single study where a clinician physically measured a males genitalia. Maybe you have, you could of just said that. I only wrote that 3 times now.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
By that line of reasoning, there should be even MORE people who could be categorized as racist. [/quote]
This is kinda the point.
And just because someone is okay with a black/white marriage doesn’t mean they aren’t racist, doesn’t mean the person polled was white, and largely doesn’t speak to any larger issues.
I mean, the time it takes to accumulate the wealth to move from one state to another could be measure in generations for some people. However, how come black populations are still heavily concentrated in these places “the data suggest” are where the glut of racists are, when NYC/Detroit/Chicago have represented amounts of black people yet VT is baron.
If this is where the racist are? Why are the black people there? And if their are such a low amount of racists in VT, why AREN’T the black people there?[/quote]
You’re wrong Mr. College Education over here said so. He’s an expert on all things after all.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You’re talking about “why.” I’m talking about what is.
Do you contend that I’m wrong? [/quote]
I contend that your thoughts on the matter, specifically on the data stop at confirmation bias. And you have that confirmation bias because of cultural manipulation.
Factually you may be correct until you are blue in the face stating it, because the data itself is limited, and the analysis of it even more so.
Wow. Take Vermont for example, in table 2 on page 6. They have like the 4th highest incarceration rate for blacks in the country…
Damn, look at their white to black incarceration ratio.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wow. Take Vermont for example, in table 2 on page 6. They have like the 4th highest incarceration rate for blacks in the country…
Damn, look at their white to black incarceration ratio.[/quote]
Mississippi: 3 to 1
Vermont: 12 to 1
But, because polling data says more people in Mississippi aren’t cool with interracial marriage, Mississippi has more racists and seeing as it is republican and VT democrat, it must be true…
Vermont is 99 to 1, white to black, but 12 to 1 black in prison to whites, yet… get this, data suggests they aren’t racists to the same degree as southern states.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wow. Take Vermont for example, in table 2 on page 6. They have like the 4th highest incarceration rate for blacks in the country…
Damn, look at their white to black incarceration ratio.[/quote]
Mississippi: 3 to 1
Vermont: 12 to 1
But, because polling data says more people in Mississippi aren’t cool with interracial marriage, Mississippi has more racists and seeing as it is republican and VT democrat, it must be true…
[/quote]
I think it’s a case of “Well, I’d rarely be around it (cause what blacks we have are in prison /wink).” Normalize the demographics first, then let’s see those numbers again.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Is your argument that Democratic attacks are being effective? [/quote]
Using this article, which is pointing out the massive disconnect with realty and history that the modern leftist has, I’m making an argument that really, at base levels, boils down to:
“Don’t trust the government, and even less so, the people who aren’t in power that are fighting for those in power.”
Here we have a current “party”, a tribe, who’s history is riddled with “being on the wrong side of things”, now trying to play the moral champion. Some of their current positions will end up much the same as their position on slavery and fascism. And I see, daily, the cultish worship of their current leader, and past leaders.
I mean shit, I can’t wait to watch the feminists contort themselves to explain away how they support Hilary. A women too weak and foolish to leave a man who was ass fucking everything with a wet hole, and lied about it. I love watching these people hate on Brewer for vetoing the AZ bill, but still love the POTUS who signed DOMA…
People who are supposed stand for individual liberty and the constitution, stand by and let things like ACA (sorta), patriot Act, NSA spying, IRS targeting, American citizens droned without due process while driving to work…
No the republican’s aren’t saints, but good god man… [/quote]
I guess I don’t see the distinction. I mean hating on Democrats in 2014 for stuff from the 1800’s or something doesn’t make much sense. Nor do I see how the Republicans are different in this regard.
This is different from the worship of Ronald Reagan? A man who raised the debt ceiling numerous times and the national debt was tripled under his watch? (I know, I know Republicans that was the Democrats fault).
You mean like the hypocrisy of a side being against the NSA that was largely in charge when most of these civil liberty issues began? The side that hates on President Obama’s decisions yet defended similar ones by President Bush (and elected him twice).
A party that supposedly talks about the Constitutions yet the last time they were in power they repeatedly raped it? A party that sent out stimulus checks to people, raised the debt ceiling repeatedly, went to war in two different places for a massive amount of years, PASSED the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, passed TARP, used numerous executive orders? Oh yeah, and they did a lot of this IN CONJUNCTION with the Democrats?
Like I said I don’t see any differences. I’m surprised one does. Then again you’ve really gotta do some weird rationalizations to scream Benghazi all day long a few years after defending the Iraq War left and right from those liberal pussies who wanted the terrorists to win.
I guess I just think the tribe you are discussing and the other tribe have basically been the same over the past 30 years and drawing distinctions has largely been based on changing metrics to make whichever side one likes look good.
Just the way I see it.
I mean I’m amazed one can rationally be angered at Obama but defend Bush. And yet how many Republicans have done just that? Hell they have so much in common I can’t even begin to imagine that.
Yet when you point that out here comes the defense…just like what the liberals do when I say you know Obama is a lot like Bush…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Vermont is 99 to 1, white to black, but 12 to 1 black in prison to whites, yet… get this, data suggests they aren’t racists to the same degree as southern states. [/quote]
Anyone who lives in the south can attest to that much. You cannot ignore historical and social contexts by cheery picking and misinterpreting data which is underpinned by sound methodology.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
That is a legitimate question. I think it’s probably better than penis-length data, which strike me and my eleven-inch dick as the most unreliable sort that exist.
However, the data I’m referring to are gathered by some of the best polling firms on the planet. If that’s worth anything, it adds weight to my claim. Also, even accounting for ambiguity and imperfection, the breadth of the gap between the different rates of racism is a statistically significant one.
Do I think I can say, “There are exactly X number of racists in Alabama, and Y number among Republican voters, and Z number among New Yorkers?” Absolutely not. What I can say is that the data we have points in one decided and unanimous direction, which it does. From that, I can say that I understand why a black guy is reluctant to throw his weight behind a political machine that accommodates an inordinate number of people who think he should be legally barred from marrying their white daughters. [/quote]
Even the most respected polling agency has to rely on the integrity of the respondent in a survey like this. We can assume an even distribution of those that are liars, but we have no real way, that I can think of, to actually confirm this. Perhaps the people in the bible belt are more honest and thus skew the numbers. Maybe it’s the opposite and there are actually far more racist in the south. We really can’t know, which is my point. [/quote]
By this standard, there is almost nothing we can really know.
Earlier in the thread, I made the point that in all of these arguments, statements are tacitly preceded by “the evidence suggests.”
But the inherent imperfection of all political measurement does not make all measurements into rubbish.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You’re talking about “why.” I’m talking about what is.
Do you contend that I’m wrong? [/quote]
I contend that your thoughts on the matter, specifically on the data stop at confirmation bias. And you have that confirmation bias because of cultural manipulation.
Factually you may be correct until you are blue in the face stating it, because the data itself is limited, and the analysis of it even more so. [/quote]
The data is limited–I have said as much many times–but what good data there is paints one, unanimous picture. As for analysis and confirmation bias, neither figures into the simple contention: The evidence suggests that more Republican and conservative voters are racists. There is no analysis there–it is mechanical.
Edit: Anti-black racists.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Vermont is 99 to 1, white to black, but 12 to 1 black in prison to whites, yet… get this, data suggests they aren’t racists to the same degree as southern states. [/quote]
What is the point of this? Blacks have high incarceration rates? And whites have very low rates in places like Vermont? Very true.
Doesn’t say a single thing about the opinion polling.
[quote]H factor wrote:
You mean like the hypocrisy of a side being against the NSA that was largely in charge when most of these civil liberty issues began? The side that hates on President Obama’s decisions yet defended similar ones by President Bush (and elected him twice).
A party that supposedly talks about the Constitutions yet the last time they were in power they repeatedly raped it? A party that sent out stimulus checks to people, raised the debt ceiling repeatedly, went to war in two different places for a massive amount of years, PASSED the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, passed TARP, used numerous executive orders? Oh yeah, and they did a lot of this IN CONJUNCTION with the Democrats?
…[/quote]
Yes, I was calling out republicans with that part.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Vermont is 99 to 1, white to black, but 12 to 1 black in prison to whites, yet… get this, data suggests they aren’t racists to the same degree as southern states. [/quote]
What is the point of this? Blacks have high incarceration rates? And whites have very low rates in places like Vermont? Very true.
Doesn’t say a single thing about the opinion polling.[/quote]
It says a lot, an awful lot. Particularly when contrasted with the opinion polling.
It makes sense to you, that 1% of a population makes up 90+% of a prison population in that area, yet that area shows up as “not racist” in the opinion polling?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Vermont is 99 to 1, white to black, but 12 to 1 black in prison to whites, yet… get this, data suggests they aren’t racists to the same degree as southern states. [/quote]
Anyone who lives in the south can attest to that much. You cannot ignore historical and social contexts by cheery picking and misinterpreting data which is underpinned by sound methodology.[/quote]
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Vermont is 99 to 1, white to black, but 12 to 1 black in prison to whites, yet… get this, data suggests they aren’t racists to the same degree as southern states. [/quote]
What is the point of this? Blacks have high incarceration rates? And whites have very low rates in places like Vermont? Very true.
Doesn’t say a single thing about the opinion polling.[/quote]
It says a lot, an awful lot. Particularly when contrasted with the opinion polling.
It makes sense to you, that 1% of a population makes up 90+% of a prison population in that area, yet that area shows up as “not racist” in the opinion polling?
[/quote]
Of course it does.
If not, then the implication is that the racial demographics of a state’s prison population speak to the racial attitudes of that state’s legislative and legal systems and not to the crime rates of the respective racial groups. Which is liberal hogwash, with a few exceptions in the area of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes (which is a cross-regional and cross-party problem).
In other words, that most prisoners in Vermont are black is absolutely not evidence that Vermont is a politically racist state. And it’s certainly not comparable to the evidence I’ve provided, which entails people admitting that they want to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws.
Again, we can talk about perception all we’d like, but the data that exists supports my original claim exactly.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
That is a legitimate question. I think it’s probably better than penis-length data, which strike me and my eleven-inch dick as the most unreliable sort that exist.
However, the data I’m referring to are gathered by some of the best polling firms on the planet. If that’s worth anything, it adds weight to my claim. Also, even accounting for ambiguity and imperfection, the breadth of the gap between the different rates of racism is a statistically significant one.
Do I think I can say, “There are exactly X number of racists in Alabama, and Y number among Republican voters, and Z number among New Yorkers?” Absolutely not. What I can say is that the data we have points in one decided and unanimous direction, which it does. From that, I can say that I understand why a black guy is reluctant to throw his weight behind a political machine that accommodates an inordinate number of people who think he should be legally barred from marrying their white daughters. [/quote]
Even the most respected polling agency has to rely on the integrity of the respondent in a survey like this. We can assume an even distribution of those that are liars, but we have no real way, that I can think of, to actually confirm this. Perhaps the people in the bible belt are more honest and thus skew the numbers. Maybe it’s the opposite and there are actually far more racist in the south. We really can’t know, which is my point. [/quote]
By this standard, there is almost nothing we can really know.
Earlier in the thread, I made the point that in all of these arguments, statements are tacitly preceded by “the evidence suggests.”
But the inherent imperfection of all political measurement does not make all measurements into rubbish.[/quote]
True, I just think this is one of those cases where bias plays a strong role though.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Vermont is 99 to 1, white to black, but 12 to 1 black in prison to whites, yet… get this, data suggests they aren’t racists to the same degree as southern states. [/quote]
What is the point of this? Blacks have high incarceration rates? And whites have very low rates in places like Vermont? Very true.
Doesn’t say a single thing about the opinion polling.[/quote]
It says a lot, an awful lot. Particularly when contrasted with the opinion polling.
It makes sense to you, that 1% of a population makes up 90+% of a prison population in that area, yet that area shows up as “not racist” in the opinion polling?
[/quote]
Of course it does.
If not, then the implication is that the racial demographics of a state’s prison population speak to the racial attitudes of that state’s legislative and legal systems and not to the crime rates of the respective racial groups. Which is liberal hogwash, with a few exceptions in the area of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes (which is a cross-regional and cross-party problem).
In other words, that most prisoners in Vermont are black is absolutely not evidence that Vermont is a politically racist state. And it’s certainly not comparable to the evidence I’ve provided, which entails people admitting that they want to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws.
Again, we can talk about perception all we’d like, but the data that exists supports my original claim exactly.[/quote]
Come on, now. Either blacks in Vermont have some hyper-criminality going on in what I thought was supposed to be a bastion of progressive life (and it badly failed), or there is a bit of “listen to what I say, don’t pay attention to what I actually do” going on. Now, what might be one reason the black population is so low? Because even the good ole boys of Alabama aren’t packing them into prisons at the rate of Vermont.
If their demographics even remotely reflected the southern states, and they actually had to come into contact with minorities on a regular basis (you know, instead of having to work at the prison to do so)…Oh, how I’d love to see how the responses then.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
True, I just think this is one of those cases where bias plays a strong role though.[/quote]
Without intending to insult you in any way whatsoever, I think that’s more a natural reaction to the situation–you aren’t at all racist, and you’d rather the people with whom you tend to agree not be racist at a higher rate than other political groups.
In other words, without denying that a measure of imprecision is built into the structure of literally all political polling, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that the data I’ve provided reflects actual trends.
In still other words, the imprecision of polling and analysis and that horrible word (“context”) almost always come up when unpleasant facts–facts that aren’t gathered differently from all the others that we use every day–are being dealt with.