Sure, I don’t disagree. I’m just saying your average 18 year old is very impressionable.
I’ve said like 3 times now it could just be a factor and it makes no difference to my point.
Lol, okay, whatever Ed.
@pfury here ya go, buddy.
This is utter nonsense. I’m not even going to respond to it further than this.
Ya, no.
Ya, no.
I think we’re done here.
So you don’t genuinely believe plural anecdotes =/= data?
TBH, so is your average ‘insert every age here’. The average American is pretty damn stupid.
I do get your point though. To me, there’s a mountain of problems with higher education. To take away any amount of responsibility from the student without cause only distracts from the bigger problems that are solely at the feet of the system.
You’re a good poster, Ed, and I genuinely enjoy your POV since it’s very different than my own, but you can be incredibly ideological rigid sometimes. I honestly have no idea why you are defending this chart so vehemently?
Bottom line:
I’m a white taxpayer and I support education spend.
I’m a white taxpayer and I support SGI specific education spend.
Pew polled a bunch of people, the vast majority support more more spending on education. Even a Republicans majority supported higher spending on education.
We spent $7B on SGI programs under President Obama. I assume this was at least partially funded by white taxpayers.
Education spending is the 3rd largest discretionary budget item.
The notion that “white taxpayers” not wanting to “waste money” on SGI education is a root/perpetuating cause of SGI outcomes is both complete nonsense and bias political ideology.
I’m out, have a good day.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_plural_of_anecdote_is_not_data
Plain and simple, because it is being wildly misinterpreted. IMO, of course.
As you yourself have admitted that some portion of white taxpayers will express this exact sentiment, I’m baffled as to how you can now dismiss it as “complete nonsense.” I also don’t know why you are so defensive about the notion of white taxpayers being reluctant to be taxed more heavily to support programs and institutions that, to their mind, have failed to respond to an infusion of money previously. There’s nothing remotely racist about such an attitude, but you and others insist the author is labeling white people as such.
You too.
I’m not talking about the misuse of anecdotes. I’m talking about a pure anecdote and it’s relation to (being what comprises) data.
Allow me, if I may, to draw a parallel here (that I apologize for in advance). Months ago, the news dropped that a high level meeting happened in Trump tower between his campaign and Russian peeps, 3 floors beneath Trump’s office.
Logically, the conclusion was drawn that Trump knew it was happening and/or it had happened, and this countered his previous statement about never having any contact with Russia. Then Raj chimes in, that without PROOF (i.e. a smoking gun) or an admission of guilt from Trump himself, there is absolutely nothing that shows Trump had any knowledge of the meeting. Even entertaining the idea that Trump knew about it was fake news without the absolute concrete smoking gun he was looking for.
Now in a literal translation of the events as we know them, Raj is 100% correct. With zero application of common sense or any type of basic logic, absolutely nothing PROVES Trump knew about this meeting having ever occurred.
My question to you is this. Do you, personally, believe Trump knew about the existence of that meeting? Do you apply your common sense to that instance or do you take them at face value as Raj did? (I promise there’s a point here)
Okay, sorry, one last post before I head to lunch.
It is because the author is saying “white taxpayers” as in the majority of white taxpayers. Where as I am aware there are some white taxpayers that feel SGI spending is a waste; however, the majority do not feel this way. Imo, I’ve supported that with quite a bit of evidence.
Becuause I am a part of the group (white taxpayers) whose actions the author has determine is one of the causes of SGI failure based on what I believe is a mischaracterization of that group. It would be like if I said:
Black people are lazy → Black people are unemployed or underemployed or unemployable → black people have low self-esteem / black people don’t meet socieites labor expectations → black people are lazy.
I don’t think black people are lazy. I dare say, I don’t think the majority are lazy, but it’s a similiar concept.
If a hard working black person read that don’t you think they might be a little defensive?
When I mentioned it being racist I was being mostly facetous. I understand he was referring to the dominante group, which happens to be white people (even though I think it’s poor word choice at best).
I simply think it’s wrong for the reasons mentioned.
‘Some Portion’ does not equate to a majority; a small minority does not have the voting numbers to significantly reduce taxes for SGI education. Therefor, how can one determine that a group who is against SGI ED spending, but does not have the political numbers to sway a voting decision, can be a cause of SGI inequity.
Also, unless the author is of middle-eastern descent (or other regions where you read in a different order than English), every kinder aged kid knows to start in the top left corner and read left to right. As that is the starting place. It’s a coinky-dink that the author just happened to place the puzzle pieces the way he did.
"Incidents like this one are, indeed, quite unusual, but hundreds of couples are admitted to the hospital every year in the U.S. after getting stuck together during sexual intercourse.
According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 3,213 couples were hospitalized for such problems across the country in 2015 and 3,789 in 2016.
According to the same data, the Morrisons are the first couple to be hospitalized for a head stuck inside a vaginal cavity since October 2007."
Holy cow, I lead a sheltered life.
I guess I don’t know what a “pure” (as opposed to impure?) anecdote is.
I disagree with this premise. While it is/was certainly reasonable to suspect Trump knew, and ascertaining/exploring whether he knew is an obvious and legitimate line of investigation, anyone then (or now) who concludes that Trump knew is, IMO, out over their skis.
As alluded to above, I think there is a good chance Trump knew. But I have never made any statement to the effect ‘Of course Trump knew,’ or ‘Trump must have known,’ etc. I can say in all honesty that I have not reached a conclusion one way or the other.
I have read all your posts (that were directed at me), and while you have included some data concerning education, I don’t recall any that focused specifically on the issue of white-taxpayer attitudes regarding increasing funding for struggling, predominantly-SGI schools. My sincere apologies if I missed it, but would you mind re-posting it for me?
The author has said that you (since you personalized it) perceive–correctly–that SGI do not demonstrate achievement per standard cultural measures. That is, they objectively underperform in terms of achievement tests, graduation rates, etc. Given this, it would be perfectly reasonable if you were to respond by saying ‘Why should I give this school system more of my hard-earned money, when it is clearly to no avail?’ Note that there is no racial animus implied by the Figure–it includes nothing about negative racial attitudes among white folk. It simply suggests white taxpayers are responding in an unsurprising manner to what is by most accounts a failed/failing system. Thus, the notion that your group is being singled out as a cause of SGI failure is an unwarranted inference to draw from the Figure.
In short, you are reacting defensively when no one is attacking you.
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. We are far, far down the rabbit hole now.
Maybe pure was the wrong word. The example you shared was one such that drinking water cures cancer. That doesn’t meet the definition of anecdote. Maybe what I meant to say was a “real” anecdote, as in an actual anecdote.
Which is exactly what Raj said, when he too refused to apply common sense and logic to something that happened.
It’s a thought experiment. Luckily, they don’t have be based in reality.
We spent $7B specifically on SGI programs under Obama and Baltimore City is the third most funded district out of the top 100 in the country (and they receive SGI funding).
I didn’t say that it did. I’ve said several times now that the supposed action/stance of an entire group have been inaccurately cited as a cause in the perpetuation of the cycle being discussed when the evidence does not support this.
The evidence I’ve present is:
That’s a matter of interpretation, apparently, and we’re now at the proverbial agree to disagree.
Is the student really to blame when the indoctrination begins in elementary school?
You’re sitting in class at the University of Baltimore with 29 other students. This chart is presented.
How many students will think White Taxpayers are to blame, even if just partially, for the negative outcomes of SGI’s and how many do you think will just accept this as a statement of fact with zero meaning behind the use of “white taxpayer”?
UB is about 34% white 47% black.
I don’t believe “indoctrination” begins anywhere, let alone in elementary school. Even if it did, I’d still blame the student.
Probably most of them. It’s hard to present something and ask people to not take logical steps in their heads.
OK, I understand your position now.
Wow, this thread is official back on track.
Edit: not being sarcastic about the discussion, that is just a ridiculous video
The Darwin award goes to this guy.
I have no idea what he was supposedly chanting, but I assume it was, “Hold my beer, and watch this!”
Going to try and make @anon71262119’s head explode:
"To the list of forbidden ideas on American college campuses, add “bourgeois norms”—hard work, self-discipline, marriage and respect for authority. Last month, two law professors published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the “cultural script” that prevailed in the 1950s and still does among affluent Americans: “Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. . . . Eschew substance abuse and crime.” The weakening of these traditional norms has contributed to today’s low rates of workforce participation, lagging educational levels and widespread opioid abuse, the professors argued.
The op-ed triggered an immediate uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, where one of its authors, Amy Wax, teaches. The dean of the Penn law school, Ted Ruger, published an op-ed in the student newspaper noting the “contemporaneous occurrence” of the op-ed and a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., and suggesting that Ms. Wax’s views were “divisive, even noxious.” Half of Ms. Wax’s law-faculty colleagues signed an open letter denouncing her piece and calling on students to report any “bias or stereotype” they encounter “at Penn Law ” (e.g., in Ms. Wax’s classroom). Student and alumni petitions poured forth accusing Ms. Wax of white supremacy, misogyny and homophobia and demanding that she be banned from teaching first-year law classes.
Ms. Wax’s co-author, Larry Alexander, teaches at the University of San Diego, a Catholic institution. USD seemed to be taking the piece in stride—until last week. The dean of USD’s law school, Stephen Ferruolo, issued a schoolwide memo repudiating Mr. Alexander’s article and pledging new measures to compensate “vulnerable, marginalized” students for the “racial discrimination and cultural subordination” they experience."