MAGAThread XVI: Raising the Barr

[Telconi]

That should be obvious.

Not really. You could have been insinuating that comparisons are hard for me, in which case it would have been a dismissive and contemptuous "no" by implication without actually saying "no." Of course, it also could have been a concession that, because comparisons are "hard" or, inexact, that that would yes, have been a concern.

I can't, of course, imagine why you wouldn't want to give a plain answer to a question that highlights a certain inconsistency on your part, but whatever.

I'm sure you could illustrate what this inconsistency is.

[Duhon]

So when did America stop being Great, and why?

Jk, the decline started before them. 1965 did it in for us.

If Nixon had won in 1960 and not that thug shanty Irish alcoholic, we would have never gotten the '65 immigration act.

... oi, oi, this is the 1850s, not a year before 2020. Get your inclusivist shit outta here! Embrace your inner bigot and hate on the Irish again!

Like, Jesus fucking Christ why is conservatism these days so bloody hidebound?

[Bear Stearns]

Given that Ms. Carroll is an avowed liberal who hates the president and who has written several articles on how awful men are, it's hard to take her seriously here.

Because the veracity of criminal complaints are so often determined by the political positions of the accuser...

The point is she has a clear motive to lie.

[Cannot think of a name]

Because the veracity of criminal complaints are so often determined by the political positions of the accuser...

The point is she has a clear motive to lie.

Alternatively, having been assaulted by Trump while watching men make excuses for him might make her hate the president and his apologists.

[Proctopeo]

The point is she has a clear motive to lie.

Alternatively, having been assaulted by Trump while watching men make excuses for him might make her hate the president and his apologists.

Regardless of the root cause of her hatred for men, the fact she does only serves to damage her credibility.

[Gravlen]

Because the veracity of criminal complaints are so often determined by the political positions of the accuser...

The point is she has a clear motive to lie.

What's her motive to lie?

I think Trump is an awful president. How does that give me a motive to lie about him?

[Gravlen]

Alternatively, having been assaulted by Trump while watching men make excuses for him might make her hate the president and his apologists.

Regardless of the root cause of her hatred for men, the fact she does only serves to damage her credibility.

That's an illogical rationale for dismissing her claims.

"Oh so you say that you were assaulted by multiple men, and as a result you think men are awful? Well that casts serious doubts as to whether you've actually been assaulted."

*Does not compute*

[Proctopeo]

Regardless of the root cause of her hatred for men, the fact she does only serves to damage her credibility.

That's an illogical rationale for dismissing her claims.

"Oh so you say that you were assaulted by multiple men, and as a result you think men are awful? Well that casts serious doubts as to whether you've actually been assaulted."

*Does not compute*

That's not illogical, and I'm not dismissing, just advocating for heavier scrutiny.
Why shouldn't we be more skeptical of a claim made by someone who hates the demographic from which the alleged perpetrators were from? Input any crime (that has a victim) and any demographic, it works just the same.

At the very least, it deserves more scrutiny than "double check Wikipedia to make sure she's a woman", which seems to be the standard these days.

[Krogon]

Hey guys, United States here. Please help my country, I'm scared.

[Telconi]

That's an illogical rationale for dismissing her claims.

"Oh so you say that you were assaulted by multiple men, and as a result you think men are awful? Well that casts serious doubts as to whether you've actually been assaulted."

*Does not compute*

That's not illogical, and I'm not dismissing, just advocating for heavier scrutiny.
Why shouldn't we be more skeptical of a claim made by someone who hates the demographic from which the alleged perpetrators were from? Input any crime (that has a victim) and any demographic, it works just the same.

At the very least, it deserves more scrutiny than "double check Wikipedia to make sure she's a woman", which seems to be the standard these days.

"David Duke accuses prominent black politician of personally burglarizing his home"

Yup, nothing suspicious about that at all...

[Northern Davincia]

I take issue with both, but it's much harder to have an honest discussion on a serious topic with someone who flagrantly mischaracterizes me.

No.

"No" what? As your link says:

Trump filed formal notice of his re-election committee with the Federal Election Commission on the day of his inauguration, Jan. 20, 2017, and he already has held campaign events in the battleground states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The man has been actively campaigning for over two years. So "no" what?

I was specifically referring to the campaign kickoff in Orlando.

[San Lumen]

"No" what? As your link says:

Trump filed formal notice of his re-election committee with the Federal Election Commission on the day of his inauguration, Jan. 20, 2017, and he already has held campaign events in the battleground states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The man has been actively campaigning for over two years. So "no" what?

I was specifically referring to the campaign kickoff in Orlando.

and everything he said there his supporters believe without hesitation. That is the definition of a cult

[Northern Davincia]

I was specifically referring to the campaign kickoff in Orlando.

and everything he said there his supporters believe without hesitation. That is the definition of a cult

No, that's politics.

[San Lumen]

and everything he said there his supporters believe without hesitation. That is the definition of a cult

No, that's politics.

No it isnt. Rational people dont believe everything that is said from a leader or question facts.

[Northern Davincia]

No, that's politics.

No it isnt. Rational people dont believe everything that is said from a leader or question facts.

>rational people
7% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. The common man is an idiot.

[Cannot think of a name]

No it isnt. Rational people dont believe everything that is said from a leader or question facts.

>rational people
7% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. The common man is an idiot.

Even they probably wouldn't mistake 7% for common.

[Northern Davincia]

>rational people
7% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. The common man is an idiot.

Even they probably wouldn't mistake 7% for common.

(edited for more accurate source, but I still want it to be untrue)

[Cannot think of a name]

Even they probably wouldn't mistake 7% for common.

(edited for more accurate source, but I still want it to be untrue)

Okay, look. When you're deriding the public for being a bunch of morons, don't do the following things:
-Mistake 7% for 'common'. It is 7/100ths of the population. That number does not represent the 'common' person.
-Mistake someone for pointing out the faulty math of considering 7% common by acting as if the study itself was challenged.
-Don't then also site a study that doesn't cite majorities or 'common' people in deciding that a specific bit of trivia makes them 'stupid'. (the only one that represents a majority is 'cause for the Cold War' which, frankly, is a bit of a murky subject. The next highest isn't really clear on the question "define the Bill of Rights" which dovetails nicely into this next bit)
-But while we're on the subject of the survey that you seem to want to be untrue, maybe perhaps rely on a more robust study instead of one done for chuckles by the Dairy Council.

But is this what the survey is actually telling us? To us as researchers studying science communication and public understanding of science, factors in the survey itself and in the way the media report on it raise questions about how much to read into these findings.
...
Learning how the study was done provides information that helps determine whether the science is sound and what to make of it.

The chocolate milk survey is described as a nationally representative survey of 1,000 American adults, but this is impossible to verify without seeing how respondents were selected.
...
An NPR interview with Jean Ragalie-Carr, president of the National Dairy Council, is the closest we can get to the actual wording of potential responses: “there was brown cows, or black-and-white cows, or they didn’t know.” But as Glendora Meikle of the Columbia Journalism Review points out, we don’t know if those were the only options presented to respondents.

This matters. For instance, if respondents associate some color cows with dairy production and other color cows with beef production, it’s easy to see how people could become confused. If this is the case, they’re not confused about where chocolate milk comes from, but about the difference between dairy cows and beef cows.

Social scientists call this a problem with validity: the question doesn’t really measure what it’s supposed to measure. Of course, without seeing how the question was worded, we can’t know whether the chocolate milk question had validity.

Indeed, early media coverage focused on the 7 percent statistic but left out the fact that 48 percent of respondents said they don’t know where chocolate milk comes from. This gives context to the 7 percent number. While it’s conceivable that 7 percent of the population doesn’t know that chocolate milk is just milk with chocolate, the idea that a full 55 percent — over half of adults — don’t know or gave an incorrect response begins to strain credulity. This points toward a confusing survey question.

We reached out to Lisa McComb, the senior vice president of communications for Dairy Management, Inc., about the survey. She confirmed that it’s not publicly available. “The purpose of the survey was to gauge some interesting and fun facts about consumers’ perceptions of dairy, not a scientific or academic study intended to be published,” she told us.
...
In this case, the chocolate milk statistic fits well with the notion that Americans are fools, so it’s accepted and republished widely despite the numerous red flags that should give scientifically minded people pause.
...
As McComb notes, the survey is not a scientific one and isn’t meant to be taken as evidence of Americans’ knowledge (or lack thereof) of dairy products. The problem is that it’s being reported on as though it is.

But congratulations, you did prove that people will believe specious stories that conform to their preconceived notions, especially if it makes them feel smart...

Ironically, rather than showing Americans’ ignorance of chocolate milk’s origins, the fact that media coverage of this survey was reported so widely and with so few caveats instead showed that many people are not skeptical of the science they read.

The Newsweek article makes many of the same mistakes. Also, doesn't share your conclusion:

For years, Stanford communications professor James Fishkin has been conducting experiments in deliberative democracy. The premise is simple: poll citizens on a major issue, blind; then see how their opinions evolve when they're forced to confront the facts. What Fishkin has found is that while people start out with deep value disagreements over, say, government spending, they tend to agree on rational policy responses once they learn the ins and outs of the budget. "The problem is ignorance, not stupidity," Hacker says. "We suffer from a lack of information rather than a lack of ability."

In fact, gives a more reasonable if less self congratulatory explanation:

Most experts agree that the relative complexity of the U.S. political system makes it hard for Americans to keep up. In many European countries, parliaments have proportional representation, and the majority party rules without having to "share power with a lot of subnational governments," notes Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, coauthor of Winner-Take-All Politics. In contrast, we're saddled with a nonproportional Senate; a tangle of state, local, and federal bureaucracies; and near-constant elections for every imaginable office (judge, sheriff, school-board member, and so on). "Nobody is competent to understand it all, which you realize every time you vote," says Michael Schudson, author of The Good Citizen. "You know you're going to come up short, and that discourages you from learning more."

This was a fun game of 'why is everyone stupid but me'...but you can't use it as a catch all to get around supporting a president who lies about rain during a televised event.

[Valrifell]

CTOAN just played an uno reverse card, y'all.

[Farnhamia]

CTOAN just played an uno reverse card, y'all.

Outside of high school football, you don't see that kind of reverse play much.

[Pim Fortuyn]

That's not illogical, and I'm not dismissing, just advocating for heavier scrutiny.
Why shouldn't we be more skeptical of a claim made by someone who hates the demographic from which the alleged perpetrators were from? Input any crime (that has a victim) and any demographic, it works just the same.

At the very least, it deserves more scrutiny than "double check Wikipedia to make sure she's a woman", which seems to be the standard these days.

"David Duke accuses prominent black politician of personally burglarizing his home"

Yup, nothing suspicious about that at all...

Why would they wait until now?

[Bombadil]

Meanwhile in the highly contentious world of knitting..

One of the biggest knitting websites in the world, which claims to have more than 8 million members, has announced that it will ban users from expressing support for Donald Trump, saying that to do so constitutes “white supremacy”.

On Sunday, administrators for Ravelry, a site for knitters, crocheters, designers and anyone dabbling in the fibre arts, said that they were making any expression of support for Trump and his administration in forum posts, patterns, on their personal profile pages or elsewhere permanently off limits.

“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy,” the site’s administrators said in a post.

Users could also be permanently banned under the policy.

Link

I'm assuming our resident granny moderator Farnhamia is a key activist here..

[Tarsonis]

CTOAN just played an uno reverse card, y'all.

Outside of high school football, you don't see that kind of reverse play much.

With a built in flea flicker

[New Bremerton]

Meanwhile in the highly contentious world of knitting..

One of the biggest knitting websites in the world, which claims to have more than 8 million members, has announced that it will ban users from expressing support for Donald Trump, saying that to do so constitutes “white supremacy”.

On Sunday, administrators for Ravelry, a site for knitters, crocheters, designers and anyone dabbling in the fibre arts, said that they were making any expression of support for Trump and his administration in forum posts, patterns, on their personal profile pages or elsewhere permanently off limits.

“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy,” the site’s administrators said in a post.

Users could also be permanently banned under the policy.

Link

I'm assuming our resident granny moderator Farnhamia is a key activist here..

Jesus Christ. I'm literally sitting on the fence right now. Keep it up with this PC nonsense and I just might support the guy after all.

[Farnhamia]

Meanwhile in the highly contentious world of knitting..

One of the biggest knitting websites in the world, which claims to have more than 8 million members, has announced that it will ban users from expressing support for Donald Trump, saying that to do so constitutes “white supremacy”.

On Sunday, administrators for Ravelry, a site for knitters, crocheters, designers and anyone dabbling in the fibre arts, said that they were making any expression of support for Trump and his administration in forum posts, patterns, on their personal profile pages or elsewhere permanently off limits.

“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy,” the site’s administrators said in a post.

Users could also be permanently banned under the policy.

Link

I'm assuming our resident granny moderator Farnhamia is a key activist here..

I can't knit to save my life.

---

Meanwhile in the highly contentious world of knitting..

One of the biggest knitting websites in the world, which claims to have more than 8 million members, has announced that it will ban users from expressing support for Donald Trump, saying that to do so constitutes “white supremacy”.

On Sunday, administrators for Ravelry, a site for knitters, crocheters, designers and anyone dabbling in the fibre arts, said that they were making any expression of support for Trump and his administration in forum posts, patterns, on their personal profile pages or elsewhere permanently off limits.

“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy,” the site’s administrators said in a post.

Users could also be permanently banned under the policy.

Link

I'm assuming our resident granny moderator Farnhamia is a key activist here..

Jesus Christ. I'm literally sitting on the fence right now. Keep it up with this PC nonsense and I just might support the guy after all.

If this is all it takes to tip you over to Trump's side, you may as well just get off that fence.