Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:40 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
If this analogy is moving in the direction of Neapolitan, well, that's just plain wrong.
Notice how we've strategically avoided even mentioning vanilla. No wonder Trump won.
  #202  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:17 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Notice how we've strategically avoided even mentioning vanilla. No wonder Trump won.
#AllFlavorsMatter
  #203  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:02 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you don't want to derail it, don't characterize the positions of Democrats in false and hyper partisan language.
I said Democrats "generally don't seem as enthused about giving [members of the military] the resources they need to do their jobs properly". I don't think that's false, or "hyper" partisan although perhaps it is mildly partisan. For example, the House just voted on the National Defense Authorization Act a few days ago. Here is the breakdown of the vote:

Why did 97% of the Republicans vote for it and only 62% of the Democrats?
  #204  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:03 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Notice how we've strategically avoided even mentioning vanilla. No wonder Trump won.
I strategically avoided it because I didn't want it to turn into something like the argument about whether or not milk is racist.
  #205  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:11 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
The thing is, diversity in America should not be a "politically-touchy topic". Diversity in society is an unavoidable fact and should be politically agnostic. But it isn't, is it? One party clearly prefers to avoid the subject while the other tends to embrace it.

What is it about this subject that makes it more touchy for the Republican side of the political spectrum?
I think most Republicans idealize a color-blind society, while Democrats tend to emphasize various race/class/gender/sexual orientation group memberships (I don't know if "identity politics" is a phrase too loaded with negative connotations for our discussion, but if you're familiar with the phrase, you're probably familiar with examples of what I'm referring to here). There is a sense among Republicans that some Democrats "play the race card" or unfairly accuse people of being "racist" precisely because it's such a politically-potent attack (and one that Democrats seem to be largely immune to). That sense probably manifests itself as "avoidance" or "sensitivity" at times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Or, in terms of ice cream analogies, preference for chocolate is not the same thing as sensitivity to strawberry. Would you agree?
Agreed.
  #206  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:27 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I said Democrats "generally don't seem as enthused about giving [members of the military] the resources they need to do their jobs properly". I don't think that's false, or "hyper" partisan although perhaps it is mildly partisan. For example, the House just voted on the National Defense Authorization Act a few days ago. Here is the breakdown of the vote:



Why did 97% of the Republicans vote for it and only 62% of the Democrats?
Because they disagreed on what constitutes "the resources they need to do their jobs properly". Yes, it's both false and hyper-partisan (in that it directly implies that Democrats care less about military folks than Republicans) to state it as you did. IMO anyway, though I don't see how it couldn't be hyper-partisan to imply that one party cares less about the military than the other.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-18-2017 at 12:31 PM.
  #207  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:30 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think most Republicans idealize a color-blind society, while Democrats tend to emphasize various race/class/gender/sexual orientation group memberships (I don't know if "identity politics" is a phrase too loaded with negative connotations for our discussion, but if you're familiar with the phrase, you're probably familiar with examples of what I'm referring to here). There is a sense among Republicans that some Democrats "play the race card" or unfairly accuse people of being "racist" precisely because it's such a politically-potent attack (and one that Democrats seem to be largely immune to). That sense probably manifests itself as "avoidance" or "sensitivity" at times.
I think most Democrats also "idealize a color-blind society", but strongly disagree with Republicans how to get there. I think most Democrats believe that we can't achieve that, or even get closer to it, unless we acknowledge and take steps to defang and eliminate the tendrils of racism, bigotry, and discrimination that still remain in our society. Thus policies like AA are necessary (for now) to get to that ideal "color-blind society".
  #208  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Because they disagreed on what constitutes "the resources they need to do their jobs properly". Yes, it's both false and hyper-partisan (in that it directly implies that Democrats care less about military folks than Republicans) to state it as you did.
Do you have a cite for that? Did you listen to committee hearings in which Democrats thoughtfully responded to the military's request for X number of F-35s and Y number of submarines said, "No, I've studied the issue closely and I think you can do it with 0.75X and 0.5Y"? Did you read statements or press releases by the Democrats that voted against stating their reasons for voting 'No'? Or does this reason you claim just exist largely in your imagination?
  #209  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:37 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
IMO anyway, though I don't see how it couldn't be hyper-partisan to imply that one party cares less about the military than the other.
Would you also say it's "hyper-partisan" to imply that one party cares less about diversity than the other?
  #210  
Old 07-18-2017, 01:06 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you have a cite for that? Did you listen to committee hearings in which Democrats thoughtfully responded to the military's request for X number of F-35s and Y number of submarines said, "No, I've studied the issue closely and I think you can do it with 0.75X and 0.5Y"? Did you read statements or press releases by the Democrats that voted against stating their reasons for voting 'No'? Or does this reason you claim just exist largely in your imagination?
Do you have a cite for the committee hearings and statements from multiple (maybe all?) members of the military, high-ranking and low-ranking alike, stating in unanimous agreement that this specific defense authorization is the exact perfect 100%-correct amount of resources that they need to do their jobs?

If so, I'll spend the time looking for individual cites for what seems to me to be incredibly obvious -- that legislators might disagree on the the exact resource levels necessary for the military to do their jobs.

If not, I'll just rely on common sense -- legislators can disagree on what levels of funding are necessary for the military to do their job without any reason to believe that their commitment to the military is greater or lesser than the legislators they disagree with.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-18-2017 at 01:08 PM.
  #211  
Old 07-18-2017, 01:11 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Would you also say it's "hyper-partisan" to imply that one party cares less about diversity than the other?
It's pretty partisan, though diversity doesn't have nearly the emotional (and therefore political) connection that commitment to the military does.

I served, and I've had people ask me how I could possibly vote for Democratic politicians while being a veteran. That shit pisses me off to no end. Wanting higher levels of funding for the military says absolutely nothing about one's commitment to the military and its members. Literally zero.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-18-2017 at 01:11 PM.
  #212  
Old 07-18-2017, 01:16 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy_wuzzy View Post
One party has a plan of using diversity as a way of smashing their political opponents. That's just one reason the subject is not politically "agnostic".
Right, because voter ID laws so blatantly discriminatory that the courts struck them down (TX, NC) is a way of encouraging diversity.

Spare me how 'inclusive' Republicans are. The reason it's a cudgel is because they fear the 'great hordes of color' getting to share Republicans' precious power.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 07-18-2017 at 01:16 PM.
  #213  
Old 07-18-2017, 01:43 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If not, I'll just rely on common sense
That's not a very compelling cite, but cool, it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wanting higher levels of funding for the military says absolutely nothing about one's commitment to the military and its members. Literally zero.
I didn't say anything about one's "commitment to the military" I said Democrats "generally don't seem as enthused about giving [members of the military] the resources they need to do their jobs properly". I thought it was understood that "resources" in that context meant "funding".
  #214  
Old 07-18-2017, 02:00 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I didn't say anything about one's "commitment to the military" I said Democrats "generally don't seem as enthused about giving [members of the military] the resources they need to do their jobs properly". I thought it was understood that "resources" in that context meant "funding".
Same exact thing when you say "resources they need to do their jobs properly". If you said "resources the military leadership requested", it would be different. Do you understand how those two phrases are extremely different in their implications?

How could someone be committed to the military if they don't believe in providing military members "the resources they need to do their jobs properly"?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-18-2017 at 02:02 PM.
  #215  
Old 07-18-2017, 02:01 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's not a very compelling cite, but cool, it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
If you provide some cites as to why the Republicans voted the way they did, and that all military members unanimously agree that this level of funding is the exact perfect level required to do their jobs properly, then I'll spend the time to look for some cites as well.

Or you could provide some cites that Democrats voted against this bill specifically because they don't believe in providing military members the resources they need to do their jobs -- do that and I'll probably become a Republican!

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-18-2017 at 02:03 PM.
  #216  
Old 07-18-2017, 02:20 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,700
So, is this the new, improved, non-partisan?

"Now, it would be partisan and unfair to accuse the American left of hating Our Heroes, but they don't seem to like them very much, do they? And of course they don't actually despise America, but they don't much care for our core values, our shared heritage of rugged individualism and free market solutions. And while they all lay claim to Christian values, they don't seem to understand that a gated community makes 'Love thy neighbor" a lot easier!..."

Nice packaging. "New! Improved! With the electrolytes that plants crave!" is catchy. Oh, wait. Brown, crumbly, odiferous. Might be good for the rose bushes. If I had any.
  #217  
Old 07-18-2017, 02:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you provide some cites as to why the Republicans voted the way they did, and that all military members unanimously agree that this level of funding is the exact perfect level required to do their jobs properly, then I'll spend the time to look for some cites as well.

Or you could provide some cites that Democrats voted against this bill specifically because they don't believe in providing military members the resources they need to do their jobs -- do that and I'll probably become a Republican!
You are asking for cites for claims I have not made. First off, I never claimed that "all military members unanimously agree that this level of funding is the exact perfect level required to do their jobs properly", so why would I need to provide a cite for such an absurd position?

Secondly, I never claimed that "Democrats voted against this bill specifically because they don't believe in providing military members the resources they need to do their jobs". 73 House Democrats voted against the NDAA and they probably had (at least) 73 unique reasons for doing so. My statement that they "they generally don't seem as enthused about" it was a personal observation (one that happens to be fairly common in society today, hence your past experiences with people questioning your party affiliation in light of your veteran status), not an attempt to read their minds and determine the motivation for their actions. YOU were the one that wanted to ascribe a particular motive to their 'No' vote (Because they disagreed on what constitutes "the resources they need to do their jobs properly"), and that's why I asked you for a cite.

If I noticed someone typically picked chocolate ice cream when offered a choice between that and strawberry, I might say 'you generally don't seem as enthused about strawberry ice cream as chocolate' without implying any particular motivation for their lack of enthusiasm. Perhaps they had a traumatic experience with that flavor of ice cream, or have a severe allergy, or just prefer that flavor. Any (or all) of those might be the reason(s), and my statement about their level of enthusiasm can still be valid.

Look, if it'll help us move on to more meaningful discussions can we consider my post #169 amended like this:

"... giving them the resources they need to do their jobs properly the military requests."

I've got not particular attachment to the "need to do their jobs properly" phrasing, if that's what you're objecting to.
  #218  
Old 07-18-2017, 02:40 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You are asking for cites for claims I have not made. First off, I never claimed that "all military members unanimously agree that this level of funding is the exact perfect level required to do their jobs properly", so why would I need to provide a cite for such an absurd position?

Secondly, I never claimed that "Democrats voted against this bill specifically because they don't believe in providing military members the resources they need to do their jobs". 73 House Democrats voted against the NDAA and they probably had (at least) 73 unique reasons for doing so. My statement that they "they generally don't seem as enthused about" it was a personal observation (one that happens to be fairly common in society today, hence your past experiences with people questioning your party affiliation in light of your veteran status), not an attempt to read their minds and determine the motivation for their actions. YOU were the one that wanted to ascribe a particular motive to their 'No' vote (Because they disagreed on what constitutes "the resources they need to do their jobs properly"), and that's why I asked you for a cite.

If I noticed someone typically picked chocolate ice cream when offered a choice between that and strawberry, I might say 'you generally don't seem as enthused about strawberry ice cream as chocolate' without implying any particular motivation for their lack of enthusiasm. Perhaps they had a traumatic experience with that flavor of ice cream, or have a severe allergy, or just prefer that flavor. Any (or all) of those might be the reason(s), and my statement about their level of enthusiasm can still be valid.
You provided zero cites that Democrats lacked enthusiasm for ensuring military members have "the resources they need to do their jobs" -- just a cite for some votes about the funding requested by military leadership. You're still equating voting for or against the bill as having anything to do with enthusiasm for ensuring military members have "the resources they need to do their jobs". Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

That being said:

Quote:
Look, if it'll help us move on to more meaningful discussions can we consider my post #169 amended like this:

"... giving them the resources they need to do their jobs properly the military requests."

I've got not particular attachment to the "need to do their jobs properly" phrasing, if that's what you're objecting to.
Yes, that is literally the only thing I objected to in your post (honestly, not sarcastically). Changing this removes any problem I have with it whatsoever. Thank you.

Hopefully you see the problem that I had with your statement -- stating someone is lacking enthusiasm for ensuring the military has "the resources they need to do their jobs" is pretty much a direct and explicit attack on patriotism and commitment to the military, no matter your intentions.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-18-2017 at 02:42 PM.
  #219  
Old 07-18-2017, 02:49 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
It's kind of like a debate about funding for SWAT and other police activities -- an advocate for higher funding might try to accuse an advocate for a lower level of funding "I guess you're just not that enthusiastic about making sure that cops have the resources necessary to prevent children from being raped and murdered..." but that's a bullshit and unjust and explicitly political attack that has nothing to do with reality or the possibility of reasonable debate.
  #220  
Old 07-18-2017, 03:13 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"... giving them the resources they need to do their jobs properly the military requests."
What if they give
more
than the military requests? Does that make them more patriotic? If the Dems are trying to give them only what is requested by the pentagon, and the republicans are trying to give them more, does that really mean that the republicans are honoring the military more?

IMHO, the increases to military spending are because it benefits those with military bases and/or contractors in their districts, and these bases and industries tend to be in republican districts. Republicans are voting to bring dollars home to their district, and it has nothing to do with patriotism or a desire to ensure that the military is properly equipped. This is not a bad thing, it means that money gets to go where it is deemed needed by the representatives willing to trade their votes out for the funding, so it is actually a very efficient way of redistributing wealth to the areas that need it the most, but patriotic, not so much.
  #221  
Old 07-18-2017, 03:16 PM
snoe snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 784
Make America Great Again - For Real This Time
  #222  
Old 07-18-2017, 03:58 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What if they give
more
than the military requests? Does that make them more patriotic? If the Dems are trying to give them only what is requested by the pentagon, and the republicans are trying to give them more, does that really mean that the republicans are honoring the military more?

IMHO, the increases to military spending are because it benefits those with military bases and/or contractors in their districts, and these bases and industries tend to be in republican districts. Republicans are voting to bring dollars home to their district, and it has nothing to do with patriotism or a desire to ensure that the military is properly equipped. This is not a bad thing, it means that money gets to go where it is deemed needed by the representatives willing to trade their votes out for the funding, so it is actually a very efficient way of redistributing wealth to the areas that need it the most, but patriotic, not so much.
I don't think I claimed it made Republicans more patriotic, or that they are "honoring" the military more through their funding enthusiasm.

But if a discussion of comparative patriotism excites you, perhaps you'd like to try your hand at responding to my post #190? ElvisL1ves hasn't been back to respond yet.
  #223  
Old 07-18-2017, 03:58 PM
sleestak sleestak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sin City
Posts: 3,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If you don't want to derail it, don't characterize the positions of Democrats in false and hyper partisan language.
And what about the constant characterization of republican positions in false and hyper partisan language?

Funny, on a board that is supposed to be about fighting ignorance (HA!) how no one really give a shit about that....

Slee
  #224  
Old 07-18-2017, 04:20 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think I claimed it made Republicans more patriotic, or that they are "honoring" the military more through their funding enthusiasm.

But if a discussion of comparative patriotism excites you, perhaps you'd like to try your hand at responding to my post #190? ElvisL1ves hasn't been back to respond yet.
There was some kind of point you were trying to make by pointing out that Democratic legislators were less likely to vote for a military funding bill.

But, I'll go back a few pages, and take a gander.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not equating patriotism with anything. Let's just focus on the last sentence in the cite:



They "called themselves" extremely patriotic. I'm not trying to foist my definition of patriotism on Democrats (or anyone else) here. They defined it however they liked in their own mind, and then decided if their own definition applied to them or not. Only 20 percent decided it did, as opposed to 52 percent of Republicans. Given that fact, do you think it's fair to say that Democrats are less "patriotic" than Republicans? I do, because they told us they were.
I took a look around, trying to find the poll that you took this from to get better context, lots of polls, and not sure from where this one you chose to pick numbers from came.

What does "extremely patriotic" mean? I take patriotic to mean loving your country in spite of its flaws, with a desire to fix those flaws, and "extremely patriotic" to mean loving your country as is, and not acknowledging the flaws that it has.

With that context in mind, if someone asked me if I were "extremely patriotic", I would answer 'no', but to "normally patriotic" I would answer 'yes". IMHO, "people who are "extremely patriotic" are often going to be more harmful to society, as they insist that society bends to the idea of following their examples of "patriotism."

If you could link to the survey, it would be great to get a bit more context. If nothing else, I would group all of those who responded positively like "Somewhat patriotic", "normal patriotic" and "extremely patriotic" as all being patriotic, and only group those who responded negatively, "not very patriotic", "not patriotic at all", and "I hate my country with the fire of a million suns" as being "not patriotic".

If you look at the survey that you chose to pick the numbers from, how do those numbers add up?
  #225  
Old 07-18-2017, 04:26 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleestak View Post
And what about the constant characterization of republican positions in false and hyper partisan language?

Funny, on a board that is supposed to be about fighting ignorance (HA!) how no one really give a shit about that....

Slee
Sure, that happens too. Call it out when you see it and ask people justify or retract their remarks.
  #226  
Old 07-18-2017, 04:29 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Sure, that happens too. Call it out when you see it and ask people justify or retract their remarks.
Right -- it does happen. Please call it out. I'm sure I'm more sensitive to bullshit accusations when it comes from the "other side", as are most people, but I'll do my best to criticize such nonsense whether I recognize it at the moment or it's pointed out to me later.
  #227  
Old 07-18-2017, 04:41 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There was some kind of point you were trying to make by pointing out that Democratic legislators were less likely to vote for a military funding bill.

But, I'll go back a few pages, and take a gander.



I took a look around, trying to find the poll that you took this from to get better context, lots of polls, and not sure from where this one you chose to pick numbers from came.

What does "extremely patriotic" mean? I take patriotic to mean loving your country in spite of its flaws, with a desire to fix those flaws, and "extremely patriotic" to mean loving your country as is, and not acknowledging the flaws that it has.

With that context in mind, if someone asked me if I were "extremely patriotic", I would answer 'no', but to "normally patriotic" I would answer 'yes". IMHO, "people who are "extremely patriotic" are often going to be more harmful to society, as they insist that society bends to the idea of following their examples of "patriotism."

If you could link to the survey, it would be great to get a bit more context. If nothing else, I would group all of those who responded positively like "Somewhat patriotic", "normal patriotic" and "extremely patriotic" as all being patriotic, and only group those who responded negatively, "not very patriotic", "not patriotic at all", and "I hate my country with the fire of a million suns" as being "not patriotic".

If you look at the survey that you chose to pick the numbers from, how do those numbers add up?
I didn't have the survey at first, just the article I linked to. It was a fairly quick response to ElvisL1ves's needling over my use of the word "yet", but since you asked, I've done some digging and it appears that the numbers come from this Gallup survey. The particular question was:

Quote:
How patriotic are you? Would you say extremely patriotic, very patriotic, somewhat patriotic, or not especially patriotic?
The relevant responses are as follows:

Republicans:
52% extremely patriotic
39% very patriotic
9% somewhat patriotic
less than 0.5% not especially patriotic


Democrats:
20% extremely patriotic
42% very patriotic
26% somewhat patriotic
11% not especially patriotic

Personally I don't see any reasonable way to parse those results that doesn't show Democrats as generally less patriotic than Republicans, but I suspect this result is at least somewhat annoying / angering to some people. I'm open to entertaining theories on why this view might be wrong.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 07-18-2017 at 04:41 PM.
  #228  
Old 07-18-2017, 05:10 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I didn't have the survey at first, just the article I linked to. It was a fairly quick response to ElvisL1ves's needling over my use of the word "yet", but since you asked, I've done some digging and it appears that the numbers come from this Gallup survey. The particular question was:



The relevant responses are as follows:

Republicans:
52% extremely patriotic
39% very patriotic
9% somewhat patriotic
less than 0.5% not especially patriotic


Democrats:
20% extremely patriotic
42% very patriotic
26% somewhat patriotic
11% not especially patriotic

Personally I don't see any reasonable way to parse those results that doesn't show Democrats as generally less patriotic than Republicans, but I suspect this result is at least somewhat annoying / angering to some people. I'm open to entertaining theories on why this view might be wrong.
I'll give you the 11%. Apparently, there are 11% of democrats that do not consider themselves to be patriotic, by their definition of the word. IMHO, I think that many of them have the same feelings towards the US that those who answered in the affirmative do, but personally equate patriotism with jingoism, especially given the political climate at the time of the survey, and therefore decline that answer.

But, we end up with 99.5% of R's considering themselves to be patriotic, vs 89% of D's. You should assume that any particular D you were dealing with was a patriot, in that case, as there is only a 11% chance that the one you are dealing with answered in the negative.

I would consider that the majority of the reasons for the difference is a difference in definitions. A republican is asked if they are "extremely patriotic", and hears "do you love your country?", a D is asked the same thing, and hears "Do you believe that your country can do no wrong?" D's out number R's on "very patriotic", and "somewhat patriotic" take up the bulk of the rest. I would personally be wavering between "very and somewhat".

I also note that this poll is from 2010, which is likely about as current as it gets, as the previous one was 2005, but it should be noted that the political landscape has changed a bit in the last 7+ years, and those poll results do not necessarily reflect current thoughts, 2010, after 8 years of bush, the wars, the recession, controversy over torture, and such, I may have answered less enthusiastically than I would now.
  #229  
Old 07-18-2017, 05:21 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,700
It's that word, "extremely". Its like, loaded. Totally loaded. "Extremely patriotic"? What does that even mean? "Extremist" is largely used as a pejorative, but "extreme patriot" is not? "Jingoist" is clearly pejorative, an insult, can anybody tell me how to know the difference?

This was a stupidly done poll.
  #230  
Old 07-18-2017, 05:22 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You should assume that any particular D you were dealing with was a patriot, in that case, as there is only a 11% chance that the one you are dealing with answered in the negative.
I agree and I do (about everyone, not just Democrats), unless they give me some reason to believe otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I also note that this poll is from 2010, which is likely about as current as it gets, as the previous one was 2005, but it should be noted that the political landscape has changed a bit in the last 7+ years, and those poll results do not necessarily reflect current thoughts, 2010, after 8 years of bush, the wars, the recession, controversy over torture, and such, I may have answered less enthusiastically than I would now.
That's a fair point. I wish Gallup asked the "How patriotic are you?" question more frequently. I like this particular questions because it allows the respondent to decide for themselves what their own definition of "patriotism" is. As a bonus, it sidesteps a whole slew of anticipated arguments about whether "love your country" or "pride in your country" questions are an accurate measurement of patriotism. This one is just self-identified Rs, self-identified Ds, and self-identified patriotism. There are other, more recent polls by Gallup, such as this one (Gallup: Sharply Fewer Democrats Say They Are Proud to Be Americans), but I didn't want to get sidetracked in a debate about whether "proud to be an American" is the same thing as "patriotic" or not.
  #231  
Old 07-18-2017, 05:23 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
This was a stupidly done poll.
I think you're over-analyzing it, but do you have a better-done poll you'd like to offer up as a rebuttal?
  #232  
Old 07-18-2017, 05:43 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,700
My point is that the poll was poorly worded, hence, it does not qualify as reliable evidence. I am not obliged to provide contradictory evidence, I'm not rebutting a thesis. Bad evidence neither supports nor rebuts a thesis, it is a void. You haven't built anything that requires tearing down.
  #233  
Old 07-18-2017, 05:51 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
My point is that the poll was poorly worded, hence, it does not qualify as reliable evidence. I am not obliged to provide contradictory evidence, I'm not rebutting a thesis. Bad evidence neither supports nor rebuts a thesis, it is a void. You haven't built anything that requires tearing down.
LOL, sure, if you think you made a valid point there, you go right ahead and carry on.
  #234  
Old 07-18-2017, 06:05 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleestak View Post
And what about the constant characterization of republican positions in false and hyper partisan language?

Funny, on a board that is supposed to be about fighting ignorance (HA!) how no one really give a shit about that....

Slee
Project much?
  #235  
Old 07-18-2017, 06:12 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's a fair point. I wish Gallup asked the "How patriotic are you?" question more frequently. I like this particular questions because it allows the respondent to decide for themselves what their own definition of "patriotism" is. As a bonus, it sidesteps a whole slew of anticipated arguments about whether "love your country" or "pride in your country" questions are an accurate measurement of patriotism. This one is just self-identified Rs, self-identified Ds, and self-identified patriotism. There are other, more recent polls by Gallup, such as this one (Gallup: Sharply Fewer Democrats Say They Are Proud to Be Americans), but I didn't want to get sidetracked in a debate about whether "proud to be an American" is the same thing as "patriotic" or not.
It's an opinion poll using just about the vaguest and least descriptive question possible. Maybe if they expanded the reasons to get into why respondents answered the way they did, it might have some value.
  #236  
Old 07-18-2017, 06:16 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
I'd say that self-reporting of patriotism sounds about as useful as self-reporting of online porn viewing or self-reporting of penis size.
  #237  
Old 07-18-2017, 07:00 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
LOL, sure, if you think you made a valid point there, you go right ahead and carry on.
And in the same cordial spirit, I assure you that your approval means just as much to me now as it ever did!
  #238  
Old 07-18-2017, 08:04 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Well, well, well, this got interesting, didn't it? A bunch of advocates for science and truth and reality-based worldviews trying to hand-wave away a clear and unambiguous, scientific poll from a respected firm like Gallup because they don't like the fact that it reveals. This certainly wasn't a response I expected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
It's an opinion poll using just about the vaguest and least descriptive question possible. Maybe if they expanded the reasons to get into why respondents answered the way they did, it might have some value.
So you don't think scientific polls with simple and direct questions have value? Stuff like 'Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President?' No value there because it doesn't get into why? That's really the position you want to take? That modern opinion polling has no value?


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'd say that self-reporting of patriotism sounds about as useful as self-reporting of online porn viewing or self-reporting of penis size.
It wasn't "self-reporting". I said self-identified. Do you understand the difference? It was a scientific poll. To be specific:

Quote:
Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 11-13, 2010, with a random sample of 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is 4 percentage points.
You still believe in science, don't you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
My point is that the poll was poorly worded, hence, it does not qualify as reliable evidence. I am not obliged to provide contradictory evidence, I'm not rebutting a thesis. Bad evidence neither supports nor rebuts a thesis, it is a void. You haven't built anything that requires tearing down.
And to provide 'luc with more of an answer than his post merits: I'm not sure if you're unacquainted with this new-fangled witchcraft known as polling, but this sort of extremely / very / somewhat formulation of the question is quite common one in polling.

Here is an example about crime:

Or another one about drugs:

What do you think, Johnny Ace, should we discard that data as having no value too, because it doesn't get into "why"?


Sheesh you guys, some times this place is a joke.
  #239  
Old 07-18-2017, 08:40 PM
snfaulkner snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 5,076
"Send out the clowns!"
  #240  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:04 PM
JohnGalt JohnGalt is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Med city USA
Posts: 1,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
Make America Great Again - For Real This Time
Add "2020" (or "2018") and put it on a blue baseball hat, and you've got the next campaign slogan. I like it.
  #241  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:11 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
This is an IOZ quote which may be even more relevant than when he said it back in the GWB years:

Quote:
Liberals were once fond of arguing that behind the patriotic gauze, Conservatives really hated America. They were always traducing its core, Constitutional values. It was a parochial but pithy observation that had, that has merit. On the other hand, liberals like Marcotte secretly despise the very system of representative government that they purport to venerate. They hate voters and think them ignorant. They believe in a sort of bowdlerized, near-universal false consciousness. They harp constantly on the poor fools who just don't know what's best for them, who are "dumb as bricks." What an odd view of the "best and noblest form of government, the highest development of human society yet to grace the Earth."

All together now on three. The food in this restaurant is terrible! And the portions! So small!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sheesh you guys, some times this place is a joke.
American liberals have a troubled history with the cognitive dissonances of patriotism, especially owing in part to Vietnam and Iraq. There's no room for nuance in American discourse so they can't explain how patriotism could ever be bad, and the concept strikes them as a relic from a less enlightened time, like believing in ghosts. If you're going to run a system of global capital then patriotism is outdated, but it keeps biting them in the ass domestically so they gotta keep chipping away. That's one reason all the American chest beating slogans in this thread feel so corny.

On mainstream lib blogs, especially the comment sections, they often tell themselves they're the real patriots. They like to point out how Republicans vote down healthcare for veterans or boo gay soldiers or don't support rape victims in the military. I don't know if they actually buy into this stuff or it's a meta-reaction from the Cold War and War on Terror. They've been typecast as anti-patriots for so long that their efforts to break out look fake and backfires and makes their own supporters uncomfortable, e.g. Dukakis, Kerry, or the Dem '16 convention which was rah rah USA to the max. They tried to outflank Trump on patriotism, like pointing out how he insulted a gold star family or how he doesn't buy American steel. This is all further complicated because it's a big tent, so there's plenty of libs who would make a string of ears or dig bullets out of pregnant women with a knife, anything to make Uncle Sam happy.

Calling patriotism that goes too far "jingoism" reminds me of how when people want to defend capitalism ruining everything they call it "crony capitalism."

Last edited by marshmallow; 07-18-2017 at 09:13 PM.
  #242  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:51 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So you don't think scientific polls with simple and direct questions have value? Stuff like 'Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President?' No value there because it doesn't get into why? That's really the position you want to take? That modern opinion polling has no value?




It wasn't "self-reporting". I said self-identified. Do you understand the difference? It was a scientific poll. To be specific:



You still believe in science, don't you?




And to provide 'luc with more of an answer than his post merits: I'm not sure if you're unacquainted with this new-fangled witchcraft known as polling, but this sort of extremely / very / somewhat formulation of the question is quite common one in polling.

Here is an example about crime:



Or another one about drugs:



What do you think, Johnny Ace, should we discard that data as having no value too, because it doesn't get into "why"?


Sheesh you guys, some times this place is a joke.

You apparently missed the part about 'vaguest and least descriptive.' But please, continue to dig that hole.

There's a difference between literally quantifiable concepts (crime, drugs) and value judgments about self based on a completely unquantifiable concept. How many milliliters in 'extreme patriotism? Now, how many drug overdoses in your area over the last year? How many murders? Burglaries? Car thefts?

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 07-18-2017 at 09:53 PM.
  #243  
Old 07-18-2017, 09:57 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmallow View Post
This is an IOZ quote which may be even more relevant than when he said it back in the GWB years:

American liberals have a troubled history with the cognitive dissonances of patriotism, especially owing in part to Vietnam and Iraq. There's no room for nuance in American discourse so they can't explain how patriotism could ever be bad, and the concept strikes them as a relic from a less enlightened time, like believing in ghosts. If you're going to run a system of global capital then patriotism is outdated, but it keeps biting them in the ass domestically so they gotta keep chipping away. That's one reason all the American chest beating slogans in this thread feel so corny.

On mainstream lib blogs, especially the comment sections, they often tell themselves they're the real patriots. They like to point out how Republicans vote down healthcare for veterans or boo gay soldiers or don't support rape victims in the military. I don't know if they actually buy into this stuff or it's a meta-reaction from the Cold War and War on Terror. They've been typecast as anti-patriots for so long that their efforts to break out look fake and backfires and makes their own supporters uncomfortable, e.g. Dukakis, Kerry, or the Dem '16 convention which was rah rah USA to the max. They tried to outflank Trump on patriotism, like pointing out how he insulted a gold star family or how he doesn't buy American steel. This is all further complicated because it's a big tent, so there's plenty of libs who would make a string of ears or dig bullets out of pregnant women with a knife, anything to make Uncle Sam happy.

Calling patriotism that goes too far "jingoism" reminds me of how when people want to defend capitalism ruining everything they call it "crony capitalism."
Thank you, Dr. Freud. Could you possibly generalize any more?
  #244  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:37 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
You apparently missed the part about 'vaguest and least descriptive.' But please, continue to dig that hole.

There's a difference between literally quantifiable concepts (crime, drugs) and value judgments about self based on a completely unquantifiable concept. How many milliliters in 'extreme patriotism? Now, how many drug overdoses in your area over the last year? How many murders? Burglaries? Car thefts?
The questions were "Overall, how would you describe the problem of ____ in ____". They weren't "tell me how many murders there were?" or "how many drug overdoses in the last six months?".

Getting back to my question about presidential job approval polls. That's an unquantifiable value judgement as well (unless you want to tell me how many milliliters there are in "good job, Mr. President"). Do you dismiss those as meaningless? Or are you going to hang your hat on "about self"? That would be an absurd line of "reasoning" as well: it's ok to make unquantifiable value judgements about one's neighborhood, one's country, one's president, but not about one's self. Gimme a break.

You called it "just about the vaguest and least descriptive question possible". I think that's a ridiculous value judgement, but seeing as it's your opinion, you're entitled to it. Would you care to offer up an example of a polling question about patriotism that you think is more specific and less vague than "How patriotic are you?" If it's really "just about the the vaguest and least descriptive question possible", I imagine this will be an easy exercise for you. Or is patriotism itself just such an esoteric concept that it's impossible to ask a non-vague and descriptive question about it?

I'm not the one digging a hole here, you are.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 07-18-2017 at 10:38 PM.
  #245  
Old 07-18-2017, 11:46 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 14,722
Can y'all take your hijack somewhere else? Possibly another country?
  #246  
Old 07-19-2017, 12:58 AM
skdo23 skdo23 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 995
"Make America Grate Again" would get my vote. It's about damn time that we finally had a candidate who had the courage to stand up to the pre-shredded cheese industry.
  #247  
Old 07-19-2017, 01:04 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Can y'all take your hijack somewhere else?
Sure thing boss. I've created another thread in GD to continue the comparative patriotism discussion.
  #248  
Old 07-19-2017, 02:54 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,700
A quarantine thread? Good idea.
  #249  
Old 07-19-2017, 05:39 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Well, well, well, this got interesting, didn't it? A bunch of advocates for science and truth and reality-based worldviews trying to hand-wave away a clear and unambiguous, scientific poll from a respected firm like Gallup because they don't like the fact that it reveals. This certainly wasn't a response I expected.



So you don't think scientific polls with simple and direct questions have value? Stuff like 'Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President?' No value there because it doesn't get into why? That's really the position you want to take? That modern opinion polling has no value?




It wasn't "self-reporting". I said self-identified. Do you understand the difference? It was a scientific poll. To be specific:



You still believe in science, don't you?




And to provide 'luc with more of an answer than his post merits: I'm not sure if you're unacquainted with this new-fangled witchcraft known as polling, but this sort of extremely / very / somewhat formulation of the question is quite common one in polling.

Here is an example about crime:



Or another one about drugs:



What do you think, Johnny Ace, should we discard that data as having no value too, because it doesn't get into "why"?


Sheesh you guys, some times this place is a joke.
I absolutely believe the poll. I absolutely believe that fewer Democrats than Republicans identify themselves as extremely patriotic and the like.

I just don't think that actually tells us much at all about actual patriotism. I don't think people are any more likely to honestly and accurately report their patriotism than they are their penis size.

If your point is that Republicans are more likely to consider themselves highly patriotic, then I have no problem with the point. That's what the scientific poll indicates, and I have no problem with the poll.

Sent from my KFAUWI using Tapatalk
  #250  
Old 07-19-2017, 06:20 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,997
In my experience, confederate flag wavers consider themselves highly patriotic, in general. They also, in my experience, generally don't believe they are in any way racist. I find both opinions, self identified, equally unlikely to be true.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017