# Is Shodan more retarded lately, or has he maintained a consistent level of retardation all along? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 24, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530 "2012-01-24T20:31:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 42
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/821 "2012-02-07T02:50:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > But as “hard numbers about a drop”?? Sorry, but no freakin’ way. Could you, please, show me the margin of error expected on this reporting? Surely you must have non-ideological cause to believe these numbers are not saying what they plainly say. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/822 "2012-02-07T03:15:46Z")
A remarkable amount of ideological assertions and simple gesticulation, even discounting the saturation-level straw content, there, **Sam**. But none more so than your claim to be stating “facts”. You merely show you don’t even know what the word _means_. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/823 "2012-02-07T03:34:44Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Could you, please, show me the margin of error expected on this reporting? Surely you must have non-ideological cause to believe these numbers are not saying what they plainly say. \*\* RTF\*\* is an able statistician, which I am not (as he would be the first to tell you) so I’ll let him fill you in, but even a dunce such as I can see that 1. we’re dealing with very small numbers here, numbers subject to chance and to other factors (if the numbers were in the thousands, or ten thousands, maybe we could start the discussion–but they’re in the very low three figures.) 2. we’re also dealing with a minuscule rate (if the numbers dipped by 50%, maybe we could conclude that meant something, but 4% (or whatever it works out to)? Far from “proving” something, that’s more like a margin of error. ) and 3) we’re only looking at one year. If the numbers skew the same way for a few years in a row, that’s a trend, and maybe we need to discuss it. But one year? Anything could happen. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/824 "2012-02-07T04:01:24Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I submit that not a single person on the SDMB has felt “chagrin” at the fact of your race and political affiliation. I’d welcome a cite to the contrary. There are multiple examples on this board that I could find if I was so inclined (i.e., “You can’t be Black because everyone knows Republicans/conservatives are racist!” or some form of that argument), but I don’t. I’ll just leave you with [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14185073&postcount=171), which just so happens to be the one which immediately comes to mind. (Well, it didn’t “immediately” come to mind. It’s just that I saved the link for future reference, as I said in that thread.) > [@](#): > > (“Chagrin” at the fact you’re an eminently ignorable one-note idiot, naturally, doesn’t count.) None of which is true but, as is usually the case, why defend your position when it’s easier to engage in personal attacks? > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Yeah, we know. But if it helps bolster your cause, I suppose we can play along and pretend it’s shocking… _shocking_! that you’re a member of a statistical minority. Now where’d I put my fainting couch? You can put it where ever you want. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/825 "2012-02-07T04:11:12Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > you can’t seem to see that the state of the ‘left’ is just as bad. The left is no more ‘reality based’ than the right - people on this board think that’s true because they are biased. > > If yu want some examples, let me give you some: I confess amusement. [QUOTE] [li]The notion that you can create a ‘green economy’ so long as you just get government to ‘invest’ in it displays an incredible ignorance of economic reality. [/li][/QUOTE] That one’s so vague that there’s no way to falsify it. Just including it in this list is pretty stupid; putting it in the leadoff position puts that stupidity on full display. [QUOTE] [li]There is no real evidence that the stimulus worked as advertised. Liberals on this board keep linking to CBO reports as proof that it worked, despite the fact that the CBO admits at all they’ve done was to re-run the same models they used to predict the outcome of the stimulus anyway. [/li][/QUOTE] Plenty of other models besides CBO’s showed the stimulus would work. Hell, _I_ can tell you why it should have worked, and I have no idea, at this late date, what the CBO’s models looked like. Also that’s when job losses started shrinking and other economic indices started improving. It could be just a coincidence, but the burden’s on you to show why it isn’t. [QUOTE] [li]While Republicans may have their heads in the sand over the basic science of global warming, liberals are equally deluded when they advocate local carbon taxes as a solution, or when they take the rather modest scientific predictions and elevate them to catastrophe based on specious evidence, to justify higher energy taxes.[/li][/QUOTE] Yeah, the ‘specious evidence’ that routinely shows warming outcomes occurring faster than the high-end expectations for the present, based on the theories of just a decade ago? Besides, _you_ guys are the ones who keep saying people in the middle to lower end of the economic spectrum should have more ‘skin in the game’. You’re losing an argument with yourselves here. [QUOTE] [li]Liberals seem to be completely incoherent on energy policy in general. They don’t seem to understand that blocking the Keystone pipeline will likely result in worse economic AND environmental outcomes.[/li][/QUOTE] Actually, I’d lay odds most liberals don’t have a firm position on the Keystone pipeline. (I guess that qualifies as ‘incoherent’, just not in the way you mean.) Unlike you guys, we don’t take positions on relatively inconsequential issues and turn them into a matter of tribal identity. I am aware that extracting oil from tar sands requires much greater energy expenditures than pumping it out of a traditional well, so the carbon cost is higher than with petroleum from a traditional well. Whether that makes it good or bad, net, I can’t say. What I **am** sure of is that the Keystone pipeline will only make a marginal difference one way or the other, since most of the oil that is economically feasible to extract from the Alberta tar sands will find its way to market one way or another. So this is another one that’s really pretty idiotic just to have on the list. [QUOTE] [li]Just as Republicans have gone too far in using the Laffer curve to justify cutting taxes at any time, liberals are now using Keynesian demand stimulus and multipliers to justify heavy government spending regardless of the conditions of the economy or the size of the debt.[/li][/QUOTE] Yeah, ‘liberals’ in lockstep, like [Brad DeLong](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/02/macroeconomics-somehow-the-bullshit-artists-have-won-a-question-for-gavyn-davies-department.html)? > [@](#): > > As I have said before: The models say and always have said that a debt-financed expansion of government purchases has no effect on production, income, and employment if: > > 1. bottlenecks in resource and labor markets are so severe that increases in nominal spending show up entirely as increases in prices and not at all as increases in production; or > 2. the central bank has a nominal GDP target and takes steps to hit it, and so offsets any impact of fiscal policy on nominal spending; or > 3. what the government buys is exactly the same as what the private sector would have bought; or > 4. the government’s debt is sufficiently risky that issuing more government debt does not reduce the average riskiness of the pool of outstanding savings vehicles; or > 5. perhaps there are a few other edge cases we could think of if we were sufficiently ingenious, but nobody has focused on them. This is one of those instances where I’m sure you could find _somebody_ on the left who believes what you say ‘liberals’ believe, but it’s total bullshit that liberals in general take this position. I can’t look it up from home where I’d use up my 20 free NYT views per month too fast, but I’m sure Paul Krugman would take pretty much the same position here as DeLong does. [QUOTE] [li]Where Republicans often refuse to accept that the market can fail, liberals refuse to accept that government can fail - unless they can blame Republicans for te failure. [/li][/QUOTE] Oh, bullshit. Again, can’t speak for all lefties, but in general, we’re pretty aware that government can screw up too. > [@](#): > > For example, they point to the financial collapse as a failure of the market, but governments failed right along with business, and maybe worse. If you’re talking about Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA, you still have to explain how they caused a crash that took place in high-end as well as subprime real estate, that took place in commercial as well as residential real estate, and took place in many countries, and not just the U.S. of A. > [@](#): > > Liberals tend to imbue government with the power of omniscience, assuming that only if regulators were given enough power they could see social and economic problems brewing and prevent them, when all the actors in the private market are oblivious. We’re just sayin’ that this is one area where government regulation kept anything bad happening for several decades. It may be a coincidence that things went to shit right after a big wave of deregulation hit the financial ‘industry’, but there are a lot of damned good arguments why it wasn’t. [QUOTE] [li]Liberals assume that everyone on ‘their’ side is sincere[/li][/QUOTE] I’m not sure which liberal blogs you read, but the ones I read would disabuse you of this notion pretty quickly. > [@](#): > > There are equal shares of stupid on the right and on the left. But when you surround yourself with like-minded partisans, you only hear about the excesses on one side, and when someone comes along on a message board like this and points out the craziness on their own side, the reaction is disbelief because they’ve never heard those arguments before, or only heard them in the context of some other liberal criticizing them. Or, the other natural reaction is to circle the wagons and start shooting at the interlopers who dare question what you think is obvious and true. You know, there are movement conservatives with columns on practically every op-ed page in the country. And they get their fair share of time on the tube as well. Plus we’ve all been following the GOP primary debates. It’s not like we’ve never heard this shit before, **Sam**. There’s no cocoon available for us lefties. Not that most of us seek one: before my son sucked away most of my free time for this stuff, I used to go over to The Corner with some regularity. Annoyed the shit out of me that they didn’t allow comments, given that most of the people posting over there wouldn’t have cut the mustard over here. > [@](#): > > As a thought exercise, consider this: what if the only solution to global warming was to dismantle large governments and institute libertarian or conservative policies? If that were true, do you think it would still be the right questioning the science, and liberals accepting it and preparing to abandon their cherished ideals? Or would the left-right split reverse, with the right defending it and the left trying to pick holes in it and ‘denying’ it? If you accept that the debate would probably be reversed, that should tell you something about how our own biases and political views color the way we see everything including ‘reality’. We’ve already seen this, actually. We liberals came around to a conservative, market-based solution to global warming - cap-and-trade. And once it started looking as if this originally conservative approach to the problem had a chance of becoming law, it became anathema on the right. Similarly with Romneycare/Obamacare. The ideas at the heart of this were originally conservative ideas (hell, even the Heritage Foundation liked it as recently as 2003); most of us on the left would frankly prefer Medicare for all. But when Obama pushed this originally conservative alternative to a more centralized system of universal health insurance, it again became anathema on the right. We’re open to new ideas, even _your_ ideas if they’re any good. But increasingly, you guys are just knee-jerk against whatever we’re for. As we move right, we can never catch up with you. Lord knows when was the last time conservatives adopted a liberal policy idea because it, y’know, _worked_. As far as your general question goes, for most of us on the left it’s pretty simple. We’ve got children and grandchildren. We’re willing to be for whatever works. I have a 4 year old son; unlike his aging dad who will be lucky to see midcentury, he may live to see the year 2100. I’d give my right arm to be able to tell him that 2100 won’t already be fucked before his cohort is of an age to do something about it. So all your examples are wrong. There is no left-right equivalence. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/826 "2012-02-07T04:16:51Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > None of which is true but, as is usually the case, why defend your position when it’s easier to engage in personal attacks? Heh, you’ve been ignorable since that ignoble abortion thread that first brought you to my attention. Your inability to argue earned a place on my ignore list for a while, but then I gradually came to realize you’re unintentionally funnier than you are stupid. And the difference between me and lil’ turd loafs like you and Shodan is that I can tell this is the pit and it’s here for me to point at laugh at drooling sub-literates like your own lovely self. Regarding your quote: even if we discount the obvious counterargument (to wit, **Der Trihs** is crazier than a shithouse mouse when it comes to politics), “amused disbelief” isn’t even in the same universe as “chagrin”. “That’s like Capitalists for Stalin” isn’t expression of “a feeling of vexation, marked by disappointment or humiliation.” No one is disappointed in you, man. We just think you’re ridiculous–and it’s because of your pitiful brain, not because of the color of the meatbag carrying 'em around. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/827 "2012-02-07T04:34:00Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Could you, please, show me the margin of error expected on this reporting? Surely you must have non-ideological cause to believe these numbers are not saying what they plainly say. Statistical errors fall loosely into two categories: sampling error (which is the kind that margins of error measure) and nonsampling error. This falls into the latter category, and can’t be measured nearly as easily. But statisticians are quite familiar with a bunch of types of nonsampling error, and how they can mess up your survey results. Think for a minute about the Virginia state police, and Virginia bars and restaurants. How did the former get the data from the latter? Did they have each one fill out a questionnaire? Or did they just gather data by some more informal means, given that tracking this wasn’t something that they were going to spend a million bucks on? Chances are that people (sometimes staff, sometimes customers) called 911 from bars and restaurants. They got put through to the appropriate police department, local or state, depending. These police departments recorded enough details to gather statistics, and the numbers were added up by the state police. Now, there are all sorts of steps where reporting could get skewed. Did someone call 911 for all incidents that might have qualified? Extremely unlikely. Did every police department in each of Virginia’s counties check the right boxes, not attributing any crimes in bars or restaurants to somewhere else, or vice versa? Pretty damned unlikely too. There’s just a lot of room for slop here, especially when it comes to a bit of reporting that the actual police involved probably regard as being more of an annoyance, something that the damned bureaucrats make them do but isn’t all that important to them. You just can’t expect them to invest a lot of energy and attention to getting these numbers right. They’re cops, not a statistical agency. There aren’t any hard-and-fast rules here about how much difference is enough to say that the actual number of such crimes decreased between one year and the next, because nonsampling error as a whole isn’t something we’ve got more than a seat-of-the-pants grasp on. But if you went to a statistical conference, showed people this clipping, and asked 100 of them whether they thought these numbers were enough to be reasonably sure of an actual decrease, I bet you’d be lucky to find ten who said it was. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/828 "2012-02-07T06:35:35Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Your inability to argue earned a place on my ignore list for a while, but then I gradually came to realize you’re unintentionally funnier than you are stupid. 1.) My inability to argue? There are two things wrong with that assertion. The first is that I understand basic logic (and the meaning of words); the second is that I have an uncanny ability to look things up. It’s not my fault the arguments you want to use suck as much as they are laughable. 2.) If you had me on ignore, then how would you know I’m funnier than stupid? > [@](#): > > And the difference between me and lil’ turd loafs like you and Shodan is that I can tell this is the pit and it’s here for me to point at laugh at drooling sub-literates like your own lovely self. You know, I simply can’t bring myself to be insulted by this in the slightest. And trust me. I really did try to let this bother me. > [@](#): > > Regarding your quote: even if we discount the obvious counterargument (to wit, **Der Trihs** is crazier than a shithouse mouse when it comes to politics), “amused disbelief” isn’t even in the same universe as “chagrin”. “That’s like Capitalists for Stalin” isn’t expression of “a feeling of vexation, marked by disappointment or humiliation.” No one is disappointed in you, man. We just think you’re ridiculous–and it’s because of your pitiful brain, not because of the color of the meatbag carrying 'em around. First of all, there is no obvious counterargument, since you said “not a single person”. Second of all, I really can’t believe you’re relegated to playing semantics. Or, maybe I can, since I’ve seen this quite a bit on this board. Chagrin here means annoyance, dismay or displeasure; something I’m very well sure you were aware. Third of all, if you would have read that quote, you would see that DT said I was a moron because I’m Black and a conservative or, more specifically, the latter implies the former. The ‘capitalists for Stalin’ line was just a qualifier. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/829 "2012-02-07T07:06:01Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Indeed it’s does. But, hey, we _do_ exist, much to the chagrin of most. You’re right. In fact, there’s plenty of you out there. You’re nothing new or really all that special. Really, your username is as childish and inane as a teenager expecting to give his parents a heart attack by getting a tattoo or an ear pierced. Ooh! You’re _edgy_! Gimme a fucking break. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/830 "2012-02-07T07:12:50Z")
Still not convinced he’s really black. Doesn’t type black. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/831 "2012-02-07T09:42:59Z")
I don’t know to what extent I qualify as an example of the “left” on this board, but for what it’s worth, **Bricker** here’s my reaction to the fact that concealed weapon laws in DC haven’t lead to more shootings: Great!! Whew!! Now, if that trend keeps up, fantastic. It’s reasonable to suspect apriorí that the combination of guns and alcohol will lead to an uptick in violent shootings; people tend to suffer a loss of impulse control while drinking, some people get very angry when drunk, and so on. But in this case the uptick didn’t seem to happen. Thank goodness. And as long as that trend continues, good on ya! I’ll wholeheartedly support the new law. And even if **RT** is right about the statistical uncertainty of the results, we can at least say that we probably did not see a dramatic increase in the amount of gun violence, and that’s a good thing. At a more general level, I think the empirical evidence shows quite clearly that countries with more restrictive gun laws also suffer less gun-related violence, and for that reason I support stricter gun laws. If the opposite were true, I would support less restricive gun laws. Maybe this is an example of reality’s left-wing bias? With regard to **Sam Stone** , the myth that **Sam** is somehow a polite, reasonable conservative poster, vicitmized by us savage lefties, really needs to be examined. **Sam** has worked very hard to earn the ire of those of us who are tired of him, and who no longer have any respect for him. He really is immune to logic and matters of fact, and has demonstrated this over and over again. He’s also dishonorable. **Sam** is _not_ reasonable. As **Hentor** pointed out earlier, he fixes his arguments around a conclusion he has decided on beforehand, the mark of the true ideologue. The real tell here is his fixation with libertarianism, which as most of us know is an utterly unrealistic form of social organization, and his insistence that it be taken seriously. **Sam** is not polite. Oh, it true that he’s not as crude as **Shodan** with his incessent, noxious drive-bys, but I submit you would be hard-pressed to find a poster who has less respect for his debating opponents. His replies are almost always snide and condescending, and he clearly feels that once he’s expressed his view on a subject, the matter is resolved and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or mendacious. His posts are usually peppered with under-the-belt comments about how idiotic, silly, and ideologically blinkered his debate opponents are. And when someone calls him out on it, oh! He’s such the victim! It’s classic passive-aggressive behavior. But he’s good at it. Very good at it, like slimy eel skimming along the bottom of a lake. You have to be on your toes to catch him at his game. That is why I personally have taken such an intense dislike to him; he’s as bad as any **Shodan** or **Carol Steam** , but signficantly more devious and toxic, because posters of good faith are easily mislead by his shtick. I was struck by something he posted a few pages back, a list of grievances as it were. Among the various projections and non-sequiters he wrote: > [@](#): > > _The way to demonstrate your acceptable character here is to admit that your own side is wrong. The more you do that, the more accepted you’ll be. If you don’t bow to the opinions of the majority, you are guilty of being unreasonable and partisan. Of course, the same standard is never applied to those on the left - their positions are correct by default, and defending them to the death is the good and proper way to behave._ Now consider his incessant cheerleading prior to the invasion of Iraq, his constant, underhanded, hateful goading. (Consider the cost, in terms of blood and treasure, the invasion cost us, and what was accomplished as a result. That alone should give one pause.) He claimed that Iraq possessed **WMD**. We made a good faith effort to try to convince him that the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate this. He was snide and insulting and refused to listen. He insisted his position was correct by default. It turns out that Iraq did not have WMD. Now, to admit your side was wrong after that is not to “bow to the opinion of the majority.” It is to concede to a simple matter of empirical fact. To continue to insist for months afterwards that yes, we’ll find them, is to fit the very definition of being “unreasonable and partisan.” Yet this is exactly what **Sam** did. Do you see how he turns this around now, to make sound as if he’s been unfairly accused of _being exactly what he is_? This is just one example, but trust me – they are legion. **Sam** is dishonorable. For example, he claimed he would openly admit he was wrong, and that I was right, if WMD was not found in Iraq. He was given numerous opportunities to do so in the months that followed. Never could he bring himself to admit it. Sure, he’ll admit he got a detail wrong here or there – often trying to minimize it by calling it a “rounding error” or something similar – but he will never, ever admit that he is wrong about anything significant. Actually, he reminds me of Wormtongue from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, always throwing the dice and hoping to win just a bit more time, or consideration, or confuse someone just a bit more. And that’s why I say to those who’ve successfully chased him off – good on ya! Keep up the good work! Finally, thanks **Hentor** , for the kind words upthread. I also miss **American Patriot X** , one of the few conservative posters here who I could really respect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/832 "2012-02-07T13:48:08Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Hard numbers about a drop in crime in bars? What a joke. > > Wending my way back to [your original source](http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/aug/14/tdmain01-gun-crime-drops-at-virginia-bars-and-rest-ar-1237278/): > > A difference of 8 in a category such as ‘reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants’ is well within reporting error. > > I was gonna say this earlier, but then I realized that all you’d used it for at the time was as evidence that the numbers hadn’t gone rocketing up. They were OK for that usage. > > But as “hard numbers about a drop”?? Sorry, but no freakin’ way. > > Sorry, but in this case it’s the other way around: you’re most inappropriately using inconclusive stats as evidence of a real drop, and they’re not. Pointing that out is most certainly “hewing to a pro-science tradition.” > > There goes Bricker with his liberal hypocrisy shtick again. Zzzzzz. Yes, yes, I said “drop.” But in fact, my argument in the thread was that the numbers did not rise. And since the thread was posted, they still haven’t risen. I agree that this small drop is statistically insignificant. But the point is: the law changed, and the numbers didn’t go up. At best, they remained steady. And since the change in law was opposed by people that argued the numbers WOULD rise, what I was asking for in that thread was an admission that, at least so far, those predictions were wrong. Guess how many posters were willing to acknowledge that point, openly? And my point in THIS thread is: the attempts to dissassemble this evidence, and insist on more study and more detail, is reminiscent of the global warming deniers. When the numbers go your way, accept them; when they don’t, insist on more data, more controls, more anything. That’s exactly what’s happening with this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/833 "2012-02-07T13:48:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > That said, there’s trolling and there’s trolling… when considering how to phrase something you want to post, you must sometimes think to yourself “hmm, phrasing it this way is going to make it more likely to really irk all those liberals”. At that point, is your internal reaction “well, better off NOT to phrase it that way” or “I don’t care, I’m going to say what I’m going to say however I like” or “aw yeah, full speed ahead!”? Because the third (and even arguably the second ones) are certainly in the same genus as trolling, imho. That kind of debate doesn’t really go on in my head. In my experience, it doesn’t matter how you phrase it, since those who are going to go ballistic don’t read what I write anyway. They sort of skim it to get the gist, and then regurgitate whatever they would have said if I phrased it gently or directly. > [@](#): > > But it still doesn’t prove that the reaction Sam Stone gets and the reaction you get are identical, or even close to identical. They’re assholes to him, they’re assholes to me. They’re assholes - what do you expect? But I don’t claim the reaction to me is identical to the reaction to him. When the assholes snark at me, I snark back, harder. If they don’t debate in good faith, I don’t always try to debate back - I mock them and laugh at them and deride their posts. There are a lot of dickwads hereabouts who would like the shit to only go one way. They want to be able to mock conservatives and take cheap shots at Republicans (and theists) and never get it back in their faces. Ain’t gonna happen, and no, that’s not trolling no matter how hard they wish. The presence of even one capable conservative who gives as good as he gets make the Usual Suspects feel outnumbered. That’s the source of the frequent cries for my banning - it’s threatening to them to know that somewhere, somehow, someone is laughing at them, and not always behind their backs. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure about that… compare Sam Stone to Der Trihs. Do you think Sam Stone is a less well respected and less well liked poster than Der Trihs? (Granted, there might be differing types of crap they get as well… maybe Sam Stone is generally liked and respected but has a small number of people who just nitpick his posts to death, while Der Trihs is frequently pitted and not someone that anyone praises, but is generally left alone, because, why bother? or something like that) **Der Trihs** is generally left alone because a) why bother? b) he’s mentally ill, and c) his delusions are in keeping with the general tone of the Usual Suspects, who do really believe that Republicans are bad people, and pro-lifers want to enslave women, and rich people always got that way by stealing, and Christians really are persecuting the poor, misunderstood atheists, and do really hate America and want bad things for her, to punish her. > [@](#): > > And you call those (2)s the Usual Suspects, and you choose to let their actions (or at least your perception of their actions) completely dominate and color your SDMB experience. Again, this is a case of selective perception. If I let the Usual Suspects dominate my experience on the SDMB, I wouldn’t be here. I can have reasonable discussions with reasonable people, including people who disagree with me. I can also snark with the best of them, and if someone wants to play “Who Gets In the Best Dig While Remaining Within the Rules?”, I can accommodate them with much pleasure too. But the Usual Suspects can repeat “all you ever do is snarky one-liners” until they are blue in the face, and it won’t change anything. Because it isn’t true, I do both snark and substance, and I have seen their games from way back. > [@](#): > > So do non-morons, interestingly enough. It depends on who it’s coming from. And for that reason, it doesn’t generally bother me to be called names by the Usual Suspects. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/834 "2012-02-07T13:52:37Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You know, I once pointed out that states with the death penalty had higher murder rates, and you were quick to point out, “Correlation does not imply causation.” Can’t have it both ways. Nor do I want it both ways. My point in the gun numbers thread was that opponents had claimed the law’s passage would presage an increase in gun crime in bars. It didn’t. I don’t have to prove anything except the status quo.I’m not saying the law changed anything – I’m saying the people opposing the bill said it would have an effect that didn’t occur. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/835 "2012-02-07T14:12:14Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > I’ll submit that there are various topics that have a great many respondents of the liberal persuasion conveniently ignoring the science in order to adhere to their ideological convictions. These topics include nuclear power, gun control, use of military forces, and a few others. Agreed, and thanks. > [@](#): > > But on all of the hot topics I named, there are just as many “liberal” dopers arguing the other side of issue. Discussing these topics on any liberal venue always yields a large variety of opposing viewpoints. On a venue like the SDMB, the general weight of the board tends to come down in favor of the argument with the best data to support it. Disagree. Now, perhaps it’s my confirmation bias acting up again, and I just don’t see it. But I can tell you I feel outnumbered in gun control threads, and the the general weight of the board is NOT in favor of the best data in that area. And oddly enough, this happens in part because of claims that the data being presented isn’t good enough. Richard Feynman described the phenomenon quite well in his Caltech commencement address in 1974: > [@](#): > > One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron with an experiment on falling oil drops and got an answer which we now know to be not quite right. It’s a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, the next one’s a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one a little bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bigger than that, until the finally settle down to a number which is higher. > > Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing scientists are ashamed of – this history – because it’s apparent that people did things like this: when they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong – and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. when they got a number closer to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. When data appears that seems to support gun control, it tends to be accepted uncritically here. When data appears that flouts the gun control ideology, it’s examined carefully, with evry real and imagined flaw being trotted out. The result, of course, is what Feynman described. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/836 "2012-02-07T15:05:55Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It is and it is. I don’t think there’s any serious debate about that (unless we’re quibbling about what “hostile” means). Someone coming to the SDMB and promoting conservative viewpoints will be met by with a lot of disagreement, some of it impolite. > > The question is, is that hostility so pervasive and overwhelming that it renders any possible communication moot, and one might as well just become a snarker? Or is that hostility, while real, something that can be tolerated, allowing actual debate and interchange of ideas to occur? (At least, that’s part of the question…) That’s part of the question (& the part that relates mostly to Sam Stone’s comments in this thread). But I think the more important points - especially in the context of this specific thread - are as follows: 1. When a thread such as this is opened, with numerous posters competing with each other to express their contempt for the target (in this case, Shodan) the very fact of the mass agreement has a weight of its own. “Look how many people agree that Shodan is a retarded jerk.” In this context, it’s relevant to note that some significant level of this consensus is based on ideological bias. 2. When comparing the tactics and board persona of one poster against another (or others), it’s appropriate to consider the environment that each operates in. Specifically, if a poster is operating in an atmosphere of unremitting hostility, it will tend to produce behavior that is different than that of a person who is treated better. So in the example at hand, it’s easy for posters whose opinions are within the mainstream of this board to criticize Shodan for being too snarky, and similarly it’s easy to compare him unfavorably to mainstream posters who don’t adopt his approach. But it’s not valid unless his particular situation is taken into account, and thus it’s relevant to discuss the board atmosphere as regards conservative posters. > [@](#): > > Sure. But, at some level, so could anything. Which is why when we actually are debating substantive topics, we actually make arguments and present evidence and stuff. Everything is subjective at some level. (People delude themselves when they focus too much on “cites”, ignoring that the interpretation of cites is itself subjective judgment, but that’s OT.) But not all things are equally subjective. Some things are more subjective than others. And to the extent that something is more subjective, it makes debating it that much less productive. I would venture that this particular subject is almost completely subjective. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/837 "2012-02-07T15:51:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When data appears that seems to support gun control, it tends to be accepted uncritically here. When data appears that flouts the gun control ideology, it’s examined carefully, with evry real and imagined flaw being trotted out. The result, of course, is what Feynman described. Think about what you’re saying here. It seems to me like you’re opposed to liberals actually examing data unless we first acknowledge the data as either good or bad for “our” position. Here’s the thing about data that partisans never really seem to understand – it’s neither friend nor foe, it’s just data. Data by itself doesn’t mean anything – quite literally. Your gun crime statistic is just numbers until put through a process of comparison, interpretation and analysis. Then it becomes information that we can discuss. If we manage to put that information to use along with information from other statistics or studies or discussions, then we’ve actually gained some knowledge about gun control, but until then it neither buttresses nor flouts any particular position. When partisans of any stripe base their arguments on whether the data in question supports their pov instead of basing them on consideration of the data, they do a disservice to the debate and to their own pov. But poor use of data in arguments isn’t a failing exclusive to partisans, and it certainly isn’t a failing that skews right or left. The thing that does, IME, skew heavily toward conservative arguments is a marked tendency toward declarations of persecution when confronted with critical analysis of data that supports a matter of ideological principle or a closely held perception. Statements like “liberals do _x y and z_ and never get corrected on that”, and “these are hard numbers about a drop in crime rate” are offered unironically as true statements, and you’re always surprised and exasperated when they’re challenged. The statistic on Virginia gun crime reports doesn’t tell us what opponents of the “shall issue” laws said they expected, but it also doesn’t tell us what you seem to believe it does. The data is limited and the information that can be gleaned is even more so, as we don’t know what effect the law had on the actual issuance of permits (did the rate increase? stay the same?), or on the actual carry of weapons into bars and restaurants in the state of Virginia (is this even measurable? anyone done surveys?), or even whether the reporting accuracy for gun crime has been altered during the pre and post law periods being considered (are we using the same method of measurement? did the laws require a different standard for reporting gun use?). Feynman’s point was not to simply decry the phenomenon of bias toward expected results, it was to encourage rigor in the analysis of data regardless of where the measured values are in relation to one’s expectations. It’s not unfair to question “facts” presented by anyone, it’s just analysis. But that’s exactly what you, **Sam Stone** and **Shodan** (when he can bother to attempt coherency) are whining on and on about. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/838 "2012-02-07T16:14:38Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > You’re right. In fact, there’s plenty of you out there. You’re nothing new or really all that special. > > Really, your username is as childish and inane as a teenager expecting to give his parents a heart attack by getting a tattoo or an ear pierced. Ooh! You’re _edgy_! Gimme a fucking break. You know what’s “even more childish and inane” than my username, which is neither? The inordinate amount of time spent by some complaining about it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/839 "2012-02-07T16:18:18Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You know what’s “even more childish and inane” than my username, which is neither? The inordinate amount of time spent by some complaining about it. Why would you consider it to be inane, when it seems to bring about the exact reaction you desired when you created it in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/840 "2012-02-07T16:19:44Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You know what’s “even more childish and inane” than my username, which is neither? The inordinate amount of time spent by some complaining about it. Dude, I quoted you as being a smug asshole about it. That’s what I was responding to. God, you people with your persecution complexes. You don’t get a chubby unless you think someone is hating on you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530.md?page=43)