From the linked post:
Note the distinction here; Gillespie’s own campaign is funding racist appeals, and here is HD ignoring those ads totally and complaining about an ad funded by an independent group, which the candidate it implicitly endorsed has already denounced. Typical.
100% accurate.
Oh?
I must’ve missed this third thread that was “started in Great Debates”.
Maybe you can help out with a link to that one.
Glad to help! FP may be hanging his claim on the shred that his OP didn’t specifically link to an article about this incident. Given that its title was “Please Do Not Forward [List of Available Jobs] to Cisgender Straight White Males: Legal Implications”, that’s a pretty flimsy shred.
Edit: Ohhhhh! He started it in General Questions, and it was moved to Great Debates! Mea maxima culpa. That totally changes my point like 360 degrees.
I think I disagree. The vehicle-attack imagery pretty clearly calls back to the Charlottesville attack, in which a white supremacist ran down and killed people. And I think that attack is directly linked to the emboldened feelings so many white supremacists have due to Trump’s rhetoric and electoral success; rhetoric that Gillespie has largely adopted (regarding immigration and especially Confederate figures and memorials).
I’m not sure if I’d advise a campaign to use such an ad – such extreme imagery, even if it might be warranted by the facts, could turn off some voters that Northam needs to win. But I do think it’s reasonable to tie Gillespie’s rhetoric to emboldened white supremacists, since I think such rhetoric is a huge part of the reason why they feel emboldened.
WaPo said:
ETA: you seem to be saying the opposite.
I have no doubt that your point, whatever it was, is completely unchanged by your error.
What I don’t know is what you think your point was.
That people are guilty of “hand-wringing” if they ask politically-inspired legal questions in GQ? That broad generalizations based from a highly non-representative message board on a sample size of n=3 (only three, but even so, incorrectly categorized) are “hilarious”? I’m not at all sure. But obviously, comedy is very subjective, if that was the point you were making. If confirmation bias is a source of entertainment, then you’ll never be short of chuckles.
I’m sure you’re not sure. You’re complaining about the sample size of one for conservatives making a giant deal out of some tiny triviality–but even for this single tiny triviality, three conservatives started a thread about it. If we expanded beyond this single triviality, the examples would pour in. Urbanredneck’s threads in Great Debates are a wonderful place to look for examples, but HurricaneDitka also starts plenty of these threads right here in Elections.
If you need examples, lemme know how many is the smallest number that will satisfy you that this is a thing, and what’ll qualify as an example for you.
That’s kind of damning with faint praise, because my mom’s dog condemned the white-supremacist violence more directly than Trump did, too.
(in case anyone’s wondering, his statement on the matter was “Woof! Woof woof woof woof! Woof woof!”)
I disagree with the Washington Post editorial. Gillespie has still continued much of Trump’s rhetoric that emboldens white supremacists, even if he did a better job of condemning the Charlottesville assholes, and I don’t have a problem with portraying potential white supremacist violence being more likely due to such rhetoric. Because I think it is more likely, even if only by a little bit, with each instance of such rhetoric.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good or effective ad. I don’t know if it is that.
Left Hand of Dorkness:
Do you know what a representative sample is?
If I complain that your sample size is too small and that your sample is terribly unrepresentative, then it is not a very apt response to point out that you can get a larger sample size by the same biased methods. That shows a very limited understanding of what my criticism is. Your sample size could be fifty billion, and it still wouldn’t justify a statement about the general properties of “their side”, if it weren’t actually representative of their side.
Scouring the boards, or even the world, for the most evocative examples you can find is not the way get a representative sample of “conservatives”. Nor is it the way to get a representative sample of “Democrats”, which is of course is the entire problem with the OP of this thread. (Both of them, in fact.)
But it’s especially strange to see someone notice this particular problem with the OP, and literally at the same time commit exactly the same error. One might think that when pointing out a particular error that someone else has committed, it might be prudent not to simultaneously commit the same error. Yes, I’m sure you can find many more examples of trivialities dug up by the usual suspects. No doubt they believe they’re buffing their sample size, too. It doesn’t seem to occur to them, either, that they might want to make sure their examples are actually representative of any deeper point they might be trying to make. However, they are not the only ones with this issue.
This problem is not strictly limited to the OP.
Unfortunately.
Ah. So your problem is that I can’t conduct a professional poll on this measure to satisfy your curiosity, right? Cool beans.
I’m not claiming that everyone on the right does this, merely that it’s a very common tactic from the past several years, in which conservatives pull up some penny-ante bullshit done by some nobody on the left and start gnashing their teeth and rending their garments over the Threat To Western Civilization or whatever posed by this nothing and nonsense. I have no idea what the percentage of righties are who engage in it, nor the precise number of times it appears, nor the proportion of complaints from the right versus the left consisting of this sort of penny-ante bullshit. I know it occurs a lot.
Good luck on your professional pollster plans, though!
No.
Not right.
Your beans are undercooked.
You seem satisfied with the minimum of effort to type the first “clever” thing that pops into your head, but this is not an approach I would personally recommend. Your “interpretation” above is not close to what I said.
Yes. This happens a lot.
It’s the Second Worst Argument in the World to cite some silly, irrelevant, trivial, unrepresentative example and then paint the entire other side based on that example. “OMG here’s some internet feminist on a fringe leftist website saying something horrible! THIS IS WHAT FEMINISTS ARE LIKE!!11! THE WORLD IS RUINED NOW!!!1!” Fill in the blank with whatever, and we’ve both seen it. It genuinely does happen a helluva lot.
But there’s still a huge problem here.
Then why attribute it to “conservatives”, as you did above, when you have already admitted that you don’t know whether it’s 70% or 0.7%?
Yes, it happens a lot. True. Undoubtedly. But a small number of people can raise a disproportionate amount of ruckus. Being loud means you’re more likely to be heard. That’s pretty much the definition of “loud”, both literally and figuratively. In a country of more than three hundred million people, everything happens a lot. Do you think if I wanted to start a new thread about “Annoying X Group”, I couldn’t find a bazillion examples, regardless of what the group was? And what if the few, insignificant, small-in-number annoying loud people have a special technology that helps them funnel the latest, breaking, trivial non-issue to the rest of the world? Would it then be surprising to see multiple threads go up when the commissioner lights the prat-signal? Even if only three or four people are actually watching for it?
Annoying people can have a literally endless supply of “bad behavior” examples taken from any large group, and they can use those cherry-picked examples to paint the entire group. (We’ve had the “ZORG FEMINISTS!” posters in the past on this board, for a particularly annoying example.) But the same logic applies to the other side of this. Logic is universal like that. Just as it’s fucking stupid to fish for empty examples to paint an entire group, it’s also – and equivalently – fucking stupid to assume that those example-fishers are themselves anything different from another empty example. They could be cut from exactly the same substance as what they cite: trivial nothingness. And that would mean treating them like they’re genuinely representative of the “group” they’re from, is exactly the same mistake that they themselves make with every ridiculous new post.
Now, I don’t know this. They might, in fact, be fair examples of their group.
But my recommendation here is simple prudence. I am not recommending, nor did I ever say, that anyone should fund a survey. (Which was, let’s be perfectly clear, a completely fucking empty and stupid thing to suggest, and if you’re not embarrassed about writing that, you should be.) My recommendation is a lot simpler than that: don’t be like them. Don’t act on insufficient information. Don’t paint the group with a brush handed to you by just a few people. Even if those same few people repeatedly hand you the brush over and over again. If we don’t know whether they’re representative, then we shouldn’t act as if they are. Just withhold judgment about the group as a whole, on the absence of more information. There are plenty of other relevant things to talk about.
A look at my own posting history will be a long list of me not doing this. A look at my future posts will probably be faulty as well. But I’ve tried to be better about it since I’ve noticed it. And relevant for this thread, it’s an especially bad idea to complain about it, while simultaneously engaging in the same activity that’s being complained about.
I think there is a substantive difference between: “Don’t forward this to Group X” and “If you are able, please make an extra effort to include Groups Y and Z when you forward this”. Telling someone to explicitly exclude one group from whatever activity you are encouraging is unnecessarily divisive.
Cool beans indeed. You’ve got what you consider a highly important rhetorical scolding to offer. I find it risible, and your response is to repeat the scolding with a lot more words involved.
I got it the first time. It’s a silly fingerwag of a point. Unless you want to contribute to the actual conversation, I’m not sure I have much else to say.
The problem that the Democratic party seems to be having is a profound one. It’s a growing fissure between those who see the party as a vehicle for promoting cultural diversity and those who want it to be political tent that protects cultural diversity while focusing on traditional issues like economics and national security. Obama was able to bring these factions together but I’m not sure that there’s another Obama out there. It seems like a lot of people on the Left resented him for trying to maintain that coalition anyway.
I would have to disagree with that. I think you are focusing too much on things that are not important to the general electorate. It’s all about marketing. The democrats are trying to market to a diverse group of aspirational people. They are trying to be the party of poor people who want to improve their social standing through education and also educated middle/upper middle class people who want to feel like the are superior and enlightened human beings. They also try to appeal to truly good people who want prosperity to be spread far and wide and want people from all walks of life to have an opportunity to achieve financial comfort and dignity. Unfortunately in trying to appeal to all these groups they come off as elitist snobs - personally I think they became too dependent on corporate money.
Jesus fuck almighty, a man who has dislocated both fingers repeatedly from overenthusiastic wagging is now lecturing others on the bad behavior of finger wagging.
“Do as I say, not as I do” is a formula that might work with children, D, but it’s a dumb way to approach issues in the grown-up world. Regardless of how “risible” you find it, regardless of how “silly” it is for you, adults are going to notice the inherent lack of honesty when someone engages in exactly the same behavior that they complain about in others.
That’s it.
Both of you, stop the finger wagging and scolding and such. Any more of such shots at each other - any at all - will lead to sanctions.
No one wants that, do they?
I agree that the rhetoric was unnecessarily divisive. I don’t agree there is much substantive difference in meaning. In both cases, the person is encouraging the recipients of this email to forward to contacts who aren’t white cis- men.
Given that this is all in the context of just one subset of outreach for the job, we’re talking about a difference in rhetoric and a marginal difference in outcome (at most).
I’m all for not using divisive or offensive language. But let’s observe for a moment that folks like the OP have basically built a movement out of claiming liberals are too sensitive about language. This thread really proves how hollow that claim is.