seiferguy posted:

Imgur is mansplainin' today:



"Let me tell you about these dominantly male jobs I've worked in to tell you your struggles aren't that big of a deal."

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

As a guy who had pretty much the same exact job, take a look around and you'll realize that everyone is a lazy complaining rear end in a top hat trying to avoid busy work.

quote:

"Another citizen asked about assimilation into central Minnesota culture, a panel member responded by asking what central Minnesota was doing to become a more inclusive society."

OxySnake posted:

Mark Dayton Owns.

Edit: Best quote of the article,

quote:

I am the Manager one of the Car dealers in the twin cities, one thing I can tell you honestly the Somalis who show up my lot all work two jobs and put down at least 20% of the vehicle value before they leave the lot, they are the only customers that I see willing to pay that much cash up front, Even though they qualify With their credit ratings a zero down plan.

I am Minnesotan and these people are my dearly customers, they have every right to be here and anyone who want to disguise their racist view under the false patriotic dilemma should really move to somewhere else where they can find a cave to live at 21st century.

Keeshhound posted:

Honestly, my favorite part came out of the comments section. There's plenty of reactionary bullshit and naked racism, but there were a surprising number like this:

VitalSigns posted:

Goddamnit, it's a teacher I respect too, at least he is a history and government teacher, and not a science teacher

quote:

Abstract

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

[...]

One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. “Collectively,” the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey “tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling” (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978). However, given that an opinion survey does not capture the full state of the science of the time, we conducted a rigorous literature review of the American Meteorological Society’s electronic archives as well as those of Nature and the scholarly journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). To capture the relevant topics, we used global temperature, global warming, and global cooling, as well as a variety of other less directly relevant search terms. Additionally, in order to make the survey more complete, even at the expense of no longer being fully reproducible by electronic search techniques, many references mentioned in the papers located by these searches were evaluated, as were references mentioned in various history-of-science documents. Because the time period attributed to the global cooling consensus is typically described as the 1970s, the literature search was limited to the period from 1965 through 1979. While no search can be 100% complete, this methodology offers a reasonable test of the hypothesis that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding the prospect of imminent global cooling. Such a consensus would be easily shown by both the presence of many articles describing global cooling projections and the absence of articles projecting global warming.

Agents are GO! posted:

What is this? A small glimmer of hope for humanity? What an odd sensation.

OxySnake posted:

Mark Dayton Owns.

Nevvy Z posted:

There's probably some statistics on whether people who carry are less or more likely to be murdered while being mugged. I have my guess.

Cugel the Clever posted:

Mark Dayton was a primary mover and shaker behind the atrocious giveaway of taxpayer money that is the Vikings stadium. He also hopped aboard the DNC-establishment's Hillary bandwagon before she even announced. gently caress him.

Other than that, he's kinda okay I guess. Won't ever see my vote.

Mo_Steel posted:

The argument that there was a consensus around global cooling is simply a justification for continued ignorance given how false it really is.

The Larch posted:

?

quote:

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria). Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based on screening the general population is likely to have a positive bias. The reason can best be explained by use of an epidemiological framework.¹⁵ Screening tests are always subject to error, whether the "test" is a medical examination for cancer or an interview question for DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or "false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber the former, the population prevalence will be exaggerated. The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias—regardless of whether the one true positive tells the truth. Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question for any of a number of reasons:

• They may want to impress the interviewer
by their heroism and hence exaggerate
a trivial event.
• They may be genuinely confused due
to substance abuse, mental illness, or
simply less-than-accurate memories.
• They may actually have used a gun
defensively within the last couple of
years but falsely report it as occurring
in the previous year—a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."

Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why that rare respondent who actually did use a gun defensively within the time frame may have decided not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the arithmetic dictates that the false positives will likely predominate. In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"
The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.

quote:

For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"

Boywhiz88 posted:

He can be a bit milquetoast. I wish he would be up for legalization, but you have to admit he trolls the Minnesota RNC pretty hard. Good DFLers are the best though

VitalSigns posted:

Goddamnit, it's a teacher I respect too, at least he is a history and government teacher, and not a science teacher

Mo_Steel posted:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus ((Click "PDF" near the top for the full paper))

The argument that there was a consensus around global cooling is simply a justification for continued ignorance given how false it really is.


Cast it into the fire! Destroy it!

Mo_Steel posted:

Cast it into the fire! Destroy it!

MariusLecter posted:

borkencode posted:

borkencode posted:

BigRed0427 posted:

They know Russia is purposefully not targeting ISIS, right?

fallingdownjoe posted:

There's a point where you have to applaud the propagandists being paid by the Kremlin to comment on news websites: at least some of these memes have to come from their offices. Good work right-wingers in sharing them!

BigRed0427 posted:

They know Russia is purposefully not targeting ISIS, right?

fallingdownjoe posted:

There's a point where you have to applaud the propagandists being paid by the Kremlin to comment on news websites: at least some of these memes have to come from their offices. Good work right-wingers in sharing them!

MariusLecter posted:

BigRed0427 posted:

Part of my brain thinks I should be laughing at Americans cheering for Vladimir Putin.

But then I can't laugh.

Edit: Whats a good place to go for the current state of ISIS?

MariusLecter posted:

Armyman25 posted:

Friend of mine posted this:


What followed was a dismissal by a European that it was inaccurate, which was rebutted by an American who basically said that, sure it works now, but it's totally gonna collapse some day and then I'll get to be smug.

Armyman25 posted:

Friend of mine posted this:

Selachian posted:

Please tell me more about these lover-class people.

Armyman25 posted:

Friend of mine posted this:
What followed was a dismissal by a European that it was inaccurate, which was rebutted by an American who basically said that, sure it works now, but it's totally gonna collapse some day and then I'll get to be smug.