|
nutranurse posted:I don't think we can have an honest examination of homophobia in the California black community if the people asking all the questions are white. While I agree, that doesn't stop other quasi-paternalistic posts on the subject so long as they seem positive.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Berke Negri posted:One of the confusing things over the (white) gay activist outrage was that it appeared to imply that some sort of breach of allegiance on the issue had occurred between black leaders and (white) gay activists when there never was organizational solidarity to begin with in anyway that justifies the likes of Dan Savage's "I voted for Obama and THIS is how you thank me??" response. There kind of is though. When you see arguments like VitalSign's that there is a de facto obligation for minority groups to avoid tearing each other apart at the behest of the white majority, we are precisely talking about a breach of solidarity (but minority solidarity rather than organizational solidarity). Do you really feel there is no obligation for groups that have experienced oppression to support other oppressed groups, or at least not directly oppress them? It's an important question in the current Israel/Palestine conflict too. The tendency for abused to become abuser seems to happen on both a personal and cultural level due to a lack of ability to identify with other groups and a siege mentality. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
I apologize for bringing up the Bergdahl issue again, but why have POW negotiations (there are still some civs left) with the Taliban been so difficult and lop-sided? I've been trying to look into the history of the Bergdahl deal and it appears that a key part of releasing so many high-level Taliban in exchange for Bergdahl was to aid the reconciliation process. I haven't found much relating to this particular topic in the thread since people here seem to be focusing on Bergdahl's character which is irrelevant to me because you don't leave soldiers behind. I want to be able to give a strong argument against those who say that Obama is not doing enough to bring POWs back home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I'm not "ascribing political views" to anyone, they ascribe those political views to themselves when they vote (and answer exit polls). If we're not allowed to look at the way groups of people vote, we might as well throw out the entire field of polling, because that's all that field does. I'm going to be as delicate as I can here. You have a bigoted view of black people. I shouldn't have to defend myself because people whose only characteristic I share with is a measure of melanin voted a certain way. You don't see a black person, you see a representative of black people. And that is a cudgel that anyone familiar with history and any sort of empathy should stay well clear of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Mainly because we don't negotiate with the Taliban. We had to go through third party intermediaries, in this case Qatar, so everything takes twice as long and is twice as frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There kind of is though. When you see arguments like VitalSign's that there is a de facto obligation for minority groups to avoid tearing each other apart at the behest of the white majority, we are precisely talking about a breach of solidarity (but minority solidarity rather than organizational solidarity). My argument is actually that you are wrong, you are posting wrong things, and you're cherry-picking a single result that supports your narrative while waving away every other poll with Rovian unskewing just-so stories. And in addition that you are inconsistent in your analysis because when white majorities pass bans (like they did every single other time) you recognize that ideology and religious bigotry are the issue; but the one solitary ban passed with millions of white voters in support but a gnat's-asshair more opposed you seize on race and ignore that age, ideology, religion, and political party affiliation were all better predictors of voting patterns. If you're going to play the hard-nosed realist to my utopian political correctness, you could at least address the false claim you made in your last post as justification for ignoring data you don't like: VitalSigns posted:
Shageletic posted:I'm going to be as delicate as I can here. You have a bigoted view of black people. I shouldn't have to defend myself because people whose only characteristic I share with is a measure of melanin voted a certain way. You don't see a black person, you see a representative of black people. And that is a cudgel that anyone familiar with history and any sort of empathy should stay well clear of. I'm just saying, I could have voted Republican but I voted for one of you. You're welcome. I'm just sad that your community didn't do me a solid in return for the great selfless favor I did you by not voting McCain and loving Palin. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Sorry to break up the latest argument but there has been another school shooting. http://www.king5.com/news/cities/seattle/Suspect-in-custody-two-injured-in-shooting-at-Seattle-Pacific-262043591.html Shooter has been disarmed. 4 confirmed victims. Reports of up to 7 total. We didn't even make it a whole month before we got another shooter this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I apologize for bringing up the Bergdahl issue again, but why have POW negotiations (there are still some civs left) with the Taliban been so difficult and lop-sided? I've been trying to look into the history of the Bergdahl deal and it appears that a key part of releasing so many high-level Taliban in exchange for Bergdahl was to aid the reconciliation process. I haven't found much relating to this particular topic in the thread since people here seem to be focusing on Bergdahl's character which is irrelevant to me because you don't leave soldiers behind. I want to be able to give a strong argument against those who say that Obama is not doing enough to bring POWs back home. The right is mostly losing their poo poo about the release of the Taliban members from what I've seen, they don't care that much about Bergdahl himself besides the usual "slander everything Obama does". Essentially they want the US to arrest every single Arab who even might be a terrorist and lock them up in secret torture prison forever. Letting even 5 of them out, for any reason at all, is unacceptable. That's the fundamental problem, and assuming the people you're talking with are true believers like it sounds, you're not going to convince them otherwise
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Sodomy laws in the US originally covered only anal sex and then were later expanded to cover oral sex in the late 19th/early 20th century once judges started becoming aware of the horrors of blowjobs. Texas and a few other states updated their sodomy statutes in the 70s to apply to gays only, so in this particular case it only applied to gays. In practice the sodomy laws were never, ever enforced against consenting heterosexuals in any state, unless of course they were dirty race-mixers. In 1777 Thomas Jefferson proposed an anti-sodomy law in Virgina with a mandatory punishment of castration... Because the law he was trying to replace was a death penalty. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
The analogy of calling them "The Dream Team of the Taliban" is pretty apt thought. They have been out of Afghanistan for 12 years, so them going back would be like having The Dream Team play a pickup game with current NBA players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. I'm sure glad we have a pro-business policy group to show us a valet parking receipt, looks like prime evidence for the case against minimum wage. edit: love their other articles https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/overdramatizing-public-transit-right-diminishes-credibility seriously though these people are the regular "free market cures all" scum. esto es malo fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. Haha  Now that's the logo of an unbiased research institute if I've ever seen one! Man, it's too bad archives are down, because you've got so many wonderful quotables from the minimum wage thread about how a child missing a few meals isn't suffering, geez libs, stop freaking out about the food insecurity among the families of America's working poor, it's not like starvation is actually killing them 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. It's kind of strange that the only hard information those articles have is a receipt and a handful of stories of lost benefits. It also contradicts other, admittedly earlier reports fairly tame living wage surcharges. Although even recent reports are indicating stuff like MasterPark's 50 cent per day surcharge, instead of that receipt's 7 dollars. The only places I can find echoing this story are places like Townhall or investors.com, and Washington Policy Center itself has ties to ALEC. It's already a questionable story with few hard facts, and I can't find sources with clear biases repeating it. edit: Okay, checking out MasterPark's prices confirms a .99 cent living wage surcharge. It still doesn't really address that it's just word of mouth right now claiming lost benefits, and I can't find out if the living wage surcharge is actually due to the minimum wage increase or if it's just a business upping prices where it can for whatever reason it can invent. TGLT fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Man, it's too bad archives are down, because you've got so many wonderful quotables from the minimum wage thread about how a child missing a few meals isn't suffering, geez libs, stop freaking out about the food insecurity among the families of America's working poor, it's not like starvation is actually killing them Archives are up now, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. Except the mountain of evidence that minimum wage laws don't affect the employment rate. But other than that, no, nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
joeburz posted:I'm sure glad we have a pro-business policy group to show us a valet parking receipt, looks like prime evidence for the case against minimum wage. Highlights a need to cook up some propaganda. If they're disproportionately increasing prices, it needs to be reframed from 'oh no minimum wage increases' to 'loving fuckers are price gouging, loving sons of fucks' I mean jesus, they put a line item on the receipt for 'Living Wage.' That's propaganda right there. It'd be like if I put a line for C-level executive bonuses. edit: Seriously, though, if someone made an 'amateur propaganda' thread, I'd be down. I have no idea how to design media, though. I know as much as [Use white text with black outlines] and [Use pithy phrasing]. If any of you are in media or graphic design, a primer would make a dandy OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The right is mostly losing their poo poo about the release of the Taliban members from what I've seen, they don't care that much about Bergdahl himself besides the usual "slander everything Obama does". Essentially they want the US to arrest every single Arab who even might be a terrorist and lock them up in secret torture prison forever. Letting even 5 of them out, for any reason at all, is unacceptable. That's the fundamental problem, and assuming the people you're talking with are true believers like it sounds, you're not going to convince them otherwise Yep. It's basically "9/11! Have your forgotten?! Never forget! Eternal vengeance!" set to the tune of these songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPHnadJ-0hE These people are stupid and insane and jingoistic and hateful. There is no reasoning with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. Oh poo poo! I would have never guessed that businesses would use flimsy excuses to jack up the prices and cut benefits. It is indeed terrible that a valet service that parks one car per person per hour must pay everyone $15. It's almost like that's not the real reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Seriously read that anti-public transportation piece they put out, its disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The right is mostly losing their poo poo about the release of the Taliban members from what I've seen, they don't care that much about Bergdahl himself besides the usual "slander everything Obama does". Essentially they want the US to arrest every single Arab who even might be a terrorist and lock them up in secret torture prison forever. Letting even 5 of them out, for any reason at all, is unacceptable. That's the fundamental problem, and assuming the people you're talking with are true believers like it sounds, you're not going to convince them otherwise
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Archives are up now, actually. Oh hellllll yeah! vulturesrow posted:If you use the word "starve" or "starvation" in everyday conversation the image that comes to mind is not of a person fitting the definition of living with food insecurity. Of course people realize this and that's why they use terms like starve and starvation wages. vulturesrow posted:Again, ask the average person what image it conjures up if you tell them someone is starving. And suffer is a pretty hard word to quantify, don't you agree? People use certain words for certain effects, regardless of what the exact definition is. I still say no one is going to die from lack of food in this country. Now, since you guys like make the most absurd characterization of everything I write, let me be clear I'm not saying people don't go hungry in this country, they clearly do. vulturesrow posted:And I'm sorry that you apparently aren't capable of dealing with nuance. If I prick my finger with a needle, have I suffered? Sure, by the literal definition of the word, yes. Most people would not use the word "suffering" to to describe pricking their finger with a needle however. So if you want to cling to your position of absolute literalism have at it. Most people don't use language like that however. Bonus, no amount of proof will actually change his mind about the minimum wage, because he has  philosophical objections  vulturesrow posted:
Sorry, Zeitgueist Zeitgueist posted:Except the mountain of evidence that minimum wage laws don't affect the employment rate. Evidence is irrelevant. Pfft, it's like you've never even heard of the archbrilliant theory of Praxeology. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My argument is actually that you are wrong, you are posting wrong things, and you're cherry-picking a single result that supports your narrative while waving away every other poll with Rovian unskewing just-so stories. And in addition that you are inconsistent in your analysis because when white majorities pass bans (like they did every single other time) you recognize that ideology and religious bigotry are the issue; but the one solitary ban passed with millions of white voters in support but a gnat's-asshair more opposed you seize on race and ignore that age, ideology, religion, and political party affiliation were all better predictors of voting patterns. Sorry, it's hard to big posts on my phone. I'm not unskewing anything. There's exactly one exit poll of that election, and it shows African Americans with a 70-30 split in favor of Prop 8. To the extent we're "unskewing" (trying to explain that result) we're both doing it. You're pointing out that the crosstabs increase error, so that the result could be as low as 60% in reality (or potentially as high as 80%, of course). I'm suggesting that the pre-election polling didn't capture a small last-minute swing within a specific demographic. A couple posters on Box Turtle Bulletin did some analysis of that NGLTF report. There's some interesting problems with it as well - for example, they rely on an explanation of increased religiousity, which isn't supported by their data. quote:
They also base their conclusions on several polls that also appear to be outliers. For example, two of their five polls show majority African American opposition to Prop 8, which is clearly an outlier on the low end. quote:So how did African-Americans vote? Let’s go to this graphic from the NGLTF report: quote:
The other polls have exactly the same problems with large error margins as the exit polling. It could still be as high as 70%. There's more analysis of some of the other approaches there, it's all a little problematic in one way or another really. I think the other polling going into that was pretty flawed and produced results on the low side of things, but the exit polling was probably slightly on the high side. 60% seems a bit low, 70% seems a bit on the high side. The polling cited by the NGLTF report doesn't really support the religiousity claim... but that didn't stop them from agreeing with it. And we can't overlook bigotry just because people claim their religion excuses it. I mostly view this as a historical thing at this point, since so much progress has been made in the past couple years. That said, there's no reason to pretend that "gays were never 3/5ths of a person" wasn't a thing that was argued in certain circles five years ago. Shageletic posted:I'm going to be as delicate as I can here. You have a bigoted view of black people. I shouldn't have to defend myself because people whose only characteristic I share with is a measure of melanin voted a certain way. You don't see a black person, you see a representative of black people. And that is a cudgel that anyone familiar with history and any sort of empathy should stay well clear of. You haven't defended yourself against anything! You have posted in this discussion a grand total of twice, and both of them are  s about the fact that we're looking at polling crosstabs. I have never addressed you as a representative of black people, and in fact the only time I have ever communicated with you was when you complained that I was "ascribing political opinions to you based on the color of your skin".Shageletic posted:When you start ascribing political viewpoints to me just because people with my shade of skin vote a certain way, do you see where that ends up? Hint: nowhere good. Can you demonstrate that I have actually ascribed a political belief to you at all? Because I just double checked my post history, and the only post quoting you is in response to this. I don't even know what your political beliefs are, so I'm really not sure how I would go about doing that. Generally you seem to have a problem with the idea of looking at voting trends and think that analyzing them means you're claiming that every person in that demographic holds a certain belief or votes a certain way. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Evidence is irrelevant. Pfft, it's like you've never even heard of the archbrilliant theory of Praxeology. Maybe so, but out of curiosity I went to compare MasterPark's rates with other SeaTac parking services. They look to be particularly expensive when compared to other options. They also seem to be the only service that includes a divided out "living wage surcharge" so it really seems like they're just trying to at once make a political statement while upping their rates higher still. I may be wrong though, and they just may be the only businesses affected by the SeaTac minimum wage increase?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Maybe so, but out of curiosity I went to compare MasterPark's rates with other SeaTac parking services. They look to be particularly expensive when compared to other options. They also seem to be the only service that includes a divided out "living wage surcharge" so it really seems like they're just trying to at once make a political statement while upping their rates higher still. Those poor, poor free marketeers are just trying to find reasons to earn more money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
So you now agree that the African American majority is more likely 8% rather than the overwhelming 20% you were claiming before, are you retracting these claims?Paul MaudDib posted:Is it relative intensity of support that matters, or what? Because "african american" is one of the particular demographics that voted most strongly in favor of Prop 8 (70%). The only demographic with higher support was "weekly churchgoers" (84%) and "black women" (75%), generic "protestant" and "christian" categories are at 65%, everyone else is down near the 50% mark. Interestingly enough, black men are below the norm for both black people and religious people generally, at 62.5%. Now that "african american" is no longer "one of the particular demographics that voted most strongly in favor of Prop 8"? And now that you admit it's no longer true that "black people displayed significantly more support for Prop 8 than even generic 'christian'", do you still consider that "it's probably fair to say that black votes was a deciding factor in pushing Prop 8 over the top" when you can no longer claim "their strong split in favor of prop 8", also keeping in mind that "good turnout" still puts them at less than 10% of the electorate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you now agree that the African American majority is more likely 8% rather than the overwhelming 20% you were claiming before, are you retracting these claims? If I had to guess, 60-65%, so something like 10-15%. 8% is definitely a slightly unlikely figure on the low side of things, but only to a slightly lower degree than the 20%, which actually lacks enough statistical support to be fully dismissed either. It's definitely not the 2%-against figure that is claimed in some of the NGLTF polls (used to come up with the 58% figure), however. Those are definite outliers too. But that said, 60-65% still puts African Americans as one of the demographics most strongly supportive of Prop 8, and the numbers put them just about exactly in line with "christian" or "protestant". We can't state with statistical confidence that African Americans as a demographic showed less support for Prop 8 than those other demographics, and in fact the numbers look just about equal. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
So you're just going to pull a number out of your rear end that's conveniently equal to the "christian" vote to salvage your earlier claims, because hey it's within the margin of error so that means you can just pick whatever you want! And you're going to ignore that your previous conclusions were justified by Paul MaudDib posted:the fact that black people displayed significantly more support for Prop 8 than even generic "christian". That really sucks from a group that is still fighting its own civil rights struggle and is still within living memory of Jim Crow. Significantly more, the same, possibly less, eh you know, whatever! VVVVV Okay, will do. Eh actually not, not if he's going to misquote his own source. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns, don't bother arguing with Paul. I seem to remember him making GBS threads up either the Trayvon or Let's Talk About Race thread. (Maybe it was both?) Dude has some hosed views w/r/t black people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Significantly more, the same, possibly less, eh you know, whatever! I know it's a weird thing nowadays, but sometimes people actually post to have a discussion instead of an echo chamber. I'm willing to yield that the 70% might be a bit on the high side since the crosstab is small, I'm certainly not going to go with "double the margin of error on the high side". Like I linked earlier, you can look at a critical analysis of the NGLTF report here, I linked it earlier. There are certainly some weird aspects of it. They suggest that 58% is unlikely (on the low side), but more likely than 70% (on the high side). Thus, I interpolate those somewhat, with a little bias towards the 58%, which gives us a number of like 10-15% (60-65% support). Koalas March posted:VitalSigns, don't bother arguing with Paul. I seem to remember him making GBS threads up either the Trayvon or Let's Talk About Race thread. (Maybe it was both?) Never posted in either! Maybe you and Shagalectic should start a thread with all the posts I didn't make! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If I really had to pick one demographic that was responsible for Prop 8 passing, it'd be "religious" or "christian" for sure just based on size. But that doesn't change the fact that black people displayed significantly more support for Prop 8 than even generic "christian". That really sucks from a group that is still fighting its own civil rights struggle and is still within living memory of Jim Crow. I'll admit to skimming, but did you account for religiosity as a confound specifically vis a vis its affect on voter composition?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Another thing that polling black voters on gay marriage in Maryland showed was that there was a 20%+ flip of voters who opposed it to voters who supported it after Barack Obama announced his "evolution", showing that the opposition was not too deeply felt. As with many issues, most voters don't hold a strong opinion on the matter, but are willing to vote the way that their community leaders suggest, whether that be family members, religious figures, respected co-workers, or the President of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen.  Their argument appears to be "Now we're loving over our employees in a different way. What are you going to do about it?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I'll admit to skimming, but did you account for religiosity specifically as a confound? It would shift the composition of who was voting. It doesn't really matter, that's an explanation, not a justification. To quote myself earlier: Paul MaudDib posted:A lot of the issue, I think, boils down to religion being such an important institution in the black community, which is good in the sense that it allows black people institutions when they're largely shut out of many others within society, but bad in that churches tend to be a bigoted, regressive force in our society. Hiding behind religion as a shield for bigotry doesn't cut it. The NGLTF report (DBP poll) is a little mixed on this. African Americans tend to be (statistically confident) more likely to attend church weekly, but they also show lower confounding on this issue. AA voters who attend church weekly voted for Prop 8 at a lower rate than other weekly churchgoers, but AA voters who don't attend church weekly also voted for Prop 8 at a higher rate than other non-weekly churchgoers. This isn't statistically confident, and as we get farther away from the topline cross-tabs the error bars just keep getting bigger and bigger. 266 African American, Latino, and Asian American voters (combined) out of 1066 isn't a real big sample, cut that into individual races, then cut that in half to get frequent churchgoers, etc. We're probably talking a sample of <50 people now. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
How do you manage to wring your hands so hard about black people without breaking your fingers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Like I linked earlier, you can look at a critical analysis of the NGLTF report here, I linked it earlier. There are certainly some weird aspects of it. They suggest that 58% is unlikely (on the low side), but more likely than 70% (on the high side). Thus, I interpolate those somewhat, with a little bias towards the 58%, which gives us a number of like 10-15% (60-65% support). You know when you link it, that means we can read it, right? quote:Fifty-eight percent as a very rough ballpark figure could be about right for the African-American vote. But given some of the margins of error we tossed around earlier, that figure could be as high as about 67% to 70%, or as low as 49% to 46%. quote:I’m satisfied with this representation which the authors use to arrive at a 58% figure for African-Americans, although I am keen to learn the algorithm for the smoother. quote:The reason I’m okay with this is that the authors also ran this same data set through two other independent analyses which led them to report a degree of comfort with an estimate of 58% of African-Americans voting for Prop 8. They do caution however, that “rather than being treated as definitive, these estimates should be considered as helping to corroborate the individual-level findings discussed earlier in this section of the study” — namely, the discussion of the five surveys we discussed earlier. 58% is in the middle of the range of the middle (DBR) survey, and the author of the post is satisfied with 58% because it agreed with the precinct data too. Yeah, he cautions that 70% can't be ruled out, but neither can 46%. For some bizarre reason you are dropping the entire bottom two quartiles and interpolating between the average and the top range to get 65%. Why are you doing this? Stubbornness? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:So that minimum wage increase to 15$ in SeaTac is working out well. Of course there was really no way to know what might happen. That may be some lovely right-wing think tank/propaganda factory, but as I said in the Dittohead thread, I really hope the wage hike won't be high enough to have any significant negative impact. Conservatives will use that to argue against any min. wage increases from now until the end of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:That may be some lovely right-wing think tank/propaganda factory, but as I said in the Dittohead thread, I really hope the wage hike won't be high enough to have any significant negative impact. Conservatives will use that to argue against any min. wage increases from now until the end of time. It's not like they're not going to do that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
My favorite things about Boards of Directors is that everyone on them is also a member of like six other Boards of Directors at the same time. I have no idea how they juggle all the responsibility! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Capital to labor: "Stop hitting yourself."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:27
|
|
