To me this seems like common sense, but maybe I'm in the minority.
It seems like one of the most important factors in solving a problem, and in prioritizing which problems should be addressed in what order, is to accurately determine the actual scope of the problem.
For example if one group of people believed that problem X had occurred significantly more often that the data indicated, then wouldn't it make sense to deal with the actual scope of the problem, than with the exaggerated scope of the perceived problem?
If nothing else is resources are allocated to a problem based on perception, rather than data, doesn't it make sense that those resources could be used more effectively elsewhere? In effect aren't we taking resources that could be allocated to solve the actual scope of problem B and using them on the perceived scope of problem A? Doesn't that mean that victims of problem B might suffer because of resources being spent on the perceived scope of problem A?
In all this talk of unity, wouldn't it make sense to start by unifying around the actual scope of problems?
61 comments:
I would add that the real problem must first be honestly identified, or, what is claimed to be a problem is proven to actually be one. Certainly, the scope of a problem which doesn't truly exist is an unnecessary concern.
Agreed, absolutely. Let's look to the data and solve problems based on research and data. And we need to understand the scope of the problem (as much as possible) in order to do this, and we need to do this based upon data.
For instance, racism is a known problem. Its harmful effects are SO widespread and pernicious that it's even hard to get a handle on the scope of harm of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and other objectively harmful effects of centuries of oppression from racism and slavery. Trying to get a handle on actual scope of the harm of racism is difficult, but it's clearly there. Let's work on that.
Or the similar problems of the oppression of the LGBTQ community. Clear harm has been done for centuries, measurable harm. Observable harm. Let's work on that.
Or for problems associated with fossil fuel pollution and global climate change. The experts are agreed on the great depth of the problem and the need for action. Let's work on that.
Or the the problems with the "war on drugs." Its harmful effects and unintended (or intended?) consequences are known. Its failure is known. The data is there. Let's work on that.
I agree we need to unify around the scope of the problems, even when it's painful and even when its difficult. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is the efforts by many to deny the actual, measurable problems. But let's work on that, as well.
Art,
I guess I'd argue that it's the same thing. If the scope of the problem is statistically in the neighborhood of zero, then it's either not a problem, or it is a problem with an incredibly low priority.
Dan,
"Agreed, absolutely." I guess you couldn't have just stopped there.
"racism". OK, let's start with the two most obvious question. What is the measurable goal to be achieved by eliminating "racism"? How do you remove the influence of other variables to determine the specific effects of "racism"?
"LGBTQ", again with the obvious first two questions. What is the measurable goal to be achieved? How do you control for other factors?
"Fossil fuel/global warming", I think that this is a little more complicated. The first and most obvious problem with the "data" is that "projections" aren't data. So much of the debate is based on projections which haven't, so far, been proven to be accurate. Further, how does one control for the natural variation in the earths climate? Finally, how does one balance the potential destruction of the global economy, with incremental "improvements" in carbon emissions? Is imposing "technology" that is more expensive, less efficient, and incapable of meeting current and future energy needs the right strategy?
"War on drugs". This is an interesting one. I clearly think that there are problems with how we deal with drugs, while I also realize that drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) are harmful. I think that the problem with making assumptions about the "data" goes back to the lack of a measurable goal. I'd also question how one separates the effects of the "war on drugs", from all the other variables.
Let's take a look at some real data, around a real problem, and how people's political persuasion affects their attitudes about the seriousness of the problem. To keep the focus on the data, I am going to refer to the problem as "problem X, or simply X".
Let's start with the data.
The best, most accurate data suggests that problem X occurred 13 times in the US last year. But, to account for incomplete reporting, or other possible flaws in the data collection, let's multiply that number by 4 and use 52 as our "actual" number.
Let's compare that with survey data based on self describes political position.
Moderates believe as follows.
Problem X occurs "about 100" times per year is believed by 40.59%
Problem X occurs "about 1000" times per year is believed by 16.40%
Problem X occurs "about 10,000" times per year is believed by 3.01%
Problem X occurs "more than 10,000" times per year is believed by 3.49%
Conservatives are as follows.
"about 100" 40.36%
"about 1000" 9.04%
"about 10,000" 3.01%
"more than 10,000" 1.20%
Very Conservative
"about 100" 33.58%
"about 1000" 13.14%
"about 10,000" 2.92%
"more than 10,000" 4.38%
Liberal
"about 100" 38.79%
"about 1000" 26.67%
"about 10,000" 6.67%
"more than 10,000" 5.45%
Very Liberal
"about 100" 30.71%
"about 1000" 31.43%
"about 10,000" 14.29%
"more than 10,000" 7.86%
I think the most interesting thing about this survey data, is not the fact that the further left you go, the more you believe that the problem is drastically worse than it is. I think the most interesting is that people across the political spectrum believe that the problem is drastically worse than it actually is.
This raises some questions.
1. Where does the narrative come from that drives these perceptions?
2. How do we replace the narrative with the actual data?
3. How do we get those who's belief is extremely distorted to acknowledge the data and adjust their beliefs to the data?
4. How do we deal with the actual scope of the problem when so many people across the spectrum believe that problem X is hundreds or thousands of times more significant than it actually is?
Well, since you're being coy with your example, I would have to know more. I don't really care about perceptions of conservatives or liberals. I think we need to focus on the data.
So, the data is:
"the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change."
This according to NASA.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
However, in spite of near unanimous expert agreement on the problem and the cause of the problem, most who identify as conservative dismiss the experts or at least are dubious of them.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/
But we're not concerned about opinions, we're agreeing to look to data and expert opinion and insight.
So, given that the experts on climate studies are nearly unanimously agreed that anthropogenic climate change is a real and present concern... Do YOU think they are mistaken (as so many conservatives say)?
That is, are you part of the group that is dismissing data presented by experts on this area with near-total agreement? And if so, why? Is it the case that you know more than the experts? Or you listen to people who say they know more and if so, DO they know more?
To your questions...
"1. Where does the narrative come from that drives these perceptions?"
Well, that would depend upon the topic, wouldn't it. So, without any specifics about the topic, we can't know. In the case of climate change, I would guess that many conservatives are listening to less trustworthy news sources or even fake news sources where there is an agenda to deny the science as it exists and the experts who offer those data and opinions.
"2. How do we replace the narrative with the actual data?"
Well, it depends on the topic. But education is always helpful. And education about UN-trustworthy sources would also be vital.
If churches and conservative groups would actively confront fake news and conspiracy theories like happens with Qanon, for instance, or Alex Jones, OAN, etc, and call them out as unreliable, that would be very helpful.
If there is some topic about which liberals have faulty opinions based upon non-factual data, the same goes for them.
"3. How do we get those who's belief is extremely distorted to acknowledge the data and adjust their beliefs to the data?"
Given the rampant belief amongst conservatives that the election was "stolen" and "Trump won in a landslide" etc, and this in spite of the data, it can be daunting. This is why it's very important for people on the same partisan side as a group that believes false data to speak out. It's why, when I see a liberal on FB say that Trump said something he didn't say, I will always correct them. They may not believe it coming from a conservative.
That's one HUGE thing that will help, I believe. People calling out and correcting their own side.
I'm not being coy. I've provided you with the data. If you choose to ignore the data, that's your choice. But the data is literally "problem x occurred 13 times in 2019".
The fact that people are acting on the false narrative that problem X has occurred thousands of times more than it really has doesn't bother you at all? Are you suggesting that public policy be determined and guided by the actual number of occurrences of problem X, or by the false narrative?
"So, given that the experts on climate studies are nearly unanimously agreed that anthropogenic climate change is a real and present concern... Do YOU think they are mistaken (as so many conservatives say)?"
With so many unanswered questions, you just keep asking.
If the point of this post is that we should be making decisions based on the data, , and you really mean this, "But we're not concerned about opinions, we're agreeing to look to data and expert opinion and insight." then my opinion is outside of the scope of this thread. I'll note that you've decided that looking at "data" is not adequate, and that you've chosen to unilaterally add "expert opinion and insight", effectively moving the goal posts.
So, which is it? Is it the data and only the data? Or is it data, plus?
If you have some data that specifically links specific changes in climate exclusively to human activity, then provide it. Simply asserting that "(97% of ...) have reached a consensus without any detail is simply an appeal to authority.
"That is, are you part of the group that is dismissing data presented by experts on this area with near-total agreement?" I'm part of the group that doesn't consider predictive modelling to be data. I'm part of the group that looks for specific examples of direct causation. I'm part of the group that expects definitions of terms, and specific data.
"And if so, why?"
I'm not, but if I were it would be because virtually every predictive model that has predicted doom has proven to be wrong. Until the models line up with reality, I question their validity.
"Is it the case that you know more than the experts?" No, do you? "Or you listen to people who say they know more and if so, DO they know more?" Which has absolutely nothing to do with basing things on the data, and only the data.
I see that you are back to choosing not to answer, acknowledge, or respond to questions. Predictable.
"So much of the debate is based on projections which haven't, so far, been proven to be accurate. Further, how does one control for the natural variation in the earths climate? Finally, how does one balance the potential destruction of the global economy, with incremental "improvements" in carbon emissions? Is imposing "technology" that is more expensive, less efficient, and incapable of meeting current and future energy needs the right strategy?"
4 Questions, zero answers.
'm not sure what to do with those answers, except acknowledge that you did answer 4 questions out of those you've been asked. Given that your answers contain zero "data", and mostly hunches, opinions, preconceptions and prejudices, there's really nothing to respond to. I'd hope that in a post where you agree that it's important to "...look to the data and solve problems based on research and data.", that your answers would contain more data and less prejudiced hunches. Given your track record over the last several months, I guess I should be grateful that you actually answered ANY questions. No matter how pointless and unhelpful your answers are.
"Global Warming."
Remember when these same "expert scientists" clamored about "global cooling"? The FACT is, these "experts" cited by Trabue have agendas to push with absolutely no proof that mankind can cause warming or cooling of the atmosphere; the say whatever the LEFTIST people in charge want them to say. FACTS show that over the centuries the earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling with no input from mankind.
As for the election, the evidence of fraud is overwhelming. Biden is a Manchurian candidate.
Quite certain I know what "X" is, and while I've heard the number is as much as twice what you're showing, it still represents a problem with public perception which, if not corrected by widespread exposure to the actual number, will no doubt lead to policy that is attacking a problem that doesn't exist. That's not to say the data doesn't reflect a problem at all, but that it is so insignificant compared to the perception...as well as the proliferation of the false perception by people in power...it most certainly will draw focus away from more important issues.
As to the disparity between your numbers and what I recently heard regarding this problem, there may be differences in what exactly is being counted. Again, either way what most people think and what they demand as a result is based on falsehood and we're already seeing policy based on that falsehood, and proposals for more as well.
Glenn... "The FACT is, these "experts" cited by Trabue have agendas to push with absolutely no proof that mankind can cause warming or cooling..."
He said, with absolutely no proof to support this wildly hysterical and emotionally fragile sounding conspiracy theory. Again, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I'm interested in data. That Glenn has misunderstood scientists and experts in the past does not lend support to his wild claims about experts in the present.
This is the problem with so much of modern Trump conservatism, and it's not limited to Trump and his followers. Good thinking that you can make wild conspiracy theory claims and still be on the side of data and reason just undermines you in the minds of reasonable people, but it does serve to scare up the foolish. Fear-mongering always works with a certain subset, and actually, science says that a large portion of that subset is in the conservative World due to the science of their brains and having an overdeveloped fear center.
But you would be a perfect opportunity for a conservative to make an appeal to the data and refuse to let such a ridiculous conspiracy theory claim go unaddressed.
"The question, then, is why are you doubting the experts?"
I've not said that I'm "doubting" the experts, but that I'm unimpressed by a history of failed projections as a basis for anything.
"Because you don't understand? Because you're asking the wrong questions and not even understanding that?"
Yes, I don't understand why being wrong somehow confers expertise. I also don't understand where you've gotten the authority to declare some questions "wrong".
"While I'm answering your questions, mine remain unanswered."
Two blatant lies in one short sentence. Impressive.
Art,
As I said, I took the best number I could find, and multiplied it by 4 to allow for error in collecting the data. Even if your number is correct, the reality is that the actual problem is orders of magnitude less than the perception (and drive to fix the problem).
The fact is that this problem is being blown out of proportion and is being used to dive significant and probably unnecessary change.
Glenn,
One of the problems I have with this discussion is that it's gone from fear mongering of ice ages, to global warming, to climate change, in such a way to allow virtually any event to be counted as "evidence" of climate change no matter what. Yet we still have idiots claiming that we've got "5 years" before some catastrophe. When every bit of data, no matter how contradictory it might be, is touted as "proof" there is clearly a flaw somewhere.
" Well, if we're talking about heart surgery and the various options of expert-created tools and technology, me reading the data would be meaningless, since I'm not an expert. Of course, expert opinion and insight is important to me. I can NOT be an expert on everything, any more than you can. This is why we have experts and OTHER experts checking the work of those experts and so on. And when you have 90+% of experts in agreement on a topic, that is informative to me. That IS data, itself."
Thank you for acknowledging the fact that you've added additional categories to your initial position. The problem with these moved goal posts is that it introduces bias, political persuasion, and other variables into the mix. It moves the discussion away from the "data" and toward the subjective claims of "experts". It's just the appeal to numbers/authority logical fallacy once again. I get that you see value in this approach, due to your habit of disregarding "experts" based on all sorts of irrelevant, subjective, and inconsistent criteria, while touting those who agree with you as unassailable.
Dan,
Since you haven't answered the questions I've asked about the original problem I brought up, let alone about the multiple additional things you've mentioned. I'm simply going to cut you off from introducing any additional sub topics to this thread. I understand why you're trying to do it, and I'm simply choosing to limit this to what's already here until you answer the questions you've been asked.
"Okay. Understood. But the experts DO consider modeling to be data to be considered. Now, who should I listen to?"
You should listen to whoever confirms your biases and preconceptions.
"Craig, who has this hunch unsupported by anything other than his claim that predictive modeling isn't valid data. Experts DO consider such to be valid and informative and, in the case of climate change modeling, pretty accurate, as the experts in the article I cited said. Who should I listen to on that? Craig, or experts?""
If you want to listen to "experts" who's predictions don't align with the measured reality, then by all means listen to them. My answer to your question is just that, my answer. I don't expect my answer to be binding on you. So, please continue to listen to whoever you want.
"Craig, there are a limited number of words I can offer in a given response."
While this is technically true, you are not limited in terms of the number of responses you can provide. The fact that you flood my moderation screen demonstrates that you know this to be true.
"With patience, as you see, there can be answers. I DID answer multiple questions you have raised."
I did note that you did "answer" 4 questions out of all that you've been asked. So, while it;s true that you "answered" a fraction of the questions asked, it's clearly not even an attempt to answer everything.
"But the main problem is the questions themselves. IF you say, "I'm not going to tell you what the problem is, now YOU tell me, How do we fix it...?" I can't answer a question without all the data. Of course."
Well, since I didn't ask you to "fix" the problem, then you shouldn't have any issues answering the questions as asked.
I applaud you for at least acknowledging your failure to answer questions and to offer this piss poor excuse for your choices. It's a step in the right direction from your previous tactic of simply lying about answering.
"Further, how does one control for the natural variation in the earths climate? Finally, how does one balance the potential destruction of the global economy, with incremental "improvements" in carbon emissions? Is imposing "technology" that is more expensive, less efficient, and incapable of meeting current and future energy needs the right strategy?" And reading that, it SOUNDS like to me that Craig's problem is that he doesn't understand the science behind it, which makes it SOUND like he's dubious of what he doesn't understand."
This is a fascinating conclusion that you've drawn based on questions you refuse to answer. I have to wonder if you understand the concept of a question, that it is a request for information and not a statement. Further, you have a tendency to make assumptions, attribute them to others, then to proceed as if your made up assumption is true. I can't help but wonder if this is a sign of mental illness.
"Which is fine. I don't understand a lot and I'm no climatologist. We don't always have to understand everything, especially in areas where we're not experts. But that doesn't mean we can dismiss it, simply because we have questions or don't understand it. Not if we're wanting to look at the data behind the actual scope of problems. Right?"
Right, but blindly accepting the "experts" doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask questions. But, it does provide an excellent excuse for you to avoid answering questions.
"Craig... "Is imposing "technology" that is more expensive, less efficient, and incapable of meeting current and future energy needs the right strategy?" First of all, is Craig correct in his assessment ("more expensive, less efficient")?"
Of course a look at the data would answer that question, but you haven't provided any data to answer the questions, only excuses why you won't.
"I suspect not. Not as I understand the experts. Craig would have to provide some support for that guess of his because, as I have indicated, I want to form opinions and work on problems based upon data."
"Based upon data", or "based upon data" plus the subjective biased interpretation of data? Which is no reason not to simply answer the questions.
"One problem with the question (and I am glad to assume you were not providing ALL angles, just a few) is that it begs the question, "More efficient AT WHAT?" "Cheaper than WHAT?" For instance, IF we ignore the huge harm and costs caused by pollution and wave away all those expenses/costs, THEN fossil fuels are cheaper. But why would we ignore those costs?"
Those are actually reasonable questions.
How about, "More efficient at providing the power necessary to allow our nation to function, people's needs to be met, and to allow for future economic expansion."
How about, cheaper than the alternatives. What good is power if the only one's who can afford it are the wealthy?
No one is suggesting that we not look at all of the appropriate costs in analyzing the situation. That's why it's called a cost/benefit analysis.
As I pointed out earlier, one of the problems with energy (specifically electricity) is that the environmental costs that come with storing the energy, as well as the fossil fuel costs are ignored by advocates for "renewable" energy. A wind turbine doesn't magically appear fully formed from nowhere, and I've yet to see a mechanism for installing the turbine that isn't dependent on fossil fuels to make that happen.
But, it's not about any of this, it's about obfuscation. If it wasn't you'd actually stick to the original topic, without throwing out multiple different rabbit trails for you to go down.
"Well, YOU SAY that YOU THINK they have been wrong and have "failed projections" BUT YOU are not providing a single thing in support of these empty claims."
Very astute, you almost have me convinced that you can read and comprehend.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming
The reason why I've stopped wasting my time providing you with information that you can find on your own is that you have a history of ignoring what I provide you, and failing to actually address that information. Given that experience, I have concluded that, there is virtually no benefit in doing so. It is quite simply a waste of my time.
"They're just empty claims from someone who is telling me that these experts have been wrong (and to be clear: EXPERTS are wrong. Being wrong doesn't make one not an expert. Not taking the data and learning from it makes one not an expert... That's how science works), but how do I know that YOUR impression is factually correct, or if it's just a matter of you not understanding the data and results? More questions for you to still ignore."
You don't know.
Just one more answer to balance out all the answers you've failed to provide.
It looks like I'm going to have to compile all the unanswered questions again, to illustrate your hypocrisy.
"So, WHO is doing the obfuscation?"
It's certainly not the person wwho's deluged with multiple comments which are simply repetitions of the same old bullshit, logical fallacies, and excuses.
"The person pointing to the experts who say that renewables ARE the most efficient, affordable and practical EVEN WITH the problems associated with them..."
Please shoe me the "expert" who's making that claim of objective fact, I'll wait...
"OR the person who just makes claims up out of nothing and whose claims are clearly unsupported (at best) or outright false (at worst)?"
These claims, you keep talking about, they're actually questions you haven't answered.
"We know the answer to this, of course. So, let's do away with the silly little false attacks and deal with the data and what expert consensus is telling us. Or, to the point of your post, maybe figure out why some people attack so hard and viciously and irrationally against expert opinion."
Yes, please focus on providing objective data and answering questions rather than your silly bullshit.
The hysterical and emotionally fragile Trabue has the audacity to say I’m hysterical and fragile for denying the claims of agenda-driven “scientists. Of course he denies such a conspiracy exists—common claim by those on the LEFT who promote said conspiracies.
I gave proof — the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for as long as we have examined history.
My conservatives beliefs have nothing to do with Trump; it is your ilk who have to claim we believe what we do because of Trump because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome and can’t think for yourself.
Craig, you summed up perfectly the claims of the “climate” liars. There is no reality to their predictions.
"More about your fossil fuel industry shill (Patrick Michaels)... "A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers faced a potential investigation today on charges that he misled Congress on the extent of his funding from the oil industry. Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a thinktank founded by Charles and David Koch to promote their libertarian, anti-government views, appeared before the house energy and commerce committee in February 2009. At the time, the committee was headed by the California Democrat Henry Waxman and Michaels was the only one in the line-up of witnesses to cast doubt on global warming, testifying that mainstream science had exaggerated the threat posed by climate change. Now, Waxman writes in a letter to the incoming committee chair, Fred Upton, it appears as if Michaels may have misled the committee. In 2009, Michaels said 3% of his $4.2m in financial support came from the oil and gas industry. But in an appearance on CNN in August last year, and in subsequent interviews, Michaels suggested that figure was 40%." So, your outlier "expert" who is financed largely by the fossil fuels industry also lied about his debt to fossil fuels. That would be a strike against this single outlier and raise questions about his "expertise" and "opinion."
Exactly my point, thank you for responding so predictably. You have not actually addressed the data that's been offered, you simply engage in character assassination and move on. This is exactly your pattern, you don't deal with the data when you can attack the expert.
FYI, I literally just pulled up the first link on a google search, because I knew how you would react. It's gratifying when you act so predictably.
"WHERE does the narrative come from that drive misperceptions, you asked. THAT is asking about addressing/dealing with the problem..."
No, it's a question about who peddles false narratives, and why they do so. It's a general question that can be applied to ANY false narrative. It's literally about identifying one aspect of the problem, not about fixing it.
"HOW do we determine where these false narratives come from? HOW do we get the actual data into the hands of those with false data? THESE ARE QUESTIONS about how to fix the problem of misinformation."
1. No they aren't, this is just your excuse to no answer them.
2. No, they are questions about how to diagnose the problem. If we don't know those kinds of answers we can't fix the problem.
"And, as I rightly noted in my answer, it depends on the specific data."
As I rightly noted in my response to your excuse, no it doesn't. If the actual data says X, and some people are claiming that the answer is Xx10,000, then it's about the gross exaggeration of the problem, not about the actual data.
"For black folk with a history of hundreds of years of oppression and harm, death and destruction, rape and removal of rights... getting them and their allies to recognize there were only 25 (or whatever the number is) unarmed black people killed by the police last year is by providing them the data from a trusted source, first of all, AND THEN helping them have confidence that the numbers are not being downplayed or twisted precisely because of the history of oppression and very real harm of the black community by police forces... which is a trickier matter. And it's understandable (at least to rational people) why black folks would be distrustful of an abusive police system and their information."
So, if the actual accurate information came from a left leaning legacy news organization, then it would have more credibility, is that what you are saying?
"So, it's ONE answer to how to "fix" things for that group and that situation. For the science deniers on climate change, the situation is different. There is no "abuse and oppression of science deniers at the hands of scientists and experts" to explain that distrust. In their case, it's more that they have surrounded themselves with people who are dubious and distrustful and maybe a bit fearful of science and experts because maybe it clashes with their worldview or with what they would like to think, in spite of data. So, to fix the problem, one needs to know the details of the problem. It's insufficient data to say, "Here is a case where X number of people believe something wrong about an unidentified problem..." We NEED to know the problem and the situation to begin to find out how to get the data to the right people in such a way as to help them accept the data. Understand?"
What I understand is that your initial comment about being committed to the data to solve problems was simply bullshit. You're now quite clear that the actual documented, unbiased, data, is meaningless unless it's filtered through all sorts of other stuff.
Do yourself a favor, just stop adding layers and layers of biased bullshit on top of following the data. If you want to actually answer the questions asked, as asked, that'd be a positive change. If all you want to to is pile more bullshit, do't waste my time.
I'll note this one last thing. It's quite clear that you are simply unwilling to agree with any premise put forward by anyone but you, or those you agree with. This notion is "I agree, but..." is simply a pathetic, childish attempt at pretending to be what you're not.
"The reason why I've stopped wasting my time providing you with information that you can find on your own is that you have a history of ignoring what I provide you..."
Are you kidding? Dan doesn't even read his own links. He does little more than read the headlines that have appeal for him.
As to the climate science issue, over the years a veritable s-load of expert opinion conflicting with his position has been offered in these blogs. There's been no shortage of experts that disagree with his.
Regarding my comments about how many unarmed blacks have been killed by cops, we're in agreement that the actual number isn't as important for this discussion as the fact that it's so incredibly lower than the narrative pushed by those like Dan and other white-guilt racists. What's more, that number doesn't even account for the events that led up to the killings, such as we seen, for example, with the Michael Brown case. He attacked the cop and got shot for his troubles. He can be listed among the "unarmed" dead. "Unarmed" doesn't equate to "innocent", but again, it's what the racists try to promote as the truth.
The issue of how many people actually believe the number to be in the hundreds or thousands for a given year is what matters here. How can we deal with a problem when the facts are so distorted, and that distortion is perpetuated by those on whom we're expected to rely for truth and honesty...in this case, lefty politicians and their lackeys in the media?
Art,
Of course that happens frequently. I just realized that Dan really isn't here to engage in any sort of back and forth as most people would recognize it. I have yet to remember him actually digging into the substance of anything I've offered (back to him arguing with multiple medical professionals that anal sex isn't harmful, and that incidences of various diseases aren't higher in the gay population), and refuting the data. It's usually about attacking the source, not the offered data. I simply have less and less patience for his nonsense.
Take this thread, I intentionally kept it specific with my "problem X", Dan's first response wasn't to focus on that, but to jump past it with A,B,C,D etc. Then when I raised specific questions about all of those, they get ignored, and instead I get "Well what about F?". I've indulged his tactics, and I'm not going to randomly delete or ban him, (Inconsistent deletion policies and banning are his thing, not mine.) but I'm also not going to spend time following him down every rabbit hole.
You are exactly right, if it's possible to ignore things like actual data and context in order to advance a narrative, then it's clear that the narrative is what's important. The fact that people believe, and act, on such blatantly false information is distressing to say the least.
Art,
But lets be honest, aren't you excited to see the first wind powered commercial airliner? Or maybe we'll be seeing battery power planes soon.
Electric semi trucks with a 400 mile range a 2 ton payload and a 2 hour recharge time will be awesome. One can only wonder how much more consumer goods will cost.
Art,
But lets be honest, aren't you excited to see the first wind powered commercial airliner? Or maybe we'll be seeing battery power planes soon.
Electric semi trucks with a 400 mile range a 2 ton payload and a 2 hour recharge time will be awesome. One can only wonder how much more consumer goods will cost.
It will be convenient during major storms though, we'll just know that the power is going out instead of waiting to see if we lose power.
"Oh, this is so incredibly sad and funny. "Kept it specific with my problem X..." ! The sad, sad humor of it all! Very clever of you to keep it specific by being vague and non-specific."
Why yes, keeping this thread focused on one specific issue (you do understand the concept of one, don't you?), was intentional and specific. Allowing you to chum the waters with multiple other issues was me attempting to show you some grace. Unfortunately, you've chosen to try to drive the thread in your preferred direction, as long as that was as far away from answering as many questions as you could. Unfortunately, this has gone on long enough that I don't see the need to enable your behavior. You can get caught up, answer the questions, or not. I just don't care that much,
"It's sometimes difficult to tell if y'all are all full on morons or just flagrant Liars. Do y'all really think we're advocating for wind powered airplanes? That were saying there's no place for fossil fuels? Are y'all just plain stupid as a stone or do you deliberately lie like the devil and think it's Justified because of your corrupt cause? Regardless, I'm embarrassed for you as fellow human beings. The damage done to traditional conservatism by modern conservatives wholly given over to crazy conspiracy theories and idiotic attacks is just impossible to state."
Nope, just mocking the idiocy that says that wind and solar can account for 100% of US energy needs.
The question isn't what we think, it's what y'all are saying. Hell, you cited TSC as a great source the other day, are you going to disavow them now?
“We have to do the same thing in order to get us to 100 percent renewable energy, and that's just the truth of it."
AOC
I'm looking forward to you explaining why she didn't really mean "100 percent" when she clearly said "100 percent".
https://www.there100.org/
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-global-price-tag-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-73-trillion
https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/commitments
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/is-100-renewable-energy-for-the-us-possible-yes/547135/
One important fact that is underreported is that the field of science is so heavily dependent on government funding, directly or otherwise, that it is almost impossible for scientists to remain politically independent. Indeed, some subjects of research are entirely forbidden. Funding is always at stake, and scientists know that.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/the_sad_sad_state_of_modern_science_reporting.html
It seems Dan's not concerned about the deaths of people he attributes to fossil fuels after all. That was at least part of his argument in favor of wind/solar over fossil fuels, wasn't it? Or was I mistaken and it was just crap? Yet, if he's not advocating for 100% renewable, isn't he then giving tacit approval for some lesser percentage of deaths? What's the acceptable number of deaths from fossil fuel pollution if we're not out to go 100% renewable?
I just had to add this because the "consensus" lie to which Dan continues to cling demands it:
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/the-bogus-consensus-argument-on-climate-change/
"The problem you're experiencing, Craig, is you set up these scenarios where you clearly have an agenda and a problem in mind and you appear to be thinking you're being clever to set it up in this vague and milquetoast manner and, well, it's just obvious and makes you appear to be setting up a "gotcha" moment."
The problem you appear to be having is that you have to turn everything into some sinister plot against you. The reality is that I set up my example, using real data (real, accurate, from a left leaning news organization, data) and real survey results. I quadrupled the actual number of cases of problem X to account for sampling/recording errors just to present a "worse than actual' scope of the problem. I took the specific nature of problem X out for two reasons. 1. Because it doesn't matter to the example and the point of the post. 2. Because it allows us to only focus on the actual DATA, not on anything else. The fact that you choose to make this into some paranoid fantasy, is on you.
"But you fail. But to answer your questions, as I have stated, it REALLY matters on what the details are."
The only detail that matters, in the context of this post/topic is the exponential difference between reality and narrative. That's it. That's the entire point. That certain people have chosen to abandon the reality of the situation, as shown by the data, and to embrace a false narrative. That's it.
"It just does. IF for instance, the problem you're talking about are the assassinations/murders/killings/abuse of black citizens at the hands of the police system and, given the very real history of the very real oppression of black citizens by the justice and police systems and the very real experiences faced by black citizens... given that, IF black folks and their allies have the "feeling" that there are 100 black people killed by the police each year and the actual number is "only 35," THE PROBLEM IS STILL REAL."
Are you an idiot, or just choosing to be obtuse? Of course the problem is still real, I was quite clear on that fact. BUT, as the DATA shows the problem is 100, 1000, or 10,000 times less than the the false narrative suggests. The false narrative is driven by "feelings", that don't match the reality shown by the DATA. If you want to argue that public policy should be driven by "feelings", false narratives, and perceptions, instead of DATA, then just say so and be done. Since the problem IS real, albeit 100,1000, or 10,000 times less prevalent that the narrative says it is, then let's assign the appropriate amount of resources to the ACTUAL scope of the problem, not the false narrative scope of the problem.
"The concern is STILL real. "Only" 35 unarmed people being killed by the police system IS TOO MANY."
Of course, no one disagrees with you that it's too many. But thanks for making my point.
"It is a part of an ongoing attack on an historically oppressed people and people are right to be outraged."
In the absence of any direct evidence of the the above claim, I'm just going to ignore it.
"They can be forgiven if they've inflated the number in their heads, because the number (in this case) is irrelevant. If it's 35 or it's 100, THAT'S TOO MANY."
Look, if people choose to ignore the DATA, and willingly believe a false narrative, I can't stop them. What individuals believe isn't my concern. What is my concern is devoting resources based on a false narrative about the scope of a problem.
"On the other hand, if conservatives and fossil fuel companies and their allies think that renewable energy costs 100 times as much as fossil fuel and the actual data, once the harms are factored in from fossil fuels, is that their costs are comparable, that data matters and fossil fuel companies and their allies are NOT justified in exaggerating the number. The topic and details matter. If "only" 35 black people are being killed by police (and not 100) we STILL need to dedicate resources and energy to make change. Understand?"
Of course we do, you idiot. The point is that we need to dedicate resources that are proportionate to the actual problem, as per the DATA, not to a false narrative that's blown out of proportion. But you could have figured that out had you not chosen the route of paranoia.
Art,
I'm quite sure that Dan's "estimates" of the cost of fossil fuels are scrupulously balanced. I'm sure he's taken into account every possible factor and weighed them fairly and honestly. I'm sure he's taken into account that "renewables" on large scale are impossible without increasing use of fossil fuels (which would be a "good" use of fossil fuels, right?), I'm sure he's taken into account the amount of land that we would have to dedicate to enough "renewables" to get to "100% renewable". I'm sure that his conclusions are free from bias or politics. Aren't you?
"Interestingly, your Yale article (citing Stanford research) you cite (in an attempt to get hung up on 100% without understanding what they mean), LEADS with... "A global effort to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 would cost nations $73 trillion upfront — but the expense will pay for itself in under seven years, according to a new report from researchers at Stanford University."
Thank you ever so much for deciding that you know better than I what I meant, and what my intentions were. I'm aware that they predicted a cost of $73 Trillion dollars for this magnificent feat. I'm also aware that the US is already Trillions of dollars in debt, and that this money isn't going to magically appear.
Of course, this is just to divert attention from your claim that no one is advocating for "100% renewable". Not only does the article do it's intended job in proving your claim to be false, it does so by demonstrating that people have taken this seriously enough to estimate the economic impact. It's somewhat impressive that you have the chutzpah to take something that proves you wrong, and try to turn in into something else.
"The study also found that the shift to a zero-carbon global economy would create 28.6 million more full-time jobs than if nations continue their current reliance on fossil fuels." Would pay for itself and create jobs. Do you suspect that the researchers are mistaken?"
Without seeing how they plan to make 73 Billion appear out of nowhere, or without information on the interest rates, costs, etc, I have no idea. Again, the point is that this article proves your claim gloriously false. The fact that you're trying to avoid acknowledging your idiotic false claim by getting into the details of this fantasy just shows your desperation to avoid acknowledging your false claim. So, I don;t know or care if they are mistaken, stupid, lying, or correct. It's not relevant to proving the falsehood of your claim.
"If so, based on what?"
Based on the fact that the track record of these sorts of projects ever coming in at their budget, and providing the economic benefits claimed is pretty dismal. Again, it's just about proving your claim wrong, not about debating the details of this "plan".
"You read the testimony and opinions of experts and reject the opinions of all these experts NOT because you understand and think the data shows they're wrong... you reject their conclusions because... well, it conflicts with your partisan political opinions and, well, one guy may have problems with it. That's solid."
No, this is 100% about proving your idiotic claim to be the steaming pile of falsehood and bullshit that it is. Nothing more.
"Do y'all really think we're advocating for wind powered airplanes? That were saying there's no place for fossil fuels? Are y'all just plain stupid as a stone or do you deliberately lie like the devil and think it's Justified because of your corrupt cause?"
What the conversion, you've gone from denying that anyone is advocating for 100% renewable energy yesterday, to advocating some "plan" to get to "100% renewable" as a gift from the gods of some such nonsense.
"You'd have to ask the people involved what specifically they mean. I suspect that they're speaking about a slogan. Having a rallying cry "We can get 95% of the way to fossil fuel free!" is clumsy. I don't imagine they're talking about literally no use for fossil fuels. But here is one thing I can GUARANTEE you: They are not talking about impossible things. Read that again. Say it out loud. Understand the meaning of those words combined in that order. They are not talking about impossible things. There has been discussion about potential alternatives to fossil fuels for planes, but as I understand it now, there is not that alternative. And you know what? They are NOT talking about impossible things. Maybe they are thinking the technology CAN be reached where planes can be flown without fossil fuels and that, WHEN that happens, THEN we'll have achieved that. But you know what? They are NOT talking about impossible things. Now, of course, conservatives (and others) have a long history of magical thinking on topics of fuel alternatives. "Before we run out of fossil fuels, TECHNOLOGY will save us, therefore, we don't need to plan or worry about it. Technology will fix it!" But you know what? That's NOT what SC or AOC are talking about. They're talking about making the goal and striving to achieve it because, without goals, then all the wishes that Technology will somehow save us are just that: Wishes. Now, what lesson have you learned? That they are not talking about impossible things. They're almost certainly talking about setting rational, challenging, achievable goals and shooting for the stars and if we only get 90 or 95% of the way there, then wow! What progress that will be. Come on. Use your heads. Don't be morons and don't mindlessly attack the adults working to fix the very real and deadly problems with a fossil fuel economy."
It's completely worthless to parse this pile of idiotic excrement. I called this yesterday. This is becoming a pattern with Dan- liberals say things, I point out what liberals say, Dan denies that the liberals actually said what they said, I provide proof, and then Dan tells me that they didn't mean what they said.
It's so amusing when Dan takes it on himself to be the final word on what other people mean.
Well, it's certainly nice to have a "can do" attitude, but what is or isn't possible remains to be seen. At some point it becomes a matter of choosing another path. How long it takes, how much has been spent by that time, how much effort has been fruitlessly expended...all that determines what is or isn't possible, and yet still it may be.
More important is who is paying and expending that effort. It shouldn't be government. New tech should be the result of entrepreneurial effort using venture capital offered by those who think it's possible and are willing to gamble with their money, not the tax dollars of the general public which should be reserved for Constitutionally mandated functions of government.
Dan speaks stupidly (not his fault...it's the only way he knows how) about the conservative perspective about alternative energy. I would challenge him to produce an actual case of some conservative insisting we don't have to worry about running out of fossil fuels...that we don't need to bother with other possibilities. He continues to prove he hasn't the vaguest idea of what conservatism is, what it looks like or what conservatives believe and promote.
""For black folk with a history of hundreds of years of oppression and harm, death and destruction, rape and removal of rights... getting them and their allies to recognize there were only 25 (or whatever the number is) unarmed black people killed by the police last year is by providing them the data from a trusted source..."
"Hundreds of years of oppression and harm" are irrelevant to the notion that there were 1000 (or 100 or any number above what it is) unarmed black people killed. When do people who believe this crap take it upon themselves to demand the evidence for such claims? Instead of listening to LeBron James, Colin Kaepernick, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker and other lying asshats, when will they actually look at evidence provided by intelligent black people like Thomas Sowell and Walter William for whom evidence is essential and demanded? And when will these people stop assuming that "unarmed" means "innocent people minding their own business being angelic until some racist cop came up and emptied their magazines"?
Policy requires accurate data. Those Dan supports don't. They only require sheep to believe their hyperbole, they only need the covetous to believe they'll get something for their vote that votes aren't meant to provide. For one who dared speak of finding common ground, it seems a clear example of what common ground might look like: accurate data that proves what is said to be a problem actual is one before we spend effort and tax dollars to solve it.
Marshal... ""Hundreds of years of oppression and harm" are irrelevant to the notion that there were 1000 (or 100 or any number above what it is) unarmed black people killed."
Well, the privileged white fella has spoken. Hundreds of years of white oppression are irrelevant to the ongoing police violence against people of color. The white massage has spoken, we all can just bow and scrape and heed his marshmallow deep opinion.
Good Lord.
Repent.
Listen to the monstrous words you say in defense of the ongoing oppression, listen to the white supremacists salute and praise your white words... then repent. Choose the right side, not the white side and repent.
"Hundreds of years of white oppression are irrelevant to the ongoing police violence against people of color."
1. The point of this post is to examine the current DATA, to accurately gauge the scope of the current problem. This notion that the current data is "irrelevant" to the current problem is strange at best.
2. If there is data that directly establishes a causal link between events of 200 years ago and 2019, then that data should be looked at.
3. If we were to move the goalposts (of this post) to look at the past, then wouldn't that mean that we'd have to look at ALL of the factors, as well as what political party/philosophy has controlled the areas where these problems are the worst?
4. If the "ongoing oppression" and the "white supremacists" who "rule" the cities and counties where the problems are concentrated, are truly to blame, then why do they keep getting elected?
5. By broadening this to "police violence against people of color", it raises interesting questions. It certainly clouds the issue by lumping instances where use of force is justified, proper, and necessary, in with the much smaller number of times when it isn't. Which is likely the point. If we can lose the 13 instances by submerging them in a much larger pool, it obfuscates the problem being discussed.
6. Are you suggesting that there are no circumstances where it is appropriate to use violence against people of color?
7. Somewhere else, explain why it's appropriate for white liberals to use the term "people of color", but the term "colored people" is racist? Remember, explain it somewhere else.
More for you to ignore, and misrepresent. It's so much easier to fling "racism" around than it is to answer questions.
"Hundreds of years of white oppression are irrelevant to the ongoing police violence against people of color."
Yes. It is, because it ignores the reality of today in favor of making a weak connection between the past and today. Dan, in his self-righteous defense of black people...of a kind that some black people most clearly don't appreciate...must first prove that there is "ongoing police violence against 'people of color'" that is not the result of the actions and anti-police attitudes of those same "people of color".
Said another way, Dan perpetuates false narratives regarding police interaction with black people.
As Craig refers to the number representing actual cases of unarmed blacks being shot by cops, I understand the point of him doing so with regard to the point of the post. However, this number, too, is not representative of the reality as, again, "unarmed" is not synonymous with "innocent". At the same time, we must work with something, and "unarmed" is as good a point as any other. The narrative suggests an outlandishly larger number. Those like Dan are all too happy to accept that outlandishly larger number so as to cement in the minds of the general public the lie put forth saying blacks are unjustly targeted by roving bands of racist cops...because cops just love putting themselves, their careers and their liberty at risk just to mess with non-whites.
Until Dan can provide evidence that supports his position, his white-guilt racist attacks on those who prefer evidence to self-serving anecdote falls on deaf ears. I don't much care what liars say, except for the entertainment value.
This study was referenced in this article by Heather MacDonald, someone who's spent a great deal of time and research on the lie of the Colin Kaepernick/LeBron James/Dan Trabue types regarding "oppression" of black people. She's the type of "expert" Dan would never reference because she doesn't say what he needs his "experts" to say.
Another interesting piece Dan will ignore because it doesn't comport with his preferred, but false, narrative.
Here's a black voice Dan will ignore because he doesn't support Dan's false narrative. I present a salient point that startled the black author of the study:
"Blacks are 23.5 percent less likely to be shot by police, relative to whites, in an interaction." (Bold print mine)
I could also produce studies which show black cops are far more likely to shoot black suspects than are whites. I guess black cops are more racist against black suspects than white cops.
The point of producing the above links is to support the point of Craig's post regarding the use of actual evidence, stats and the like as more important, sensible and healthy for enacting government policy than the false narratives and whiny, leftist bleating those like Dan prefer.
Art,
There is plenty of evidence that can be used to counter the simplistic argument that everything bad traces back to slavery (a generalization, I realize). There are also plenty of other factors that must be ignored in order to reach this 1:1 equivalency that is so cherished.
I haven't brought up the data that shows that black immigrants don't suffer from this sort of "racism", or several other relevant subjects because Dan won't answer the question about the methodology that singles out racism, while excluding other factors.
Well, Dan not answering questions is the norm, isn't it? That's the best he can do here or at my blog because he can't delete our comments, which he's doing again at his blog.
Just for giggles...
1. The point of this post is to examine the current DATA, to accurately gauge the scope of the current problem. This notion that the current data is "irrelevant" to the current problem is strange at best.
I never said that current data is irrelevant. I never said that. Those are not my words that I said because I did not say that. This is not something that I have communicated with my words. You are mistaken if you're suggesting I said that. I didn't.
Do you understand the problem with your reading something into my words that I didn't say?
2. If there is data that directly establishes a causal link between events of 200 years ago and 2019, then that data should be looked at.
You know, I suppose, that first of all, YES there are still causal links between today's harm and slavery?
And you know, I suppose, that while slavery ended ~1865, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, abuses, oppression and other forms of overt racism continued RIGHT INTO OUR LIFETIMES? Tell me you are aware of this reality?
The repercussions of slavery and racism, denying the vote, denying representation, destroying black owned businesses, red-lining, lynchings, drug laws that have directly targeted black people, housing laws, education policies, etc, etc, etc, have continued in various overt and direct actions up through the 1970s, 1980s and beyond.
Tell me you are aware of this?
3. If we were to move the goalposts (of this post) to look at the past, then wouldn't that mean that we'd have to look at ALL of the factors, as well as what political party/philosophy has controlled the areas where these problems are the worst?
Yes, absolutely.
4. If the "ongoing oppression" and the "white supremacists" who "rule" the cities and counties where the problems are concentrated, are truly to blame, then why do they keep getting elected?
Tell me you are not unaware enough to NOT know the answer to this?
Black folks and their allies keep electing Democrats (I'm sure this is your point) and progressives PRECISELY because they are very aware that the alternative is worse. Given voting for a still systemically racist white liberal and a KKK member who is a GOP candidate, they will not vote for the more overt racist. Because, of course not.
Given a liberal with flawed policies (like continued support for a war on drugs or "tough on crime" laws, at least back in the 80s and 90s) and a conservative whose policy decisions are ten times worse, black people and their allies will vote for the flawed liberal over a hostile conservative.
You ARE aware that this is the reasoning, aren't you?
If you are, are you suggesting that black people and their allies are, as a group, stupid to vote for Democrats when they could be listening to you and voting for a Republican, whose policies they believe will be worse.
All of this has been answered time and time again with you. And here it is again.
several other relevant subjects because Dan won't answer the question about the methodology that singles out racism, while excluding other factors.
I have no idea what question this is. I went back and looked for something like this and couldn't find it. Without seeing the question, it's hard to say, but the answer probably is, 1. I'm not advocating methodologies that only look at racism and 2. Because racism is a real problem, no matter how many white men tell black people it's not.
Because, of course.
What the hell are you trying to prove? That you can cherry pick some comments out of a old thread and respond to them weeks/months after the fact? That this somehow erases the multiple questions you ignore, and that responding to comments after ignoring them for weeks/months is relevant?
1. Of course your not advocating methodologies, that would require that you be specific and consistent.
2. Yet without methodologies and data, we’ll never know how significant of a problem “racism” on it’s own is. Just you prating on about it. I guess some white people just need to be silenced.
“ The EXISTENCE of discrimination or ethnic conflict does not mean it explains group outcomes. Most major problems in the Black community -fatherlessness- (1) ~did not exist when racism was worse, (2) ~do not exist for Black immigrants today, but (3) are epidemic for poor whites.””
W Reilly
This quote is a great example of my point above. The simplistic easy response to any group outcomes perceived as negative, is to yell “racism”, louder and louder. When, in reality, there are likely other variables in play that get ignored.
Dan,
I know it's hard for you to understand, but responding to your comments isn't anywhere in the top 20 of my priorities. So, while I understand that you think nothing of going silent for days, weeks, or months, you expect others to adhere to a different standard. The problem, as it is so often, is NOT that I don't respond (as happens frequently with you), it's that I don't respond on your schedule.
"I never said that current data is irrelevant. I never said that. Those are not my words that I said because I did not say that. This is not something that I have communicated with my words. You are mistaken if you're suggesting I said that. I didn't."
I'm not. Although, you've been pretty clear that you highly value the subjective experiences of people over the actual data, so maybe it's not too far fetched.
"Do you understand the problem with your reading something into my words that I didn't say?"
Yes, I do. I even recognize it when you take my words out of context, or simply make shit up and attribute it to me. The problem, I suspect, is your default position that everything revolves around you. Try this in the future, if I quote your exact words and attribute them to you then it's safe for you to conclude that I'm referring to your exact words. If I speak in generalities, then just assume that I'm aggregating things I've heard from multiple people (maybe including you, but not exclusively you), and summarizing their positions.
"You know, I suppose, that first of all, YES there are still causal links between today's harm and slavery?"
While I have no doubt that there are some, I have to note that you misquoted me and chose to answer your perversion of what I said, rather than what I actually said. Why not re read what I actually said, then try again. If you can provide specific, actual data that would be a good idea.
"And you know, I suppose, that while slavery ended ~1865, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, abuses, oppression and other forms of overt racism continued RIGHT INTO OUR LIFETIMES? Tell me you are aware of this reality?"
Again, yes I am aware of those things. But please tell me what studies provide a direct causal link to the 13 "unarmed" African American men shot by cops in 2019.
"The repercussions of slavery and racism, denying the vote, denying representation, destroying black owned businesses, red-lining, lynchings, drug laws that have directly targeted black people, housing laws, education policies, etc, etc, etc, have continued in various overt and direct actions up through the 1970s, 1980s and beyond."
"Tell me you are aware of this?"
Yes, I've written about many of these things, perhaps you'd forgotten. But simply providing a list of random policies of the DFL doesn't draw a direct link to the specific topic of this post. If you can do so, I'll consider it.
"Tell me you are not unaware enough to NOT know the answer to this?"
I suspect a multitude of factors play into the answer.
"Black folks and their allies keep electing Democrats (I'm sure this is your point) and progressives PRECISELY because they are very aware that the alternative is worse."
Within the last tow years, I've heard people refer to the shooting of "unarmed" blacks as "genocide", please explain what could possibly be worse than "genocide"? I've heard you (and others) use the term "systemic racism", and decry the evils of "systemic racism". If decades of "systemic racism" are "evil". then wouldn't those who control the "systems" or "institutions" also be "evil"? What specific alternative is worse than "genocide" and "systemic racism"? Seriously, are you suggesting that cities like MSP/Chicago/STL/SF/Baltimore/DC etc, have actually experienced ANY actual (non DFL) alternative that's is objectively worse?
Tell me you are not unaware enough to NOT know the answer to this?
Black folks and their allies keep electing Democrats (I'm sure this is your point) and progressives PRECISELY because they are very aware that the alternative is worse. Given voting for a still systemically racist white liberal and a KKK member who is a GOP candidate, they will not vote for the more overt racist. Because, of course not.
Please point out the "KKK member" who has run for office in any of the cities previously mentioned in the last 50 years. Other than David Duke (who was repudiated by the GOP) name one KKK member that has run for office in the last 50 years? Hell, please point out the "overt racist" that's run for city government in any of those cities in the last 50 years?
This is critical to the context of this post. You have made a claim, you've claimed that there are GOP candidates who are "KKK member"(s) and "overt racist"(s), who've run for office. This is a claim that you should be able to prove with actual data. SO, let's start with comparing the actual data, to your narrative. Then, if you can prove your point, let's look at whether or not these (alleged) candidates were supported by the GOP at large, and whether of not they won. That all seems like relevant data that you need to provide forthwith.
"Given a liberal with flawed policies (like continued support for a war on drugs or "tough on crime" laws, at least back in the 80s and 90s) and a conservative whose policy decisions are ten times worse, black people and their allies will vote for the flawed liberal over a hostile conservative."
Are you now suggesting that "systemic/institutionalized" racism is merely a "flaw"?
"You ARE aware that this is the reasoning, aren't you?"
Yes, I am. (See, that's a simple direct answer.) What I'm not aware of is whether or not the actual data makes that reasoning align with reality.
If you are, are you suggesting that black people and their allies are, as a group, stupid to vote for Democrats when they could be listening to you and voting for a Republican, whose policies they believe will be worse.
"If you are, are you suggesting that black people and their allies are, as a group, stupid to vote for Democrats when they could be listening to you and voting for a Republican, whose policies they believe will be worse."
No. (simple direct answer)
"I have no idea what question this is. I went back and looked for something like this and couldn't find it. Without seeing the question, it's hard to say, but the answer probably is, 1. I'm not advocating methodologies that only look at racism and 2. Because racism is a real problem, no matter how many white men tell black people it's not."
1. Please be precise about what methodologies you are referring to.
2. What about when black folks tell everyone that it's not?
"Says the guy who LITERALLY just ignored all the questions I asked when I literally answered your questions."
Except, I didn't "ignore" them, I merely set them aside until I had time to answer them, which I did.
"And the question I answered is from last week, not something that was ignored for "weeks/months..." Two strikes. Care to answer the questions I actually asked?"
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the woodenly literal gambit. The reality is that you've been wholesale ignoring questions I've asked for months. The fact that you responded to one, out of them, simply demonstrates that you actually can respond to/answer questions, you just choose not to. Yes.
"When serious scholars and interested parties look at the problems facing minorities, OF COURSE, they do not say, "This is SOLELY caused by racism." DO you recognize that reality?"
Of course there are some that do. (Direct answer) Why then don't people like Kendi, DiAngelo, and BLM address any of the other factors that affect outcomes? Why, in this thread, have you not mentioned ONE possible contributing factor other then "racism"?
"When we talk about the problems facing minorities, OF COURSE, we do not say, "There aren't other factors/variables that are involved." Do you recognize that reality?"
I recognize the reality that I do see some academics and others who do acknowledge this, but I certainly wouldn't say that I've seen much for public consumption other than "racism" of late. (Direct answer) Since you asked the same question twice in the same comment, I'll return the favor. Where in this thread, have you mentioned ANY other factor beyond "racism"?
"No one is ignoring the multi-faceted problems facing racial minorities."
That's quite a claim, can you prove it? Why, then haven't you mentioned any others even in passing? What are some? How do you explain the fact that "racism" hasn't seemed to be quite the barrier to some minority groups that it is to others?
"Do you recognize that reality?"
I recognize the reality that you have made that claim, unfortunately in the absence of proof, I can't acknowledge the unproven claim to represent reality.
"It's like you want to play with a caricature of concerns that black folks and their allies have, rather than the reality. But then, strawman fallacies are common amongst today's conservatives."
What a strange conclusion to draw. My primary point is that we should examine the actual data as we determine the scale of the problem, then address the problem based on the actual scale of the problem rather than based on a narrative that isn't supported by the data. Hell, you even "agreed". Beyond, that I've mostly been asking questions. How is basing responses to problems on actual data, and asking questions about things a problem for you?
I guess the whole irony of using a straw man fallacy to try to accuse me of engaging in one of your favorites is lost on your.
"Sigh. You, of course, cannot support this stupidly false claim."
If I must, I'll wade through the mountains of bullshit to get the quote, but I don't have time now.
"I do value the real-world experiences of people and I value data. Not one over the other. Do you understand the difference?"
I understand that you say those words. What I don"t understand is how you deal with the situation where people's "experiences" run completely counter to the data. Maybe you could explain, so I can understand.
"Do you understand why your statement is patently false?"
No. For it to be patently false, there would need to be evidence that proves the converse to be objectively, equivocally True. In the absence of such evidence, I'll have to disagree with your hunch.
"It appears not. The same is true about your comment that I'm impatient and expect to be answered right away. I've never said that. Another stupidly observably patently false claim from the modern Trump type of conservative. These stupidly false claims have become y'all's bread and butter."
Blah, blah, blah, blah, Trump, blah, blah, blah...
If you can provide the proof...
But, it's an excellent way to move the discussion away from your failure over an extended period of time to answer questions, and onto your little fantasy world where everyone but you and those you agree with is always wrong.
"IF for instance, the problem you're talking about are the assassinations/murders/killings/abuse of black citizens at the hands of the police system and, given the very real history of the very real oppression of black citizens by the justice and police systems and the very real experiences faced by black citizens... given that, IF black folks and their allies have the "feeling" that there are 100 black people killed by the police each year and the actual number is "only 35,""
While I could be misunderstanding, it sounds like you are suggesting that the actual evidence (13) isn't as important as the "feeling" (100, or 10,000) that some people have.
It's entirely possible that you meant something else, but at least I can actually find the quote in question and provide it. Maybe you should try that occasionally.
Did you know "the Myth of the Successful Immigrant" has a long and celebrated history of use with the racist segment of the population? Does it worry you to embrace and promote that which racists embrace?
First of all, the data is mixed. For instance, black immigrants are poorer than african americans... Less likely to own their own home...
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/04/09/chapter-1-statistical-portrait-of-the-u-s-black-immigrant-population/
Also, there's the problem of Exception Bias (if you're motivated enough to do the work to move to the US, you're a more motivated person...) but their children do less well in many ways...
https://qz.com/198512/america-still-is-the-land-of-opportunities-for-black-immigrants-but-not-their-kids/
More...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2524420?seq=1
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/524571669/model-minority-myth-again-used-as-a-racial-wedge-between-asians-and-blacks
https://novelhand.com/how-the-model-minority-myth-perpetuates-anti-black-racism/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/6891/
Finally you offer data, not particularly current data, and data couched in veiled accusations of racism, but actual data.
And 3 comments of telling me that I don’t understand your quote, without actually explaining specifically what I got wrong. I’m up in the air about whether or not to post those because they add nothing to the conversation.
FYI, without digging into your links yet, I see a potential problem. If the data, contradicts your model minority myth criticism, then it seems you’d be committed to the data, not what you’ve provided.
"Correction. It is a direct reply with no data to support the empty claim. It is an empty claim that sounds like it's not based on data but attacks. It's not a significant answer."
The fact that you have to redefine terms, and attach modifiers to terms in order to twist my direct answer to your vague question which was unsupported by any actual evidence is one of the funniest (read stupidest), yet most sad and pathetic things I've seen you do.
"Again, time after time, from Trump to Trump's active supporters, to Trump's passive defenders, from conservative to conservative to conservative, y'all offer claims that are empty and unsupported and almost certainly false."
Yet, strangely not one actual example of any of these alleged claims that bear directly on this thread.
"Perhaps you're not familiar with how Justice groups work. Often times, when one is fighting systemic police racism, for instance, or pollution from mountaintop removal, the Justice defenders are not focusing on every potential aspect of the problem. They're focusing on the one or few aspects they're dealing with. This is because any one group, organization or person can only address so many factors. That BLM might focus on Injustice with the police system, that does not mean they're ignoring other aspects of trouble in the African American community."
It appears that you are suggesting that the folks I mentioned are so laser focused on only one aspect of the "trouble in the African American community" that they've siloed themselves off from any other related "troubles in the AA community" as well as from any other POC/Minority?immigrant communities that might bear on the "troubles". It appears that you are suggesting that these people and groups are laser focused on one facet of the "troubles", while assuming that others are focused on other facets, and further assuming that someone, somewhere will synthesize all these facets into one plan. Am I understanding your answer?
"Do you not understand that? Are you suggesting that these intelligent people don't understand the problems can be complex and multifaceted?"
Do you understand that asking a question, isn't suggesting? I'd have thought that a holistic approach might be a good approach.
"Is that not a way of talking down to your black Neighbors and their allies?"
No, it's asking questions to understand.
Post a Comment