• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Clefargle

Member
brainchild said:
I am not making the argument that comparing information about different groups of people is wrong. I'm saying that we're no longer just talking about the information and statistics about people when you refer to them (as a person) as different from their own kind, and saying that they (as a person) are different from their own kind based on relatively limited information like voting trends is offensive.



I don't have a problem with the data or how the data was acquired, as I've stated many, many times before. The problem is in how people are being talked about when discussing data relevant to them.
Click to expand...

When the information is self identifying, how is that offensive? Even if it offends you personally, the vast majority of minorities included in polling don't seem to have a problem with being grouped in with other minorities. No one here is saying that minorities are a monolith, so what type of heinous activity are you even taking about?
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Macho Madness said:
Links? I want to know where they're getting their information.

I think it's fair to say Hillary isn't exciting some of the Democratic base but saying it about all is a stretch.
Click to expand...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/be-afraid?utm_term=.xt4rVNYWx#.plQAyq09l

Essentially, the article uses one data point, Hillary lost the youth vote in Nevada, and extrapolates the fact that young people really like Bernie into the idea that Dems don't like Hillary.

It even phrases the current "race" as a dead heat.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
Saying they're an outlier is bad because the implication is that they're unusual so we should say that their statiscal information is unusual instead? How is that any different?

I can't imagine you use the same approach when discussing other topics that involve people and statistics outside of politics.
Click to expand...

First, let me give you credit for being the first person in this thread to demonstrate that they understand my point. Kudos.

Anyway, it's different because the former is personal while the latter is impersonal. If we're keeping racial and social sensitivities in mind when discussing statistics, it's important to make sure that we're not treating people like numbers, stripping them of what makes them human (even though the perception of humanity is just abstract construct), of focus on the information about these people (which is obviously not human in the first place).

As for your last point, my logic on this is pretty consistent outside of politics. If we were talking about people and statistics with respect to art, music, food, sports, etc. my opinions would be no different.
 
P

PBY

Banned
brainchild said:
First, let me give you credit for being the first person in this thread to demonstrate that they understand my point. Kudos.

Anyway, it's different because the former is personal while the latter is impersonal. If we're keeping racial and social sensitivities in mind when discussing statistics, it's important to make sure that we're not treating people like numbers, stripping them of what makes them human (even though the perception of humanity is just abstract construct), of focus on the information about these people (which is obviously not human in the first place).

As for your last point, my logic on this is pretty consistent outside of politics. If we were talking about people and statistics with respect to art, music, food, sports, etc. my opinions would be no different.
Click to expand...

This is a weird place you're going with this man, and I actually agree with your second paragraph here.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The media posting articles still about how Dems aren't excited about or don't like Hillary in the face of literally all polls about those questions is astounding.

She won the main Dem voting block by maybe 50+ points in Nevada too.
Click to expand...

I think Internet is driving this narrative. Many media people and younger voters are on their phones and tablets all day long. What they see typically is "BERNIEBERNIEBERNIEHILLARYISADOODIEHEADBERNIE.."

So they have this reinforced every day, hours and hours at a time.

Then it comes time to hold a vote in the real world, and that vote doesn't necessarily reflect what has been seen on those lovely little glowscreens over the past eight months.

For many, the realization comes: not everyone is online. Online doesn't accurately reflect what's going-on on the ground. But some return to that online window the next day, only to have the same narrative reinforced.

If she wins in November, they'll still be writing articles about how unenthused Democrats are about her, even when polling and real-world voter behavior continue to clearly contradict this.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/be-afraid?utm_term=.xt4rVNYWx#.plQAyq09l

Essentially, the article uses one data point, Hillary lost the youth vote in Nevada, and extrapolates the fact that young people really like Bernie into the idea that Dems don't like Hillary.

It even phrases the current "race" as a dead heat.
Click to expand...

I mean, yes. It's true, she is not winning the youth vote by a very considerable number. The problem with that line of thinking "sinking" her though is exactly why Bernie is in the situation he's in. If the primary was won on youth enthusiasm only, Hillary should have dropped out 3 states ago. The youth vote also doesn't win general elections since they're the demographic least likely to vote in the first place. Yes, Obama won the 18-29 vote handily in both of his elections. I don't see a reason that would be different in a match up that pairs her with Trump.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
euphemism said:
When the information is self identifying, how is that offensive? Even if it offends you personally, the vast majority of minorities included in polling don't seem to have a problem with being grouped in with other minorities. No one here is saying that minorities are a monolith, so what type of heinous activity are you even taking about?
Click to expand...

Because it's not the information that's offensive in the first place? I've clarified my point several times. Don't know what else I can say to help you understand it.
 
C

Clefargle

Member
brainchild said:
Because it's not the information that's offensive in the first place? I've clarified my point several times. Don't know what else I can say to help you understand it.
Click to expand...

When people say this or that is an outlier, they don't mean the person. They mean the data. Why can't we talk about data about people as if it is data?
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
HylianTom said:
I think Internet is driving this narrative. Many media people and younger voters are on their phones and tablets all day long. What they see typically is "BERNIEBERNIEBERNIEHILLARYISADOODIEHEADBERNIE.."

So they have this reinforced every day, hours and hours at a time.

Then it comes time to hold a vote in the real world, and that vote doesn't necessarily reflect what has been seen on those lovely little glowscreens over the past eight months.

For many, the realization comes: not everyone is online. Online doesn't accurately reflect what's going-on on the ground. But some return to that online window the next day, only to have the same narrative reinforced.

If she wins in November, they'll still be writing articles about how unenthused Democrats are about her, even when polling and real-world voter behavior continue to clearly contradict this.
Click to expand...

Bolded for truth.

That said though....

That ALSO applies to Trump. Don't confuse online freaking out with "most of the country actually cares enough to do something about it in November".
 
B

brainchild

Banned
euphemism said:
When people say this or that is an outlier, they don't mean the person. They mean the data. Why can't we talk about data about people as if it is data?
Click to expand...

Because it's rude, disrespectful, and insensitive. Regardless of intent, referring to a person as a statistic is just not something anyone should do.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
brainchild said:
I hate to tell you that 90% of your post was a waste, but I don't disagree with the legitimacy of demographic statistics in the least, nor at any point did I say or imply that I disagreed with them. My point has to do with the presentation of data or the conversation about the data, and how that relates to talking about people, not the data itself. I'm all about the facts, so we don't disagree about the utility of statistics.

Sometimes there can be a disconnect between understanding the place of objectivity vs. social/human sensitivities, and people might not know where to draw the line. In this case, referring to people as outliers is a lot more personal than just referring to the fact their their statistical information is unusual. It potentially carries the implication that, as a person, they are unusual compared to other people in their minority group just because they vote differently.

So the wording is the issue here, not the data. Unfortunately, it has become so common to discuss demographics without respect to social sensitivities that regardless of how insensitively the data is discussed, many people wouldn't even pick up on it. However, bring this topic up on national television, and you might be surprised to see lots of people who feel the same way that I feel about it. There's lots of things we do unconsciously that don't really receive any kind of backlash until it's brought to public attention.
Click to expand...

The bolded is a factual statement along the axis of voting preferences. It's not inherently a bad thing or a good thing, it just is. "Outlier" is an accepted scientific term and I would argue carries less baggage than potential synonyms or near synonyms like "weird". There is no language issue here - I've seen no data nor do my personal life experiences at all suggest there is a significant number of people who are going to be put off if they are included in an outlier group if, along a specific axis, they act of their own free will in a way counter to many people like them along another specific axis. This is a non-issue.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Cybit said:
Bolded for truth.

That said though....

That ALSO applies to Trump. Don't confuse online freaking out with "most of the country actually cares enough to do something about it in November".
Click to expand...
Yup. It'll be up to activists and the campaign to drive voters. They'll have to make a concerted case across all media, and can't presume to have this in the bag.
 
C

Clefargle

Member
brainchild said:
Because it's rude, disrespectful, and insensitive. Regardless of intent, referring to a person as a statistic is just not something anyone should do.
Click to expand...

Again, when someone says an outlier....they are talking about the data. Not the individual. Is it really so simple that you're just hung up on terminology? What does it matter to use the word "unusual" instead of "outlier" just because it's got a less clinical/technical association? Words don't have meanings, they have usages, and sometimes using one word is more succinct than another. What you're asking for is simple,
It's a euphemism.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
brainchild said:
First, let me give you credit for being the first person in this thread to demonstrate that they understand my point. Kudos.
Click to expand...

This is much more a criticism of your posting style than of the posters in the thread.

brainchild said:
Anyway, it's different because the former is personal while the latter is impersonal. If we're keeping racial and social sensitivities in mind when discussing statistics, it's important to make sure that we're not treating people like numbers, stripping them of what makes them human (even though the perception of humanity is just abstract construct), of focus on the information about these people (which is obviously not human in the first place).
Click to expand...

I dunno. This keeps coming up in various threads, actually. One notable example was the tendency for people to say "as a minority Bernie supporter, stop erasing me." Which is, like, not necessarily unreasonable. But at the same time it's also accurate to say that minority Democrat primary voters are predominantly Hillary supporters, and, frankly, it's also reasonable to draw conclusions about Bernie's campaign from that. Individual Bernie supporters can offer their anecdotal disagreement, and their lived experience is valid, but that doesn't make it representative.

Your position here seems, frankly, a little abstract. I don't disagree that it's weird to refer to a person as an "outlier." But I think it's pretty crazy to say that "Republican Hispanic voters are not particularly representative of Hispanic voters" is racist. There has to be a point at which aggregation is reasonable or it becomes impossible to talk about humans.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
The coverage of Rubio today is pretty subdued, maybe even the press is starting to be skeptical of his 2nd place victories. Jeb dropped out and Rubio was endorsed by seemingly everyone and yet he didn't improve from SC. And no one else is going to drop out before Super Tuesday.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Less interesting but purple state Senate polling about SCOTUS:

-Strong majorities of voters in both New Hampshire and Wisconsin think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. It’s a 62/35 spread in favor of doing so in Wisconsin, and 59/36 in New Hampshire. One thing that really stands out in both states is what a strong mandate there is from independents for filling the seat- it’s 67/30 in Wisconsin and 60/33 in New Hampshire. Those are the voters who will end up determining whether Johnson and Ayotte get reelected this fall, and they disagree with them on this issue.

-Voters in the two states are particularly concerned about the prospect of the Senate refusing to consider a nominee without even knowing who it is. 78% in New Hampshire and 76% in Wisconsin think the Senate should at least see who gets put forward before making a decision on whether they should be confirmed.

-53% of voters in Wisconsin say they’re less likely to vote for Johnson because of his refusal to consider a nominee, compared to just 26% who say that stance makes them more likely to vote for Johnson. It’s a similar story with Ayotte- 51% are less likely to vote for her because of this, to only 26% who say they’re more likely to vote for her. This issue is particularly damaging for both of them with independents- 57% in New Hampshire and 56% in Wisconsin say obstructionism on this issue makes them less likely to vote to reelect their Republican Senator this fall.
Click to expand...
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Basileus777 said:
The coverage of Rubio today is pretty subdued, maybe even the press is starting to be skeptical of his 2nd place victories. Jeb dropped out and Rubio was endorsed by seemingly everyone and yet he didn't improve from SC. And no one else is going to drop out before Super Tuesday.
Click to expand...

They finally see the writing on the wall is all. Second place needs to turn into first at some point and there's no indication that it's going to happen. The race isn't tightening at this point, Trump is starting to pull away and his leads in each state are growing. You can only deny reality for so long.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Why do people talk about Cruz like he's dropping out soon? He's got more cash on hand than Kasich and Rubio combined.

Only Trump has more cash on hand and that's because he's a freakin billionaire.

A super PAC backing Mrs. Clinton, Priorities USA Action, also continues to stockpile cash, reporting $45 million in cash on hand at the end of last month. The group took in almost $10 million in January, including $3.5 million from James H. Simons, a retired hedge fund founder from New York.
Click to expand...

American hero:
On July 22, 2014, Simons was subject to bipartisan condemnation by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for the use of complex barrier options to shield day-to-day trading (usually subject to higher ordinary income tax rates) as long-term capital gains. “Renaissance Technologies was able to avoid paying more than $6 billion in taxes by disguising its day-to-day stock trades as long term investments,” said Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), the committee’s ranking Republican, in his opening statement. “Two banks and a handful of hedge funds developed a complex financial structure to engage in highly profitable trades while claiming an unjustified lower tax rate and avoiding limits on trading with borrowed money,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) in his prepared remarks.
Click to expand...
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Holy shit, who the hell is editing Time.com these days?

http://time.com/4214020/david-brock-correct-record-media-matters-hillary-clinton/

Cb_uO8SXIAA0hBS.jpg:small
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
brainchild said:
Anyway, it's different because the former is personal while the latter is impersonal. If we're keeping racial and social sensitivities in mind when discussing statistics, it's important to make sure that we're not treating people like numbers, stripping them of what makes them human (even though the perception of humanity is just abstract construct), of focus on the information about these people (which is obviously not human in the first place).
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to restate your conclusions, I asked why one is personal and the other isn't. "Because I said so" isn't an argument. You literally said one is bad because it implies someone is unusual and then suggested we call the person's votes unusual. People have ownership over their statistical information, it's not any less personal because you dropped the reference.

"As a voter, you're an outlier."
"Your voting pattern is unusual"

There is no meaningful difference. Unusual is a synonym for not normal or not expected.

"You're overweight"
"Your numeric weight is above the mean"

It's still "your" weight. People don't think abstractly in relation to personal information like that.

As for your last point, my logic on this is pretty consistent outside of politics. If we were talking about people and statistics with respect to art, music, food, sports, etc. my opinions would be no different.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to look, but I would like to think I arrived at that conclusion based on posting history osmosis so I'd wager you're not as consistent as you would like to be.
 
D

dramatis

Member
brainchild said:
Some of my black cousins, though republican they may be, should not be referred to as 'outliers' of black people. I find (and I'm sure that they would too) that to be incredibly disrespectful and racially insensitive, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting such a ridiculous notion.

I have no problem with you (or anyone else) saying that black republicans have typically carried the minority vote amongst all black voters, but don't tell me that they don't represent the majority of their demographic's interests, because you don't know that, and not all voters vote for their own interests. The same logic applies to all minorities, but if you wanna call me thin-skinned because I refuse to sit back and watch people discuss minorities like they're some kind of monolith, then I'll just consider you (and anyone who agrees with you) tone deaf and move on with my day.
Click to expand...
This is some super rich steaming pile coming from you. Have you given this equal "sensitive consideration" to women when you said Killer Mike was totally right with his uterus comment?

"Some women, though supporters of Hillary they may be, should not be referred to as 'uterii'. I find (and I'm sure that they would too) that to be incredibly disrespectful and insensitive, and you should be ashamed for even suggesting it's fine to refer to women by their body parts."

"If you wanna call me thin-skinned because I refuse to sit back and watch people discuss women like they can only vote with their vaginas, then I'll just consider you (and anyone who agrees with you) tone deaf."
brainchild said:
One final point...

Just because something is a fact about a person, it doesn't mean that you should say it to them or about them. That was my whole point.
Click to expand...
Apply this to Killer Mike.
brainchild said:
Then you refer to the statistics of the person (in this case, their vote), not the person directly. Calling a person an outlier is a direct descriptor of that person. It's not right.
Click to expand...
"Then you refer to the person's identity as a woman, not her body parts directly. Calling a woman a uterus is a direct descriptor of that woman. It's not right."

brainchild said:
Have you asked everyone how they've felt about this? Other minorities such as myself? Would you like me to interview my friends and family members and ask them how they feel about this? Maybe I'll have my brother (also a neogaf member) come into this thread and give his 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Have you asked women how they felt about Killer Mike's statement? Would you like to try and interview female friends and family members and ask them how they felt about that? Maybe you should have thought to ask some women what they think before doubling down on Killer Mike's statement and standing by it.
brainchild said:
I hate to tell you that 90% of your post was a waste, but I don't disagree with the legitimacy of demographic statistics in the least, nor at any point did I say or imply that I disagreed with them. My point has to do with the presentation of data or the conversation about the data, and how that relates to talking about people, not the data itself. I'm all about the facts, so we don't disagree about the utility of statistics.

Sometimes there can be a disconnect between understanding the place of objectivity vs. social/human sensitivities, and people might not know where to draw the line. In this case, referring to people as outliers is a lot more personal than just referring to the fact their their statistical information is unusual. It potentially carries the implication that, as a person, they are unusual compared to other people in their minority group just because they vote differently.

So the wording is the issue here, not the data. Unfortunately, it has become so common to discuss demographics without respect to social sensitivities that regardless of how insensitively the data is discussed, many people wouldn't even pick up on it. However, bring this topic up on national television, and you might be surprised to see lots of people who feel the same way that I feel about it. There's lots of things we do unconsciously that don't really receive any kind of backlash until it's brought to public attention.
Click to expand...
Imagine if you had afforded women any of this consideration when you defended Killer Mike's statement. I suppose now you can possibly try to think about how they felt.

"Sometimes there can be a disconnect between understanding the place of objectivity vs. social/human sensitivities, and people might not know where to draw the line. In this case, referring to Hillary as a uterus is a lot more personal than just referring to the fact she is a woman. It potentially carries the implication that Hillary supporters are only their womanly body part compared to other women just because they vote differently."

"So the wording is the issue here, not the data. Unfortunately, it has become so common to discuss women without respect to social sensitivities that regardless of how insensitively the data is discussed, many people wouldn't even pick up on it. However, bring this topic up on national television, and you might be surprised to see lots of people who feel the same way that I feel about it. There's lots of things we do unconsciously that don't really receive any kind of backlash until it's brought to public attention."

Good job, brainchild.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Macho Madness said:
Holy shit, who the hell is editing Time.com these days?

http://time.com/4214020/david-brock-correct-record-media-matters-hillary-clinton/

Cb_uO8SXIAA0hBS.jpg:small
Click to expand...

Certainly going back to 2008 during the primary Secretary Clinton was subjected to various forms of sexism overt, subtle that were detrimental. Fortunately Senator Obama was not subjected to something similar; the culture seemed to tolerate sexism and not racism.
Click to expand...
neat

A. Correct the Record, which is the super PAC that I have, coordinates its activity with the campaign. …
Click to expand...
uhhhhhhhhhh

UHHHHHHHH
 
B

BoboBrazil

Member
benjipwns said:
I would expect him to endorse his Senator.

Trump doesn't need endorsements yet. It'll ruin his outsider cred. One he smashes through March then the long walk of resigned concession can start.
Click to expand...

I just want Trump to get all of the Texas delegates. Cornyn hasn't given his endorsement yet though.
Basileus777 said:
Cruz winning Texas wouldn't be that bad for Trump really if it kept Cruz in the race for a while longer.
Click to expand...

I think Cruz would stay in even with 2nd place. As long as he can beat Rubio he will stay in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
9K
Mr Hyde replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
53K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
78K
zephiross replied
Top Bottom