PC Principal: Get Off My Lawn

[TsingTao]

Wow, that's awesome. Every little bit makes a difference.

"I pull out my robes and hoods and say, “look, this is what I've done to put a dent in racism. I've got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who've given up that belief because of my conversations sitting down to dinner. They gave it up. How many robes and hoods have you collected?” And then they shut up."

Loved that part.

[archibaldcrane]

I think we should combat racism by letting it be the sole responsibility of black people.

[Day]

trying to take away my hyperbole crown archi?

[archibaldcrane]

However, all this polling only strengthens the leftist case for centering economic shit instead of identity politics. The people who hate Trump's racism aren't going to forget about it absent reminders from the left, and the people who like his racism still need material improvements to their lives.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, here's something that should bring conservative and liberal activists together

The Juggalo march on Washington

https://twitter.com/drivenbyboredom/...12358087733248

[Dimmauk]

Also, here's something that should bring conservative and liberal activists together

The Juggalo march on Washington

https://twitter.com/drivenbyboredom/...12358087733248

Nate Igor Smith @drivenbyboredom
·
Aug 15
Liberal s should get on board because it is a civil rights issue and conservatives should get on board because it’s government overreach.

Seems legit

[Patriarch]

all this polling

Srs question: Why are we still using polls as a relevant source of info?

heres to you, 2016

[archibaldcrane]

Srs question: Why are we still using polls as a relevant source of info?

heres to you, 2016

Why wouldn't you? Because they were off by like, 1.1% in 2016?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html

If these polls about confederate statue popularity were off by the same amount it wouldn't meaningfully change the conclusions you can draw from them.

[Day]

2016 def taught me to read the fine print on polls and never take anyone's interpretation of them as gospel.

[Patriarch]

Why wouldn't you? Because they were off by like, 1.1% in 2016?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html

If these polls about confederate statue popularity were off by the same amount it wouldn't meaningfully change the conclusions you can draw from them.

Off by 1.1% in 2016? Was that % brought about from a poll about polls?

I remember nothing but every poll known to man assuring us all that Hillary was a write in, and that donald trump was an evil meenie head that says bad words

[archibaldcrane]

Off by 1.1% in 2016? Was that % brought about from a poll about polls?

I remember nothing but every poll known to man assuring us all that Hillary was a write in, and that donald trump was an evil meenie head that says bad words

did you click my handy informative link? Yes, a simple average of national polls showed Hillary up 3.2% and she won the national vote by 2.1%. The polls were pretty damn good at estimating national opinion of that issue, which is what is in question regarding removal of confederate statues.

National polls don't deal with population distribution questions that matter for the electoral college, but there's no electoral college for confederate statue popular opinion.

[Eurell]

donald trump was an evil meenie head that says bad words

Was this not true...?

[Thunder]

er, I'm pretty sure at least some of the 'polls' were actually an assortment of several polls whose results were weighted based on the county/state that the polls were taken in

and the 538 calculations used even more stuff, did they not?

In fact, I'd be surprised if any news org used a poll that made 0 effort to account for the electoral college, the system in which the president is elected, when trying to convey to the public the chances of any one candidate winning

[archibaldcrane]

er, I'm pretty sure at least some of the 'polls' were actually an assortment of several polls whose results were weighted based on the county/state that the polls were taken in

and the 538 calculations used even more stuff, did they not?

In fact, I'd be surprised if any news org used a poll that made 0 effort to account for the electoral college, the system in which the president is elected, when trying to convey to the public the chances of any one candidate winning

The point is that saying "the polls were wrong" in 2016 is only somewhat accurate if you're talking about accounting for the electoral college, which is obviously a complete non-issue for ANYTHING other than presidential elections. (so it's a nonsense thing to say about confederate statue polling)

538 and others had models that incorporated the electoral college. Most of the models were garbage (other than 538's).

[Andalusian girls]

538 also gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, their model was the most sophisticated and the most accurate.

but that's a model, not a poll. no poll asking are you picking Hillary or are you picking Trump can account for the electoral college. and in that regard the polls were largely accurate, the problem was analysts misreading them.

[Thunder]

not convinced it's only "somewhat accurate" to find fault in recent polls because of the modelling they did for the electoral college

you think aside from using models to interpret the data the polls do a wonderful job in sampling the population's true opinion on something? There's no influence from a certain side being too taboo (with respect to the opinion of social media), overall slanted media portrayal, or some kind of unaccounted for selection bias?

538 also gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, their model was the most sophisticated and the most accurate.

but that's a model, not a poll. no poll asking are you picking Hillary or are you picking Trump can account for the electoral college. and in that regard the polls were largely accurate, the problem was analysts misreading them.

couldn't I have polled every county in a state and attributed a % error to the result relative to the chance of me randomly having picked not a perfectly representative sample of the actual total population and feed that into my calculation of % chance to win that state for a candidate?
and the larger the sample of a county the closer I am to reproducing the actual election, in a poll, so couldn't I, absent of fancy models (except for the singular stat technique on sampling populations), have a poll that accurately predicted trump to win?

surely some organization polled like that, and still got fkd?

There's really no evidence of any unaccounted for biases in polling? Or, that polling in general (maybe the way it's done, idk) could have a bias today?

[Marootsoobutsu]

I think we should combat racism by letting it be the sole responsibility of black people.

No one said "solely". But, I mean... it works, it's worked historically. Not just with racism, but with most types of hate. It's what I was saying earlier: fight evil with goodness. If you aren't the target of hate, you can still fight that evil with goodness, both toward the oppressed/hated, and toward the aggressor/hater. The more you humanize, and the less you politicize, issues, the harder it is to maintain anger and fury broadly.

I'm not saying it's fair that a lot of the onus goes to the oppressed. I'm saying it works, and it has worked for millennia. When you stop focusing on what's fair, and start focusing on what's effective, a whole lot opens up.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't think those factors would meaningfully change the conclusion that confederate monuments had moderately more support than disapproval and that there's also a lot of ambivalence towards them.

Polls are a tool. Sometimes a few percentage points one way or another (for whatever reason) really matters. In this situation, it doesn't.

If 2016 taught someone not to "trust polls", they learned the wrong lesson.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Ragnus]

Spoiler: show

Man, that poster makes kinda dread going to the kink con next year. They're pretty much latching onto any new SJW concepts as fast as they're coming out because of wanting to be inclusive and the community is starting to show it.

[archibaldcrane]

No one said "solely". But, I mean... it works, it's worked historically. Not just with racism, but with most types of hate. It's what I was saying earlier: fight evil with goodness. If you aren't the target of hate, you can still fight that evil with goodness, both toward the oppressed/hated, and toward the aggressor/hater. The more you humanize, and the less you politicize, issues, the harder it is to maintain anger and fury broadly.

I'm not saying it's fair that a lot of the onus goes to the oppressed. I'm saying it works, and it has worked for millennia. When you stop focusing on what's fair, and start focusing on what's effective, a whole lot opens up.

If you think there was an opportunity for this "love Trumps hate" strategy to succeed with the white supremacist demonstration in Charlottesville, that's fine. I just disagree. I think those strategies with your neighbors, relatives, coworkers, etc can be quite successful. But when a torchlit mob arrives to intimidate and exhibit hatred, showing up to tell them they can go fuck themselves isn't for them. It's for the people they are trying to intimidate - a show of force that there are people who will speak up for them, even fight if necessary.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk