No that's the point she spinned it into. If that had been her point, and if her actions backed it up, it would be totally fine. But her actions show that her public vs private opinions are not just "slightly different messages tweaked for each group" but outright contradictions and falsehoods. You can't tell people publicly that one of your positions is to "uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security" (that's on her website) while telling people in speeches "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders." That's not nuance. That's not targeting. That means she's blatantly lying to one group or the other.
That's not possible to do though. You can't correct crime stats by correcting for crime stats. Maybe there are other factors that add to the recidivism rate for blacks that you can adjust for, but you can't adjust for the rate itself. That just doesn't make sense statistically. It's like having an algebra equation and doing a circular substitution, like "solve x^2 = 4, substitute x^2 for 4, x^2 = x^2, infinite solutions I guess!!!"
As for the memes you're talking about, wouldn't lighter sentences (but convictions nonetheless) lead to a higher recidivism rate for whites? "Hey I can get away with rape, I'll just do it again." Doesn't match reality.
It's a strong indicator that they don't want to pick up people who strongly identify with black culture, which is different.
Maybe a white driver doesn't want to pick up someone who is more likely to be an anti-white racist. I would assume black drivers would similarly be leery of picking up a Billy Bob.. it's their chance to get a black guy to do some work and stiff him on a tip, or make a false complaint about his service, or whatever.
It's amazing how twisted your perspective is. Do you not understand that comparing a trashy black name to a popular name is not isolating race? It's two components.. class and race. So how do you know that the disparity is caused by race instead of class?
And then you see it as "not even trying to hide their racism" instead of "oh maybe they're looking at class which is correlated with education and achievement"
It's not unconscious, it's a consciously noted correlation. People who are educated don't give their kids weird names. I wonder if the name "Billy Bob" comes up much when upper class white couples -- say a surgeon and corporate lawyer -- are discussing baby names. I'm guessing not. Similarly, an educated black person probably isn't going to name their kid "Ladasha" -- sorry, "La-a". I mean, I hope not anyway.
You're right, but what you assume from a name goes past race as well. For instance you can assume a bit of class status as well... if their "white" name is Emily Miller that sounds like the person's parents value traditional names, that implies a more traditional upbringing and traditional values. It's not a "trashy" name, probably middle class or greater. Now if the black name is Mahagany [sic] Green, that tells you the parents are probably uneducated, by correlation the person is probably uneducated, good chance of lower middle or lower class.
On the other hand you can think of a white name that also sounds a bit trashy, like Brantely Matthew... that name sounds more white than black, but I'd give good odds that they grew up in a trailer park.
Who knows though. Just assumptions. It would be nice to see what actual names they used.. in other social experiments that I've seen, the black names are like really really black, whereas the white names are normal names that are mostly white due to population, but plenty of black people could have that name as well. I mean I know a white guy named Greg and a black guy named Greg... but most people would consider Greg a white name, and a black name would be some outlandish name like "Lakweesha" or something. Hah case in point, just googled "is Greg a white name" to confirm my thoughts, and an article popped up "Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal."
Yeah... recidivism rate is part of crime rate by definition (you know what recidivism means right.. it's relapse into crime, i.e. committing another crime). You can't correct for crime rate when looking at the crime rate. It's like saying "Oh turns out 19 year old men commit crimes at the same rate as nuns once you correct for their crime rate disparities." It's nonsense.
That's so 1990s. The modern SJW definition is "prejudice plus power" which is how they exclude minorities from being racist even when they are blatantly racist by the older definition. See, a black Uber driver may be very very prejudiced.. but he has no power, due to the assumption of a white supremacist society propped up by structural racism etc... so he's not racist.
I must have been quite tired at the time, but my original calculation of $80/house was correct, not $560. I multiplied by 40 hours and also 7 days in the second calculation.
The people doing the installation were mostly non-English speakers who you might see at Home Depot. When I first asked a few guys which company they were laying cable for (Google had also announced they were coming here at the time), none of them could understand me. They just said "boss man" and motioned. So I seriously doubt that a majority of them were making even $20/hour, let alone much more.
But yes, the individual customer hookups add a lot of cost. When I was hooked up, 2 guys came out. They installed a fiber modem under the house with a battery backup, a little service panel on the side of the house where the fiber came in from the street, and an ethernet cable from the fiber modem to my bedroom where the router goes. They also ran a temporary line from the box a few houses down to my house. That was actually pretty fast since they didn't bury it. All in all it took about 4 hours until everything was working... on the other hand, these were u-verse techs who did mostly copper installs and had just been trained on the new fiber stuff, so I suspect they've already improved that in the last year. Oh, then about 2 months later (ridiculous delay) they sent out another team that actually buried the cable. I wasn't home (all work was exterior) so I don't know how long it took. But overall it was pretty expensive.
I don't know enough about the equipment to even estimate costs but it must be the most expensive portion now. The cable laying is really just not that expensive, at least in medium-density developments. It was just really surprising to me because the "last mile" problem has been talked about so much in the last 20 years. Well from what I've seen firsthand, now, it's rather overblown. Turns out it's just not that hard to install fiber. It's sad because I know so many people who would gladly pay a $500 installation cost to get gigabit fiber in their neighborhoods, and that would seem to cover a decent portion of the upfront cost... but it takes threats from Google to get the incumbents to actually do anything. The entire country should be on fiber by now.
Seems like your logic works against your own post. By "do you actually see a well adjusted human being" you actually mean "do you see someone who I agree with? no? then he's bad"
Or you could be a bit more reasonable and admit that Trump does make some fair points about problems that America faces. It is certainly true that most trade deals seem to be to the nation's disadvantage.. maybe they help one special interest group, but not greater society. Our H1B program is certainly designed to help lower costs for big corporations, it does not help workers or small companies. I mean you can admit that right? So doesn't Trump have a point about at least that one issue?
When you start actually looking at issues, Trump has good positions on a lot of them. His message of "make america great again" -- as clinton has pointed out -- implies that there are big problems we face. Clinton's position is "america was, is, and always will be great! hurah!" -- does that really seem well adjusted and realistic to you?
I think there's a pretty clear difference. When you buy on Amazon you don't get to chose the shipper, that's Amazon's decision, so no way can you hold UPS responsible. You don't have to use a Visa, and as far as I know, Visa (or your bank) doesn't give the money to the 3rd party seller directly, it goes through Amazon, which makes them an additional layer removed compared to Amazon. The ISP is protected by their common carrier status isn't it? I don't know. But again there's that separation, because you aren't connecting to the 3rd party provider at all with your ISP, rather Amazon does that itself after the order is placed.
I don't think laying the cable is the hard or expensive part anymore. AT&T put fiber in my neighborhood last year, and what they do now is dig holes periodically and use a machine to just push the conduit right through the ground like an earthworm. I guess the holes are to make sure it's on course, I dunno. It's pretty cool and very fast.. they ran fiber past 200 houses and about 3 linear miles of street in less than a week with about 20 guys. I don't know how much the actual conduit and fiber cost, but figuring $20/hour per person it ended up being around $80 of labor per house for that stage. That's a lot less than I expected.
There are farm subsidies for leaving your field fallow, for example.
Yes, because it's a subsidy for farmer's income, not for food. Calling it a food subsidy would not make sense. The problem with "oil subsidies" is people are trying to lump in multiple things.. subsidies for production and apparently also subsidies for oil company income. Now in this thread the person making the subsidy claim said "protect Oil Company interests in the middle east" so that sounds more like production than income, since the income doesn't accrue in the Middle East but at the host nation.
This was not the case, prices went up by a great deal more than could be explained that way, generating huge profits for the oil companies.
Got a source for that? Demand for oil is pretty inelastic.
and politicians' views are strongly correlated with poll results
No, politicians' public views are correlated with poll results. Like Hillary said, it often "makes sense" for a politician to have different public and private views. If the polls say Hillary should take a tough stance on bankers, she says she will take a tough stance on bankers, but when she's talking to the bankers she says don't worry about it.
If your fundamental argument is that our democracy has failed
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying it's more complicated than you're presenting. There's not a simple measure of "extreme" when it comes to politics. You yourself claimed Trump has extreme social positions, but I just don't see it, and by your own argument how can you call Trump extreme if a sizable part of the population agrees with him? Most people would call deporting all illegal immigrants "extreme" -- but that's either because the media tells you it's extreme, or because it's extreme compared to what other politicians are saying. Fact is a lot of the public agrees with deportations. Maybe not an outright majority, but enough that you can't call it extreme.
What does "well adjusted" even mean to you? One of the important characteristics to me is having a realistic view of the world, and Trump is better at that than Hillary. Aren't you tired of crap like Hillary's vapid "America was, is, and always will be great!!" response to Trump listing some real problems we face?
Why would anyone think that [Facebook | Google | Microsoft | Famous Amos Cookies] was supposed to be impartial?
Because don't these same companies rely on the public perception that they are merely conduits for other people's words, not publishers themselves? If someone posts child porn on Facebook, tell me which Facebook executives go to jail? Nobody, because as long as Facebook makes a reasonable attempt to get rid of it (and waiting for others to report it counts) they are fine.
So why WOULDN'T someone think that Facebook was impartial? How is it legal for them to make the effort to be impartial about some subjects, but plead ignorance/innocence/inability when it comes to other subjects?
By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both.
Only if you assume an "extreme" opinion is measured by the public view. If you're talking about extreme compared to what other politicians are saying, then it is possible to do both.
People want Trump to go back in time and not take tax deductions, not manufacture in lower cost regions, not use bankruptcy protection to his advantage, etc. Frankly it's idiotic. A businessman isn't going to stay in business for long if he doesn't use the same advantages that his competitors use.
It's rare that there's only 1 route to get from A to B. It's more like, you can't afford the toll so you have to take the route that's 10 minutes longer.
Slashdot Mirror
No that's the point she spinned it into. If that had been her point, and if her actions backed it up, it would be totally fine. But her actions show that her public vs private opinions are not just "slightly different messages tweaked for each group" but outright contradictions and falsehoods. You can't tell people publicly that one of your positions is to "uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security" (that's on her website) while telling people in speeches "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders." That's not nuance. That's not targeting. That means she's blatantly lying to one group or the other.
That's not possible to do though. You can't correct crime stats by correcting for crime stats. Maybe there are other factors that add to the recidivism rate for blacks that you can adjust for, but you can't adjust for the rate itself. That just doesn't make sense statistically. It's like having an algebra equation and doing a circular substitution, like "solve x^2 = 4, substitute x^2 for 4, x^2 = x^2, infinite solutions I guess!!!"
As for the memes you're talking about, wouldn't lighter sentences (but convictions nonetheless) lead to a higher recidivism rate for whites? "Hey I can get away with rape, I'll just do it again." Doesn't match reality.
It's a strong indicator that they don't want to pick up people who strongly identify with black culture, which is different.
Maybe a white driver doesn't want to pick up someone who is more likely to be an anti-white racist. I would assume black drivers would similarly be leery of picking up a Billy Bob.. it's their chance to get a black guy to do some work and stiff him on a tip, or make a false complaint about his service, or whatever.
Would you begrudge the black drivers that?
It's amazing how twisted your perspective is. Do you not understand that comparing a trashy black name to a popular name is not isolating race? It's two components.. class and race. So how do you know that the disparity is caused by race instead of class?
And then you see it as "not even trying to hide their racism" instead of "oh maybe they're looking at class which is correlated with education and achievement"
It's like bizarro world.
It's not unconscious, it's a consciously noted correlation. People who are educated don't give their kids weird names. I wonder if the name "Billy Bob" comes up much when upper class white couples -- say a surgeon and corporate lawyer -- are discussing baby names. I'm guessing not. Similarly, an educated black person probably isn't going to name their kid "Ladasha" -- sorry, "La-a". I mean, I hope not anyway.
You're right, but what you assume from a name goes past race as well. For instance you can assume a bit of class status as well... if their "white" name is Emily Miller that sounds like the person's parents value traditional names, that implies a more traditional upbringing and traditional values. It's not a "trashy" name, probably middle class or greater. Now if the black name is Mahagany [sic] Green, that tells you the parents are probably uneducated, by correlation the person is probably uneducated, good chance of lower middle or lower class.
On the other hand you can think of a white name that also sounds a bit trashy, like Brantely Matthew... that name sounds more white than black, but I'd give good odds that they grew up in a trailer park.
Who knows though. Just assumptions. It would be nice to see what actual names they used.. in other social experiments that I've seen, the black names are like really really black, whereas the white names are normal names that are mostly white due to population, but plenty of black people could have that name as well. I mean I know a white guy named Greg and a black guy named Greg... but most people would consider Greg a white name, and a black name would be some outlandish name like "Lakweesha" or something. Hah case in point, just googled "is Greg a white name" to confirm my thoughts, and an article popped up "Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal."
Why are you commenting anonymously? You're making good points.
Yeah... recidivism rate is part of crime rate by definition (you know what recidivism means right.. it's relapse into crime, i.e. committing another crime). You can't correct for crime rate when looking at the crime rate. It's like saying "Oh turns out 19 year old men commit crimes at the same rate as nuns once you correct for their crime rate disparities." It's nonsense.
Why 85%? 75% is still a black neighborhood isn't it?
That's so 1990s. The modern SJW definition is "prejudice plus power" which is how they exclude minorities from being racist even when they are blatantly racist by the older definition. See, a black Uber driver may be very very prejudiced.. but he has no power, due to the assumption of a white supremacist society propped up by structural racism etc... so he's not racist.
I must have been quite tired at the time, but my original calculation of $80/house was correct, not $560. I multiplied by 40 hours and also 7 days in the second calculation.
The people doing the installation were mostly non-English speakers who you might see at Home Depot. When I first asked a few guys which company they were laying cable for (Google had also announced they were coming here at the time), none of them could understand me. They just said "boss man" and motioned. So I seriously doubt that a majority of them were making even $20/hour, let alone much more.
But yes, the individual customer hookups add a lot of cost. When I was hooked up, 2 guys came out. They installed a fiber modem under the house with a battery backup, a little service panel on the side of the house where the fiber came in from the street, and an ethernet cable from the fiber modem to my bedroom where the router goes. They also ran a temporary line from the box a few houses down to my house. That was actually pretty fast since they didn't bury it. All in all it took about 4 hours until everything was working... on the other hand, these were u-verse techs who did mostly copper installs and had just been trained on the new fiber stuff, so I suspect they've already improved that in the last year. Oh, then about 2 months later (ridiculous delay) they sent out another team that actually buried the cable. I wasn't home (all work was exterior) so I don't know how long it took. But overall it was pretty expensive.
I don't know enough about the equipment to even estimate costs but it must be the most expensive portion now. The cable laying is really just not that expensive, at least in medium-density developments. It was just really surprising to me because the "last mile" problem has been talked about so much in the last 20 years. Well from what I've seen firsthand, now, it's rather overblown. Turns out it's just not that hard to install fiber. It's sad because I know so many people who would gladly pay a $500 installation cost to get gigabit fiber in their neighborhoods, and that would seem to cover a decent portion of the upfront cost... but it takes threats from Google to get the incumbents to actually do anything. The entire country should be on fiber by now.
Seems like your logic works against your own post. By "do you actually see a well adjusted human being" you actually mean "do you see someone who I agree with? no? then he's bad"
Or you could be a bit more reasonable and admit that Trump does make some fair points about problems that America faces. It is certainly true that most trade deals seem to be to the nation's disadvantage.. maybe they help one special interest group, but not greater society. Our H1B program is certainly designed to help lower costs for big corporations, it does not help workers or small companies. I mean you can admit that right? So doesn't Trump have a point about at least that one issue?
When you start actually looking at issues, Trump has good positions on a lot of them. His message of "make america great again" -- as clinton has pointed out -- implies that there are big problems we face. Clinton's position is "america was, is, and always will be great! hurah!" -- does that really seem well adjusted and realistic to you?
I think there's a pretty clear difference. When you buy on Amazon you don't get to chose the shipper, that's Amazon's decision, so no way can you hold UPS responsible. You don't have to use a Visa, and as far as I know, Visa (or your bank) doesn't give the money to the 3rd party seller directly, it goes through Amazon, which makes them an additional layer removed compared to Amazon. The ISP is protected by their common carrier status isn't it? I don't know. But again there's that separation, because you aren't connecting to the 3rd party provider at all with your ISP, rather Amazon does that itself after the order is placed.
Oops I mean $560/house.
I don't think laying the cable is the hard or expensive part anymore. AT&T put fiber in my neighborhood last year, and what they do now is dig holes periodically and use a machine to just push the conduit right through the ground like an earthworm. I guess the holes are to make sure it's on course, I dunno. It's pretty cool and very fast.. they ran fiber past 200 houses and about 3 linear miles of street in less than a week with about 20 guys. I don't know how much the actual conduit and fiber cost, but figuring $20/hour per person it ended up being around $80 of labor per house for that stage. That's a lot less than I expected.
There are farm subsidies for leaving your field fallow, for example.
Yes, because it's a subsidy for farmer's income, not for food. Calling it a food subsidy would not make sense. The problem with "oil subsidies" is people are trying to lump in multiple things.. subsidies for production and apparently also subsidies for oil company income. Now in this thread the person making the subsidy claim said "protect Oil Company interests in the middle east" so that sounds more like production than income, since the income doesn't accrue in the Middle East but at the host nation.
This was not the case, prices went up by a great deal more than could be explained that way, generating huge profits for the oil companies.
Got a source for that? Demand for oil is pretty inelastic.
and politicians' views are strongly correlated with poll results
No, politicians' public views are correlated with poll results. Like Hillary said, it often "makes sense" for a politician to have different public and private views. If the polls say Hillary should take a tough stance on bankers, she says she will take a tough stance on bankers, but when she's talking to the bankers she says don't worry about it.
If your fundamental argument is that our democracy has failed
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying it's more complicated than you're presenting. There's not a simple measure of "extreme" when it comes to politics. You yourself claimed Trump has extreme social positions, but I just don't see it, and by your own argument how can you call Trump extreme if a sizable part of the population agrees with him? Most people would call deporting all illegal immigrants "extreme" -- but that's either because the media tells you it's extreme, or because it's extreme compared to what other politicians are saying. Fact is a lot of the public agrees with deportations. Maybe not an outright majority, but enough that you can't call it extreme.
What does "well adjusted" even mean to you? One of the important characteristics to me is having a realistic view of the world, and Trump is better at that than Hillary. Aren't you tired of crap like Hillary's vapid "America was, is, and always will be great!!" response to Trump listing some real problems we face?
Why would anyone think that [Facebook | Google | Microsoft | Famous Amos Cookies] was supposed to be impartial?
Because don't these same companies rely on the public perception that they are merely conduits for other people's words, not publishers themselves? If someone posts child porn on Facebook, tell me which Facebook executives go to jail? Nobody, because as long as Facebook makes a reasonable attempt to get rid of it (and waiting for others to report it counts) they are fine.
So why WOULDN'T someone think that Facebook was impartial? How is it legal for them to make the effort to be impartial about some subjects, but plead ignorance/innocence/inability when it comes to other subjects?
Is that true? Some personalities on Fox support Trump but I've seen plenty of people attacking him as well, particularly during the primaries.
By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both.
Only if you assume an "extreme" opinion is measured by the public view. If you're talking about extreme compared to what other politicians are saying, then it is possible to do both.
I know it's scary to get out of your bubble but try actually watching the video.
People want Trump to go back in time and not take tax deductions, not manufacture in lower cost regions, not use bankruptcy protection to his advantage, etc. Frankly it's idiotic. A businessman isn't going to stay in business for long if he doesn't use the same advantages that his competitors use.
It's rare that there's only 1 route to get from A to B. It's more like, you can't afford the toll so you have to take the route that's 10 minutes longer.
There's no data cap.