![](avatars/25884.jpg)
- Time
- Post link
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I wonder if the other liberal members in this thread who take issue with Jay’s comments also think your hypothetical criticisms of conservatives are dishonest and unfair.
I would assume so. I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter to me what they think.
Well it matters to the extent that others are expressing similar complaints about Jay’s comments that you say nobody cares about anyway (though you don’t care what those other people think). I don’t expect you to answer for others, of course.
No one particularly cares about the content of his comments beyond them being overly-broad swipes at liberals in general over vague references to actions committed by some leftists.
The Person in Question
This thread is the best.
The blue elephant in the room.
Jordan Peterson vs. Free Speech.
The Person in Question
https://twitter.com/matt_dillahunty/status/1000456001374564352?lang=en
Since Twitter is now an acceptable source, I’d like to share this excellent, concise takedown of Peterson’s lies on the history of Nazism.
Matt Dillahunty:
"Jordan Peterson thinks professed atheists actually believe in a god… but the Nazis who had “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles were an atheist regime.
How long before his 15 minutes are up?"
The Person in Question
I loike how this category basically exists for this thread.
If you or someone you know lives in Ohio, please get them to call a representative. This bill recklessly (if not deliberately) endangers the lives of thousands of Trans Youth who live under the roofs of transphobic and bigoted parents. It makes it illegal to provide any sort of counselling without the parents’ consent, and will force teachers to report any indication that a child might be trans to their parents, whether or not it’s safe for the child.
Jesus fucking Christ…
It’s Harold.
The blue elephant in the room.
Problems with crime rate numbers is they don’t habitually account for citizenship and crimes can go unreported for fear of legal repercussions.
Economic effect involves numerous competing variables that are extremely difficult to account for. Also, a person may reasonably find fault on the basis of negative impact in one area, notwithstanding the overall impact.
No doubt we can both compile facts and links to support one argument or the other, but we can’t pretend there is a pat answer.
Some studies on the matter are pretty comprehensive, and there are quite a lot of them. It’s better to look at the studies that exist (keeping their limitations in mind) than to imagine that for every existing study, there must be an equally valid and politically opposite study somewhere else that you haven’t seen. That assumption may turn out to be as safe for crime statistics as it is for global warming. This is how researchers get scapegoated – people assume because science is neutral that if all the research answers a political question one way and none of it answers it a different way, all of the scientists involved must be politically biased. When what it really means is that this particular political question is pretty easy to answer and we can spend our efforts trying to answer one of the many harder ones.
This is a pretty comprehensive and recent study:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175
You are correct that crimes absolutely do go unreported when the victim is undocumented, which is the whole reason sanctuary cities improve public safety. The extra undocumented-specific disincentive for reporting is exactly the same as the extra undocumented-specific disincentive for criminal behavior – fear of deportation.
Overall, the NCVS results demonstrate that the findings reported in the main analysis are more likely reflective of less crime, not just less reporting. Though it remains possible that the NCVS results are driven by nonresponse bias among undocumented immigrants, several points suggest this is unlikely to be the case. First, this would not explain the homicide findings, which preclude reporting omissions, and homicide rates tend to parallel trends in overall violent crime substantially (the correlation between murder and the NCVS robbery rate in our data is .83). Second, if nonresponses were driving the NCVS results, we might expect to see substantial differences in nonresponse rates for racial/ethnic groups more likely to be undocumented. But we find little evidence for this.
Not saying I disagree that there are hard aspects to the subject of immigration, and areas where the data isn’t clear, and I honestly probably agree with you on more than either of us would expect. But this crime rate stuff does appear to be very much like global warming. It all points one way.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that abortion is not a huge and controversial issue, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
Ok, I am going to re-word this to make crystal clear what I meant here.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
I don’t even know how to respond to this. 1+1=2 is an empirical fact. “Immigration is a problem” and “abortion is a problem” are not empirical facts, they’re opinions.
Aaaactually, you cannot orove prove that 1+1=2. It is an axiom. And 1+1 isn’t always 2, in binary it’s 10.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
orove
The Person in Question
Stupid phone keyboard.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that abortion is not a huge and controversial issue, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
Ok, I am going to re-word this to make crystal clear what I meant here.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
I don’t even know how to respond to this. 1+1=2 is an empirical fact. “Immigration is a problem” and “abortion is a problem” are not empirical facts, they’re opinions.
Aaaactually, you cannot
oroveprove that 1+1=2. It is an axiom. And 1+1 isn’t always 2, in binary it’s 10.
I don’t know how to respond to this either, or what an axiom is.
If I have one of a thing, and I take another one of that thing and put them together, I now have two of that thing. 1+1=2.
I think I’m starting to understand how Warbler feels sometimes because I don’t understand what the fuck binary has to do with anything either.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that abortion is not a huge and controversial issue, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
Ok, I am going to re-word this to make crystal clear what I meabnt here.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
I don’t even know how to respond to this. 1+1=2 is an empirical fact. “Immigration is a problem” and “abortion is a problem” are not empirical facts, they’re opinions.
Aaaactually, you cannot
oroveprove that 1+1=2. It is an axiom. And 1+1 isn’t always 2, in binary it’s 10.
*sigh* I meant in base 10.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that abortion is not a huge and controversial issue, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
Ok, I am going to re-word this to make crystal clear what I meant here.
Tell me, if someone were to say to you that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, would you waste time trying to convince the guy that he was wrong?
I don’t even know how to respond to this. 1+1=2 is an empirical fact. “Immigration is a problem” and “abortion is a problem” are not empirical facts, they’re opinions.
Aaaactually, you cannot
oroveprove that 1+1=2. It is an axiom. And 1+1 isn’t always 2, in binary it’s 10.I don’t know how to respond to this either, or what an axiom is.
If I have one of a thing, and I take another one of that thing and put them together, I now have two of that thing. 1+1=2.
I think I’m starting to understand how Warbler feels sometimes because I don’t understand what the fuck binary has to do with anything either.
An axiom is a definition that is used to build mathematics. You cannot (formally) prove it, so you just have to accept it. And choosing to accept or reject certain axioms can lead to very different versions of mathematics.
But nothing of that has anything to do with politics.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
1+1=2 isn’t an axiom. Given a definition of integers, and a definition of addition, you can prove 1+1=2.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I thought axiom was that political site that posts articles about what Trump administration people were thinking when Trump did his latest shitty thing.
I thought axiom was that political site that posts articles about what Trump administration people were thinking when Trump did his latest shitty thing.
Isn’t that most of the media, though?
Problems with crime rate numbers is they don’t habitually account for citizenship and crimes can go unreported for fear of legal repercussions.
Economic effect involves numerous competing variables that are extremely difficult to account for. Also, a person may reasonably find fault on the basis of negative impact in one area, notwithstanding the overall impact.
No doubt we can both compile facts and links to support one argument or the other, but we can’t pretend there is a pat answer.
Some studies on the matter are pretty comprehensive, and there are quite a lot of them. It’s better to look at the studies that exist (keeping their limitations in mind) than to imagine that for every existing study, there must be an equally valid and politically opposite study somewhere else that you haven’t seen. That assumption may turn out to be as safe for crime statistics as it is for global warming. This is how researchers get scapegoated – people assume because science is neutral that if all the research answers a political question one way and none of it answers it a different way, all of the scientists involved must be politically biased. When what it really means is that this particular political question is pretty easy to answer and we can spend our efforts trying to answer one of the many harder ones.
This is a pretty comprehensive and recent study:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175
You previously merely asserted facts (such as illegal immigrants are more law abiding) and I responded on the basis that I haven’t reviewed all the research and analyzed it, nor do I want to. The study you link to appears persuasive far as it goes, but again I don’t have real desire to really go through it all. The study concerns violent crime, which is important but not the whole enchilada. There are the caveats previously mentioned: issues of under-reporting and whether all crime stats recognize citizenship status.
It sounds reasonable to me that illegal immigrants do not have a very different rate of criminal activity. Even accepting that illegal immigrants overall have a lower crime rate (at least for violent crimes), a person may nonetheless reasonably take issue with violence by illegal immigrants who are gang members, or take issue with the fact that gangs benefit from illegal immigration (at least for money earned for human smuggling).
You are correct that crimes absolutely do go unreported when the victim is undocumented, which is the whole reason sanctuary cities improve public safety. The extra undocumented-specific disincentive for reporting is exactly the same as the extra undocumented-specific disincentive for criminal behavior – fear of deportation.
And that under-reporting is another problem of illegal immigration. The permanent second-class status is a problem and sanctuary cities are a terribly flawed non-solution.
Overall, the NCVS results demonstrate that the findings reported in the main analysis are more likely reflective of less crime, not just less reporting. Though it remains possible that the NCVS results are driven by nonresponse bias among undocumented immigrants, several points suggest this is unlikely to be the case. First, this would not explain the homicide findings, which preclude reporting omissions, and homicide rates tend to parallel trends in overall violent crime substantially (the correlation between murder and the NCVS robbery rate in our data is .83). Second, if nonresponses were driving the NCVS results, we might expect to see substantial differences in nonresponse rates for racial/ethnic groups more likely to be undocumented. But we find little evidence for this.
Not saying I disagree that there are hard aspects to the subject of immigration, and areas where the data isn’t clear, and I honestly probably agree with you on more than either of us would expect. But this crime rate stuff does appear to be very much like global warming. It all points one way.
That well may be true. What I probably should have said to your assertion (that illegal immigrants are generally more law abiding) is that I don’t think that’s the issue. As I also said, I don’t think there’s a “crisis.” Yet I also don’t think that framing is necessary in order to try to solve what is a big problem.
The blue elephant in the room.
I thought axiom was that political site that posts articles about what Trump administration people were thinking when Trump did his latest shitty thing.
Isn’t that most of the media, though?
Axios is kind of known for those pieces.
Reminder that Sarah Sanders had to grow up to be awful somehow.
I thought axiom was that political site that posts articles about what Trump administration people were thinking when Trump did his latest shitty thing.
Isn’t that most of the media, though?
Axios is kind of known for those pieces.
Fair point.
Netflix executive fired for using the N-word several months ago in an internal meeting about offensive words and when discussing the incident a few days later in a meeting about his usage of it.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jonathan-friedland-exits-netflix-1122675
Seems crazy to me. If there were other incidents or later usages I could see it.
The blue elephant in the room.
I take it that instead of saying “n-word”, he said the word full out. Yeah, that is a no,no.
I will say I take issue with the article saying you shouldn’t say the n-word when reading from a script. Is it now wrong to have movie, plays, etc depicting racists saying the n-word? Are we know going to say all the white actors in Roots were racist cause they said the n-word when playing their parts?