|
Bruce Leroy posted:it's further evidence that Milbank is disingenuous
|
# ? Aug 18, 2012 21:58 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:36 |
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/313504/boss?pg=1quote:What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. The Demi Moore–Ashton Kutcher model is an exception — the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men. Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn’t going to change that. Look at this misogynistic pile of poo poo. Just look at it. This is article is worse than an r/mensrights thread.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 18:26 |
|
Goatman Sacks posted:https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/313504/boss?pg=1 Even worse than the misogyny is the total lack of skepticism and misunderstanding of science and probability. 1. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because there is a correlative pattern between a group of people and the sex ratios of their offspring doesn't mean there exists any causality between the two variables, nor does it mean that specific variable they're looking at is the causative one for the dependent variable, that the causation is in the direction they think it is, etc. You need to try and falsify your hypothesis, not just look for confirmation and stop looking and analyzing once you get results you like. 2. Lack of statistical analysis. Just because this author counted up the number of male and female children of people on the Forbes billionaire list doesn't mean it's statistically significant. The data could simply be random and by chance, not the sign of a statistically significant pattern, but you'd have to actually do statistical tests to figure it out rather than just accepting it as significant because it supports his preexisting hypothesis (i.e. a confirmation bias) that offspring sex ratios are correlated to and caused by some kind virility and/or other qualities of their biological fathers. 3. Not understanding probability. There's an equal chance of fathering male and female children, and just because one sample might have something different from a 50-50 male-female ratio doesn't mean that the pattern is some kind of biological aberration to be studied. A coin flip has the same ratio of heads and tails, but it doesn't mean that if you did a thousand flips and 75% turned up heads that there's something special or lucky or flawed about that coin. The idea behind the coin's probability is that it will eventually even out over time as the flips approach infinity, so there's nothing inherently special about an apparent run of heads or tails. Similarly, just because a person or group has a skewed offspring sex ratio doesn't necessarily mean there's a aberrant pattern occurring, but rather that runs of off-balance sex ratios exist and don't necessarily indicate anything beyond simple chance and lack of human comprehension of the rules of probability. Again, there's a lot of testing and analysis that needs to be done simply beyond being incredulous as to the randomness and chance of a certain offspring sex pattern occurring (i.e. kind of an appeal to incredulity fallacy). 4. Convenient definitions of "success" and "status" to support the a priori hypothesis. It's interesting how the author is defining status in such a way that it leads to data which supports his preexisting conclusion that those males with greater status tend to have more male children. The problem with this is that he hasn't substantiated that this is the only, best, most salient, or otherwise notable signifier of status and success, causing him to exclude a large amount of data that would impact the final analysis. Money surely is an important signifier of status but it's certainly not the only one and isn't necessarily stronger or better than others. By solely focusing on wealth, the author isn't accounting for these other variables upon status and is therefore not taking a truly accurate picture of how status and offspring sex ratios might possibly correlate. More importantly, he hasn't established how important of a variable financial wealth actually is, which is important because, historically speaking, fiat money is an incredibly new innovation and may not have as strong and salient of an influence as he's assuming. You also need to take into account moderating variables, such as behavior. The author asserts, "Romney should quit pretending that he’s an ordinary schmo with ordinary schmo problems and start living a little larger. He should not be ashamed of being loaded; instead, he should have some fun with it. " He doesn't realize that, at a certain point, many people stop being enamored with wealth if it looks like the wealthy have disdain for people who aren't wealthy, which is actually a problem for Romney in this election, as he seems like he is some aloof, out of touch rich guy. So, acting in a certain unattractive manner could at least partially negate sex selective advantage from wealth. My favorite part of all of this is how he's intentionally excluding variables that would put Obama as high status, especially since Obama has two daughters. Honestly, what's higher status than being the leader of the most powerful nation in history? And if we look at US presidents, the last three all only had daughters (Sasha and Malia, the Bush twins, and Chelsea Clinton). Moreover, because presidents are elected, isn't that a more valid measure of "status" than wealth, as it's the electorate deciding whether or not you are worthy of such a high position rather than just racking up a lot of zeroes in your bank accounts? The author clearly realizes this which is why he has to minimize what it means to be elected as president, claiming, "Barack Obama was never in charge of anything of any significance until the delicate geniuses who make up the electorate of this fine republic handed him the keys to the Treasury and the nuclear football because we were tired of Frenchmen sneering at us when we went on vacation." So, Obama's not of high status because he wasn't really elected by the majority of Americans, he was chosen to be president by an unmanly group of effeminate intellectuals, not real man's man, red-blooded Americans. There are also plenty of potential dog whistles, like the emasculating comment about Rahm Immanuel changing Obama's diapers and alluding to how attractive Ann Romney is but saying nothing of Michelle Obama. 5. Not factoring other important variables. One important thing you have to note about the "data" this author uses is that many of the Forbes list billionaires are from societies that value sons over daughters, like China and India, which frequently results in things like sex-selective abortions, IVF sex selection. and other measures to assure that they have male children and heirs. So, it's certainly possible that some of these billionaires (as well as millionaires and other wealthy individuals who could afford the required procedures in those societies) made sure that their wives had sons and not daughters through whatever means, thus entering in a moderating variable that would be skewing the natural biological data.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2012 22:54 |
|
There's a poo poo ton of research that has gone into why the prevailing gender ratio of 51%(M) to 49%(F) exists, and what factors trigger it. I remember reading a study that linked it more to the fact that male embryos are generally more susceptible to complications, so that in situations where the mother's health is compromised (ie. stress, malnutrition, etc.) male fetuses are more likely to die or simply not be viable early on. So, really, evidence shows the opposite, boys are more common in times of plenty because fewer of them die in the womb. Fake Edit: Found the link http://www.livescience.com/574-survival-fetus-males-rough.html
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 03:31 |
|
Michael Reagan is hawking his bullshit email addresses over at Reagan.com. What's the best way to sell a lovely email service? FEAR!!! Are you supporting liberal causes with your 'free' e-mail account? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/22/are-supporting-liberal-causes-with-your-free-e-mail-account/ quote:One of the benefits of the Internet revolution has been access to free e-mail. However, as we now know, the supposed "free" e-mail has come at a cost. As a believer in the free market, it is impossible to begrudge online companies their success, however, conservatives are sacrificing privacy and supporting liberal causes. edit: Also, his little bio at the bottom: quote:Michael Reagan is the son of former President Ronald Reagan and the founder of Reagan.com. particle409 fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Aug 23, 2012 |
# ? Aug 23, 2012 03:34 |
|
particle409 posted:Michael Reagan is hawking his bullshit email addresses over at Reagan.com. What's the best way to sell a lovely email service? FEAR!!! I still love how he's overcompensating with his conservatism because he's the adopted son, whereas Ron Reagan jr. is quite liberal and is quite frank in his criticism of his father, especially in regards to his senility in office and tone-deafness to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s. Michael Reagan just reeks of "Am doing it right, daddy? Please love me, daddy!" Maybe he should be in the sequel to Prometheus?
|
# ? Aug 23, 2012 05:42 |
|
Came across this gem earlier. My free market !Cumberland Times-News posted:How do Republicans reproduce? Considering they hate women and women hate them. Osmosis, I guess. Just who hates women?
|
# ? Aug 25, 2012 03:38 |
|
icecastle posted:
Yeah, about that.... http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/news/la-pn-mitt-romney-of-2004-mocked-john-kerry-for-his-wealth-video-20120329 Mitt Romney in 2004 posted:There’s a senator from my state, you may have heard, that wants to get elected president and I don’t know why he wants to do that because, of course, if he won, he’d have to move into a smaller house.
|
# ? Aug 25, 2012 09:33 |
|
particle409 posted:Michael Reagan is hawking his bullshit email addresses over at Reagan.com. What's the best way to sell a lovely email service? FEAR!!! Since I'm a huge nerd all I can think of is him one day rolling out the hit new site, ReganReganRegan.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkVYggeEfXk
|
# ? Aug 26, 2012 07:42 |
|
Glitterbomber posted:Since I'm a huge nerd all I can think of is him one day rolling out the hit new site, ReganReganRegan.com Russian Martian Reagan would be an awesome player character.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2012 08:06 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
The entire Republican party and conservative movement is an extension of Karl Rove.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2012 10:31 |
|
This isn't an editorial, I wish it was, or some Onion story, this is actual news, yet it's so ridiculous it might as be an editorial, and it includes gems you'd expect in a crazy letter like "We pay to be on our side of the fence, they pay to be on theirs" For background. Back in the 1970's, the town of Hamden built a fence literally separating it from parts of the city of New Haven. New Haven would like parts of the fence torn down, as times have changed, that neighborhood is no longer that bad, and the original housing complex is gone, being replaced with more modern units, so they wanted to connect some roads. In fact, the area has a pretty low crime rate http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ct/new-haven/crime/ The fence is along the very north of the light blue area on the left where it pokes above the rest of New Haven. So, the city wanted to take down a few sections to extend three roads, that way they're connected right to Woodin st by 50ft or whatever vs one long asinine trip around the fence, which would have been good not only for traffic, but for people as well since its expected many people in the new housing won't have cars. So, begin the clusterfuck. The best part about this is in reality, there's not that much of a difference between the two sides of the fence anymore. However, the whole southern part of Hamden is basically the poor part of town, a more urban extension of New Haven. I can just imagine if these people were in support of say a street car system that went from the southern part of town, say the shopping centers, to the richer northern part of town to take people to Sleeping giant park/Quinnipiac university and the small shopping centers up there, people from that part of town would be screaming "No, we pay to live in this secluded part of town, stay in your trash heap down there!" End result, the New Haven Wall is staying. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2012/08/30/news/doc503f71df3dd96021754408.txt quote:HAMDEN — The fence will remain — but the debate will continue.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2012 18:17 |
|
This is just a Yahoo! News-hosted article from CNBC summarizing an original editorial from Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart. Her original editorial is in some niche magazine called Australian Resources and Investment, so I don't have access to it. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/drink-less-more-billionaire-tells-152654355.html quote:Gina Rinehart seems to court controversy - from her family lawsuits to her battles with Australian media.
|
# ? Aug 30, 2012 23:25 |
|
Gee, maybe if you give the poor, who spend the money they get, money, business will feel more welcome, because there will be more people spending more money?
|
# ? Aug 31, 2012 12:22 |
|
VideoTapir posted:Gee, maybe if you give the poor, who spend the money they get, money, business will feel more welcome, because there will be more people spending more money? More importantly, if you lower the minimum wage, how will those who earn minimum wage have any left with which to invest, start businesses, etc. in order to become millionaires and billionaires? Last time I checked making money like that generally requires some kind of capital and if you diminish people's abilities to earn and accrue capital, then they'll have even less chance of becoming wealthy than before. The last line of the article I posted is the most important, this rear end in a top hat isn't some self-made woman, she inherited a profitable company and just expanded on it. She wasn't some minimum wage slave who saved a few dollars of every paycheck to start some business out of her garage and built to a billion dollar enterprise.
|
# ? Aug 31, 2012 23:35 |
|
quote:"The terrible millionaires and billionaires can often invest in other countries. And if they do suffer, what does that really mean? Maybe their teenagers don't get the cars they wanted or a better beach house or maybe the holiday to Europe is cut short; But otherwise life goes on for these millionaires and billionaires."
|
# ? Aug 31, 2012 23:45 |
|
Guilty Spork posted:Why yes, a lot of wealthy people are very deeply unpatriotic. Don't forget that her idea of millionaires and billionaires "suffering" is less expensive cars for rich teenagers, smaller beach houses, and shorter international vacations. The level of her obtuseness and lack of empathy with the common person is staggering. She's like the embodiment of that apocryphal quote from Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake."
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 00:34 |
|
Guilty Spork posted:Why yes, a lot of wealthy people are very deeply unpatriotic. Don't do this, patriotism is not a trait to strive for.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 00:42 |
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Don't do this, patriotism is not a trait to strive for. I don't think Guilty Spork was endorsing patriotism as a positive or desirable trait, but rather noting the irony that wealthy conservatives tend to be the ones beating the drum for nationalism and patriotism while simultaneously doing things that hurt their fellow citizens, like offshoring jobs, lobbying against workplace, environmental, and other regulations, etc. Guilty Spork's point is to note the inherent hypocrisy involved, not to participate in a competition over who is more patriotic.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 03:06 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:More importantly, if you lower the minimum wage, how will those who earn minimum wage have any left with which to invest, start businesses, etc. in order to become millionaires and billionaires? I'm reading "Kokoro" by Lafcadio Hearn. In the middle of him sucking off Japanese imperialism, there's this. Lafcadio Hearn posted:Now, with us, the common worker is incomparably less free than the common worker in Japan. He is less free because of the more complicated mechanism of Occidental societies, whose forces tend to agglomeration and solid integration. He is less free because the social and industrial machinery on which he must depend reshapes him to its own particular requirements, and always so as to evolve some special and artificial capacity at the cost of other inherent capacity. He is less free because he must live at a standard making it impossible for him to win financial independence by mere thrift. To achieve any such independence, he must possess exceptional character and exceptional faculties greater than those of thousands of exceptional competitors equally eager to escape from the same thralldom. In brief, then, he is less independent because the special character of his civilization numbs his natural power to live without the help of machinery or large capital. To live thus artificially means to lose, sooner or later, the power of independent movement. Before a Western man can move he has many things to consider.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 07:24 |
|
VideoTapir posted:I'm reading "Kokoro" by Lafcadio Hearn. In the middle of him sucking off Japanese imperialism, there's this. Interesting. It reminds me of Obama's speech which sparked the out of context "you didn't build that" meme. In that speech he also mentioned how every person thinks they have what they have just because they're so much smarter, harder working, more talented, etc. than the rest of the plebes that aren't well-off like them, a la the Just World fallacy, when in reality there are tons of smart, talented, hardworking people in this world who end up with poo poo all. He was noting how luck, birthright, privilege, etc. factor into people's lives and good fortune isn't really doled out based on merit or effort, which necessitates some kind of safety net to catch all those wonderful people who don't succeed no matter how hard they work. As much as I disagree with a lot of the poo poo he's done (targeted extrajudicial killings and whatnot) and as conservative as he actually is, Obama frequently does have a knack at identifying some of the systemic problems with capitalism in general and American society specifically. It just seems like he's so penned in by the bullshit an American politician has to go through to get elected and make deals with other assholes and so on that he doesn't have as many opportunities to make these salient points.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 10:25 |
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623882621734906.htmlquote:We've Got Labor Day. Why Not Corporation Day?
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 22:22 |
|
Terrible article, but I don't think I could put it better than the following comment from the WSJ website: quote:I will paraphrase what I say to my kids. EVERY day is Corporation Day.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 22:35 |
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623882621734906.html
|
# ? Sep 1, 2012 23:54 |
|
Labor day is an insult anyway.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 01:22 |
|
VideoTapir posted:Labor day is an insult anyway. Every second you exist in modern society in its current state is thanks to the hard and often completely forgotten labours of your fellow human rather than the sinister systems and organisations which exist to syphon away the fruits of that labour for their own private enjoyment.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 01:32 |
|
namesake posted:Every second you exist in modern society in its current state is thanks to the hard and often completely forgotten labours of your fellow human rather than the sinister systems and organisations which exist to syphon away the fruits of that labour for their own private enjoyment. And labor day is a distraction from the people that died doing that.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 05:39 |
|
It's high time we honored the super-rich oligarchs of our nation. Wait, what? [/quote] If corporations actually do something to improve working conditions and wages and unions are allowed to call out the National Guard to open fire on CEO's over a labor dispute, then there might be an argument for corporation day.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 06:06 |
|
From the local paper... Everybody wins with Voter ID law quote:I am heartened by Kali Schumitz’s article “New voter ID law gets final approval” [Aug 24-26]. I don't even know where to start.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 07:45 |
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:Corporation day Umm, I believe we have that already. It's called the day after Thanksgiving. On another note, what is with all the mollycoddling of the rich nowadays? No one is even trying to hide it anymore.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 08:22 |
|
Presto posted:From the local paper... Where you need to start is that almost no voter fraud takes place with in-person voting, which is what voter ID laws target. Almost all actual voter fraud occurs with absentee ballots, but none of the people pushing for voter ID laws are promoting similar restrictions on absentee ballots. Where the craven partisanship comes in is that the people harmed by voter ID laws, the poor, minorities, etc., are statistically likely to be Democrats, so pushing for voter ID laws suppresses Democratic turnout. Conversely, absentee ballots (US military members, reactionary old fuckwads, etc.) favor Republicans, but these Republicans don't want to do anything to fight the actual voter fraud taking place with absentee ballots because it would hurt Republican turnout. This poo poo is all right out in the open and Republicans want it to happen, especially since they don't think the people harmed by voter ID laws should be voting anyways, all that "they don't have any skin in the game" and "they just want to vote themselves more handouts" bullshit. Basically, today's Republicans are just about one or two steps removed from old school poll taxes and literacy tests to keep people they don't like from voting. gently caress them up their bigoted asses.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 08:30 |
|
namesake posted:Every second you exist in modern society in its current state is thanks to the hard and often completely forgotten labours of your fellow human rather than the sinister systems and organisations which exist to syphon away the fruits of that labour for their own private enjoyment. Wikipedia posted:The September date originally chosen by the CLU of New York and observed by many of the nation's trade unions for the past several years was selected rather than the more widespread International Workers' Day because Cleveland was concerned that observance of the latter would be associated with the nascent Communist, Syndicalist and Anarchist movements that, though distinct from one another, had rallied to commemorate the Haymarket Affair in International Workers' Day.[6] All U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the territories have made it a statutory holiday. That it is in September is the insult.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 12:32 |
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Terrible article, but I don't think I could put it better than the following comment from the WSJ website: You guys realize that the author is a former labor and employment lawyer, and everything about that piece is satire. It's not good satire, but those opinions are deliberately absurd.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 13:13 |
|
Walter posted:You guys realize that the author is a former labor and employment lawyer, and everything about that piece is satire. Just like there's no longer any reason to call Poe, this vein of politics is mined dry of absurd parody. Because who the gently caress can even tell anymore?
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 13:18 |
|
While trying to do some research on 1968 in US history stumbled upon this due to Sirhan Sirhan: http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/08/john-kirby-the-jokers-on-us.html quote:John Kirby: The Joker's on us Ultimate point of the blog is about loss of liberty, getting to it involves Sirhan Sirhan and James Holmes being hypnotised Manchurian candidates/framed.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 13:27 |
|
HMDK posted:Just like there's no longer any reason to call Poe, this vein of politics is mined dry of absurd parody. Because who the gently caress can even tell anymore? It's the main reason why, sometime around 2001 or 2002, I stopped reading the Onion with any regularity. Nevertheless, I don't think a attempt at a satirical poke at corporations on the WSJ page really qualifies as a "terrible editorial [or] opinion piece."
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 13:43 |
|
Walter posted:It's the main reason why, sometime around 2001 or 2002, I stopped reading the Onion with any regularity. Nevertheless, I don't think a attempt at a satirical poke at corporations on the WSJ page really qualifies as a "terrible editorial [or] opinion piece." True, it reeks more of a last gasp of the "funnies" by the most co-opted paper ever.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 13:50 |
|
Presto posted:From the local paper... What a condescending piece of poo poo. "Maybe if those lazy assholes get off their duffs and go get an ID, with the 50$ they don't actually have, at the DMV they can't afford to stay at for 6 hours on a working day, they'd realize it was their fault their life sucks, not the system that is trying to put up yet more barriers to their participation in a most blatant perversion of democracy"
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 18:55 |
|
Walter posted:You guys realize that the author is a former labor and employment lawyer, and everything about that piece is satire. I find it difficult to tell on the Wall Street "Stephen Hawking would have died under the NHS" Journal.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 19:53 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:36 |
|
Emy posted:I find it difficult to tell on the Wall Street "Stephen Hawking would have died under the NHS" Journal. That was the Investor's Business Daily. The WSJ is almost as bad, though.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2012 19:59 |