|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:42 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:39 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:37 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:33 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2016 20:31 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:27 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:06 Laurens wrote:
Can someone post what the Kirk dude said? I can't understand the video. Something something George Washington. Apparently this is it: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,” How is that racist? Because she said she was a daughter of the America Revolution(directly decedent from someone who fought in the American Revolution) and he question that because of her Taiwanese decent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_DuckworthTammy Duckworth was born in Bangkok, Thailand, to Franklin and Lamai Duckworth. Her American father, who died in 2005,[3] was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who traced his family's American roots to before the Revolutionary War. Her Thai mother is of Chinese ancestry.[4] Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_RevolutionLike this shit is racist. He directly challenged her being a Daughter of the American Revolution because she is Asian. I get folks are from the EU, but can you use google and like the slightest amount of critical thinking? There are tons of news articles that will very clearly explain this to you. Where do you infer that from? Why is it not "because she is not from American descent"? If he had stated: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Belgium to serve George Washington,”, would you still find this racist? Do you think a person of typical European descent would have had their lineage questioned in the same way? Like I said in my edit, it's you guys who are turning this into racism now. If she was from Germany or whichever other "typical European" country he'd question her lineage just the same, yes. Well I will say that your understanding of US culture is pretty limited if you believe that. Alright, so if you look Asian, and you tell me "I was born in Thailand", and from this information I assume that both of your parents are Thai, that assumption makes me a racist? Lmao ok, TIL. If I say my father fought in WW2 for the US and you say "How, did people form Thailand fly over to fight for the US in WW2?", then yes, you are racist. You're not evil, but you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance, which is classic racism.
That's the thing I'm taking an issue with
because of my appearance
This is YOUR assumption.
Presumably the fact that she is born in Thailand is known to Kirk. Her appearance doesn't have to play a part in this?
Hence my remark you could sub Thailand with any other nation, and have her look like a "typical European", and if Kirkboy knows that she's from Germany or whatever, he'd make the same remark.
It's you guys who are turning this into a discussion about her looks...
All I see is someone who was not born in the USA, and a remark about this. Followed by a bunch of people reading too much into the remark, naturally.
|
On October 28 2016 20:50 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:11 Velr wrote:
It gets really complicated once you take on a worldwide view. As an example, blackfacing has no bad history in most countries. Yet in the last few years some people started to cry foul when its used here, while most don't even understand what the acutal issue is and why some see it as racist.
That's the result of American/Anglo culture being consumed to such a large degree in other countries, especially online, that people pick up even the elements from it that are not applicable to their own society, often pigeon holing them into only tangentially related local notions. I agree that the it's ridiculous to be upset about blackface in Europe, but this misattribution goes in every direction imaginable. I see the term SJW used a lot in online comments on Romanian websites even though that sub-culture doesn't really exist here. I've genuinely seen this following discussion several times: Person A writes genocidal shit about gypsies, Person B calls them out for it, Person A or other people call Person B a SJW.
Great post.
|
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is....
|
On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is....
Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk"
|
|
|
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-polls-disagree-and-thats-ok/
I think cherry picking polls that suit our narrative is not a great basis to see what's really going on.
The most reliable source we have to see what's going on are estimate from aggregators. 538 puts Trump at 18% chances, up four points, and the NYT at 9%.
That's pretty grim for him, even if you can find polls quite close, and one national poll with him actually leading the race. You also have polls with Clinton leading by 12 points.
Anyway, the race is tightening, but it's tightening a bit and Clinton lead is quite huge. Trump can hope gaining a point or two if he manages to shut up, since basically every single time he has opened his mouth in this campaign, it has been detrimental to him. But his chances of winning are very slim even though the race is not over.
I can't wait for this bs to be over, by the way. And I can't believe we will have to go through this shit again in 4 years.
|
On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk"
Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room.
|
Cherry picking polls?
You've got three polls (Gravis, LA Times (Trump+2), Rasmussen) where Trump and Clinton are within two percent of each other, IDB is at 3% Clinton today and this Washpost poll which was showing a 12% differential on the 23rd now shows a 4% margin for the 26th.We're not talking one or two polls we're talking several showing a very close race now - And thats with the over representation of democrats in the sample set.
|
On October 28 2016 20:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:
you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance So basically just like affirmative action. Which is apparently not racist according to dems.
False equivalences galore...
|
On October 28 2016 21:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-polls-disagree-and-thats-ok/I think cherry picking polls that suit our narrative is not a great basis to see what's really going on. The most reliable source we have to see what's going on are estimate from aggregators. 538 puts Trump at 18% chances, up four points, and the NYT at 9%. That's pretty grim for him, even if you can find polls quite close, and one national poll with him actually leading the race. You also have polls with Clinton leading by 12 points. Anyway, the race is tightening, but it's tightening a bit and Clinton lead is quite huge. Trump can hope gaining a point or two if he manages to shut up, since basically every single time he has opened his mouth in this campaign, it has been detrimental to him. But his chances of winning are very slim even though the race is not over. I can't wait for this bs to be over, by the way. And I can't believe we will have to go through this shit again in 4 years.
There's almost TOO much information now. I can't stop refreshing fivethirtyeight constantly, and I never had access to this amount of data to obsess over and it's definitely detrimental to my mental state
|
On October 28 2016 22:05 KOFgokuon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-polls-disagree-and-thats-ok/I think cherry picking polls that suit our narrative is not a great basis to see what's really going on. The most reliable source we have to see what's going on are estimate from aggregators. 538 puts Trump at 18% chances, up four points, and the NYT at 9%. That's pretty grim for him, even if you can find polls quite close, and one national poll with him actually leading the race. You also have polls with Clinton leading by 12 points. Anyway, the race is tightening, but it's tightening a bit and Clinton lead is quite huge. Trump can hope gaining a point or two if he manages to shut up, since basically every single time he has opened his mouth in this campaign, it has been detrimental to him. But his chances of winning are very slim even though the race is not over. I can't wait for this bs to be over, by the way. And I can't believe we will have to go through this shit again in 4 years. There's almost TOO much information now. I can't stop refreshing fivethirtyeight constantly, and I never had access to this amount of data to obsess over and it's definitely detrimental to my mental state
You have summed up the problem with “big data”. Our ability to collect data has vastly exceeded our ability to determine if the information is of value.
|
On October 28 2016 21:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Cherry picking polls? You've got three polls (Gravis, LA Times (Trump+2), Rasmussen) where Trump and Clinton are within two percent of each other, IDB is at 3% Clinton today and this Washpost poll which was showing a 12% differential on the 23rd now shows a 4% margin for the 26th.We're not talking one or two polls we're talking several showing a very close race now - And thats with the over representation of democrats in the sample set.
Mate, look, there are people whose job it is to aggregate polls.
You want to not cherry pick national polls, you look at that :
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
This is good data...
... and that gives you +5,6 in favour of Clinton.
Now if the purpose of the thread is to convince each other on how to interpret data because you REALLY want Trump to be closer than he is and I REALLY want Clinton to be certain of winning, you'll do it without me.
But again, if what we want to are fact to establish a solid basis for a conversation or a debate, you look at professional poll aggregator because everything else is basically meaningless.
|
On October 28 2016 21:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Cherry picking polls? You've got three polls (Gravis, LA Times (Trump+2), Rasmussen) where Trump and Clinton are within two percent of each other, IDB is at 3% Clinton today and this Washpost poll which was showing a 12% differential on the 23rd now shows a 4% margin for the 26th.We're not talking one or two polls we're talking several showing a very close race now - And thats with the over representation of democrats in the sample set.
The problem is you're literally taking the first three polls released of the day, all of which have leaned Trump relative to the polling average and one of which has actually been indicating an increasingly Clinton lead lately (IBD), and state polls are still not in line with a tied race in any way, shape, or form. You're ignoring every poll that doesn't fit your worldview, which is the definition of cherrypicking.
|
On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:42 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:39 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:37 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:33 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2016 20:31 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:27 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:06 Laurens wrote:
Can someone post what the Kirk dude said? I can't understand the video. Something something George Washington. Apparently this is it: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,” How is that racist? Because she said she was a daughter of the America Revolution(directly decedent from someone who fought in the American Revolution) and he question that because of her Taiwanese decent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_DuckworthTammy Duckworth was born in Bangkok, Thailand, to Franklin and Lamai Duckworth. Her American father, who died in 2005,[3] was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who traced his family's American roots to before the Revolutionary War. Her Thai mother is of Chinese ancestry.[4] Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_RevolutionLike this shit is racist. He directly challenged her being a Daughter of the American Revolution because she is Asian. I get folks are from the EU, but can you use google and like the slightest amount of critical thinking? There are tons of news articles that will very clearly explain this to you. Where do you infer that from? Why is it not "because she is not from American descent"? If he had stated: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Belgium to serve George Washington,”, would you still find this racist? Do you think a person of typical European descent would have had their lineage questioned in the same way? Like I said in my edit, it's you guys who are turning this into racism now. If she was from Germany or whichever other "typical European" country he'd question her lineage just the same, yes. Well I will say that your understanding of US culture is pretty limited if you believe that. Alright, so if you look Asian, and you tell me "I was born in Thailand", and from this information I assume that both of your parents are Thai, that assumption makes me a racist? Lmao ok, TIL. If I say my father fought in WW2 for the US and you say "How, did people form Thailand fly over to fight for the US in WW2?", then yes, you are racist. You're not evil, but you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance, which is classic racism.
Yeah why do people assume only white people fought for the nazis? many black africans did as well.
|
On October 28 2016 22:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Cherry picking polls? You've got three polls (Gravis, LA Times (Trump+2), Rasmussen) where Trump and Clinton are within two percent of each other, IDB is at 3% Clinton today and this Washpost poll which was showing a 12% differential on the 23rd now shows a 4% margin for the 26th.We're not talking one or two polls we're talking several showing a very close race now - And thats with the over representation of democrats in the sample set. The problem is you're literally taking the first three polls released of the day, all of which have leaned Trump relative to the polling average and one of which has actually been indicating an increasingly Clinton lead lately (IBD), and state polls are still not in line with a tied race in any way, shape, or form. You're ignoring every poll that doesn't fit your worldview, which is the definition of cherrypicking.
I'm looking at the very latest polls yes.
When a poll like the one i posted changes 8% in 3 days thats the only way to go.
The majority of polls are showing a close race, I'd like to see the methodology for these polls with +14 Clinton compared to the +1 Trump on the same day.Whatever happens with this election there will be several pollsters taking a hit with their credibility.I think we can all agree there?
We're going to see Trump win on higher turnout, thats been my call all along and i'm sticking with it.
|
On October 28 2016 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Cherry picking polls? You've got three polls (Gravis, LA Times (Trump+2), Rasmussen) where Trump and Clinton are within two percent of each other, IDB is at 3% Clinton today and this Washpost poll which was showing a 12% differential on the 23rd now shows a 4% margin for the 26th.We're not talking one or two polls we're talking several showing a very close race now - And thats with the over representation of democrats in the sample set. Mate, look, there are people whose job it is to aggregate polls. You want to not cherry pick national polls, you look at that : http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/This is good data... ... and that gives you +5,6 in favour of Clinton. Now if the purpose of the thread is to convince each other on how to interpret data because you REALLY want Trump to be closer than he is and I REALLY want Clinton to be certain of winning, you'll do it without me. But again, if what we want to are fact to establish a solid basis for a conversation or a debate, you look at professional poll aggregator because everything else is basically meaningless.
The left-leaning Washington Post even commented on it.
Donald Trump has gained on Hillary Clinton during the past week, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, solidifying support among core Republican groups as well as political independents.
Roughly 6 in 10 still expect Clinton to prevail, while the poll finds shrinking concerns about the accuracy of the vote count and voter fraud in the election.
Clinton holds a slight 48-44 percent edge over Trump among likely voters, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 1 percent in the survey completed Sunday through Wednesday. Clinton held a six-point edge in the previous wave and a 12-point edge in the first wave of the tracking poll by ABC News Sunday (50 percent Clinton vs. 38 percent Trump). In a two-candidate contest, Clinton holds a five-point edge over Trump, 50 to 45 percent.
Trump’s growth in support from 38 percent to 44 percent is fueled by shored-up support among Republican-leaning voting groups as well as a significant boost among political independents. Trump has made up ground among whites, particularly those without college degrees and women. Trump now leads by a 30 percentage point margin among white voters without college degrees, up from 20 points from this weekend. White women now tilt toward Trump by 48 to 43 percent after leaning 49 to 43 percent in Clinton’s favor before.
Just because your gal has a small spot of bad news doesn't mean it's automatically Trump doing his polls-are-wrong schtick again.
On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:06 Laurens wrote:
Can someone post what the Kirk dude said? I can't understand the video. Something something George Washington. Apparently this is it: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,” How is that racist?
He's obviously alleging asians can't be patriotic as a matter of racial incapability. She bled for this nation, families like hers are obviously better equipped to know what it means to bleed and die, and how dare you imply otherwise, racist.
I'm sure all the people saying their white skin was the reason they were acquitted will publicly repent of their implicit racism and fault prosecutors for declining to inform the defense of the informant.
|
On October 28 2016 22:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:42 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:39 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:37 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:33 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2016 20:31 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:27 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:06 Laurens wrote:
Can someone post what the Kirk dude said? I can't understand the video. Something something George Washington. Apparently this is it: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,” How is that racist? Because she said she was a daughter of the America Revolution(directly decedent from someone who fought in the American Revolution) and he question that because of her Taiwanese decent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_DuckworthTammy Duckworth was born in Bangkok, Thailand, to Franklin and Lamai Duckworth. Her American father, who died in 2005,[3] was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who traced his family's American roots to before the Revolutionary War. Her Thai mother is of Chinese ancestry.[4] Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_RevolutionLike this shit is racist. He directly challenged her being a Daughter of the American Revolution because she is Asian. I get folks are from the EU, but can you use google and like the slightest amount of critical thinking? There are tons of news articles that will very clearly explain this to you. Where do you infer that from? Why is it not "because she is not from American descent"? If he had stated: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Belgium to serve George Washington,”, would you still find this racist? Do you think a person of typical European descent would have had their lineage questioned in the same way? Like I said in my edit, it's you guys who are turning this into racism now. If she was from Germany or whichever other "typical European" country he'd question her lineage just the same, yes. Well I will say that your understanding of US culture is pretty limited if you believe that. Alright, so if you look Asian, and you tell me "I was born in Thailand", and from this information I assume that both of your parents are Thai, that assumption makes me a racist? Lmao ok, TIL. If I say my father fought in WW2 for the US and you say "How, did people form Thailand fly over to fight for the US in WW2?", then yes, you are racist. You're not evil, but you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance, which is classic racism. Yeah why do people assume only white people fought for the nazis? many black africans did as well.
Yes, and many leaders in the Arab world supported Hitlers treatment of the Jews.
Mostly this is not talked about these days.
|
|
|
On October 28 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 22:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 28 2016 20:45 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:42 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:39 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:37 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:33 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2016 20:31 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:27 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:
[quote]
Apparently this is it:
“I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,”
How is that racist? Because she said she was a daughter of the America Revolution(directly decedent from someone who fought in the American Revolution) and he question that because of her Taiwanese decent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_DuckworthTammy Duckworth was born in Bangkok, Thailand, to Franklin and Lamai Duckworth. Her American father, who died in 2005,[3] was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who traced his family's American roots to before the Revolutionary War. Her Thai mother is of Chinese ancestry.[4] Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_RevolutionLike this shit is racist. He directly challenged her being a Daughter of the American Revolution because she is Asian. I get folks are from the EU, but can you use google and like the slightest amount of critical thinking? There are tons of news articles that will very clearly explain this to you. Where do you infer that from? Why is it not "because she is not from American descent"? If he had stated: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Belgium to serve George Washington,”, would you still find this racist? Do you think a person of typical European descent would have had their lineage questioned in the same way? Like I said in my edit, it's you guys who are turning this into racism now. If she was from Germany or whichever other "typical European" country he'd question her lineage just the same, yes. Well I will say that your understanding of US culture is pretty limited if you believe that. Alright, so if you look Asian, and you tell me "I was born in Thailand", and from this information I assume that both of your parents are Thai, that assumption makes me a racist? Lmao ok, TIL. If I say my father fought in WW2 for the US and you say "How, did people form Thailand fly over to fight for the US in WW2?", then yes, you are racist. You're not evil, but you assumed things about me and acted on because of my appearance, which is classic racism. Yeah why do people assume only white people fought for the nazis? many black africans did as well. Yes, and many leaders in the Arab world supported Hitlers treatment of the Jews. Mostly this is not talked about these days.
There are a number of American citizens who also support what the Nazis did and send threatening messages to Jews reporters every day. We don’t talk about them much either.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is....
Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran.
I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong.
On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room.
Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who.
Isn't there some more nuanced word we can use? Including this with true racism under one umbrella term just feels wrong to me :/
I 100% agree that his statement is completely out of line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
