everytime i make u look stupid u don't have to go make it worse
Tucker goes scorched earth, will be epstein'd soon
posted in
The Dumpster
anyways I’m gna have an admin ban me so I can’t argue with you no matter how much I want to
but ya go to your local protests ! where a mask and gloves if you’re scared of falling ill ! use your privilege to protect the people that will be wrongfully arrested ! RECORD PEOPLE GETTING ARRESTED AND PREFERABLY BEFORE, you could use that footage to save someone from a “Domestic Terrorism” sentencing ! and of course do not contribute to the things that are counter productive like vandalization, looting, and arson ! (yes i’m aware I said I support looters, that doesn’t mean I encourage it I just don’t look down on those who do ! committing those crimes just fuels the hate fire !)
anyways I’m gna have an admin ban me so I can’t argue with you no matter how much I want to
but ya go to your local protests ! where a mask and gloves if you’re scared of falling ill ! use your privilege to protect the people that will be wrongfully arrested ! RECORD PEOPLE GETTING ARRESTED AND PREFERABLY BEFORE, you could use that footage to save someone from a “Domestic Terrorism” sentencing ! and of course do not contribute to the things that are counter productive like vandalization, looting, and arson ! (yes i’m aware I said I support looters, that doesn’t mean I encourage it I just don’t look down on those who do ! committing those crimes just fuels the hate fire !)
but ya go to your local protests ! where a mask and gloves if you’re scared of falling ill ! use your privilege to protect the people that will be wrongfully arrested ! RECORD PEOPLE GETTING ARRESTED AND PREFERABLY BEFORE, you could use that footage to save someone from a “Domestic Terrorism” sentencing ! and of course do not contribute to the things that are counter productive like vandalization, looting, and arson ! (yes i’m aware I said I support looters, that doesn’t mean I encourage it I just don’t look down on those who do ! committing those crimes just fuels the hate fire !)
I’ve said it once I’ll say it again, anyone who asks you to provide stats to prove systemic racism is probably just racist
oops there i go being a sheep again
I’ve said it once I’ll say it again, anyone who asks you to provide stats to prove systemic racism is probably just racist
oops there i go being a sheep again
oops there i go being a sheep again
Noun. Tojo (plural Tojos) (military, slang, ethnic slur, derogatory, offensive) A Japanese person, especially a soldier.
Noun. Tojo (plural Tojos) (military, slang, ethnic slur, derogatory, offensive) A Japanese person, especially a soldier.
tojoI’ve said it once I’ll say it again, anyone who asks you to provide stats to prove systemic racism is probably just racist
oops there i go being a sheep again
David Dorn, a black retired police officer, was killed in the protests by the people you support, looters, during robbery. They surely just HAd to rob that pawn shop to show how much they disagree with the police brutality, right? Go donate some money to bail such people out moron.
[quote=tojo]I’ve said it once I’ll say it again, anyone who asks you to provide stats to prove systemic racism is probably just racist
oops there i go being a sheep again[/quote]
David Dorn, a black retired police officer, was killed in the protests by the people you support, looters, during robbery. They surely just HAd to rob that pawn shop to show how much they disagree with the police brutality, right? Go donate some money to bail such people out moron.
oops there i go being a sheep again[/quote]
David Dorn, a black retired police officer, was killed in the protests by the people you support, looters, during robbery. They surely just HAd to rob that pawn shop to show how much they disagree with the police brutality, right? Go donate some money to bail such people out moron.
tojoI've said it once I'll say it again, anyone who asks you to listen to anecdotal evidence to prove systemic racism is probably just racist
I wonder if Twain would've said what he did had he known that he would scare people away from trying to understand the world around them for centuries to come.
Show Content
You're using a word that means it's statistically measurable and then saying that the statistics are lies and the real truth is the opposite of what the statistics (supposedly) are saying. Like I don't want to get involved in the racism debate stuff, but the word you're using literally means the opposite of how you're using it. I haven't read any of the studies linked in this thread and I don't really care to, but declaring people racist because you're scared of looking at a spreadsheet for five minutes strikes me as a level of lazy that's downright irresponsible.
Statistics really aren't that hard. It's mostly just high school level math, and even then you don't need to know any actual math to tell when someone is manipulating their numbers if you know how to read them. It's pretty easy to tell when someone has some fucky experimental procedures if you stop for a moment to consider the actual data & methods themselves. For example, one fucky way to gather data is to use self-selected sampling. Examples of this include Twitter, other social media websites, and setting up a booth on campus with a sign saying, "tell us about your strong opinions here," among other things. The reason this is fucky is because your method for gathering the data means that your data are by definition not representative of the general public, because you didn't poll the general public, you polled people who felt strongly enough to share their opinion. This is why all jury selection processes in these United States begin by randomly selecting citizens in their respective counties. By randomly selecting people from the population you wish to represent (and given a large enough sample size), you can be confident that your sample is statistically representative of your population. The confidence in this representation goes up with the size of the sample, the repetition of the test with another randomly selected group, or the test being performed by a second independent research group, as well as numerous other factors.
This isn't even a basic introduction to statistics, but it should explain why some people find statistical analysis to be more valuable than any amount of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that black people aren't systemically oppressed, nor am I saying that police in this country don't need significant reforms, all I'm saying is that when you imply something like, "statistics are lies," it confuses me, and the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that you're simply ignorant of how statistical analysis works. To look at it from your side however, it's also important to point out that a statistical trend doesn't in any way devalue the individual experiences of anyone, black or white. If anything, the sheer volume of people sharing their experiences should prompt new statistical analyses to try to understand these trends better, so that we're better equipped to solve these problems going forward. Because when you try to design solutions, it's best to make sure that your solution will actually interface with reality in the way that you want. It's like putting the armor on the parts of the plane that come home with bullet holes. Clearly, if the planes can fly home with bullet holes there, they don't need any extra armor in those places, it's the rest of the plane you've got to look at. You have to understand why things are happening before you can formulate a solution that will work, and no number of twitter videos of cops beating people is going to tell you how to make sure police encounters never escalate to violence.
On another note, It's curious the rate at which people, both here and pretty much everywhere else on the internet, are having discussions like this with the sole purpose of virtue signalling. People who actually want to change other peoples' minds don't call each other racists or idiots or sheep or whatever. When you do stuff like that, its' only purpose is to make you feel good because of how much smarter you are than the other person. If you want to have an actual dialogue and have a chance at changing someone's opinion, which is what I thought the whole point was, you have to engage the material long enough to understand it, and to try to understand where the difference in understanding is occurring, and work from there to explain why you think the other person's logic is flawed. Even if to you it's obvious on the face of it where the problem is, if the other person is making that argument, clearly they don't get it like you do. You aren't going to convince anyone by calling them an idiot and telling them to go figure out what they're doing wrong on their own. But all of that's only if you want to actually change minds, which I don't think a single person in this thread is interested in doing.
And I think THAT'S the point tambo was trying to make: the media is manipulating the narrative such that reasonable discourse is nearly impossible. The problem is though, it isn't just a media problem. It's systemic to our way of life, and is literally biologically automatic. We are raised to be perfect narcissists, resolute in our convictions, never doubting ourselves or our positions, always certain that we're right. Our media, both social and classical, reinforces this, because we choose media that doesn't challenge us. The people around us reinforce it, because we choose to be around people we already agree with. Our biology reinforces it, because there's no use in second-guessing in nature. But we don't live in nature anymore, we live in the concrete jungle, and here, a wrong decision can have drastic consequences for millions of people. And don't think the irony is lost on me, I'm just as guilty as any other schmuck on this internet backwater. The point, though, is that we can't expect to solve any problems, let alone systemic racial ones, without first at least acknowledging that the other side is operating on good faith and thinks that they have a pretty good point too. But that's the hardest part, and that seems to be the part that almost nobody I've seen or talked to is willing to even consider on any topic, let alone something as emotionally charged as this one. You can't change the world in a shouting match, people. You change the world by changing minds.
Statistics really aren't that hard. It's mostly just high school level math, and even then you don't need to know any actual math to tell when someone is manipulating their numbers if you know how to read them. It's pretty easy to tell when someone has some fucky experimental procedures if you stop for a moment to consider the actual data & methods themselves. For example, one fucky way to gather data is to use self-selected sampling. Examples of this include Twitter, other social media websites, and setting up a booth on campus with a sign saying, "tell us about your strong opinions here," among other things. The reason this is fucky is because your method for gathering the data means that your data are by definition not representative of the general public, because you didn't poll the general public, you polled people who felt strongly enough to share their opinion. This is why all jury selection processes in these United States begin by randomly selecting citizens in their respective counties. By randomly selecting people from the population you wish to represent (and given a large enough sample size), you can be confident that your sample is statistically representative of your population. The confidence in this representation goes up with the size of the sample, the repetition of the test with another randomly selected group, or the test being performed by a second independent research group, as well as numerous other factors.
This isn't even a basic introduction to statistics, but it should explain why some people find statistical analysis to be more valuable than any amount of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that black people aren't systemically oppressed, nor am I saying that police in this country don't need significant reforms, all I'm saying is that when you imply something like, "statistics are lies," it confuses me, and the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that you're simply ignorant of how statistical analysis works. To look at it from your side however, it's also important to point out that a statistical trend doesn't in any way devalue the individual experiences of anyone, black or white. If anything, the sheer volume of people sharing their experiences should prompt new statistical analyses to try to understand these trends better, so that we're better equipped to solve these problems going forward. Because when you try to design solutions, it's best to make sure that your solution will actually interface with reality in the way that you want. It's like putting the armor on the parts of the plane that come home with bullet holes. Clearly, if the planes can fly home with bullet holes there, they don't need any extra armor in those places, it's the rest of the plane you've got to look at. You have to understand why things are happening before you can formulate a solution that will work, and no number of twitter videos of cops beating people is going to tell you how to make sure police encounters never escalate to violence.
On another note, It's curious the rate at which people, both here and pretty much everywhere else on the internet, are having discussions like this with the sole purpose of virtue signalling. People who actually want to change other peoples' minds don't call each other racists or idiots or sheep or whatever. When you do stuff like that, its' only purpose is to make you feel good because of how much smarter you are than the other person. If you want to have an actual dialogue and have a chance at changing someone's opinion, which is what I thought the whole point was, you have to engage the material long enough to understand it, and to try to understand where the difference in understanding is occurring, and work from there to explain why you think the other person's logic is flawed. Even if to you it's obvious on the face of it where the problem is, if the other person is making that argument, clearly they don't get it like you do. You aren't going to convince anyone by calling them an idiot and telling them to go figure out what they're doing wrong on their own. But all of that's only if you want to actually change minds, which I don't think a single person in this thread is interested in doing.
And I think THAT'S the point tambo was trying to make: the media is manipulating the narrative such that reasonable discourse is nearly impossible. The problem is though, it isn't just a media problem. It's systemic to our way of life, and is literally biologically automatic. We are raised to be perfect narcissists, resolute in our convictions, never doubting ourselves or our positions, always certain that we're right. Our media, both social and classical, reinforces this, because we choose media that doesn't challenge us. The people around us reinforce it, because we choose to be around people we already agree with. Our biology reinforces it, because there's no use in second-guessing in nature. But we don't live in nature anymore, we live in the concrete jungle, and here, a wrong decision can have drastic consequences for millions of people. And don't think the irony is lost on me, I'm just as guilty as any other schmuck on this internet backwater. The point, though, is that we can't expect to solve any problems, let alone systemic racial ones, without first at least acknowledging that the other side is operating on good faith and thinks that they have a pretty good point too. But that's the hardest part, and that seems to be the part that almost nobody I've seen or talked to is willing to even consider on any topic, let alone something as emotionally charged as this one. You can't change the world in a shouting match, people. You change the world by changing minds.
please lock this dumb shit
[quote=tojo]I've said it once I'll say it again, anyone who asks you to listen to anecdotal evidence to prove systemic racism is probably just racist[/quote]
I wonder if Twain would've said what he did had he known that he would scare people away from trying to understand the world around them for centuries to come.
[spoiler]You're using a word that means it's statistically measurable and then saying that the statistics are lies and the real truth is the opposite of what the statistics (supposedly) are saying. Like I don't want to get involved in the racism debate stuff, but the word you're using literally means the opposite of how you're using it. I haven't read any of the studies linked in this thread and I don't really care to, but declaring people racist because you're scared of looking at a spreadsheet for five minutes strikes me as a level of lazy that's downright irresponsible.
Statistics really aren't that hard. It's mostly just high school level math, and even then you don't need to know any actual math to tell when someone is manipulating their numbers if you know how to read them. It's pretty easy to tell when someone has some fucky experimental procedures if you stop for a moment to consider the actual data & methods themselves. For example, one fucky way to gather data is to use self-selected sampling. Examples of this include Twitter, other social media websites, and setting up a booth on campus with a sign saying, "tell us about your strong opinions here," among other things. The reason this is fucky is because your method for gathering the data means that your data are by definition not representative of the general public, because you didn't poll the general public, you polled people who felt strongly enough to share their opinion. This is why all jury selection processes in these United States begin by randomly selecting citizens in their respective counties. By randomly selecting people from the population you wish to represent (and given a large enough sample size), you can be confident that your sample is statistically representative of your population. The confidence in this representation goes up with the size of the sample, the repetition of the test with another randomly selected group, or the test being performed by a second independent research group, as well as numerous other factors.
This isn't even a basic introduction to statistics, but it should explain why some people find statistical analysis to be more valuable than any amount of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that black people aren't systemically oppressed, nor am I saying that police in this country don't need significant reforms, all I'm saying is that when you imply something like, "statistics are lies," it confuses me, and the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that you're simply ignorant of how statistical analysis works. To look at it from your side however, it's also important to point out that a statistical trend doesn't in any way devalue the individual experiences of anyone, black or white. If anything, the sheer volume of people sharing their experiences should prompt new statistical analyses to try to understand these trends better, so that we're better equipped to solve these problems going forward. Because when you try to design solutions, it's best to make sure that your solution will actually interface with reality in the way that you want. It's like putting the armor on the parts of the plane that come home with bullet holes. Clearly, if the planes can fly home with bullet holes there, they don't need any extra armor in those places, it's the rest of the plane you've got to look at. You have to understand why things are happening before you can formulate a solution that will work, and no number of twitter videos of cops beating people is going to tell you how to make sure police encounters never escalate to violence.
On another note, It's curious the rate at which people, both here and pretty much everywhere else on the internet, are having discussions like this with the sole purpose of virtue signalling. People who actually want to change other peoples' minds don't call each other racists or idiots or sheep or whatever. When you do stuff like that, its' only purpose is to make you feel good because of how much smarter you are than the other person. If you want to have an actual dialogue and have a chance at changing someone's opinion, which is what I thought the whole point was, you have to engage the material long enough to understand it, and to try to understand where the difference in understanding is occurring, and work from there to explain why you think the other person's logic is flawed. Even if to you it's obvious on the face of it where the problem is, if the other person is making that argument, clearly they don't get it like you do. You aren't going to convince anyone by calling them an idiot and telling them to go figure out what they're doing wrong on their own. But all of that's only if you want to actually change minds, which I don't think a single person in this thread is interested in doing.
And I think THAT'S the point tambo was trying to make: the media is manipulating the narrative such that reasonable discourse is nearly impossible. The problem is though, it isn't just a media problem. It's systemic to our way of life, and is literally biologically automatic. We are raised to be perfect narcissists, resolute in our convictions, never doubting ourselves or our positions, always certain that we're right. Our media, both social and classical, reinforces this, because we choose media that doesn't challenge us. The people around us reinforce it, because we choose to be around people we already agree with. Our biology reinforces it, because there's no use in second-guessing in nature. But we don't live in nature anymore, we live in the concrete jungle, and here, a wrong decision can have drastic consequences for millions of people. And don't think the irony is lost on me, I'm just as guilty as any other schmuck on this internet backwater. The point, though, is that we can't expect to solve any problems, let alone systemic racial ones, without first at least acknowledging that the other side is operating on good faith and thinks that they have a pretty good point too. But that's the hardest part, and that seems to be the part that almost nobody I've seen or talked to is willing to even consider on any topic, let alone something as emotionally charged as this one. You can't change the world in a shouting match, people. You change the world by changing minds.
[/spoiler]
please lock this dumb shit
I wonder if Twain would've said what he did had he known that he would scare people away from trying to understand the world around them for centuries to come.
[spoiler]You're using a word that means it's statistically measurable and then saying that the statistics are lies and the real truth is the opposite of what the statistics (supposedly) are saying. Like I don't want to get involved in the racism debate stuff, but the word you're using literally means the opposite of how you're using it. I haven't read any of the studies linked in this thread and I don't really care to, but declaring people racist because you're scared of looking at a spreadsheet for five minutes strikes me as a level of lazy that's downright irresponsible.
Statistics really aren't that hard. It's mostly just high school level math, and even then you don't need to know any actual math to tell when someone is manipulating their numbers if you know how to read them. It's pretty easy to tell when someone has some fucky experimental procedures if you stop for a moment to consider the actual data & methods themselves. For example, one fucky way to gather data is to use self-selected sampling. Examples of this include Twitter, other social media websites, and setting up a booth on campus with a sign saying, "tell us about your strong opinions here," among other things. The reason this is fucky is because your method for gathering the data means that your data are by definition not representative of the general public, because you didn't poll the general public, you polled people who felt strongly enough to share their opinion. This is why all jury selection processes in these United States begin by randomly selecting citizens in their respective counties. By randomly selecting people from the population you wish to represent (and given a large enough sample size), you can be confident that your sample is statistically representative of your population. The confidence in this representation goes up with the size of the sample, the repetition of the test with another randomly selected group, or the test being performed by a second independent research group, as well as numerous other factors.
This isn't even a basic introduction to statistics, but it should explain why some people find statistical analysis to be more valuable than any amount of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that black people aren't systemically oppressed, nor am I saying that police in this country don't need significant reforms, all I'm saying is that when you imply something like, "statistics are lies," it confuses me, and the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that you're simply ignorant of how statistical analysis works. To look at it from your side however, it's also important to point out that a statistical trend doesn't in any way devalue the individual experiences of anyone, black or white. If anything, the sheer volume of people sharing their experiences should prompt new statistical analyses to try to understand these trends better, so that we're better equipped to solve these problems going forward. Because when you try to design solutions, it's best to make sure that your solution will actually interface with reality in the way that you want. It's like putting the armor on the parts of the plane that come home with bullet holes. Clearly, if the planes can fly home with bullet holes there, they don't need any extra armor in those places, it's the rest of the plane you've got to look at. You have to understand why things are happening before you can formulate a solution that will work, and no number of twitter videos of cops beating people is going to tell you how to make sure police encounters never escalate to violence.
On another note, It's curious the rate at which people, both here and pretty much everywhere else on the internet, are having discussions like this with the sole purpose of virtue signalling. People who actually want to change other peoples' minds don't call each other racists or idiots or sheep or whatever. When you do stuff like that, its' only purpose is to make you feel good because of how much smarter you are than the other person. If you want to have an actual dialogue and have a chance at changing someone's opinion, which is what I thought the whole point was, you have to engage the material long enough to understand it, and to try to understand where the difference in understanding is occurring, and work from there to explain why you think the other person's logic is flawed. Even if to you it's obvious on the face of it where the problem is, if the other person is making that argument, clearly they don't get it like you do. You aren't going to convince anyone by calling them an idiot and telling them to go figure out what they're doing wrong on their own. But all of that's only if you want to actually change minds, which I don't think a single person in this thread is interested in doing.
And I think THAT'S the point tambo was trying to make: the media is manipulating the narrative such that reasonable discourse is nearly impossible. The problem is though, it isn't just a media problem. It's systemic to our way of life, and is literally biologically automatic. We are raised to be perfect narcissists, resolute in our convictions, never doubting ourselves or our positions, always certain that we're right. Our media, both social and classical, reinforces this, because we choose media that doesn't challenge us. The people around us reinforce it, because we choose to be around people we already agree with. Our biology reinforces it, because there's no use in second-guessing in nature. But we don't live in nature anymore, we live in the concrete jungle, and here, a wrong decision can have drastic consequences for millions of people. And don't think the irony is lost on me, I'm just as guilty as any other schmuck on this internet backwater. The point, though, is that we can't expect to solve any problems, let alone systemic racial ones, without first at least acknowledging that the other side is operating on good faith and thinks that they have a pretty good point too. But that's the hardest part, and that seems to be the part that almost nobody I've seen or talked to is willing to even consider on any topic, let alone something as emotionally charged as this one. You can't change the world in a shouting match, people. You change the world by changing minds.
[/spoiler]
please lock this dumb shit
Haha oh wow what's happening here.
tambosnip
Well no, it's more the possibility that you are demonstrating an inherent flaw in simplistic statistical assumptions - how they can invite major errors when making specific statements; by neglecting the issue of Endogeneity. Given these are errors addressed in a second-year university textbook, this opens up one of two possibilities. The first is that you are making your arguments without knowledge of academic literature directly relevant to your claims, in which case I hope I can be instructive. The second (and more dangerous) is that you are aware of these issues; and you're ignoring them. In which case one has every right to question the fundamental motivations of why you are making such a claim. I will assume the first, because of the following:
Adam Ragusea has spoken a little about tricks of the trade - little pieces of jargon or ways of framing arguments that people skilled in a specific area use which tells other people in that specific area they are of the same club; and establishing that they are using credible techniques that people outside the club won’t necessarily follow. For those of us who do a little (or a lot) in economics, one of these is addressing the issue of 'endogeneity'. This is not an issue discussed to a tremendous degree outside of economics or econometrics, but it is hugely important to understand and grapple within this discussion.
So, why is endogeneity important? There are a number of reasons, but my favorite example is this example, in the AMA by Jordan Petersen. By reducing the analysis of the Gender Wage Gap to "choices", Petersen is making a fundamental error of forgetting that the choices women make are not made in a vacuum - they reflect existing frictions and conditions in the economy itself. To clarify, If women or racial minorities credibly believe that they'll be discriminated against in terms of wages or performance evaluation (of which a significant amount of experimental evidence exists; see examples like this Goldin paper here, or this, this, and here- there is also significant evidence of name-based and race discrimination; with the most famous example here; and a "fun" modern example of racial interactions with police in America found here), their “choice” is no longer a true reflection of natural market forces - it’s a forced choice influenced by other factors you have to account for; and knowing which way the causation goes is difficult. If this point is a little too theoretical, then see the examples by wumbotarian and integralds In the same Reddit thread. You could also watch Ben Lambert’s video on the topic.
So, the point here is that if you don't address endogeneity you have a real problem in using that data to support your argument; especially if there is a reasonable belief your assumptions are prone to omitted-variable bias. So, what possible omitted variable bias problems could exist in simply looking at issues like African-American fatherhood or racial disparities in crime; or any general assessment of minority outcomes in America? Of course, there are a lot of possibilities, so let's focus on one example of structural racism in America; and one that carries significant intergenerational wealth; income,social mobility and well ... everything impacts.
I think the Wikipedia article does a good enough job of explaining what redlining is, so I’ll focus on the impacts. Taking the summary, we can see at its most basic redlining was a series of policies occurring at every level of the American government to disenfranchise specific communities of access to certain services and resources. So, it pretty clearly ticks the “systemic” box. Given it targeted primarily minorities, I'd argue it ticks the "racism" box too.
It should come as no surprise that redlining therefore hurts the welfare of "Black America" (and other minorities) by denying access to housing and living in "good" neighborhoods. Denying services and support lowers the value of property; which has obvious consequences on wealth. It occurred at all levels of government; and was clearly targeted at minority communities, especially African-Americans; leading to significant losses in African-American wealth. A key point in time with which this was observable was the Great Migration where African-American families left the South of America at the end of the Jim Crow era to migrate North, in search of a better future. Which was … curiously followed by an increase in residential segregation in Northern American cities, with exactly the type of effects you would expect.
/continuing in the next post because of the character limit …
Haha oh wow what's happening here.
[quote=tambo]snip[/quote]
Well no, it's more the possibility that you are demonstrating an inherent flaw in simplistic statistical assumptions - how they can invite major errors when making specific statements; by neglecting the issue of Endogeneity. Given these are errors addressed in a [url=https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Studenmund-Using-Econometrics-A-Practical-Guide-7th-Edition/PGM127403.html]second-year[/url] university [url=https://cengage.com.au/product/division/university/title/introductory-econometrics-a-modern-approach/isbn/9781305270107]textbook[/url], this opens up one of two possibilities. The first is that you are making your arguments without knowledge of academic literature directly relevant to your claims, in which case I hope I can be instructive. The second (and more dangerous) is that you are aware of these issues; and you're ignoring them. In which case one has every right to question the fundamental motivations of why you are making such a claim. I will assume the first, because of the following:
Adam Ragusea has spoken a little about tricks of the trade - little pieces of jargon or ways of framing arguments that people skilled in a specific area use which tells other people in that specific area they are of the same club; and establishing that they are using credible techniques that people outside the club won’t necessarily follow. For those of us who do a little (or a lot) in economics, one of these is addressing the issue of '[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogeneity_(econometrics)]endogeneity[/url]'. This is not an issue discussed to a tremendous degree outside of economics or econometrics, but it is hugely important to understand and grapple within this discussion.
So, why is endogeneity important? There are a number of reasons, but my favorite example is this example, in the AMA by [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzk5q1n/]Jordan Petersen[/url]. By reducing the analysis of the Gender Wage Gap to "choices", Petersen is making a fundamental error of forgetting that the choices women make are not made in a vacuum - they [i]reflect [/i] existing frictions and conditions in the economy itself. To clarify, If women or racial minorities credibly believe that they'll be discriminated against in terms of wages or performance evaluation (of which a significant amount of experimental evidence exists; see examples like this Goldin paper [url=https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians]here[/url], or [url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4908229_An_Experimental_Investigation_of_Sexual_Discrimination_in_Hiring_in_the_English_Labor_Market]this[/url], [url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1981.tb01234.x]this[/url], and [url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698]here[/url]- there is also significant evidence of name-based and race discrimination; with the most famous example [url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873]here[/url]; and a "fun" modern example of racial interactions with police in America found [url=https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf]here[/url]), their “choice” is no longer a true reflection of natural market forces - it’s a forced choice influenced by other factors you have to account for; and knowing which way the causation goes is [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_genderwagegap#wiki_bad_controls]difficult[/url]. If this point is a little too theoretical, then see the examples by [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkagns/]wumbotarian[/url] and [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkrzz4/]integralds[/url] In the same Reddit thread. You could also watch Ben Lambert’s video on the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLI-0pK9MD8]topic[/url].
So, the point here is that if you don't address endogeneity you have a real problem in using that data to support your argument; especially if there is a reasonable belief your assumptions are prone to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omitted-variable_bias]omitted-variable bias[/url]. So, what possible omitted variable bias problems could exist in simply looking at issues like African-American fatherhood or racial disparities in crime; or any general assessment of minority outcomes in America? Of course, there are [i]a lot[/i] of possibilities, so let's focus on one example of structural racism in America; and one that carries significant[url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/01/11/raj-chetty-in-14-charts-big-findings-on-opportunity-and-mobility-we-should-know/] intergenerational wealth[/url]; [url=https://www.vox.com/2019/8/15/20801907/raj-chetty-ezra-klein-social-mobility-opportunity]income[/url],[url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w21156]social mobility [/url]and well ... [i]everything[/i] impacts.
[i][b][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining]Redlining.[/url][/b]
[/i]
I think the Wikipedia article does a good enough job of explaining what redlining is, so I’ll focus on the impacts. Taking the summary, we can see at its most basic redlining was a series of policies occurring at every level of the American government to disenfranchise specific communities of access to certain services and resources. So, it pretty clearly ticks the “systemic” box. Given it targeted primarily minorities, I'd argue it ticks the "racism" box too.
It should come as no surprise that redlining therefore hurts the welfare of "Black America" (and other minorities) by denying access to housing and living in "good" neighborhoods. Denying services and support lowers the value of property; which has obvious consequences on wealth. It occurred at [url=https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853?tag=teamfortresst-20]all[/url] levels of government; and was clearly [url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jrlaff24&div=17&id=&page=] targeted[/url] at minority communities, especially African-Americans; leading to significant losses in African-American [url=https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/working-papers/2017/wp2017-12-pdf.pdf]wealth[/url]. A key point in time with which this was observable was the [url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q1xrc2]Great Migration[/url] where African-American families left the South of America at the end of the Jim Crow era to migrate North, in search of a better future. Which was … curiously followed by an [url=https://voxeu.org/article/how-segregated-housing-eroded-wealth-black-families]increase[/url] in residential segregation in Northern American cities, with exactly the type of effects you would [url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w25805]expect[/url].
/continuing in the next post because of the character limit …
[quote=tambo]snip[/quote]
Well no, it's more the possibility that you are demonstrating an inherent flaw in simplistic statistical assumptions - how they can invite major errors when making specific statements; by neglecting the issue of Endogeneity. Given these are errors addressed in a [url=https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Studenmund-Using-Econometrics-A-Practical-Guide-7th-Edition/PGM127403.html]second-year[/url] university [url=https://cengage.com.au/product/division/university/title/introductory-econometrics-a-modern-approach/isbn/9781305270107]textbook[/url], this opens up one of two possibilities. The first is that you are making your arguments without knowledge of academic literature directly relevant to your claims, in which case I hope I can be instructive. The second (and more dangerous) is that you are aware of these issues; and you're ignoring them. In which case one has every right to question the fundamental motivations of why you are making such a claim. I will assume the first, because of the following:
Adam Ragusea has spoken a little about tricks of the trade - little pieces of jargon or ways of framing arguments that people skilled in a specific area use which tells other people in that specific area they are of the same club; and establishing that they are using credible techniques that people outside the club won’t necessarily follow. For those of us who do a little (or a lot) in economics, one of these is addressing the issue of '[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogeneity_(econometrics)]endogeneity[/url]'. This is not an issue discussed to a tremendous degree outside of economics or econometrics, but it is hugely important to understand and grapple within this discussion.
So, why is endogeneity important? There are a number of reasons, but my favorite example is this example, in the AMA by [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzk5q1n/]Jordan Petersen[/url]. By reducing the analysis of the Gender Wage Gap to "choices", Petersen is making a fundamental error of forgetting that the choices women make are not made in a vacuum - they [i]reflect [/i] existing frictions and conditions in the economy itself. To clarify, If women or racial minorities credibly believe that they'll be discriminated against in terms of wages or performance evaluation (of which a significant amount of experimental evidence exists; see examples like this Goldin paper [url=https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians]here[/url], or [url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4908229_An_Experimental_Investigation_of_Sexual_Discrimination_in_Hiring_in_the_English_Labor_Market]this[/url], [url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1981.tb01234.x]this[/url], and [url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698]here[/url]- there is also significant evidence of name-based and race discrimination; with the most famous example [url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873]here[/url]; and a "fun" modern example of racial interactions with police in America found [url=https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf]here[/url]), their “choice” is no longer a true reflection of natural market forces - it’s a forced choice influenced by other factors you have to account for; and knowing which way the causation goes is [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_genderwagegap#wiki_bad_controls]difficult[/url]. If this point is a little too theoretical, then see the examples by [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkagns/]wumbotarian[/url] and [url=https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkrzz4/]integralds[/url] In the same Reddit thread. You could also watch Ben Lambert’s video on the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLI-0pK9MD8]topic[/url].
So, the point here is that if you don't address endogeneity you have a real problem in using that data to support your argument; especially if there is a reasonable belief your assumptions are prone to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omitted-variable_bias]omitted-variable bias[/url]. So, what possible omitted variable bias problems could exist in simply looking at issues like African-American fatherhood or racial disparities in crime; or any general assessment of minority outcomes in America? Of course, there are [i]a lot[/i] of possibilities, so let's focus on one example of structural racism in America; and one that carries significant[url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/01/11/raj-chetty-in-14-charts-big-findings-on-opportunity-and-mobility-we-should-know/] intergenerational wealth[/url]; [url=https://www.vox.com/2019/8/15/20801907/raj-chetty-ezra-klein-social-mobility-opportunity]income[/url],[url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w21156]social mobility [/url]and well ... [i]everything[/i] impacts.
[i][b][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining]Redlining.[/url][/b]
[/i]
I think the Wikipedia article does a good enough job of explaining what redlining is, so I’ll focus on the impacts. Taking the summary, we can see at its most basic redlining was a series of policies occurring at every level of the American government to disenfranchise specific communities of access to certain services and resources. So, it pretty clearly ticks the “systemic” box. Given it targeted primarily minorities, I'd argue it ticks the "racism" box too.
It should come as no surprise that redlining therefore hurts the welfare of "Black America" (and other minorities) by denying access to housing and living in "good" neighborhoods. Denying services and support lowers the value of property; which has obvious consequences on wealth. It occurred at [url=https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853?tag=teamfortresst-20]all[/url] levels of government; and was clearly [url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jrlaff24&div=17&id=&page=] targeted[/url] at minority communities, especially African-Americans; leading to significant losses in African-American [url=https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/working-papers/2017/wp2017-12-pdf.pdf]wealth[/url]. A key point in time with which this was observable was the [url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q1xrc2]Great Migration[/url] where African-American families left the South of America at the end of the Jim Crow era to migrate North, in search of a better future. Which was … curiously followed by an [url=https://voxeu.org/article/how-segregated-housing-eroded-wealth-black-families]increase[/url] in residential segregation in Northern American cities, with exactly the type of effects you would [url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w25805]expect[/url].
/continuing in the next post because of the character limit …
/continuing on
The first attempts of African-American communities to emigrate in search of a better future for their families and their culture and their identity to a supposed environment that politically fought to end segregation; only to immediately be subjected to new segregated policies - redlining. Instead of taking my words for it, why not take a look at redlining maps yourself?. Or better yet, as a few people have suggested on twitter, you could combine it with google street view, and see the real-world current impacts of this policy firsthand. The referenced twitter post is quite correct - the impacts of redlining are immediately apparent once you can actually see the images. The line may be metaphorically invisible, but the impacts are not.
Of course, looking at housing and neighborhoods just as an indicator of wealth or income and thus the potential consequences of redlining isn't enough. We should be seeking to dig deeper if possible - and to some degree, we can. Housing is about the community you live in, and it shapes almost every facet of your behaviour. It's about the schools your children attend. It's about the sense of safety and freedom from crime that exists (I'm not going to link papers because it seems everyone agrees on this; and it's fairly obvious. It is also about the learned behaviours and routines you observe; which have vast impacts on everything from marriage to fertility rates, for both children (see previous, also this) and adults. Deny a social underclass the ability to move up in the world both in terms of economic justice and access to better quality neighbourhoods; and you lock them into a cycle of comparative disadvantage that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests can last over generations - an analysis that holds up both within neighbourhoods, and between counties. And these effects linger (see here again).They’re not a once-off control - living in better neighborhoods and all of the advantages they afford is a key part of inequality and wealth concentration in the United States of America to this day. Some have even suggested it’s the major driver for r > g inequality concerns in America, owing to Housing’s tremendous return on investment.
Which, in the words of a dear friend of mine who is dangerously close to finishing his Ph.D. on Roman History, is “Pretty fucking appropriate. Two Millennia later, and it’s still about land, eh?” Or, to reword a phrase from one of my favourite Science-Fiction series: “Control the housing, Control the universe”.
So, let's go back to issues of endogeneity. Redlining does appear to be clear example of structural racism, something that can’t be fought effectively through the individual agency of any one person; but especially those living in areas disadvantaged by it. It requires systemic change and institutional reform see: the entire career of Daron Acemoglu + James Robinson on extractive and inclusive institutions, otherwise, there will be no change. Hell, there's even comparatively "new" work by economists such as Treyvon D Logan investigating the role of more "Black inclusiveness" in political institutions and the impact it has had on African-American outcomes during the reconstruction period - here. With that in mind, the flaws of focusing on conditions such as minority on minority crime as a solution to societal ills without considering this big, overwhelming structural context becomes very clear. It is not unreasonable to consider outcomes are strongly influenced by a legacy of policies which discriminate against minority communities in America in terms of one of the most important (if not the most important) factor on their future success and life direction - that of the land they develop in?
To conclude, I would suggest consuming resources from people who aren't considering these matters in their analysis; subjecting their papers to academic review at some of the world's best journals might introduce a bias that's gone unchecked into one’s analysis, This is why the use of crime statistics or fatherhood statistics alone misses a significant degree of analytical depth and can lead to biased conclusions.
____
On a few side notes, "Not an argument" is an intellectual trap. Not only does it assume a degree of combativeness, it devalues factual claims which provide support for an argument without explicitly outlining an argument - e.g.: there aforementioned evidence for the existence of structural racism in America through housing policy; and that it is mostly targeted at African-American communities implies White America has profited at the expense of African Americans, even if it does not in itself make that argument. Overuse of "not an argument" is, however, a very credible indicator that you spend more time consuming the arguments of Stephan Molyneux (no publications, no academic expertise, no specialized training or technical knowledge, no study of or implementation of policy-relevant to the debate) in comparison to somebody like Raj Chetty (who has done ... all of those things; many links of which are in this two-part post).
A lot of people make these types of errors in internet discourse, in every "sphere" of politics. Certain people get away with it more because they have opinions people upvote on the internet more (refer to the Democratic primaries). The internet is a bubble, twitter is an even more insulated bubble (internet forums being one of the most insular bubbles of all) and one would do well to consider the world outside it more often.
Anyhow, when people ask me why I want to have as little to do with the TF2 community as possible these days, this thread will be a good example. For fucks sakes, try and be better..
/continuing on
The first attempts of African-American communities to emigrate in search of a better future for their families and their culture and their identity to a supposed environment that politically fought to end segregation; only to immediately be subjected to new segregated policies - redlining. Instead of taking my words for it, why not take a look at redlining maps [url=https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=11/40.015/-75.315&city=philadelphia-pa&text=intro]yourself?[/url]. Or better yet, as a few people have suggested on twitter, you could combine it with google street view, and see the real-world current impacts of this policy [url=https://twitter.com/DavidSDev1/status/1267986861806555137]firsthand.[/url] The referenced twitter post is quite correct - the impacts of redlining are immediately apparent once you can actually see the images. The line may be metaphorically invisible, but the impacts are not.
Of course, looking at housing and neighborhoods just as an indicator of wealth or income and thus the potential consequences of redlining isn't enough. We should be seeking to dig deeper if possible - and to some degree, we can. Housing is about the community you live in, and it shapes almost every facet of your behaviour. It's about the [url=https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/jan18soefeature.pdf]schools[/url] [url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4494971?seq=1]your [/url][url=https://voxeu.org/article/public-education-and-intergenerational-mobility]children [/url]attend. It's about the sense of safety and freedom from crime that exists (I'm not going to link papers because it seems everyone agrees on this; and it's fairly obvious. It is also about the learned behaviours and routines you observe; which have vast impacts on [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/nbhds_paper.pdf]everything[/url] from marriage to fertility rates, for both children (see previous, also [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/chk_aer_mto_0416.pdf]this[/url]) and [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/lkatz/publications/experimental-analysis-neighborhood-effects]adults[/url]. Deny a social underclass the ability to move up in the world both in terms of economic justice and access to better quality neighbourhoods; and you lock them into a cycle of comparative disadvantage that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests [url=https://www.vox.com/2019/8/15/20801907/raj-chetty-ezra-klein-social-mobility-opportunity]can last over generations[/url] - an analysis that holds up both within neighbourhoods, and [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/movers_paper2_vinterim.pdf]between counties[/url]. And these effects linger (see [url=https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/3/1107/4850660]here[/url] again).They’re not a once-off control - living in better neighborhoods and all of the advantages they afford is a key part of inequality and wealth concentration in the United States of America [url=https://www.brookings.edu/book/dream-hoarders/]to this day[/url]. Some have even suggested it’s [url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_rognlie.pdf]the[/url] major driver for r > g inequality concerns in America, owing to Housing’s tremendous return on investment.
Which, in the words of a dear friend of mine who is dangerously close to finishing his Ph.D. on Roman History, is “Pretty fucking appropriate. Two Millennia later, and it’s [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_the_Roman_republic]still[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi]about[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar]land[/url], eh?” Or, to reword a phrase from one of my favourite Science-Fiction series: “[i]Control the housing, Control the universe[/i]”.
So, let's go back to issues of endogeneity. Redlining does appear to be clear example of structural racism, something that can’t be fought effectively through the individual agency of any one person; but especially those living in areas disadvantaged by it. It requires systemic change and institutional reform see: the entire [url=https://www.amazon.com.au/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227?tag=teamfortresst-20]career [/url] of Daron Acemoglu + James Robinson on extractive and inclusive institutions, otherwise, there will be no change. Hell, there's even comparatively "new" work by economists such as Treyvon D Logan investigating the role of more "Black inclusiveness" in political institutions and the impact it has had on African-American outcomes during the reconstruction period - [url=http://econweb.umd.edu/~davis/eventpapers./LoganPoliticians.pdf]here[/url]. With that in mind, the flaws of focusing on conditions such as minority on minority crime as a solution to societal ills without considering this big, overwhelming structural context becomes very clear. It is not unreasonable to consider outcomes are strongly influenced by a legacy of policies which discriminate against minority communities in America in terms of one of the most important (if not the most important) factor on their future success and life direction - that of the land they develop in?
To conclude, I would suggest consuming resources from people who aren't considering these matters in their analysis; subjecting their papers to academic review at some of the world's best journals might introduce a bias that's gone unchecked into one’s analysis, This is why the use of crime statistics or fatherhood statistics alone misses a significant degree of analytical depth and can lead to biased conclusions.
____
On a few side notes, "Not an argument" is an intellectual trap. Not only does it assume a degree of combativeness, it devalues factual claims which provide support for an argument without explicitly outlining an argument - e.g.: there aforementioned evidence for the existence of structural racism in America through housing policy; and that it is mostly targeted at African-American communities implies White America has profited at the expense of African Americans, even if it does not in itself make that argument. Overuse of "not an argument" is, however, a very credible indicator that you spend more time consuming the arguments of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux]Stephan Molyneux[/url] (no publications, no academic expertise, no specialized training or technical knowledge, no study of or implementation of policy-relevant to the debate) in comparison to somebody like [url=http://www.rajchetty.com/]Raj Chetty[/url] (who has done ... all of those things; many links of which are in this two-part post).
A lot of people make these types of errors in internet discourse, in every "sphere" of politics. Certain people get away with it more because they have opinions people upvote on the internet more (refer to the Democratic primaries). The internet is a bubble, twitter is an even more insulated bubble (internet forums being one of the most insular bubbles of all) and one would do well to consider the world outside it more often.
Anyhow, when people ask me why I want to have as little to do with the TF2 community as possible these days, this thread will be a good example. For fucks sakes, try and be [b]better.[/b].
The first attempts of African-American communities to emigrate in search of a better future for their families and their culture and their identity to a supposed environment that politically fought to end segregation; only to immediately be subjected to new segregated policies - redlining. Instead of taking my words for it, why not take a look at redlining maps [url=https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=11/40.015/-75.315&city=philadelphia-pa&text=intro]yourself?[/url]. Or better yet, as a few people have suggested on twitter, you could combine it with google street view, and see the real-world current impacts of this policy [url=https://twitter.com/DavidSDev1/status/1267986861806555137]firsthand.[/url] The referenced twitter post is quite correct - the impacts of redlining are immediately apparent once you can actually see the images. The line may be metaphorically invisible, but the impacts are not.
Of course, looking at housing and neighborhoods just as an indicator of wealth or income and thus the potential consequences of redlining isn't enough. We should be seeking to dig deeper if possible - and to some degree, we can. Housing is about the community you live in, and it shapes almost every facet of your behaviour. It's about the [url=https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/jan18soefeature.pdf]schools[/url] [url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4494971?seq=1]your [/url][url=https://voxeu.org/article/public-education-and-intergenerational-mobility]children [/url]attend. It's about the sense of safety and freedom from crime that exists (I'm not going to link papers because it seems everyone agrees on this; and it's fairly obvious. It is also about the learned behaviours and routines you observe; which have vast impacts on [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/nbhds_paper.pdf]everything[/url] from marriage to fertility rates, for both children (see previous, also [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/chk_aer_mto_0416.pdf]this[/url]) and [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/lkatz/publications/experimental-analysis-neighborhood-effects]adults[/url]. Deny a social underclass the ability to move up in the world both in terms of economic justice and access to better quality neighbourhoods; and you lock them into a cycle of comparative disadvantage that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests [url=https://www.vox.com/2019/8/15/20801907/raj-chetty-ezra-klein-social-mobility-opportunity]can last over generations[/url] - an analysis that holds up both within neighbourhoods, and [url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/movers_paper2_vinterim.pdf]between counties[/url]. And these effects linger (see [url=https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/3/1107/4850660]here[/url] again).They’re not a once-off control - living in better neighborhoods and all of the advantages they afford is a key part of inequality and wealth concentration in the United States of America [url=https://www.brookings.edu/book/dream-hoarders/]to this day[/url]. Some have even suggested it’s [url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_rognlie.pdf]the[/url] major driver for r > g inequality concerns in America, owing to Housing’s tremendous return on investment.
Which, in the words of a dear friend of mine who is dangerously close to finishing his Ph.D. on Roman History, is “Pretty fucking appropriate. Two Millennia later, and it’s [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_the_Roman_republic]still[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi]about[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar]land[/url], eh?” Or, to reword a phrase from one of my favourite Science-Fiction series: “[i]Control the housing, Control the universe[/i]”.
So, let's go back to issues of endogeneity. Redlining does appear to be clear example of structural racism, something that can’t be fought effectively through the individual agency of any one person; but especially those living in areas disadvantaged by it. It requires systemic change and institutional reform see: the entire [url=https://www.amazon.com.au/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227?tag=teamfortresst-20]career [/url] of Daron Acemoglu + James Robinson on extractive and inclusive institutions, otherwise, there will be no change. Hell, there's even comparatively "new" work by economists such as Treyvon D Logan investigating the role of more "Black inclusiveness" in political institutions and the impact it has had on African-American outcomes during the reconstruction period - [url=http://econweb.umd.edu/~davis/eventpapers./LoganPoliticians.pdf]here[/url]. With that in mind, the flaws of focusing on conditions such as minority on minority crime as a solution to societal ills without considering this big, overwhelming structural context becomes very clear. It is not unreasonable to consider outcomes are strongly influenced by a legacy of policies which discriminate against minority communities in America in terms of one of the most important (if not the most important) factor on their future success and life direction - that of the land they develop in?
To conclude, I would suggest consuming resources from people who aren't considering these matters in their analysis; subjecting their papers to academic review at some of the world's best journals might introduce a bias that's gone unchecked into one’s analysis, This is why the use of crime statistics or fatherhood statistics alone misses a significant degree of analytical depth and can lead to biased conclusions.
____
On a few side notes, "Not an argument" is an intellectual trap. Not only does it assume a degree of combativeness, it devalues factual claims which provide support for an argument without explicitly outlining an argument - e.g.: there aforementioned evidence for the existence of structural racism in America through housing policy; and that it is mostly targeted at African-American communities implies White America has profited at the expense of African Americans, even if it does not in itself make that argument. Overuse of "not an argument" is, however, a very credible indicator that you spend more time consuming the arguments of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux]Stephan Molyneux[/url] (no publications, no academic expertise, no specialized training or technical knowledge, no study of or implementation of policy-relevant to the debate) in comparison to somebody like [url=http://www.rajchetty.com/]Raj Chetty[/url] (who has done ... all of those things; many links of which are in this two-part post).
A lot of people make these types of errors in internet discourse, in every "sphere" of politics. Certain people get away with it more because they have opinions people upvote on the internet more (refer to the Democratic primaries). The internet is a bubble, twitter is an even more insulated bubble (internet forums being one of the most insular bubbles of all) and one would do well to consider the world outside it more often.
Anyhow, when people ask me why I want to have as little to do with the TF2 community as possible these days, this thread will be a good example. For fucks sakes, try and be [b]better.[/b].
HaXxorIzedNerd essay
Do you really expect anyone to read all of this, get acknowledged with the 50 different sources and links you gave here and reply to you? This is not your dissertation thesis, this is an online discussion, so if you want to, present a conherent and concise argument and say why each study he linked is wrong instead of gish galloping all over the place in an effort to overwhelm the reader. Your point could've been presented in a single paragraph.
[quote=HaXxorIzed]Nerd essay[/quote]
Do you really expect anyone to read all of this, get acknowledged with the 50 different sources and links you gave here and reply to you? This is not your dissertation thesis, this is an online discussion, so if you want to, present a conherent and concise argument and say why each study he linked is wrong instead of gish galloping all over the place in an effort to overwhelm the reader. Your point could've been presented in a single paragraph.
Do you really expect anyone to read all of this, get acknowledged with the 50 different sources and links you gave here and reply to you? This is not your dissertation thesis, this is an online discussion, so if you want to, present a conherent and concise argument and say why each study he linked is wrong instead of gish galloping all over the place in an effort to overwhelm the reader. Your point could've been presented in a single paragraph.
You cant gish gallop in text you moron. You have infinite time to respond to each point.
You cant gish gallop in text you moron. You have infinite time to respond to each point.
The problem with your attempt to portray this as a gish gallop is twofold.
- There are really two ideas being discussed - the issue of Endogeneity confounding 'basic' statistical analysis that doesn't adjust for it, and then establishing how the idea of Redlining is just an example of an omitted variable (source of bias) that means the analysis being offered in this thread is flawed if it doesn't consider it The topic sentences establish this; and the structure through the piece.
- If you intend to make sweeping judgments on the behaviour and motivations behind large groups of human beings, you are making an overwhelming claim. The evidence and analysis you use for that claim should reflect the scope, breadth, and depth of it.
I would also add that something like Endogeneity isn't fair to discuss in just a few paragraphs and without developing an example. It is a weird topic and it isn't discussed a lot outside of the field, and I would feel I was acting in very bad faith if I didn't risk overexplaining it than not covering it in enough detail.
Anyway, if I was writing a dissertation I'd use latex. Formatting is more fun there!
The problem with your attempt to portray this as a gish gallop is twofold.
[olist]
[*] There are really two ideas being discussed - the issue of Endogeneity confounding 'basic' statistical analysis that doesn't adjust for it, and then establishing how the idea of Redlining is just an example of an omitted variable (source of bias) that means the analysis being offered in this thread is flawed if it doesn't consider it The topic sentences establish this; and the structure through the piece.
[*] If you intend to make sweeping judgments on the behaviour and motivations behind large groups of human beings, you are making an [i]overwhelming [/i]claim. The evidence and analysis you use for that claim should reflect the scope, breadth, and depth of it.
[/olist]
I would also add that something like Endogeneity isn't fair to discuss in just a few paragraphs and without developing an example. It is a weird topic and it isn't discussed a lot outside of the field, and I would feel I was acting in very bad faith if I didn't risk overexplaining it than not covering it in enough detail.
Anyway, if I was writing a dissertation I'd use latex. Formatting is more fun there!
[olist]
[*] There are really two ideas being discussed - the issue of Endogeneity confounding 'basic' statistical analysis that doesn't adjust for it, and then establishing how the idea of Redlining is just an example of an omitted variable (source of bias) that means the analysis being offered in this thread is flawed if it doesn't consider it The topic sentences establish this; and the structure through the piece.
[*] If you intend to make sweeping judgments on the behaviour and motivations behind large groups of human beings, you are making an [i]overwhelming [/i]claim. The evidence and analysis you use for that claim should reflect the scope, breadth, and depth of it.
[/olist]
I would also add that something like Endogeneity isn't fair to discuss in just a few paragraphs and without developing an example. It is a weird topic and it isn't discussed a lot outside of the field, and I would feel I was acting in very bad faith if I didn't risk overexplaining it than not covering it in enough detail.
Anyway, if I was writing a dissertation I'd use latex. Formatting is more fun there!
Tino_You cant gish gallop in text you moron. You have infinite time to respond to each point.
The essence of gish gallop is overwhelming the opponent with countless arguments and information you braindead leaf, there is no universal definition for this term.
HaXxorIzedThe problem with your attempt to portray this as a gish gallop is twofold.
- There are really two ideas being discussed - the issue of Endogeneity confounding 'basic' statistical analysis that doesn't adjust for it; and then establishing how the idea of Redlining is just an example of an omitted variable (source of bias) that means the analysis being offered in this thread is flawed if it doesn't consider it The topic sentences establish this quite clearly.
- If you intend to make sweeping judgments on the behaviour and motivations behind large groups of human beings, you are making an overwhelming claim. The evidence and analysis you use for that claim should reflect the scope, breadth, and depth of it.
Anyway, if I was writing a dissertation I'd use latex. Formatting is more fun there!
He linked like three studies. Say what you mean in three paragraphs if you want to be verbose. You raise two issues, but support each of these issues with a total of 40 links, quoting your friend, put in some personal thoughts, find space to be patronizing every second sentence, the structure is also all over the place. This is completely incoherent. For the record, I do not question the validity of what you said, just the dishonest format and mannerism you chose.
[quote=Tino_]You cant gish gallop in text you moron. You have infinite time to respond to each point.[/quote]
The essence of gish gallop is overwhelming the opponent with countless arguments and information you braindead leaf, there is no universal definition for this term.
[quote=HaXxorIzed]The problem with your attempt to portray this as a gish gallop is twofold.
[olist]
[*] There are really two ideas being discussed - the issue of Endogeneity confounding 'basic' statistical analysis that doesn't adjust for it; and then establishing how the idea of Redlining is just an example of an omitted variable (source of bias) that means the analysis being offered in this thread is flawed if it doesn't consider it The topic sentences establish this quite clearly.
[*] If you intend to make sweeping judgments on the behaviour and motivations behind large groups of human beings, you are making an [i]overwhelming [/i]claim. The evidence and analysis you use for that claim should reflect the scope, breadth, and depth of it.
[/olist]
Anyway, if I was writing a dissertation I'd use latex. Formatting is more fun there![/quote]
He linked like three studies. Say what you mean in three paragraphs if you want to be verbose. You raise two issues, but support each of these issues with a total of 40 links, quoting your friend, put in some personal thoughts, find space to be patronizing every second sentence, the structure is also all over the place. This is completely incoherent. For the record, I do not question the validity of what you said, just the dishonest format and mannerism you chose.
The essence of gish gallop is overwhelming the opponent with countless arguments and information you braindead leaf, there is no universal definition for this term.
[quote=HaXxorIzed]The problem with your attempt to portray this as a gish gallop is twofold.
[olist]
[*] There are really two ideas being discussed - the issue of Endogeneity confounding 'basic' statistical analysis that doesn't adjust for it; and then establishing how the idea of Redlining is just an example of an omitted variable (source of bias) that means the analysis being offered in this thread is flawed if it doesn't consider it The topic sentences establish this quite clearly.
[*] If you intend to make sweeping judgments on the behaviour and motivations behind large groups of human beings, you are making an [i]overwhelming [/i]claim. The evidence and analysis you use for that claim should reflect the scope, breadth, and depth of it.
[/olist]
Anyway, if I was writing a dissertation I'd use latex. Formatting is more fun there![/quote]
He linked like three studies. Say what you mean in three paragraphs if you want to be verbose. You raise two issues, but support each of these issues with a total of 40 links, quoting your friend, put in some personal thoughts, find space to be patronizing every second sentence, the structure is also all over the place. This is completely incoherent. For the record, I do not question the validity of what you said, just the dishonest format and mannerism you chose.
Doom1HaXxorIzedNerd essayDo you really expect anyone to read all of this, get acknowledged with the 50 different sources and links you gave here and reply to you? This is not your dissertation thesis, this is an online discussion, so if you want to, present a conherent and concise argument and say why each study he linked is wrong instead of gish galloping all over the place in an effort to overwhelm the reader. Your point could've been presented in a single paragraph.
the cunt did all the work for you in a presetable way with tons of fucking links and line breaks so u can be on the same wavelength and argue from an equal standpoint.
literally got painted a picture and you're mad they used a brush
[quote=Doom1][quote=HaXxorIzed]Nerd essay[/quote]
Do you really expect anyone to read all of this, get acknowledged with the 50 different sources and links you gave here and reply to you? This is not your dissertation thesis, this is an online discussion, so if you want to, present a conherent and concise argument and say why each study he linked is wrong instead of gish galloping all over the place in an effort to overwhelm the reader. Your point could've been presented in a single paragraph.[/quote]
the cunt did all the work for you in a presetable way with tons of fucking links and line breaks so u can be on the same wavelength and argue from an equal standpoint.
literally got painted a picture and you're mad they used a brush
Do you really expect anyone to read all of this, get acknowledged with the 50 different sources and links you gave here and reply to you? This is not your dissertation thesis, this is an online discussion, so if you want to, present a conherent and concise argument and say why each study he linked is wrong instead of gish galloping all over the place in an effort to overwhelm the reader. Your point could've been presented in a single paragraph.[/quote]
the cunt did all the work for you in a presetable way with tons of fucking links and line breaks so u can be on the same wavelength and argue from an equal standpoint.
literally got painted a picture and you're mad they used a brush
In just a single sentence, in one of the fifteen chaotic paragraphs, he linked 100 pages of research, half of which is behind a paywall. Please explain to me how is this presentable in the format of an online discussion.
In just a single sentence, in one of the fifteen chaotic paragraphs, he linked 100 pages of research, half of which is behind a paywall. Please explain to me how is this presentable in the format of an online discussion.
[img] https://i.chzbgr.com/full/9405027328/h2B4AAF6A/gone-97-by-time-she-turns-40-so-hope-she-thinks-about-having-kids-before-s-too-late-shed-be-fun-mom[/img]
tamboTHEBILLDOZERi thought it was common knowledge that tambo was like thisAt least I am "like" something and don't sit idly by, not even attempting to discuss the difficult shit like everyone else.
People "like" you stand for nothing, and when you do it's cause somebody told you to.
literally everyone that has ever spoken to me would say i support things that are controversial. Maybe not to your level, but i also make a point to not shit where i eat.
[quote=tambo][quote=THEBILLDOZER]i thought it was common knowledge that tambo was like this[/quote]
At least I am "like" something and don't sit idly by, not even attempting to discuss the difficult shit like everyone else.
People "like" you stand for nothing, and when you do it's cause somebody told you to.[/quote]
literally everyone that has ever spoken to me would say i support things that are controversial. Maybe not to your level, but i also make a point to not shit where i eat.
At least I am "like" something and don't sit idly by, not even attempting to discuss the difficult shit like everyone else.
People "like" you stand for nothing, and when you do it's cause somebody told you to.[/quote]
literally everyone that has ever spoken to me would say i support things that are controversial. Maybe not to your level, but i also make a point to not shit where i eat.
THEBILLDOZERtamboliterally everyone that has ever spoken to me would say i support things that are controversial. Maybe not to your level, but i also make a point to not shit where i eat.THEBILLDOZERi thought it was common knowledge that tambo was like thisAt least I am "like" something and don't sit idly by, not even attempting to discuss the difficult shit like everyone else.
People "like" you stand for nothing, and when you do it's cause somebody told you to.
THEBILLDOZER is hl mencken
[quote=THEBILLDOZER][quote=tambo][quote=THEBILLDOZER]i thought it was common knowledge that tambo was like this[/quote]
At least I am "like" something and don't sit idly by, not even attempting to discuss the difficult shit like everyone else.
People "like" you stand for nothing, and when you do it's cause somebody told you to.[/quote]
literally everyone that has ever spoken to me would say i support things that are controversial. Maybe not to your level, but i also make a point to not shit where i eat.[/quote]
THEBILLDOZER is hl mencken
At least I am "like" something and don't sit idly by, not even attempting to discuss the difficult shit like everyone else.
People "like" you stand for nothing, and when you do it's cause somebody told you to.[/quote]
literally everyone that has ever spoken to me would say i support things that are controversial. Maybe not to your level, but i also make a point to not shit where i eat.[/quote]
THEBILLDOZER is hl mencken
Doom1In just a single sentence, in one of the fifteen chaotic paragraphs, he linked 100 pages of research, half of which is behind a paywall. Please explain to me how is this presentable in the format of an online discussion.
this is the first time ive seen someone complain that the opposition has too much evidence
[quote=Doom1]In just a single sentence, in one of the fifteen chaotic paragraphs, he linked 100 pages of research, half of which is behind a paywall. Please explain to me how is this presentable in the format of an online discussion.[/quote]
this is the first time ive seen someone complain that the opposition has too much evidence
this is the first time ive seen someone complain that the opposition has too much evidence
Here's my theory on why Derek chauvin killed George Floyd.
Chauvin's now ex wife is from Laos, so considering he is also a cop, chances are he is your typical small pp'd yellowfevercel. About a year ago Chauvin and Floyd worked at a club together, a relatively raunchy environment where Floyd's career in amateur pornography is pretty likely to come up. If you watch the video he is featured in, his performance was absolutely stellar and certainly would've dug itself deep into chauvin's psyche if he were to see it. Chauvin killed floyd in a manner that can't be reduced to simply the use of unnecessary force. He clearly wanted to make Floyd suffer as a means of proving his own superiority. Derek chauvin killed George Floyd because he was afraid of getting cucked.
Here's my theory on why Derek chauvin killed George Floyd.
Chauvin's now ex wife is from Laos, so considering he is also a cop, chances are he is your typical small pp'd yellowfevercel. About a year ago Chauvin and Floyd worked at a club together, a relatively raunchy environment where Floyd's career in amateur pornography is pretty likely to come up. If you watch the video he is featured in, his performance was absolutely stellar and certainly would've dug itself deep into chauvin's psyche if he were to see it. Chauvin killed floyd in a manner that can't be reduced to simply the use of unnecessary force. He clearly wanted to make Floyd suffer as a means of proving his own superiority. Derek chauvin killed George Floyd because he was afraid of getting cucked.
Chauvin's now ex wife is from Laos, so considering he is also a cop, chances are he is your typical small pp'd yellowfevercel. About a year ago Chauvin and Floyd worked at a club together, a relatively raunchy environment where Floyd's career in amateur pornography is pretty likely to come up. If you watch the video he is featured in, his performance was absolutely stellar and certainly would've dug itself deep into chauvin's psyche if he were to see it. Chauvin killed floyd in a manner that can't be reduced to simply the use of unnecessary force. He clearly wanted to make Floyd suffer as a means of proving his own superiority. Derek chauvin killed George Floyd because he was afraid of getting cucked.
This thread has been locked.