Forum - View topicINTEREST: Otaku On the Receiving End of GOP Strategist's Trump Supporter Insult
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GVman
 Posts: 729 |
|
|||||
Genocyber 2! Baoh 2! Nothing is impossible for the Trumpapuss!
I hope you at least got the one about women not pooping. |
||||||
|
||||||
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||||
It DOES make me think of the Chinese Exclusion Act, however, which was popular at the time, and passed both the House and Senate. Fortunately, Rutherford Hayes vetoed it as one of his last actions as president. Now, I am not against blocking people from coming into the United States. If someone is on the FBI's list of confirmed al-Qaeda operatives and is trying to get in, sure, by all means don't let them in. That drug lord in Mexico who keeps getting out of maximum security prisons? I don't wan't him running loose in my country. But to me, it reeks of bigotry to stereotype, then exclude all Muslims and Mexicans from entering the country because they happen to be in the same group as a few very bad eggs. You might as well block everyone from entering, because every religion has its violent nutcases and every country has its troublemaking criminals. |
||||||
|
||||||
yuna49
 Posts: 3804 |
|
|||||
In Blood+ we see the representatives of the chiroptera negotiating with Bush Administration officials, one of whom is clearly Condolezza Rice. In The Legend of Koizumi, W. rides around on a Segway and sleeps with the shoe that was thrown at him in Iraq. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11365 |
|
|||||
You must've missed the dust-up over this Bush ad. Why does it seem to be only Republicans who use anime to insult their opponents? Are they secret otaku who know anime exists, while the Democrats assume all cartoons are made in America and are only watched by people too young to vote? |
||||||
|
||||||
Chrno2
 Posts: 6171 Location: USA |
|
|||||
|
Bravo. (slow clap) to the idiot from the political "left" of things attacking otaku, and associating them with Trump.
I tell you politicians are an embarrassment especially when they start trying to sound so "hip". They're nothing more than a bunch of career politicians and war mongers no matter what side of the fence they're on. I'll be waiting for the community to go in on this guy. He's just as bad as the social media sites attacking gamers. I'll say this, how about sticking to politics jacka$$, y'know actual issues and stop being a goddamn a$$hole on matters you don't understand. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11365 |
|
|||||
|
^ So Republicans are on the "left side of things" now? The political landscape is even worse than I imagined...
|
||||||
|
||||||
Parse Error
 Posts: 592 |
|
|||||
I'm not sure which specific one they were referring to, but the surveys used in the studies I've seen read pretty much like this: Are Republicans responsible for this bad thing? Yes (Well-Informed) / No (Misinformed) Are Republicans responsible for this good thing? Yes (Misinformed) / No (Well-Informed) Are Democrats responsible for this bad thing? Yes (Misinformed) / No (Well-Informed) Are Democrats responsible for this good thing? Yes (Well-Informed) / No (Misinformed) Obviously, the demographic that watches Fox News would answer those questions the same way no matter what news they got or where they got it from. Even if what they intend to prove about the content on the network is true, those particular studies don't measure what they claim to. All they actually indicate is the proportion of right-wing partisans in each network's audience. As for the topic at hand, I just find it hilarious to hear anyone in his position talk about people masturbating to anime. When I was a teenager, hardly anyone else even knew what anime was, but now the topic is even being mentioned in a presidential race. |
||||||
|
||||||
zrnzle500
 Posts: 3767 |
|
|||||
Here's the study I referred to so everyone can evaluate what bias it may have or not. I looking at the study itself I may have understates how shitty news is at informing people. Fox News did the worst answering with 1.04 out of 5 questions answered correctly but the best only did like 1.5, a significant difference and less than no news but still shitty. I didn't look at the questions yet but I believe they are different from the ones you mentioned. Also you are somewhat misrepresenting the studies you mentioned. Those had similar questions aimed at drawing out misinformed left wing partisans too. I don't remember the relative results of left and right wing partisans but I believe both fell for what they believed was true but wasn't. Those studies were to see if people only take in facts that match with their beliefs, which has been shown plenty of times and in non political setting as well I believe. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
BadNewsBlues
Posts: 5931 |
|
|||||
I can't understand while people keep insisting upon this while casually ignoring that conservative news outlets like Fox News which gets higher ratings than MSNBC is far more infamous for this. Also you spelled Bernie's name wrong.... [quote="relyat08"] I would take a study like that with less than a grain of salt. Not trying to really defend Fox News, but there is no way that study wasn't full of all kinds of bias.[/quote Considering that Fox News does nothing but engage in race baiting and outright lying you can understand if it might seem biased but not outright wrong. |
||||||
|
||||||
Lili-Hime
 Posts: 569 |
|
|||||
Idk my stepdad refuses to believe me or my sisters fart does that count? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Parse Error
Posts: 592 |
|
|||||
That one was indeed better than the ones I'm familiar with, but still has some flaws, for example:
They did not specify which figures, so people who do not like the current administration would be likely to provide the U-5 or even U-6 rate, rather than the U-3 one that would be counted as "correct," even though technically most of the responses they received should have been acceptable. Still, it should be noted that overall, MSNBC fared barely any better than Fox News, ranking below "No News" on international matters and just a smidgen above on domestic ones. However, Liberals watching MSNBC did fairly well, while Conservatives watching exactly the same thing did dramatically worse than the ones watching Fox News, and the results were similar for Liberals watching Fox News. Unfortunately, they only charted ideological breakdowns for the worst performers, which in addition to leaving me curious about that missing data, makes me a bit suspicious of their reasons for not including it. If, for example, Conservatives did little or no better on NPR than Fox News while Liberals did well enough to skew the average in its favor, this information would undermine their conclusion. One has to be very careful about these things.
People have stupid opinions about things they don't like (or are in the proverbial closet about liking) and the people who openly like them. They always have and always will, so please don't waste your life being outraged by it, there's nothing to gain. Besides, the odds are that thought only came to his mind because he faps to anime himself and is ashamed of doing so. Last edited by Parse Error on Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:03 pm; edited 3 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
zrnzle500
Posts: 3767 |
|
|||||
I think most people when you refer to U-5 and U-6 will say "there are six measures for unemployment?!" Technically speaking only U-3 is the official unemployment rate, so if someone asks "What is the unemployment rate?" you can assume it is U-3 unless otherwise specified. U-4 through U-6 include people who would not be counted because either they include people not included in the labor force like U-4 and U-5 or they include people that are employed just not full time for economic reasons like the U-6. Now those are close to the definition or at least something that the government wants to highlight in such statistics, but if you take out a economics textbook, U-3 is the only one that fits the definition. Also, while there may be some people who give the wrong answer because the cite the wrong unemployment statistic, but since most people are not even aware there is more than one, I suspect they get it wrong for other reasons. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Parse Error
Posts: 592 |
|
|||||
They did not mention anything about the official rate, only "figures." While most certainly don't know the specifics, and it definitely isn't my intent to criticize them as unique in cherry-picking whatever data best suits their views, I can absolutely assure you that many among the type of folks who watch Fox News are aware of something they view as the "real" or "true" unemployment rate whenever a Democrat is president. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
zrnzle500
Posts: 3767 |
|
|||||
Oh yeah, but that doesn't make it an acceptable answer. They are just grasping at straws since the official rate has gone down a lot, not all for good reasons or reasons conceivably under the control of economic policy albeit. If I remember correctly, those types didn't start mentioning other unemployment measures until the official one went down to a level where it was difficult to say there is a lot of unemployment. This is the sort of ideological misinformation or at least misleading information that the study is meant to catch. Now this doesn't mean there aren't problems in the labor market. Labor force participation rate has gone down for a while, though there is dispute how much is caused by structural factors (read a bunch of people getting old and retiring out of the labor force). Wage growth has been stagnant as well. The other unemployment measures are important but opponents citing of these figures is out of political positioning and not sincere concern for those in those measures. I mean these same types have been either pointing to highly volatile gas prices or basically making up their own inflation measures to try to say inflation is really high, when it has been very low by all official measures, in contravention to their repeated predictions that the Federal Reserves policies would cause big inflation. Not sure the same thing was said about other unemployment rates during Hillary's husband's presidency, as it would have made them look stupid as the economy both in growth and employment was doing really well. As I said in the previous post, unemployment is U-3 unless otherwise specified, so there is no need to specify that they mean U-3. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Parse Error
Posts: 592 |
|
|||||
I'm only interested in the surveys themselves, and even if I weren't, debating the actual issues asked about in them would horribly derail the thread. I understand your position, but mine is that people with a strong desire to give a certain answer will tend to interpret questions in whichever way permits them to do so, which needs to be taken into account when designing a questionnaire. In this case, simply taking the question at face value allowed for any known figure the respondent wished to use, without making them feel dishonest. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group