The Liberals Thread

[guruilla]

When this guy says it, he gets 10 million hits

I must be in the wrong place.

[slomo]

This question has been asked a few times, and it's always baffled me too: How on earth do the pollsters perform this racial profiling? I mean, what's the method? How do they acquire the information?

And I'm baffled as to how they manage to classify and categorise voters so cleanly. White / Black / Latino - and that's it.

It baffles me especially when most Americans I've met will happily tell you they have "Cherokee, Irish, Dutch and Spanish blood" or whatever. (And that includes most of the black Americans I know.)

Most demographic surveys ask you to self-identify, but severely limit your choices. If these polls were based on the typical methods, I would imagine they would be similar.

Ironically, I have seen data that conforms to your experience. For a class I teach, I use a data set from the 1960s. The first time I imported it and cleaned it up, I was aghast to find that race/ethnicity categories were much more detailed and specific for people that are lumped together simply as "white" today. My interpretation has always been that we have advanced somewhat since then, i.e. that perseverating over "Italian" vs. "Irish" is extremely retrograde.

In the opposite direction: about a year ago I found something very disturbing on GitHub: an API that would allow for authentication based on 23andMe data. The main example was a simple method to exclude access to anybody who was of insufficient European ancestry or anybody who was Ashkenaz. Hmmmm... who would have an interest in those criteria? It has since been removed.

[MacCruiskeen]

Thanks, slomo. Sometimes I suspect they just make make this shit up or manipulate it at will. Or, even more disturbingly, that the "voting" machines allow them to identify each voter uniquely. (Of course, both methods might be used simultaneously.)

At any rate, it disturbs me and really kind of amazes me. Racial profiling of voters? Offhand, I can't think of any other nation that does that routinely and quite openly & unapologetically, and then reports the results regularly in the mass media. WTF?

It is certainly a nifty tool for sowing division. Divide and conquer, innit.

[slomo]

Thanks, slomo. Sometimes I suspect they just make make this shit up or manipulate it at will. Or, even more disturbingly, that the "voting" machines allow them to identify each voter uniquely. (Of course, both methods might be used simultaneously.)

At any rate, it disturbs me and really kind of amazes me. Racial profiling of voters? Offhand, I can't think of any other nation that does that routinely and quite openly & unapologetically, and then reports the results regularly in the mass media. WTF?

It is certainly a nifty tool for sowing division. Divide and conquer, innit.

I don't rule manipulation out. It's just that the polling surveys seem on the surface to be using standard methodology.

Yeah, I find the racial categorization to be extremely weird. Even in the context within which I work, race/ethnicity categories are extremely problematic because it is unclear how to interpret associations of race/ethnicity with health outcomes or physiologic variables. Are they genetic? Sometimes. Are they based on social/cultural/behavioral confounders? Likely most of the time. But the categories themselves conflate historical baggage with truly relevant social and genetic variables in a way that renders them extremely suspect.

Personally, I never know how to answer the question, because my reality has always been much more complex. As I have stated, I am multiracial, though my social upbringing was largely upper-middle-class suburban white (which is how I often identify, for cultural reasons, even though when people look at me they may make other assumptions). My partner is 100% anglo-white, but from a poor rural family, and I would argue that he had more obstacles to overcome in life than did I.

[Sounder]

guruilla wrote...

When this guy says it, he gets 10 million hits

I must be in the wrong place.

Good vid, but you gotta admit guruilla, that guy has a stepped up energy level compared to your delivery.

Good stuff though, I wonder what Jack would say about it.

Is that guy 'not really a liberal'?

[guruilla]

Good vid, but you gotta admit guruilla, that guy has a stepped up energy level compared to your delivery.

Interesting, innit? Relates to slomo's point about emotions speaking louder than logic.

[slomo]

Thanks, slomo. Sometimes I suspect they just make make this shit up or manipulate it at will. Or, even more disturbingly, that the "voting" machines allow them to identify each voter uniquely. (Of course, both methods might be used simultaneously.)

At any rate, it disturbs me and really kind of amazes me. Racial profiling of voters? Offhand, I can't think of any other nation that does that routinely and quite openly & unapologetically, and then reports the results regularly in the mass media. WTF?

It is certainly a nifty tool for sowing division. Divide and conquer, innit.

Mac, re: race/ethnicity, check out what I just pointed out on the Facebook Creepiness thread.

[Sounder]

Sounder wrote:

Good vid, but you gotta admit guruilla, that guy has a stepped up energy level compared to your delivery.

guruilla wrote...
Interesting, innit? Relates to slomo's point about emotions speaking louder than logic.

Maybe Jack could do a rebuttal vid, he could muster that kind of energy.

[stickdog99]

The exit polls showed the Clinton would win.

Then they get adjusted to "actual" voting machine results.

This "methodology" has been in place since Bush vs. Gore in order to preserve out faith in our electoral system.

If this were any another country, we would be sending in Jimmy Carter.

[slomo]

Good vid, but you gotta admit guruilla, that guy has a stepped up energy level compared to your delivery.

Interesting, innit? Relates to slomo's point about emotions speaking louder than logic.

Over the years I have modified my teaching style to contain less substance and more style. Probably any at least moderately effective instructor does this. My favorite class to teach is relatively soft on technical content and big on feelings about the topics covered. My least favorite class is overly technical with zero opportunity to raise energy.

So, one concludes, from the observational data at hand, that emotion really is more important than logic, even in disciplines where logic really should reign supreme.

[slomo]

The exit polls showed the Clinton would win.

Then they get adjusted to "actual" voting machine results.

This "methodology" has been in place since Bush vs. Gore in order to preserve out faith in our electoral system.

If this were any another country, we would be sending in Jimmy Carter.

Well, polls do have error ("variability"). Very likely even bias (e.g. social desirability bias). Of course these are opportunities to manipulate if one were so inclined. Choose a small enough sample size in any precinct, and you can easily hide the divergence between polling data and electoral results. Even with a large sample size you can explain differences by appealing to social desirability bias or other forms of response bias.

[Joe Hillshoist]

When this guy says it, he gets 10 million hits

I must be in the wrong place.

He is wrong.

[dada]

There's a saying we have on the old internet, "When skunks duel, wind direction is everything."

Who said it? Doesn't matter. Some lawyer. It's worth keeping in mind when critiquing liberals, though. Critiquing, I say.

Tailor your critique to fit the environment where it is taking place. For example: in person. Say you are arguing with a liberal at a bar or whatever.

In person is easy. Liberals respond to authority-signals. Body-language, charisma (smile, smile)

You have the advantage as an anti-authoritarian. You can use the trappings of authority, and break set freely. The liberal is invested in the game.

The main criticism is, liberal ideology has no place on the left. I don't need to spell it all out, where it goes from there is self-evident. But make it clear that one who holds said ideology shouldn't expect to find comfort and comradery in the company of left-leaning people.

In the internet environment, it's a bit different. On the internet, the liberal is much like a troll. A person who there's no use engaging with, their mind is already made up. Would you engage with a troll? Of course you wouldn't. The hidden agendas are different, but they're ever-present. The troll agenda is to troll. The liberal agenda is to reproduce the lopsided power structure.

On the internet, you are engaging with the reader. (hi, reader! *waves*) Debate with a liberal is a performance, aimed at the reader.

There's the question of, 'what about the working class coalition we'd like to build, and the obstacles we'll encounter.'

A liberal without a limo is probably part of the working class. But since they don't support the working class, we won't concern ourselves with them here.

The left should appeal to thinking Republicans, right-leaning Independents. That's coalition-building. You'll find that they're as embarrassed by the regressive reactionary that shares certain political views with them, as you are by the pedantic scholar that calls themselves 'left.'

That's the conversation-starter. No need to get into how 'sexual repression creates the authoritarian tendency,' or any other psychoanalitic mumbo or deconstructive jumbo. It's enough to point out that regressive reactionary and pedantic scholar share a common bond. They'll get it.

Of course, building a coalition between right and left will be a messy business, not everyone will be happy or agree on everything, naturally. We're being pragmatic here. It is not going to be instant utopia. But right and left conversing might influence you both in exciting ways. Also sends a powerful, frightening message to the forces who would keep you apart. Worth pursuing, just for that reason.

Now, the far left will not be happy about all this. That's alright, they're never happy about anything. So there's no need to appease them. They can still have a seat at the coalition table, because we don't have to worry about them trying to take over if things start looking promising. They'll just grumble and complain like always. They're good to have around though, because they have some good ideas sometimes. I'm talking about folks like the 'anarcho-this and that,' the 'libertarian communists.' Even invite the psychedelic bolsheviks over for a chat one night, make it a party.

I mean 'party' as in celebration, but there is the question of party. Will it be a new party? Probably not. Remember, pragmatic. Messy. But we go in this direction anyway, because maybe something interesting will develop from it. Whatever it is, the Greens will get on board if it feels right.

So, go watch some youtube videos. Go surfing. Turn on the big flatscreen, switch over from the video game, flip though the channels. Look around the digital reality you feel most at home in. Listen to your liberal peers, the talking heads of your social group.

Now put on your designer Roddy Piper glasses, and tell me what you see. We all see it. Like Nobel Dylan said. 'You don't need a weatherman to know...' You smell me, reader?

Liberalism has locked itself in its ivory tower, in its mind the imaginary control tower of human navigation, like a child pretends the backyard is a kingdom in a magical land, and he's knight of a sacred order, fighting dragons, a hero, a wizard.

Class dismissed.

[Burnt Hill]

Yes but emotional intelligence has nothing to do with an emotional outpouring.
So ultimately a good logician with emotional intelligence would be most effective.
Those are also the qualities that allow for nurturing of intuition and true empathy -
* characteristics not seen in that video.

[MacCruiskeen]

When this guy says it, he gets 10 million hits

I must be in the wrong place.

He is wrong.

That's no argument, Joe. Why is he wrong?