After reading 13 pages of this, I have learned some things about people that I wasn't aware of. I feel more education about CEP in general. And I am sad that so many people seemed have hatred for the gifs.
WAIT - I started skimming after a few pages, but people hate the gifs?
I couldn't tell you exactly where it was, but there were at least 2 comments that were like "and then all people do is post gifs" or "people post gifs instead of having meaningful conversations." I mean, I see the point but don't hate on the gifs! THey are a great form of expression!
Can you (or MW) explain a bit more what's wrong with using data? (serious question) Because I thought we were supposed to source our opinions. Y4m's recent charts, IMO, were posted b/c she found data to back up her opinions, not that she was trying to say, "See here? Case closed." More like, "See I'm not making shit up. This is why I don't think my opinion was pulled out of my ass."
Often to me, once the numbers are rolled out it feels like LOOK NUMBERS don't argue with numbers! Numbers nullify all other commentary because data isn't skewed. Like with the min wage thread, I questioned the fact that 10 other states don't fit the overall trend Y4M was using.
Instead of - hmm, wait I can see that (and Y4M just said she had some other stuff come up and couldn't respond further), I got, well, you will always have one or two that don't follow trend. To me, that felt dismissive. Now, I know Y4M's tone and she's matter of fact, so I didn't get pissy about it, but I've seen that happen before.
Like numbers just shouldn't be questioned. And if you aren't well versed enough to say well I disagree then the dialogue gets shut down. Does that make sense Caden?
And not to add sweeping generalizations, but I've seen the same thing happen when I'm in a state meeting. Republicans come in with data (some of which is skewed) and shut down discussion. My colleague and I notice that the Dems don't counter the data well, so everything gets lost. That's why in the min wage thread, I wanted to be sure to note my objection to the data that was used.
Again, I'm not saying that data, charts and the like shouldn't be used in any discussion. I just don't want the data (allow me to use my black folk analogy here) to become the Big Joker in a spades game where you put the chart on your forehead and say GAME OVER BEYOTCHES!!!
Can you (or MW) explain a bit more what's wrong with using data? (serious question) Because I thought we were supposed to source our opinions. Y4m's recent charts, IMO, were posted b/c she found data to back up her opinions, not that she was trying to say, "See here? Case closed." More like, "See I'm not making shit up. This is why I don't think my opinion was pulled out of my ass."
Often to me, once the numbers are rolled out it feels like LOOK NUMBERS don't argue with numbers! Numbers nullify all other commentary because data isn't skewed. Like with the min wage thread, I questioned the fact that 10 other states don't fit the overall trend Y4M was using.
Instead of - hmm, wait I can see that (and Y4M just said she had some other stuff come up and couldn't respond further), I got, well, you will always have one or two that don't follow trend. To me, that felt dismissive. Now, I know Y4M's tone and she's matter of fact, so I didn't get pissy about it, but I've seen that happen before.
Like numbers just shouldn't be questioned. And if you aren't well versed enough to say well I disagree then the dialogue gets shut down. Does that make sense Caden?
And not to add sweeping generalizations, but I've seen the same thing happen when I'm in a state meeting. Republicans come in with data (some of which is skewed) and shut down discussion. My colleague and I notice that the Dems don't counter the data well, so everything gets lost. That's why in the min wage thread, I wanted to be sure to note my objection to the data that was used.
Again, I'm not saying that data, charts and the like shouldn't be used in any discussion. I just don't want the data (allow me to use my black folk analogy here) to become the Big Joker in a spades game where you put the chart on your forehead and say GAME OVER BEYOTCHES!!!
While it is not the whole picture, in my field data does often trump most. Feelings don't usually get you far. I don't think that is what you at saying, but I am having a hard time following the issue with data and the exceptions.
Tef -TBF we're in the same general line of work, and I'm not saying that the data isn't important. I think it is. Let's use PreK studies for example. That data is questioned because many would argue the validity of studies where there was no accounting of socio-economic status and education level of the parents. We always hear that if the parent is more educated then chances are the student will fare better. So, if I roll into a meeting with a study that doesn't separate students based on socio-economic and parental education factors, the group will question my data.
And maybe that is what's missing, people don't know HOW to question the data, and because you don't understand how to question it, it gets thrown out like ok numbers, end game.
Tef -TBF we're in the same general line of work, and I'm not saying that the data isn't important. I think it is. Let's use PreK studies for example. That data is questioned because many would argue the validity of studies where there was no accounting of socio-economic status and education level of the parents. We always hear that if the parent is more educated then chances are the student will fare better. So, if I roll into a meeting with a study that doesn't separate students based on socio-economic and parental education factors, the group will question my data.
And maybe that is what's missing, people don't know HOW to question the data, and because you don't understand how to question it, it gets thrown out like ok numbers, end game.
That is clearer...I get what you are saying, but, to me, it doesn't shut down conversation, but expands it. Why are numbers showing this? Exceptions, how did they get this way? Etc. Maybe it is more of a half-full look, if that makes sense?
Nitaw, I think I can get you if you're saying that there can be different take-aways from the same data, or methodology can be questioned. I think it gets to what Caden was saying that it's not "see, data, case closed," it's "see, data, that's why I think x". And so it's fair to say, "but the numbers also say a, or don't say b, so that's why I still think y".
What frustrates me is just throwing data out the window. I think it might have been the same min wage thread (and I could easily be misremembering this) where Caden posted data that most people that make min wage don't live on it alone, and someone else said that was invalid because she felt it was obvious that people struggle on min wage.
We could debate the chicken and the egg about why people are not living on min wage or whether the study was valid, but to just say "nope, I don't believe it because it doesn't match my experience" doesn't fly.
Pesca - sometimes it just seems like you can't even question the numbers. I'd prefer if we did continue adding things in like we did with the Google doc. That does make for more robust discussion. But, sometimes that doesn't happen. Either people run scared of the numbers or they don't feel like it's worth arguing about it because they get a numbers don't lie vibe.
I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-chart or numbers. I'm just saying if we're going to discuss problems in how we form discussions, then I want this noted. Now, I don't know how you make charts, stats and numbers more interesting, but if anyone has a Stats for Dummies refresher or something to recommend, then I'm cool with that. LOL
I'm not around these parts as often as I was for a number of reasons. Work being the big one, but also, it's really not fun any more. It's been five years since I joined this group and there is a big difference from then to now. And it could be we do know each other so well and topics have been discussed twelve different ways. But the level of debate is nothing like it was before. Again, I don't know why that would be, but there's my two cents on why I'm not around as much. )
Me too. Work is very busy, but also this place isn't as compelling as it once was for the reasons you just said. Though I miss (some of ;-P ) you guys!
Also, I didn't read the last few pages of this thread because it's past bedtime already.
The bottom line for me is that if America (or the whole world) goes down in flames economically it won't be because we helped poor people too much and they sucked us dry because it's unsustainable. But I feel like that's how the movie would be written. I agree with some stuff you all have said here, but why does the actual GOP never look at the things that kill the budget way more than food stamps and Head Start?
I have to base the party's goals on what the party itself does and says, not what people on here say they'd like it to do.
I'd be totally on board with cutting defense spending if were talking about cutting areas besides troop strength.
Not only do I think less boots is bad juju for national defense, I think it's bad for employment and the economy to keep shoving people out of the military and into the civilian world, especially if you don't want to be in a place where any money you save from maintaining a smaller troop level is now being spent on paying for more education, more benefits, etc for those boots.
Not only that, a smaller military troopwise doesn't actually accomplish what people think it does. I still maintain that part of the reason service members are suffering from high rates of unemployment, suicide, mental illness, PTSD is because they are straight up overworked. Too many deployments spread between too many service members and not enough service members to complete tasks both in theater and in garrison. I think this is particularly true of guard members. I think it's spectacularly shitty that after a year of juggling the stress of deployment with the stress of getting a job done without enough people, guard members are expected to come home ready to jump right into the civilian life with only accrued leave as a buffer. And that's if you are lucky enough to have a job to come back to as well. Yes, guard members are supposed to get their jobs back but what if they were job hunting when they left? What about active duty members who were stop lossed while deployed or whose time has run up and now need a job in 30 days?
Now we can argue all day about the rightness of the current wars and if we should be in them in the first place but imo, we should have the troop strength to face the task (the task being in general, past, present, or future.)
You cannot tell me there aren't a fuckton of places you can cut the military besides actual troop strength.
And that was way longer than I meant it to be. But it falls in line with Summer's similar thoughts about social programs.
Dems want to cut defense. But do they have a plan to combat these issues?
So post something different. We talk about abortion/rape/race, etc because they are in the American news all the time. I think people here would love to talk about something else.
I suggested this back on page 3!!
I think there are lots of non-American things that maybe wouldn't be so 'personal' that would make for great discussion. I would think that we could have some excellent conversations on Syria right now.
I try, but I don't think my articles are that interesting....
I think there are lots of non-American things that maybe wouldn't be so 'personal' that would make for great discussion. I would think that we could have some excellent conversations on Syria right now.
I try, but I don't think my articles are that interesting....
Maggie, I used to post a lot more about international affairs but often my posts didn't gain traction, either. :-)
IMO, 491k's have been proven to be a disaster. I would love to see some kind of defined contribution managed plan that is required. In the mean time, in the situation Septimus described, I would assume the person has either saved money to be the bridge, or works a part time, less demanding job to bridge the gap.
Anecdote alert! I know my neighbor who is a fire-medic has been saving sick time like crazy so that he can take a ton his last few years before retirement (he actually could get his full pension now but has kids at home and still needs his full salary) so that he is effectively working part time. Then when he retires around age 60, he plans to get a part time job to supplement the pension. He knows he cannot physically work as a fireman until age 70+, so he has plans to fill the gap.
. Oh I hate the 401K system. It was not meant to be the system it is now.
I might be wrong, but I would think it would be hard for someone in their 60's to find part time work that would generate the same income as SS. I don't see many places out there looking to hire in that age bracket.
If this were phased in maybe it would work and people could prepare more?
I don't know the answer to that. I also don't know exactly how SS works- if you take it early, at the lower amount, are you stuck at the lower amount forever, or does it increase when you hit 70, or whatever the magic age is?
Example pulled out of my butt of how I would like to see it work: Meg the bricklayer works FT until age 60 taking home 3k a month. She "retires" from her FT job and starts taking the lower amount of SS at age 60- 1.5k a month.
She keeps working PT, either for her current employer, or independantly, taking whatever bricklaying jobs she wants. Or she gets a complementary job like doing home inspections (so a small amount of school required but by no means a 4 year degree), or maybe she has no skills and becomes a Walmart greeter. She brings home 1k a month working PT, but in theory her expenses are now lower.
She turns 75, stops working completely, and starts taking 1k a month out of her mandatory contribution 401k.
I guess I should go cry in a corner that foreign policy people aren't respected here
Where have you been?? Most of the news I listen to now has to do with things happening overseas. I have needed you!!! This Syria thing pretty much is a Sunni/Shia type conflict with a twist eh? Also is TZ still argueing with Malawi over that lake.
Really? Because I remember hearing the exact same complaint from you and other R's during the 2008 election. Are we not supposed to notice or discuss all the race-baiting, anti-woman, anti-equality rhetoric that has dominated the GOP for the last 4+ years?
I'm sorry it feels like Rs personally are being picked on but, again, your ("your") beef should be with your party, not with those who dare to notice and object to their extreme positions. If you don't want your party to be seen as the party or far-right, religious, gay/woman/minority-hating nutjobs, then perhaps you should work on reclaiming your party from said nutjobs. Because right now, they are drowning out all the other voices in your party.
Ok, I think I'm going to have to stop there, around page 3. There are quite a few liberal posters here who are willing to have an honest discussion, but do you really consider yourself one of them? Dominated the GOP for the last 4 years? Drowning out all the other voices in your party?
The responsibility for allowing nutters to "drown out" everyone else lies with the media. Not entirely, but, think about it. During the primaries, how much print and airtime was devoted to Jon Huntsman by the networks and the major print and online news outlets? Now, if you don't believe in some degree of liberal media bias, agree to disagree as that's a 15 pager in itself, but at the very least, recognize that ratings and readership matters. It's what pays the bills. And when they focus on the sensational and the salacious, they are tapping into the same reality that keeps the post counts of Akin threads on this board higher than posts about policy and economic factors that are far more likely to impact our lives.
As for "reclaiming," perhaps the party should start with trying to reclaim their primaries from strategic influence by the opposition. Akin shouldn't even be the nominee. Even with the moderate conservative vote split between Steelman and Brunner, Akin was considered a long shot. Until McCaskill spent more on his campaign ads ($1.5 million) than his own campaign did. And Democrats voted for him in the primary. Akin owes his nomination, at least in part, to the Democratic Party.
When you say dominate, you mean dominate the media you allow yourself to consume. Because if you really think that "race-baiting, anti-woman, anti-equality rhetoric" is what is dominating the Republican establishment or constituency, then do you honestly consider yourself an independent thinker who is accessing objective coverage?
Again, how would people like the cons on this board do anything about nutters drowning out voices of reason? The voices of reason are there. And if they get coverage (like everyone and their Aunt Sally in the Republican party who, rightfully, piled on Akin), then it's twisted into some ulterior motive.
Really? Because I remember hearing the exact same complaint from you and other R's during the 2008 election. Are we not supposed to notice or discuss all the race-baiting, anti-woman, anti-equality rhetoric that has dominated the GOP for the last 4+ years?
I'm sorry it feels like Rs personally are being picked on but, again, your ("your") beef should be with your party, not with those who dare to notice and object to their extreme positions. If you don't want your party to be seen as the party or far-right, religious, gay/woman/minority-hating nutjobs, then perhaps you should work on reclaiming your party from said nutjobs. Because right now, they are drowning out all the other voices in your party.
Ok, I think I'm going to have to stop there, around page 3. There are quite a few liberal posters here who are willing to have an honest discussion, but do you really consider yourself one of them? Dominated the GOP for the last 4 years? Drowning out all the other voices in your party?
The responsibility for allowing nutters to "drown out" everyone else lies with the media. Not entirely, but, think about it. During the primaries, how much print and airtime was devoted to Jon Huntsman by the networks and the major print and online news outlets? Now, if you don't believe in some degree of liberal media bias, agree to disagree as that's a 15 pager in itself, but at the very least, recognize that ratings and readership matters. It's what pays the bills. And when they focus on the sensational and the salacious, they are tapping into the same reality that keeps the post counts of Akin threads on this board higher than posts about policy and economic factors that are far more likely to impact our lives.
And as a side note, maybe the "reclaiming" that needs to be done is from outside interference. Akin shouldn't even be on the effing ticket. The moderate conservative vote in Missouri was split between Steelman and Brunner. Claire McCaskill got Akin elected. She spent more on his campaign ads ($1.5 million) than his own campaign did. And Democrats voted for him in the primary. Akin owes his nomination, at least in part, to the Democratic Party.
When you say dominate, you mean dominate the media you allow yourself to consume. Because if you really think that "race-baiting, anti-woman, anti-equality rhetoric" is what is dominating the Republican establishment or constituency, then do you honestly consider yourself an independent thinker who is accessing objective coverage?
This may be true - actually, it probably is. The USA desperately needs a good BBC equivalent. Personally, I cant stand Fox, so I watched MSNBC. But then I couldn't stand the bias there either. I am not interested in "having a conversation" and listening to what ballsack86 on Twitter has to say, so CNN is out. The result is I just dont watch the news at all. My only source is The Daily Show, and I know that is left leaning, but at least sometimes it attacks the Dem's, and it makes me laugh.
The result is I am ignorant of many things, and no longer care to change my ignorance because it is too difficult to know where the truth lies, so I have quit. Not good, but there it is.
Reeve, I hear you. Sometimes when I'm trying to read news online, I'm too distracted with trying to identify the bias. Truly independent news seems exceedingly rare these days.
So, yeah, might as well get a good laugh with a dose of news. I still love me some Daily Show and Colbert Report, bias or not.
i thought al-jazera actually had really good reporting.
Majorwife, I haven't read/watched them a lot. I perceive bias from them on matters relating to Israel, so I admit that I don't often seek them out as a source on other matters. Maybe I should.
Reeve! Get good cable!! I watch the news: Al Jazeera English, BBC, France 24, even CCTV is starting to have some good investigative reporting. Of course there is always some bias to the country of the network, but at least they actually report on the news and if something important is happening in the world they are likely to report on it in depth and actually even SEND A REPORTER TO THAT COUNTRY. Intelligent people will seek out multiple sources of news anyway so bias would be pretty irrelevant and easily noticed and noted.
Russia Today....not so much. They are as much schlocky entertainment as all of the so-called news stations in the US. American television news is worthless and anyone who thinks otherwise wouldn't know journalism if it smacked them in the face. It's not even a matter of bias. It's the fact that you can watch it and still not know a damn thing about what is happening in the world.
Um, Russia Today fascinates me.
Yes, totally love AlJazeera Intl' and France 24. Also NPR does decent reporting - or at least I think so.
Eta: That is single handily the meanest thing anyone has said to me on here and I have spared with Emmy!
I'm sorry (seriously, not snarky.) and I swear this isn't personal. I remember you as LMW and I think you're well-spoken, intelligent and have a lot of good things to add to the board. It's just that lately almost every response I see from you is a one or two liner of total snark. I think your posts stood out to me, from others who are also super snarky, in that it seems out of character for you, based on how you were on P&CE.
I accept your apology but not your characterization of me. I will say that 95% of my nesting is from my phone which forces me to be pithy and sometimes that may come across as punchy. But I am the same person that had tears when you announced your pregnancy.
Post by iammalcolmx on Aug 30, 2012 13:43:09 GMT -5
Yes yes Oil!!! Last time I heard they thought they could come to a peaceful agreement. OK can we discuss the DRC??? Why are we not sending troops? I know plenty of it had challenging landscape but I can’t stomach the rapes anymore. Last time I listened to them speaking to the victims I felt faint. Then they interviewed one of the fucking rapists!! All I remember was “ I feel good after I rape….” I can’t….
Maggie, I used to post a lot more about international affairs but often my posts didn't gain traction, either. :-)
I just don't think there is a critical mass on this board of people who understand foreign affairs and foreign policy enough to make an interesting discussion, nor are there that many people who are interested in international issues in an in depth sense.
I used to post articles that I found interesting or that reflected major foreign policy issues. Often there wouldn't even be one reply. Or someone would reply and be like "tell me about this, what do you think." And then like one person would post an explanation and the other person would say "interesting thanks" and maybe ask another question. It's not very interesting to post things if you're just going to end up answering a bunch of questions that could be googled, or having a conversation with yourself.
I don't mean this in a bad way. People on this board know a lot more than me on a whole lot of issues. But I tend to have my foreign policy conversations elsewhere (mostly IRL) because this crowd just isn't into it.
I guess I should go cry in a corner that foreign policy people aren't respected here
I have only skimmed through this trainwreck of a thread, but I just wanted to throw something out there.
In addition to using CEP to talk about politics, I use it as a place to get news. I have posted stuff here that I know probably won't generate much discussion, but I think that there are probably people who would enjoy reading it. There's a lot of times that people post articles that I have nothing of substance to say, but I enjoy reading them. If it was an article on foreign issues that you posted, I'd probably read it because I trust your selection of articles on that issue. I might not have much to say, but that doesn't mean I didn't get something out of it. Same goes for some of the economic posts that IIOY posts, or pixy and environmental or animal rights issues.
Also, one thing that I've noticed about this board is that every now and then, I'm surprised at what topic picks up traction. That's one thing I missed about zoe - she posted tons of random stuff all day long. Most of it never went anywhere. But a good portion of her posts did. She kept discussion moving, and kept giving us new topics.
I think one of the reasons people have been so snippy lately is that the media cycle is focused on the election, and there hasn't been much variety in what we've been posting and sharing here. Everything being posted is something contentious or controversial, and we aren't breaking up our discussions with other stuff. And I don't think we need to turn this into non-stop talks about celebrities and fashion (though I do like that too). But I think there are a lot of issues where things don't always fall neatly on party lines, like our previous discussions about things like smoking bans, the nutella lawsuit, etc. Even eclaires vent about her kindle malfunction generated a little bit of interesting, non-partisan discussion.
Basically, we need more threads about other stuff, and I bet if we had more of that, this place wouldn't feel so non-stop nasty all the time. When we shying away from posting stuff on the assumption that nobody else wants to talk about it, we are limiting our topics of conversation to the things everyone is sick of talking about.
So, everyone should start trying to post more variety of stuff, and not take it personally if you don't get replies. Try a different article next week, and maybe that one will stick. Or maybe you'll post an article that a couple lurkers are knowledgeable about, and that will drive them to start posting. If you want more traffic, try linking the post over on another board, like green living or military families or whatever, and see if anyone wants to come over and give their opinion. We might pick up some posters who are more versed on other issues and get some better, more well rounded discussion.