[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Yep, I think in most cases this is true.

On another note, I don't understand the violence of some of the posts above- nobody's forcing us to read Shaddim's posts, so what's the problem? If you take issue with what you perceive as narcissism, boasting, or whatever else you read into it, that's fine, but why be nasty about it?

I've tried to understand the nastiness for a while. Back in the day, I was a real asshole. Over time I relaxed, and then one day I had a moment of clarity and decided that my bitterness and anger only hurt me. Essentially it's the same as swallowing poison to spite someone else. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not perfect, and I fall off the wagon, but I'm not going to let myself live that way anymore.

I come back because there are people here that I like, even though I'm a very different person than I was 10 years ago. Some people seem like they've dug themselves in and sustain themselves on anger, though, and that's just a crappy way to exist.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd actually like to hear the definition which leads one to the conclusion cars aren't art.

Here's a good one. Despite the source.


[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aQ8xDia5RNY#t=34 3s[/VIDEO]

[raleur]

Well, consider the source's source: someone from the Tate said so. Galleries have always tried to define art as "whatever we say it is," but a look at the careers of so many great artists will show you that at some point or another, most of them were dismissed as "not art."

The fact is, philosophers have tried for centuries to find a comprehensive definition of art, and all have failed, because there isn't one. Instead, find the one that sounds best to you and keep it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't say this place sucked, or that those on the Left suck. You're filling in what you want. Also, you guys are being bitter and cranky right now, which kind of reinforces my position.
You and Rob decided to be jackasses and throw half the country under the bus, for no other reason than not being able to understand population densities, and for that many people gave you the finger.

What is your position?

If I'm filling in what I want, you're filling in what you want in lumping me in with Rob in being a jackass in throwing half the country under the bus. I've been consistent lately in simply saying that while I can't account for the data along the lines of the sorts of things in Rob's thread, I'm sure there is a relationship and at least partial explanation in there in explaining some of the undeniable problems in some of those southern states. I don't buy the population density theory either, since it doesn't explain why many of these problems aren't shared in the New York, Chicago, and LA/California areas.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've tried to understand the nastiness for a while. Back in the day, I was a real asshole. Over time I relaxed, and then one day I had a moment of clarity and decided that my bitterness and anger only hurt me. Essentially it's the same as swallowing poison to spite someone else. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not perfect, and I fall off the wagon, but I'm not going to let myself live that way anymore.
I come back because there are people here that I like, even though I'm a very different person than I was 10 years ago. Some people seem like they've dug themselves in and sustain themselves on anger, though, and that's just a crappy way to exist.

Maybe my problem is that I'm just not seeing this anger. Where is it? Where should I be looking? At best I see frustration, but again, I cannot wrap my head around going to the extent of calling it anger or hatred.

[subego]

Look at the non-Americans.

I'm not trying to say there's any causation going on, but when I listed the people in my head I note most aren't from this country.

I don't feel like naming names, but I will say I'm not thinking:

You
Spheric
Wisk
Shortcut
Waragainstsleep
Athens

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Look at the non-Americans.
I'm not trying to say there's any causation going on, but when I listed the people in my head I note most aren't from this country.
I don't feel like naming names, but I will say I'm not thinking:
You
Spheric
Wisk
Shortcut
Waragainstsleep
Athens

Where is our hate and anger though? Is it possible that our sarcasm, frustration, ridicule, or the like is being construed as something else?

Interesting that the people in question are not Americans though. Cue the silly "maybe you should just worry about your own country" business... <-- this is not hatred either, but maybe ironically this way of thinking leads to what is being identified by Shaddim as crankiness?

[subego]

Our?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe my problem is that I'm just not seeing this anger. Where is it? Where should I be looking? At best I see frustration, but again, I cannot wrap my head around going to the extent of calling it anger or hatred.

Then you've had lpkmckenna, screener, and hyteckit on ignore for the last several years? mckeena himself said he was here to start fights and vent anger.

Originally Posted by raleur 

Well, consider the source's source: someone from the Tate said so. Galleries have always tried to define art as "whatever we say it is," but a look at the careers of so many great artists will show you that at some point or another, most of them were dismissed as "not art."
The fact is, philosophers have tried for centuries to find a comprehensive definition of art, and all have failed, because there isn't one. Instead, find the one that sounds best to you and keep it.

Fair enough. For the sake of inclusion, I'll recant and say I don't feel that things with another primary use can be considered art. Though I do believe that those items can have very artistic qualities.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your position?

Even though I don't care for life in Boston, NYC, or LA, am I justified in calling those places "shitholes"? No, I'm not. The measure of a person is gauged by how something is presented, what you do with information. You going to sling that shit or are you going to use it as fertilizer to promote growth?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Our?

You know I'm not American, right?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

mckeena himself said he was here to start fights and vent anger.

I never said I was here to vent anger. Go shove those words somewhere else.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You know I'm not American, right?

Yes. Hence me putting you on the list of "furriners who aren't angry". It would be odd for me to put you there if I thought you were American.

To rephrase... If you want to see the anger, start with the furriners I didn't put on the list.

[besson3c]

Quote:

Then you've had lpkmckenna, screener, and hyteckit on ignore for the last several years? mckeena himself said he was here to start fights and vent anger.

I remember lpkmckenna admitting to relishing the debate and confrontation, but being a blowhard does not necessarily make one a hater, I'd put him in the same category as stupendousman who was absent from your hater list. Screener just seems to enjoy making biting sarcastic remarks the same way that Turtle does, who was likewise absent from your list, and Hyteckit just seems to enjoy soapboxing and not engaging people in conversation the same way that Abe did, and perhaps BadKosh still does, who were also both absent from your list.

Still, in none of these cases would I say that these people are haters, or angry, just overly emotional and not particularly interested in civil debate.



Quote:

Even though I don't care for life in Boston, NYC, or LA, am I justified in calling those places "shitholes"? No, I'm not. The measure of a person is gauged by how something is presented, what you do with information. You going to sling that shit or are you going to use it as fertilizer to promote growth?

I think the problem here is that it is difficult to point out the sort of data that Rob attempted to do while dancing around making generalizations. I've stopped trying to make generalizations, because people rightfully get upset when they see themselves and/or their communities as exceptions, and people in general are not homogenous. The same is sort of true with drawing conclusions from these sort of data points, because not only is there context and all sorts of data within other layers of data that should be looked at, but because people are not homogenous and there are pockets of just about everything everywhere, these conclusions are not terribly actionable.

What is interesting to me is the bird's eye view, and maybe some causes for general trends. Nobody likes their living situations and environment simplified to charts and graphs that provide a simplistic narrative, but these have their purpose. For instance, you hear political campaigns going on about steel mills and coal mines and stuff in certain states, as if residents of that state are some sort of weird caricature - obviously for those who don't work in these areas this pandering probably doesn't resonate in any way. Still, there are populations of people that can be put into a little box this way, I guess it works up to a point.

So, I think my tentative conclusion is that if I had to put people in a box and come up with an archetype of a resident from particular southern states, it would probably involve them being religious, conservative, lacking in education, etc. This sounds negative, but I could paint negative caricatures of people in other states (being brainless hipsters, soccer mommy types, overly concerned with pop culture, your pacifist Minnesotan type, your Portlandia Oregonian type, whatever - and yes, you could do the same thing with Canadians too). However, the difference to me is that the lacking education types, no matter what state they are from, are a real drag on society and a real drag in general. Dumb people suck, and while there are dumb people everywhere, they seem concentrated in the south in particular.

And no, this does not make me a hater in saying/believing this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes. Hence me putting you on the list of "furriners who aren't angry". It would be odd for me to put you there if I thought you were American.
To rephrase... If you want to see the anger, start with the furriners I didn't put on the list.

Ah, I misread, I thought those on your list *were* the angry ones.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ah, I misread, I thought those on your list *were* the angry ones.

No, it's the others, as evidenced here:

Go shove those words somewhere else.

[lpkmckenna]

Hilarious. I'm hurting the place because I want to debate, but Shaddim is not hurting the place by constantly shoving words in people's mouths?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Hilarious.

besson, are you going to call mckenna to the carpet for overstating what can, or can't, be construed as hilarious?

I'm hurting the place because I want to debate, but Shaddim is not hurting the place by constantly shoving words in people's mouths?

You said you're here to fight and you don't want peaceful conversation:

I come to the P/L to argue. That isn't gonna change. Take your hippie festival requests to the Lounge, I'm here for a fight.

Why so angry?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You said you're here to fight and you don't want peaceful conversation:

Yes, I said I was here for a fight. No, I did not say I was here to vent anger. Try to follow the flow of the conversation, ok?

Why so angry?

I'm not angry, and you have no reason to suggest I am.

I find all this blather about anger and being emotional to be completely unsubstantiated. A person can make a direct argument and not get emotional. Haven't you ever witnessed a debate before?

It gets tiresome to read people accusing other people of "getting emotional" or similar accusations. It always reads like someone is trying to sidetrack the conversation to something irrelevant. (Or more likely, projecting their own emotions onto other people.)

Besides, not a single person here has the slightest idea what someone on the other end of the internet is feeling by reading his posts.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think the problem here is that it is difficult to point out the sort of data that Rob attempted to do while dancing around making generalizations.

I don't think that is the problem at all. If you're referring to those gratuitous maps posted a couple of weeks ago, the "sort of data" that was pointed out only served to reinforce stereotypes held by those who agreed with the angry, hateful person who assembled them. You mentioned before that "numbers are numbers," but this is wrong: "numbers" require just as much framing as any other information.

The only people who would buy such arguments either a) already believe what it purports to tell them, or b) lack the intelligence to discern the flaws in the information and its presentation.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, I think my tentative conclusion is that if I had to put people in a box and come up with an archetype of a resident from particular southern states, it would probably involve them being religious, conservative, lacking in education, etc.

The biggest problem with stereotypes is that too many people are willing to act like one. There are indeed many people like that in the South, but not especially more so than any other region of the country.

So yes, while there is some truth that lies behind the numbers, it is nowhere near as simple as the fool who spreads them wants to believe.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

besson, are you going to call mckenna to the carpet for overstating what can, or can't, be construed as hilarious?
You said you're here to fight and you don't want peaceful conversation:
Why so angry?

His remark was confrontational, not hateful. The hippy fest remark sounds like something Doofy would have said, mostly blowhardy, you could make the argument angry, but I don't think hateful.

What is your take on Turtle, and the others I've listed?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It gets tiresome to read people accusing other people of "getting emotional" or similar accusations. It always reads like someone is trying to sidetrack the conversation to something irrelevant. (Or more likely, projecting their own emotions onto other people.)
Besides, not a single person here has the slightest idea what someone on the other end of the internet is feeling by reading his posts.

It gets to be way more tiresome reading from people with no emotional control whatsoever (I'm not saying this is you), I think.

You're right that nobody really knows whether somebody else is actually emotional, but when one has to wade through venting and feelings being expressed before getting to something substantive that can actually be discussed, it is an impediment, and it probably is a sign of unchecked emotion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, I said I was here for a fight. No, I did not say I was here to vent anger.

Okay, so you aren't angry, but you're here to cause hostility? No thanks.

Try to follow the flow of the conversation, ok?

Juvenile.

I'm not angry, and you have no reason to suggest I am.

Currently or in the past?

I find all this blather about anger and being emotional to be completely unsubstantiated. A person can make a direct argument and not get emotional. Haven't you ever witnessed a debate before?
It gets tiresome to read people accusing other people of "getting emotional" or similar accusations. It always reads like someone is trying to sidetrack the conversation to something irrelevant. (Or more likely, projecting their own emotions onto other people.)
Besides, not a single person here has the slightest idea what someone on the other end of the internet is feeling by reading his posts.

Sorry, but I've never seen a formal debate where one side calls the other "inbred hicks". Is that part of the Lincoln and Douglas style?

You don't debate, you demean and degrade, which goes directly against the first 2 rules of the PL.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by raleur 

I don't think that is the problem at all. If you're referring to those gratuitous maps posted a couple of weeks ago, the "sort of data" that was pointed out only served to reinforce stereotypes held by those who agreed with the angry, hateful person who assembled them. You mentioned before that "numbers are numbers," but this is wrong: "numbers" require just as much framing as any other information.
The only people who would buy such arguments either a) already believe what it purports to tell them, or b) lack the intelligence to discern the flaws in the information and its presentation.
The biggest problem with stereotypes is that too many people are willing to act like one. There are indeed many people like that in the South, but not especially more so than any other region of the country.
So yes, while there is some truth that lies behind the numbers, it is nowhere near as simple as the fool who spreads them wants to believe.

I wasn't interested in discussing the framing of the information though and the person behind it, I was interested in discussing the numbers and data itself. Surely we've seen similar data before? I've surely seen stuff about test scores in southern states such as Mississippi without any particular framing...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

His remark was confrontational, not hateful. The hippy fest remark sounds like something Doofy would have said, mostly blowhardy, you could make the argument angry, but I don't think hateful.

What is your take on Turtle, and the others I've listed?

Doofy isn't here anymore and Turtle has gone overboard in the past, but not in quite a while.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wasn't interested in discussing the framing of the information though and the person behind it, I was interested in discussing the numbers and data itself.

That's the problem: the data itself was untrustworthy. The maps were deliberately drawn to skew information- which I pointed out clearly in another post. Put another way: the framing wasn't the hate-filled prattle that surrounded the maps, the framing was the extremely biased method used to draw those maps.

If you want to have a discussion, find accurate numbers, not that crap.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Surely we've seen similar data before?

Yes, we have seen similar data- in fact, those maps may have been based on such data before they were twisted into simple propaganda.

I understand your point: it would be a very interesting discussion, but only if the data were presented properly- and those maps were not. Good discussion does not come from garbage like that: if you want a rational discourse, bring better data.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Doofy isn't here anymore and Turtle has gone overboard in the past, but not in quite a while.

I also listed stupendousman, Abe, and BadKosh as well. My point, which I hope you'll agree with, is that this "crankiness" has been matched with right-wing members here as well at times in the recent past, I guess it comes and goes both ways. I think if you are going to call out when it happens on the left it is fair to single out the same sorts of behavior on the right, correct? You mentioned taking a new approach here, so since these members aren't as present right now maybe you just haven't had the opportunity to call them out, but would you at least agree with what I'm saying here that this is not some sort of left wing only thing in this forum?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay, so you aren't angry, but you're here to cause hostility? No thanks.

Yet again, shoving words in my mouth. That's three times today. I'm starting to think there's something wrong with you.

Wanting to have a debate/argument/fight/whatever is not causing hostility. You might characterize it that way, but really you're just whining because someone wants to disagree with something you posted.

Currently or in the past?

Well, I'm certainly not angry now, and I can't recall ever being angry at someone here.

Sorry, but I've never seen a formal debate where one side calls the other "inbred hicks". Is that part of the Lincoln and Douglas style?

I've never called someone here that. I've probably used the expression, but not against anyone I was debating with. But keep shoving those words, that seems to be your only debate tactic anyways.

You don't debate, you demean and degrade, which goes directly against the first 2 rules of the PL.

I've never demeaned or degraded you. The very few people I've insulted (and been infracted for) deserved rebuke, but I made the mistake of insulting them instead of reporting them. EDIT: Except I once called turtle stupid for no good reason. My bad.

But that's not what you're complaining about. Frankly, I have no idea what you're complaining about, and even more frankly, don't care much.

Don't like my posts? Think I broke the rules? Hit the report button. Otherwise, your complaints about my posting style mean less than nothing to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by raleur 

That's the problem: the data itself was untrustworthy. The maps were deliberately drawn to skew information- which I pointed out clearly in another post. Put another way: the framing wasn't the hate-filled prattle that surrounded the maps, the framing was the extremely biased method used to draw those maps.
If you want to have a discussion, find accurate numbers, not that crap.
Yes, we have seen similar data- in fact, those maps may have been based on such data before they were twisted into simple propaganda.
I understand your point: it would be a very interesting discussion, but only if the data were presented properly- and those maps were not. Good discussion does not come from garbage like that: if you want a rational discourse, bring better data.

Maybe it would help me if you explain what was biased about the methods behind drawing those maps, which I'm assuming were simply compiled by that guy who framed his conclusion in a disagreeable way?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe it would help me if you explain what was biased about the methods behind drawing those maps, which I'm assuming were simply compiled by that guy who framed his conclusion in a disagreeable way?

You can start by reading my post here, where I do exactly that with several.

As the legends will show: whoever made those maps was deliberately skewing information. Nor was there any "simple compilation" involved- don't pretend the OP simply happened across some maps, he had to go looking for that sort of garbage.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by raleur 

You can start by reading my post here, where I do exactly that with several.
As the legends will show: whoever made those maps was deliberately skewing information. Nor was there any "simple compilation" involved- don't pretend the OP simply happened across some maps, he had to go looking for that sort of garbage.

Interesting post, I must have missed it the first time, but what difference does it make what the differentials and breakdowns are? If there was less of a certain color there would still be the same concentrations of whatever color you replace it with, and if you break down the categories so that they increment by, say, 10% instead of the wide spreads you've pointed out, you'd still have the same results just represented with more color variations. The eye would still be able to see that there are high concentrations in certain areas.

Besides, even if you disagree with the presentation of the infographic it is still the raw underlying numbers we are concerned with.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

what difference does it make what the differentials and breakdowns are?

It makes a huge difference: if you colored the maps accurately, you would see much more gradual transitions, with a much less dramatic final effect. If I have some time, I'll try to make an example for you- but no promises, my clients and my students come first, and it's the end of the year for both.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If there was less of a certain color there would still be the same concentrations of whatever color you replace it with, and if you break down the categories so that they increment by, say, 10% instead of the wide spreads you've pointed out, you'd still have the same results just represented with more color variations. The eye would still be able to see that there are high concentrations in certain areas.

Again, not really: if you had consistent gradations, you'd end up with "hot spots"- much smaller areas of concentrated poverty/lack of education, etc. Now, some of these would certainly be in the south- perhaps a majority of them would- but it would hardly give you a picture that painted the south in such dramatic fashion.

Another problem is that most of these maps do not account for population density. You may have seen those maps that show election results by county, where the entire center of the country is bathed in red, with blue only on the fringes:
6877/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
The right loves to email them to each other, as it reinforces their belief that "real" America is solidly Republican, and only the fringes are blue. But such maps fail to account for population density: Sweetwater County, Wyoming, has a population of 37,600, but is given the same weight as New York County, population 1.5 million. In fact, since counties in western and southern states are generally larger than in the east, the data is actually the opposite of what is visualized.

Here's a link that shows you some ways by which the election data could be mapped more accurately.

But back to our point: many of the maps we're discussing were made by either a) an idiot, or b) someone who wants to deceive the viewer.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Besides, even if you disagree with the presentation of the infographic it is still the raw underlying numbers we are concerned with.

Perhaps, but you can't glean those underlying numbers from these maps. Some of the tables might- but only might- be more useful: it depends on what was counted and what was discarded.

Again, if you want intelligent discussion, you'll have to go find some data that's presented intelligently.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="raleur" url="/t/494635/conspicuous-consumption/100#post_4203685"]
That's the problem: the data itself was untrustworthy. The maps were deliberately drawn to skew information- which I pointed out clearly in another post. Put another way: the framing wasn't the hate-filled prattle that surrounded the maps, the framing was the extremely biased method used to draw those maps.

If you want to have a discussion, find accurate numbers, not that crap.

Yes, we have seen similar data- in fact, those maps may have been based on such data before they were twisted into simple propaganda.

I understand your point: it would be a very interesting discussion, but only if the data were presented properly- and those maps were not. Good discussion does not come from garbage like that: if you want a rational discourse, bring better data.

Maybe it would help me if you explain what was biased about the methods behind drawing those maps, which I'm assuming were simply compiled by that guy who framed his conclusion in a disagreeable way?
[/quote]

The biggest problem is that we can't know what was biased, we can't know what contrary indicators were ignored, because those things were removed from the data. The only way we would know would be to go and re-derive all those graphs from scratch. That's too much work to prove something we already know: that the person presenting the evidence was already biased. What you're saying boils down to the old tired "prove me wrong, otherwise I must be right" on behalf of the presenter. Surely you don't think that argument is valid?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Think I broke the rules? Hit the report button.

Don't worry, I have.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The biggest problem is that we can't know what was biased, we can't know what contrary indicators were ignored, because those things were removed from the data. The only way we would know would be to go and re-derive all those graphs from scratch. That's too much work to prove something we already know: that the person presenting the evidence was already biased. What you're saying boils down to the old tired "prove me wrong, otherwise I must be right" on behalf of the presenter. Surely you don't think that argument is valid?

I see your point. Maybe when I have some time I'll see if I can drudge up some of those data points from sources that seem reliable

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="Uncle Skeleton" url="/t/494635/conspicuous-consumption/100#post_4203722"]
The biggest problem is that we can't know what was biased, we can't know what contrary indicators were ignored, because those things were removed from the data. The only way we would know would be to go and re-derive all those graphs from scratch. That's too much work to prove something we already know: that the person presenting the evidence was already biased. What you're saying boils down to the old tired "prove me wrong, otherwise I must be right" on behalf of the presenter. Surely you don't think that argument is valid?

I see your point. Maybe when I have some time I'll see if I can drudge up some of those data points from sources that seem reliable
[/quote]

I would be happy to look at them objectively if you do, but let me also give you a preview of the next stair in this discussion, context. Consider someone who wants to discuss the plight of diseases like AIDS among homosexuals, and consider what reaction that might bring either on its own or in the direct aftermath of someone else arguing "god hates dirty fags." Do you understand that your "objective analysis" can't be taken objectively when you're riding the coat-tails of bigots? In your case, you used Rob's "**** the south" post as a jumping off point to say "hey isn't it interesting?" Conversely, Shaddim in this thread brought up his own "isn't it interesting?" topic here without the hostile lead-in. Don't you understand the difference? Wouldn't it be different if someone said "isn't it interesting" about Liberals if it was in a thread started with "kill all the Liberals"? Please tell me if you don't see the difference, because if you don't then the whole exercise of polite discussion is pointless. Basically in summary, reading between the lines is necessary for effective communication, especially text-only communication like what we have here, and by building off an offensive context you are sending the wrong between-line noise and not giving your posts a chance to be understood in the context you apparently intend.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I would be happy to look at them objectively if you do, but let me also give you a preview of the next stair in this discussion, context. Consider someone who wants to discuss the plight of diseases like AIDS among homosexuals, and consider what reaction that might bring either on its own or in the direct aftermath of someone else arguing "god hates dirty fags." Do you understand that your "objective analysis" can't be taken objectively when you're riding the coat-tails of bigots? In your case, you used Rob's "**** the south" post as a jumping off point to say "hey isn't it interesting?" Conversely, Shaddim in this thread brought up his own "isn't it interesting?" topic here without the hostile lead-in. Don't you understand the difference? Wouldn't it be different if someone said "isn't it interesting" about Liberals if it was in a thread started with "kill all the Liberals"? Please tell me if you don't see the difference, because if you don't then the whole exercise of polite discussion is pointless. Basically in summary, reading between the lines is necessary for effective communication, especially text-only communication like what we have here, and by building off an offensive context you are sending the wrong between-line noise and not giving your posts a chance to be understood in the context you apparently intend.

No I did not ride Rob' coat tails, the numbers he came up with seemed to coincide with some infographics I have come across myself, the one I'm most confident about being state educational test scores. A five minute search on this has proved my memory correct:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states/

When I have some time I'll see if I can find some of these other studies/charts/data sources again.

I understand your point about objective analysis, the findings in this post just didn't seem to reveal a whole lot that I haven't seen before.

[besson3c]

By the way, the source for the test score summaries seems to most commonly be the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/), which I hope we can agree is a reliable source.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="Uncle Skeleton" url="/t/494635/conspicuous-consumption/100#post_4203813"]
I would be happy to look at them objectively if you do, but let me also give you a preview of the next stair in this discussion, context. Consider someone who wants to discuss the plight of diseases like AIDS among homosexuals, and consider what reaction that might bring either on its own or in the direct aftermath of someone else arguing "god hates dirty fags." Do you understand that your "objective analysis" can't be taken objectively when you're riding the coat-tails of bigots? In your case, you used Rob's "**** the south" post as a jumping off point to say "hey isn't it interesting?" Conversely, Shaddim in this thread brought up his own "isn't it interesting?" topic here without the hostile lead-in. Don't you understand the difference? Wouldn't it be different if someone said "isn't it interesting" about Liberals if it was in a thread started with "kill all the Liberals"? Please tell me if you don't see the difference, because if you don't then the whole exercise of polite discussion is pointless. Basically in summary, reading between the lines is necessary for effective communication, especially text-only communication like what we have here, and by building off an offensive context you are sending the wrong between-line noise and not giving your posts a chance to be understood in the context you apparently intend.

No I did not ride Rob' coat tails, the numbers he came up with seemed to coincide with some infographics I have come across myself, the one I'm most confident about being state educational test scores. A five minute search on this has proved my memory correct:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-...ucated-states/

When I have some time I'll see if I can find some of these other studies/charts/data sources again.

I understand your point about objective analysis, the findings in this post just didn't seem to reveal a whole lot that I haven't seen before.
[/quote]

But the question is, "so what?" What is your point? I hope you can understand that a rational thinking human will use the information at hand to help fill in gaps in their knowledge such as this question of "so what," and in this example we can look to the context of the thread in which the information was posted, such as the thread's title, the first post, and the entire body of previous debate and "sides" already taken in the thread. Do you deny this?

You most certainly do ride the coat tails of the OP, all of us do. We all post in the context established primarily by the OP of the thread in which we post, and to a lesser extent within the context of all the posts previous to ours.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But the question is, "so what?" What is your point? I hope you can understand that a rational thinking human will use the information at hand to help fill in gaps in their knowledge such as this question of "so what," and in this example we can look to the context of the thread in which the information was posted, such as the thread's title, the first post, and the entire body of previous debate and "sides" already taken in the thread. Do you deny this?
You most certainly do ride the coat tails of the OP, all of us do. We all post in the context established primarily by the OP of the thread in which we post, and to a lesser extent within the context of all the posts previous to ours.

Whatever you want to call it, it is all-to-convenient and lazy in one's thinking to think that just because a poster is not firmly in the camp of shooting down an argument that he is firmly in the camp of being on the side of a particular poster. I used to catch myself thinking this way when I'd want to write to conservative posters "why aren't you shooting down Abe's craziness? That must mean that you don't disagree with it?" The only thing I agreed with was the data itself since it seemed to coincide with what I've seen from other sources, but not necessarily the presentation of it or the narrative behind it.

As far as the "so what" question, I ask you what it would take you to satisfy you in making the case that many of these southern states don't do well in the area of education, as a whole?

[Shaddim]

Do you use that information to degrade? ("The South is a shithole.") Or do you use it to analyze and uplift? ("Why are southern states seemingly disposed to this problem and what can be done about it?")

The latter is constructive and the former is worthless and inflammatory.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Do you use that information to degrade? ("The South is a shithole.") Or do you use it to analyze and uplift? ("Why are southern states seemingly disposed to this problem and what can be done about it?")

The latter is constructive and the former is worthless and inflammatory.

Bingo.

As far as the "so what" question, I ask you what it would take you to satisfy you in making the case that many of these southern states don't do well in the area of education, as a whole?

I depends entirely on your "point," on the "so what" question. Because this is a POLItics board, we generally discuss POLIcy. What policies are you thinking about, either current ones or theoretical ones, what is their purpose, and what would you change about them? For example, do you think that the reason they "don't do well" is because they tried to get into college but couldn't cut it, either academically or financially? Or do you think it's because they have no interest in wasting time on education above the level that will help them in their specific area? Are you satisfied that the cost of living is lower in those areas as well as the level of education completed?

I can't answer your question until you reveal your intent, because if your intent is to force people to complete more education than they're interested in then I won't be satisfied until you can demonstrate a way to brainwash them into changing their interests. If your intent is simply to boast that MS can't compete with MA at MA's chosen pursuits of excellence, then sure I agree with that fact but I question the importance of it. I'm sure there are plenty of "backwater" activities that MS excels at, to which MA residents would rather turn up their noses than to learn to do well.

I'm all for education, real education, and encouraging people to pursue it. But after seeing how much of our modern "education" is wasted on frat parties and fluff classes, I have no interest in enforcing an expansion of what is essentially just an education bubble, especially if the participants aren't even enthusiastic about it to start with. Just like trying to coerce people to exercise their right to vote, I feel that pushing people into the institution against their will is going to do nothing but dilute the institution, not elevate those being pushed.

Again a summary: live and let live. If southerners prefer a lifestyle choice of less education and more hedonism, that's just as valid as the gay lifestyle choice of reduced breeding (and more hedonism) or the ivory tower lifestyle choice of a dearth of traditional "useful" skills. Not everyone has to be just like me in order for me to be "right" with the world. Edit: to take a line from Bill Maher, the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Bingo.
I depends entirely on your "point," on the "so what" question. Because this is a POLItics board, we generally discuss POLIcy. What policies are you thinking about, either current ones or theoretical ones, what is their purpose, and what would you change about them? For example, do you think that the reason they "don't do well" is because they tried to get into college but couldn't cut it, either academically or financially? Or do you think it's because they have no interest in wasting time on education above the level that will help them in their specific area? Are you satisfied that the cost of living is lower in those areas as well as the level of education completed?
I can't answer your question until you reveal your intent, because if your intent is to force people to complete more education than they're interested in then I won't be satisfied until you can demonstrate a way to brainwash them into changing their interests. If your intent is simply to boast that MS can't compete with MA at MA's chosen pursuits of excellence, then sure I agree with that fact but I question the importance of it. I'm sure there are plenty of "backwater" activities that MS excels at, to which MA residents would rather turn up their noses than to learn to do well.
I'm all for education, real education, and encouraging people to pursue it. But after seeing how much of our modern "education" is wasted on frat parties and fluff classes, I have no interest in enforcing an expansion of what is essentially just an education bubble, especially if the participants aren't even enthusiastic about it to start with. Just like trying to coerce people to exercise their right to vote, I feel that pushing people into the institution against their will is going to do nothing but dilute the institution, not elevate those being pushed.
Again a summary: live and let live. If southerners prefer a lifestyle choice of less education and more hedonism, that's just as valid as the gay lifestyle choice of reduced breeding (and more hedonism) or the ivory tower lifestyle choice of a dearth of traditional "useful" skills. Not everyone has to be just like me in order for me to be "right" with the world. Edit: to take a line from Bill Maher, the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance.

How is this relevant? The question is whether these states are well educated or not, not whether education is useful to them, not whether education is valued or should be valued, or why they aren't educated. This broadens the scope and transforms very high level birds-eye perspective of a very large region into very low level specifics. The low level specifics are useful and interesting, but they aren't what is being discussed here. I'm not talking conclusions with regards to education, I'm talking about aggregating a number of data points and trying to paint a high level picture.

What you are doing here would be like Nate Silver taking all of his poll aggregates and trying to figure out the precise effect of Portuguese immigrants in a small area of the state and trying to predict their voting patterns based on their lives, rather than taking the overall picture for the state and combining it with a bunch of other data for that state, as well as a bunch of other data for other states.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is this relevant? The question is whether these states are well educated or not, not whether education is useful to them, not whether education is valued or should be valued, or why they aren't educated. This broadens the scope and transforms very high level birds-eye perspective of a very large region into very low level specifics. The low level specifics are useful and interesting, but they aren't what is being discussed here. I'm not talking conclusions with regards to education, I'm talking about aggregating a number of data points and trying to paint a high level picture.

Great, then why not begin the thread in a less inflammatory way so it can start off well, instead of inciting flaming from both sides?

[Shaddim]

double post

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Do you use that information to degrade? ("The South is a shithole.") Or do you use it to analyze and uplift? ("Why are southern states seemingly disposed to this problem and what can be done about it?")
The latter is constructive and the former is worthless and inflammatory.

I would be lying if I said that I have a high opinion of the south, but I've realized that it is illogical to hold on to that opinion if it cannot be rationalized, and not rationalized with an open and objective mind, which is what I'm trying to do. It may very well be that I'm conflating stereotypes of southerners with the reality, so I'm honestly open to that possibility and will gladly abandon my preconceptions if I come to realize that I've fallen into this trap (which is an easy trap for anybody to fall into as it pertains to any region of any place in the world).

So, I'm trying to analyze and uplift, but I have an admitted bias I'm trying to keep at bay.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Great, then why not begin the thread in a less inflammatory way so it can start off well, instead of inciting flaming from both sides?

My first response in this thread post Turtle's sock puppet obsession, I think, was this:


Quote:

Why is it that you were butthurt when Rob and I asserted that the south sucks since you didn't like this generalization, but you are free to make your own, openly based on nothing more than your gut feeling?

Allow me to rephase this: Rob openly asserted that the south sucks, I merely *inferred* this by not openly disagreeing with the raw data that the thing Rob posted was based on. However, this doesn't implicitly mean that other states don't suck in their own separate ways too.

[besson3c]

BTW, Shaddim, you haven't commented on my bringing up Turtle, Stupendousman, Badkosh, Abe, and perhaps even Big Mac as analogues to the left-wing posters in here that you feel are angry?

I'm not trying to provoke you, I'm simply trying to make the point that the cranky and angry stuff that you have identified, whatever you want to call it, is certainly not the exclusive domain of the right or the left. Do you agree?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is this relevant? The question is whether these states are well educated or not, not whether education is useful to them, not whether education is valued or should be valued, or why they aren't educated. This broadens the scope and transforms very high level birds-eye perspective of a very large region into very low level specifics. The low level specifics are useful and interesting, but they aren't what is being discussed here. I'm not talking conclusions with regards to education, I'm talking about aggregating a number of data points and trying to paint a high level picture.

What you are doing here would be like Nate Silver taking all of his poll aggregates and trying to figure out the precise effect of Portuguese immigrants in a small area of the state and trying to predict their voting patterns based on their lives, rather than taking the overall picture for the state and combining it with a bunch of other data for that state, as well as a bunch of other data for other states.

That's bullcrap. You're not Nate Silver, and what we do here isn't to try to predict the future while ignoring the implications. When we had threads about election predictions, did anyone post while trying to ignore the causes or effects of the election results on policy, or how those election results could be changed, or take sides in any way? I admit, I didn't follow those threads, but I would be very surprised if you can point out a single MacNN member who posted in those threads but didn't mention any of these implications.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Allow me to rephase this: Rob openly asserted that the south sucks, I merely *inferred* this by not openly disagreeing with the raw data that the thing Rob posted was based on. However, this doesn't implicitly mean that other states don't suck in their own separate ways too. 

This is exactly what I was saying about context. You can't transition from a hostile to non-hostile context of the same topic, it just doesn't work that way. You can't take a racist post and say "hey maybe that racist did have a good point or two about Blacks being prone to criminality, let's discuss that in a non-racist manner." The hostility doesn't just go away, it's going to stick to that thread forever. If you don't already know this, then it's an important thing for you to learn now.

You might not be sensitive to certain American sore points, like slavery and the civil war, because you're an immigrant. Maybe that's why you are having such a difficult time with this concept. Does Canada have any chronically down-trodden protected classes that it's just bad form to kick while they're down, even if they're not visibly "down" at the moment? I'm just trying to see this from your perspective to help with communication.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BTW, Shaddim, you haven't commented on my bringing up Turtle, Stupendousman, Badkosh, Abe, and perhaps even Big Mac as analogues to the left-wing posters in here that you feel are angry?

On this I agree with you. Shaddim has a real blind spot about hostility and bickering when it's coming from conservatives, including himself.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Allow me to rephase this: Rob openly asserted that the south sucks, I merely *inferred* this by not openly disagreeing with the raw data that the thing Rob posted was based on. However, this doesn't implicitly mean that other states don't suck in their own separate ways too. 

Did you create the following thread?

http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/493299/why-are-republican-states-consistently-daisies-and-roses

Wasn't it previously called, "Why are Republican states consistently shitholes?"

Then, in the first post you said:

What Republican state doesn't suck, really?

That's not about Rob, he didn't start that beauty.