First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Yale students sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/22/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

I'd agree with BlueOni, but I really thought people mostly knew the First Amendment? I didn't know f*** all about any law stuff before I went to law school and I knew the First Amendment. And this is Yale. I don't think they'd require such an explanation. I didn't even apply to Yale even though my GPA was good and my LSAT score was 2150 since I knew I had little hope of getting in.


I'd have to disagree about them not needing an explanation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know-basic-facts-about-government-2014-9
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-much-us-history-do-americans-actually-know-less-you-think-180955431/?no-ist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6qIoMjfECo

They should know what the First Amendment entails, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do. And let's not forget that Bush got into Harvard despite his abysmal SAT scores. While I have no doubt that intelligent students exist at Yale, I also have no doubt that jackasses who got in because of their wealth and/or status also exist at Yale.
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/22/15 , edited 12/22/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

I'd agree with BlueOni, but I really thought people mostly knew the First Amendment? I didn't know f*** all about any law stuff before I went to law school and I knew the First Amendment. And this is Yale. I don't think they'd require such an explanation. I didn't even apply to Yale even though my GPA was good and my LSAT score was 2150 since I knew I had little hope of getting in.


I'd have to disagree about them not needing an explanation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know-basic-facts-about-government-2014-9
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-much-us-history-do-americans-actually-know-less-you-think-180955431/?no-ist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6qIoMjfECo

They should know what the First Amendment entails, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do. And let's not forget that Bush got into Harvard despite his abysmal SAT scores. While I have no doubt that intelligent students exist at Yale, I also have no doubt that jackasses who got in because of their wealth and/or status also exist at Yale.


I don't know if I should be angry, horrified, or sad.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/22/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

I don't know if I should be angry, horrified, or sad.


All three.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/22/15 , edited 12/22/15
Ya know, I've got a pretty nasty backhand from my ping pong days I'd love to deliver to some of these Yale students.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 12/22/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


BlueOni wrote:

Here's a direct link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVZa9_Ha5c

The thing to bear in mind is that this was actually a data collection exercise comparable to surveying. Some things I notice are that:

1. The conversations Horowitz points to seem to be primarily taking place at one location at one particular time of day.

2. Horowitz did not ensure that he did not impact the results by collecting signatures personally (see the conversation at 1:10).

3. The context of each selected conversation is not provided, so we have no assurance that they're comparable beyond Horowitz' word.

4. Given the research question it is both allowable and necessary for Horowitz to clearly explain what the first amendment is in a way that does not impact the results (yes, even for Yale students).

Horowitz could be forgiven for injecting social bias into the conversations since that's technically part of the experiment, but he did not ever show himself fully explaining the first amendment to anyone and didn't seem to be controlling the method for injecting social bias. He varied his case extremely widely between 1:15-1:37 and may have misled subjects as to his petition's purpose in the process.

So what we're left with is a presentation of a survey with apparently non-random sampling, evidenced confounding surveyor effects, uncontrolled and deliberate social biasing, no evidence that the question was fully explained to subjects prior to collecting answers, and potentially misleading explanations of purpose. Think about that design.

Now, something else that's important to bear in mind is that Horowitz is a film activist who has openly stated that his inspirational figure was Michael Moore. It is also worthy of mention that Horowitz is a contributor to Fox News, not merely someone Fox News is reporting on. This video is actually one among many installments Horowitz has submitted to Fox, presumably for pay. That puts the data collection methods, presentation of results, and purpose of the work into much needed context.


I'm not surprised about this being the case. I was skeptical of the experiment's validity the moment I saw Fox News as the OP's source.


Well Fox news job is to make people more ill informed this was what Roger Ailes wanted back in the day when he was part of the Nixon White House staff with his GOP TV, a counter narrative to the main stream media to miss inform the public about what was happening in their government. So when Rupert came to him with the idea of setting up a conservative news network Roger just dusted off his GOP TV idea and ran with it. And now we have studies like these. Also it doesn't surprise me one of Fox news hit men running around doing fake studies like this at all. Nope if more Americans turned off fox news they would be better informed in their day to day life.

Fox news makes you stupid.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

GOP TV
http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news

Fox news not impartial and not news making America less informed one viewer at a time.

If they claim to be about freedom don't trust them, if they claim to be about religion don't trust them. If they simply say things that can be backed up by actual evidence and proof well then you can trust them but verify it yourself. History people these scum leave a trail like any banana slug.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/22/15

gvblackmoon wrote:

Well Fox news job is to make people more ill informed this was what Roger Ailes wanted back in the day when he was part of the Nixon White House staff with his GOP TV, a counter narrative to the main stream media to miss inform the public about what was happening in their government. So when Rupert came to him with the idea of setting up a conservative news network Roger just dusted off his GOP TV idea and ran with it. And now we have studies like these. Also it doesn't surprise me one of Fox news hit men running around doing fake studies like this at all. Nope if more Americans turned off fox news they would be better informed in their day to day life.

Fox news makes you stupid.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

GOP TV
http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news

Fox news not impartial and not news making America less informed one viewer at a time.

If they claim to be about freedom don't trust them, if they claim to be about religion don't trust them. If they simply say things that can be backed up by actual evidence and proof well then you can trust them but verify it yourself. History people these scum leave a trail like any banana slug.


I know. That's why I said I was skeptical of the study's validity and why I said I wasn't surprised to find out it was heavily-edited bullshit.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 12/22/15 , edited 12/22/15

Wasp-Zero wrote:

And then people wonder / hate the fact that lawyers can control so many things.....









BlueOni wrote:

Here's a direct link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVZa9_Ha5c

The thing to bear in mind is that this was actually a data collection exercise comparable to surveying. Some things I notice are that:

1. The conversations Horowitz points to seem to be primarily taking place at one location at one particular time of day.

2. Horowitz did not ensure that he did not impact the results by collecting signatures personally (see the conversation at 1:10).

3. The context of each selected conversation is not provided, so we have no assurance that they're comparable beyond Horowitz' word.

4. Given the research question it is both allowable and necessary for Horowitz to clearly explain what the first amendment is in a way that does not impact the results (yes, even for Yale students).

Horowitz could be forgiven for injecting social bias into the conversations since that's technically part of the experiment, but he did not ever show himself fully explaining the first amendment to anyone and didn't seem to be controlling the method for injecting social bias. He varied his case extremely widely between 1:15-1:37 and may have misled subjects as to his petition's purpose in the process.

So what we're left with is a presentation of a survey with apparently non-random sampling, evidenced confounding surveyor effects, uncontrolled and deliberate social biasing, no evidence that the question was fully explained to subjects prior to collecting answers, and potentially misleading explanations of purpose. Think about that design.

Now, something else that's important to bear in mind is that Horowitz is a film activist who has openly stated that his inspirational figure was Michael Moore. It is also worthy of mention that Horowitz is a contributor to Fox News, not merely someone Fox News is reporting on. This video is actually one among many installments Horowitz has submitted to Fox, presumably for pay. That puts the data collection methods, presentation of results, and purpose of the work into much needed context.




Which is certainly correct and relevant if we are discussing material which was up for the scrutiny of peer review.


As it is, having to preface this with "it is both allowable and necessary for Horowitz to clearly explain what the first amendment is in a way that does not impact the results (yes, even for Yale students)" is to frame the piece for something it is clearly not. The purpose is not to say that Horowitz is conducted a scientific experiment but a simple survey and expose "that even Yale students" do not know what the First Amendment is and are willing to repeal it.





GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

I'd agree with BlueOni, but I really thought people mostly knew the First Amendment? I didn't know f*** all about any law stuff before I went to law school and I knew the First Amendment. And this is Yale. I don't think they'd require such an explanation. I didn't even apply to Yale even though my GPA was good and my LSAT score was 2150 since I knew I had little hope of getting in.


I'd have to disagree about them not needing an explanation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know-basic-facts-about-government-2014-9
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-much-us-history-do-americans-actually-know-less-you-think-180955431/?no-ist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6qIoMjfECo

They should know what the First Amendment entails, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do. And let's not forget that Bush got into Harvard despite his abysmal SAT scores. While I have no doubt that intelligent students exist at Yale, I also have no doubt that jackasses who got in because of their wealth and/or status also exist at Yale.




I agree. Even the current president is evidence that one doesn't need to know the first thing about the Constitution to enter the Ivy League, or even be editor of a journal of law review.


Frankly, the circumstances of ones' birth, be it wealth, gender, or race, have no place in deciding who is worthy of entering places which were once hallowed halls of learning....and it appears that our current places of higher learning have been filled to the brim with dunces and dimwits beyond their capacity to properly educate.




gvblackmoon wrote:


GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


BlueOni wrote:

Here's a direct link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVZa9_Ha5c

The thing to bear in mind is that this was actually a data collection exercise comparable to surveying. Some things I notice are that:

1. The conversations Horowitz points to seem to be primarily taking place at one location at one particular time of day.

2. Horowitz did not ensure that he did not impact the results by collecting signatures personally (see the conversation at 1:10).

3. The context of each selected conversation is not provided, so we have no assurance that they're comparable beyond Horowitz' word.

4. Given the research question it is both allowable and necessary for Horowitz to clearly explain what the first amendment is in a way that does not impact the results (yes, even for Yale students).

Horowitz could be forgiven for injecting social bias into the conversations since that's technically part of the experiment, but he did not ever show himself fully explaining the first amendment to anyone and didn't seem to be controlling the method for injecting social bias. He varied his case extremely widely between 1:15-1:37 and may have misled subjects as to his petition's purpose in the process.

So what we're left with is a presentation of a survey with apparently non-random sampling, evidenced confounding surveyor effects, uncontrolled and deliberate social biasing, no evidence that the question was fully explained to subjects prior to collecting answers, and potentially misleading explanations of purpose. Think about that design.

Now, something else that's important to bear in mind is that Horowitz is a film activist who has openly stated that his inspirational figure was Michael Moore. It is also worthy of mention that Horowitz is a contributor to Fox News, not merely someone Fox News is reporting on. This video is actually one among many installments Horowitz has submitted to Fox, presumably for pay. That puts the data collection methods, presentation of results, and purpose of the work into much needed context.


I'm not surprised about this being the case. I was skeptical of the experiment's validity the moment I saw Fox News as the OP's source.


Well Fox news job is to make people more ill informed this was what Roger Ailes wanted back in the day when he was part of the Nixon White House staff with his GOP TV, a counter narrative to the main stream media to miss inform the public about what was happening in their government. So when Rupert came to him with the idea of setting up a conservative news network Roger just dusted off his GOP TV idea and ran with it. And now we have studies like these. Also it doesn't surprise me one of Fox news hit men running around doing fake studies like this at all. Nope if more Americans turned off fox news they would be better informed in their day to day life.

Fox news makes you stupid.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

GOP TV
http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news

Fox news not impartial and not news making America less informed one viewer at a time.

If they claim to be about freedom don't trust them, if they claim to be about religion don't trust them. If they simply say things that can be backed up by actual evidence and proof well then you can trust them but verify it yourself. History people these scum leave a trail like any banana slug.




Ooooooooh nooooooooooooo someone offered an alternative to the liberal media.


The horror.


GrandmasterCoolio wrote:



I know. That's why I said I was skeptical of the study's validity and why I said I wasn't surprised to find out it was heavily-edited bullshit.




I wouldn't exactly count gawker or Rolling Stone as paragons of journalistic integrity, so I would be wary of that fellows' claims.
13618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/22/15
No surprise here.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/22/15 , edited 12/22/15

maxgale wrote:

I wouldn't exactly count gawker or Rolling Stone as paragons of journalistic integrity, so I would be wary of that fellows' claims.


What he said is mainly old news. I saw an article on the Huffington Post years ago about the study showing Fox News viewers as consistently misinformed.

It's not really groundbreaking to discover that watching Faux Fox News leads to the viewer being misinformed. This is the same "news" network that made the claim that there were Sharia Law Zones all across France. It's a news network where one of its most popular pundits says that science can't explain the movement of the tides. 59% of their statements fact-checked on Politifact have been categorized as lies and (excluding half-truths) only 22% of what they've said are ranked as true. Hell, there are entire organizations such as Media Matters for America who devote their existence to exposing outrageous claims and bias within Fox News!

It's both laughable and incredibly frightening that Fox News is considered a legitimate source by anyone.


maxgale wrote:

Ooooooooh nooooooooooooo someone offered an alternative to the liberal media.

The horror.


I have no problem with channels reporting from a conservative or liberal perspective on the news. Opinionated commentary is fine as long as the facts of the issue are still reported on truthfully without any distortion. What I do have a problem with is when the opinionated news channel's official slogan is "Fair and Balanced."

7544 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Florida, U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 12/22/15
That's embarrassing..
85265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Louisville, KY
Offline
Posted 12/22/15
They are probably majoring in English or Communication or some Art History major. They can't be majoring in anything that difficult if they have time to be stupid and counter-dict themselves.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 12/22/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


maxgale wrote:

I wouldn't exactly count gawker or Rolling Stone as paragons of journalistic integrity, so I would be wary of that fellows' claims.


What he said is mainly old news. I saw an article on the Huffington Post years ago about the study showing Fox News viewers as consistently misinformed.

It's not really groundbreaking to discover that watching Faux Fox News leads to the viewer being misinformed. This is the same "news" network that made the claim that there were Sharia Law Zones all across France. It's a news network where one of its most popular pundits says that science can't explain the movement of the tides. 59% of their statements fact-checked on Politifact have been categorized as lies and (excluding half-truths) only 22% of what they've said are ranked as true. Hell, there are entire organizations such as Media Matters for America who devote their existence to exposing outrageous claims and bias within Fox News!

It's both laughable and incredibly frightening that Fox News is considered a legitimate source by anyone.


maxgale wrote:

Ooooooooh nooooooooooooo someone offered an alternative to the liberal media.

The horror.


I have no problem with channels reporting from a conservative or liberal perspective on the news. Opinionated commentary is fine as long as the facts of the issue are still reported on truthfully without any distortion. What I do have a problem with is when the opinionated news channel's official slogan is "Fair and Balanced."






Of course, a closer look at the data reveals an entirely different picture:


https://reason.com/blog/2011/06/21/is-jon-stewart-correct-that-fo


Or here:


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396361/fox-news-obsession-kevin-d-williamson


Generally "Fox viewers are least informed" equates to, "Fox viewers when polled disagreed with liberal policies and myths."




Furthermore, Fox is generally regarded as the least biased in it's actual news reporting.

3060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/22/15
this is why i want to go to MIT.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 12/22/15
I have no problem believing these kids would vote to take away the rights of anyone they feel is offensive. If they did then they better do the same to music, movies, anime, every form of entertainment. On the plus side i'm glad petitions are basically a waste of time and this shouldn't happen any where near our time. The constitution exist for a reason.
4371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 12/22/15 , edited 12/22/15
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.