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

maxgale wrote:

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


I think the greatest point to bring up about these studies showing how "well-informed" and "politically-savvy" Fox News viewers are is one that the Politifact article, the one linked to by your source, brings up.


Pew’s methodology is not immune from critique. Most notably, it’s not clear whether knowing the answer to a few current-affairs questions translates into being "informed."


And let's not forget that Pew also found studies claiming that Fox News viewers were misinformed.


• "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War" study, 2003. This study focused on the Iraq War and the lead-up to it. It asked three questions: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" And whether, "The majority of people favor the US having gone to war."

On these questions, Fox clearly did the worst among the major news outlets. The "misperception rate" for Fox was 45 percent. The highest for other news outlets was CBS News at 36 percent; those with lower "misperception rates" included CNN, ABC, NBC, the print media and NPR/PBS, which was lowest at 11 percent.

This study is probably the strongest support we found for Stewart’s claim, in part because the difference between Fox and the other news outlets was so stark, and in part because the questions asked have pretty clear-cut "right" and "wrong" answers.


The other study they found was the one mentioned in the Huffington Post article I linked to.

Overall, Politifact's article never concluded that the claim that Fox News viewers are misinformed is false. It was a fact-check of Jon Stewart who said that it was consistently found to be false by study after study. Take a look at their explanation as to why it was classified as false here.


We rated his statement False, because he was exaggerating when he said that every poll showed that consistently.





91% believe that the stimulus legislation lost jobs. [Some highly credentialed academic economists believe exactly that; economists at large remain sharply divided on the effect of the stimulus.]


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/11/cbo-stimulus-added-up-to-33m-jobs-068965
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

Also, the source they linked to leads nowhere.
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf


72% believe that the health reform law will increase the deficit. [It almost certainly will, if you believe the Congressional Budget Office and the (ho, ho!) Government Accountability Office.



In 2010, the CBO said the health care legislation, as proposed, would reduce the deficit by an estimated $124 billion over a decade when compared to projections that did not include the Affordable Care Act. The CBO has since said that economic conditions have changed, making this projection less reliable; CBO still says it will likely lower the deficit, but it has not pinned down a specific dollar value.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-health-care-driving-down-deficit/


Here, Fox News viewers were hardly alone: The majority of respondents answered the same way.



“Almost daily” viewers of Fox News, the authors said, were 31 points more likely to mistakenly believe that “most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/study-some-viewers-were-misinformed-by-tv-news/


60% believe that climate change is not occurring. [They’re probably wrong, but their views are not radically different from those of the average American. The study purports to show not only that Fox News viewers believe untrue things, but also that they believe untrue things at a rate significantly different from Americans at large.]


Their very source does my work for me.



It's worth noting that Fox News is a rather popular network among conservatives.
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-00/


49% believe that income taxes have gone up. [They have -- the top rate in 2009 was 35 percent; it’s now 39.6. Assuming that 39.6 percent is still more than 35 percent, 49 percent of Fox News viewers are bulletproof here; one wonders why the number isn’t higher.]


Using the top income tax rate to judge whether or not income taxes in general have increased is stupid. Shame on you National Review. Shame on you.


63% believe that the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts. [It did, of course, though for a great many people they were so tiny that they were overlooked -- a phenomenon that is, like global-warming skepticism, hardly unique to Fox News viewers.]



and were 14 points more likely to believe that “the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.”

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/study-some-viewers-were-misinformed-by-tv-news/



But the study is clearly not simply designed to discover whether certain Americans believe things that are not true, and that such beliefs correlate with partisan affiliation, ideology, media preferences, etc. That’s the sort of thing you can do all day: Democrats, for example, are about twice as likely as Republicans to believe in astrology, and are significantly more likely than Republicans to believe in a great deal of other superstitious nonsense, such as ghosts and fortunetellers.


Nonsense though it may be, it has nothing to do with how politically informed and savvy you are. Furthermore, it's still a low percentage altogether. 15%, while far higher than it should be, does not reflect on the Democratic party that much. Compare this to 49% of Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 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.


They have been fed a carefully crafted lie over the last 30+ years stating that government is the problem and then they vote for people that don't want government to work or course it fails to work since they keep putting folks in power that want it to fail. As for not understanding basics of the law well that is just par for the course since civics hasn't been taught in this country for nearly as long so you have whole generations that have no idea how their government actually works and why it is important to do things like vote and actually research the issues you are voting on.

The first amendment is designed to establish two things first a right to free and unabridged speech within limits which the court has stated it can be regulated in some cases, like a movie theater or an airport you don't shout fire or bomb in either. Advertising is another area where it can be regulated as well. Again this is the courts setting these limits. The second thing it establishes is that this nation is not one founded on any religion and prohibits the establishment of one.

The false argument by those on the right that this is a Christian nation with a secular government is doublespeak or cognitive dissidence, since for the first to be true the second one can not be true since they are competing ideas. We are a secular nation under those laws established in the Constitution with a secular government with the window dressing of Christianity. The argument that the Declaration of Independences is proof is false since it is not law and there are no laws derived from that document. The intent of the founders is the law of the land the First amendment and the Article VI paragraph 3 which state no religious test shall be used for those that hold office.

The Declaration of Independences is a letter pure and simple to the Parliament of England and to King George telling them to go pound sand and to piss off. There is no mechanic within it to define or create laws which is found within the Constitution. So don't go there unless you have something based on law to prove yourself right since it is the law that defines how this nation works not personal belief.
6090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / US
Offline
Posted 12/22/15

I agree with BlueOni, but I would also like to mention that he was likely purposely imposing conflicting ideas to see if the students had any knowledge about the first amendment at all.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 12/22/15 , edited 12/22/15
All republicans are degenerate evil monsters.
First is about the people complaining about fox news and republicans, absent any "republicans" saying anything, or defending themselves.

Second:
Seriously, if somebody wants to eliminate the first amendment, do you think they'll write an unbiased argument for you?
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/22/15 , edited 12/22/15

maxgale wrote:

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.


If you agree that the surveying methods were unscientific then there's really nothing else to say. Without scientifically sound surveying the results are contaminated and the expose makes unsound conclusions about even the attitudes and principles of participating subjects. This is to say nothing of the impact the survey's questionable methods would have on attempts to apply the results to a broader population, which is the expose's ultimate purpose.

But if you're not convinced, let me say this: when Horowitz decided to include a signatory that offered his name specifically because it was Horowitz collecting signatures (which is a conversation that actually happens at 1:10 in the video) the validity of the entire exercise evaporated.
80213 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 12/22/15
Like I have said, I am glad I do not have to go to college anymore. I mean wow, colleges sound like they suck more and more everyday.
208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/23/15
Sadness
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/23/15 , edited 12/23/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:

All republicans are degenerate evil monsters.
First is about the people complaining about fox news and republicans, absent any "republicans" saying anything, or defending themselves.


That's not really what I was doing, so it's not mine to answer. I only put out an innocuous cat photo.


Second:
Seriously, if somebody wants to eliminate the first amendment, do you think they'll write an unbiased argument for you?


Maybe this part wasn't directed at me either, but if it was then I would respond like this:

My complaint was that the social biasing was uncontrolled, not that it was present. I already allowed for the biasing to be present since it was part of the social experiment Horowitz was conducting. If we were dealing with an experiment where the independent variable was temperature and the dependent variable was cupcake rise times I would be complaining on this particular point that Horowitz didn't accurately control the temperature but is still reporting the rise time data as though he had. My complaints, however, go beyond the introduction of social bias. For example, he didn't account for surveyor effects. How many other signatories gave their names because they know Horowitz and like his politics? That's a legitimate question, and one that has a substantial impact on the validity of the exercise.

In order to actually do what Horowitz was trying to do, represent (or expose if you like) the attitudes and principles of the student body of Yale University and assess the effect of social pressure on those principles and attitudes, the methods are actually quite involved. You can't just do an informal survey, and if you introduce social biasing you have to do so very methodically.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 12/23/15
The article is stupid and freedom of speech is stupid.
Hate speech needs to be a crime.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 12/23/15 , edited 12/23/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:



I think the greatest point to bring up about these studies showing how "well-informed" and "politically-savvy" Fox News viewers are is one that the Politifact article, the one linked to by your source, brings up.

"Pew’s methodology is not immune from critique. Most notably, it’s not clear whether knowing the answer to a few current-affairs questions translates into being "informed."





Precisely what I am saying, glad we agree there!

Especially when the "correct" answer often means "only when agreeing with liberal ideology."





And let's not forget that Pew also found studies claiming that Fox News viewers were misinformed.

"Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War" study, 2003. This study focused on the Iraq War and the lead-up to it. It asked three questions: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" And whether, "The majority of people favor the US having gone to war."

On these questions, Fox clearly did the worst among the major news outlets. The "misperception rate" for Fox was 45 percent. The highest for other news outlets was CBS News at 36 percent; those with lower "misperception rates" included CNN, ABC, NBC, the print media and NPR/PBS, which was lowest at 11 percent.

This study is probably the strongest support we found for Stewart’s claim, in part because the difference between Fox and the other news outlets was so stark, and in part because the questions asked have pretty clear-cut "right" and "wrong" answers."



The other study they found was the one mentioned in the Huffington Post article I linked to.

Overall, Politifact's article never concluded that the claim that Fox News viewers are misinformed is false. It was a fact-check of Jon Stewart who said that it was consistently found to be false by study after study. Take a look at their explanation as to why it was classified as false here.





"We rated his statement False, because he was exaggerating when he said that every poll showed that consistently."





You just contradicted yourself.


You stated that the group did not refute John Stewart, yet then go on to explain that they did exactly that.


Mr. Stewart, and those who claim that Fox viewers are consistently misinformed are factually incorrect on the most basic level as Politifact displayed, and more substantially are incorrect because their premise is if someone disagrees with liberal ideology they are misinformed.


And THAT is important, because it reveals that rather than basing their views on fact, the critics of Fox and its viewers are basing it solely on ideology. It is an adorable thing the Left does when it tries to claim that its views are based entirely on objectivity when they see the world through the lens of ideology more than their opponents.






91% believe that the stimulus legislation lost jobs. [Some highly credentialed academic economists believe exactly that; economists at large remain sharply divided on the effect of the stimulus.]





Funny thing about those "saved and created jobs."




President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.





About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren't saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren't saved.

But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/persistent-errors-in-stimulus-job-count/



72% believe that the health reform law will increase the deficit. [It almost certainly will, if you believe the Congressional Budget Office and the (ho, ho!) Government Accountability Office.



In 2010, the CBO said the health care legislation, as proposed, would reduce the deficit by an estimated $124 billion over a decade when compared to projections that did not include the Affordable Care Act. The CBO has since said that economic conditions have changed, making this projection less reliable; CBO still says it will likely lower the deficit, but it has not pinned down a specific dollar value.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-health-care-driving-down-deficit/






Here, Fox News viewers were hardly alone: The majority of respondents answered the same way.



“Almost daily” viewers of Fox News, the authors said, were 31 points more likely to mistakenly believe that “most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/study-some-viewers-were-misinformed-by-tv-news/





And now the CBO can no longer claim that the ACA will reduce the deficit.


Those viewers were vindicated.



http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/05/CBO-Quietly-Drops-Forecast-Obamacare-Will-Cut-Deficit




60% believe that climate change is not occurring. [They’re probably wrong, but their views are not radically different from those of the average American. The study purports to show not only that Fox News viewers believe untrue things, but also that they believe untrue things at a rate significantly different from Americans at large.]


Their very source does my work for me.






Are you on mobile? Some older links don't work on mobile.




It's worth noting that Fox News is a rather popular network among conservatives.
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-00/


49% believe that income taxes have gone up. [They have -- the top rate in 2009 was 35 percent; it’s now 39.6. Assuming that 39.6 percent is still more than 35 percent, 49 percent of Fox News viewers are bulletproof here; one wonders why the number isn’t higher.]


Using the top income tax rate to judge whether or not income taxes in general have increased is stupid. Shame on you National Review. Shame on you.





What should the National Review be ashamed?


The Fox audience is largely older, wealthier individuals.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/business/its-viewers-are-graying-but-their-passion-pays-for-fox-news.html?_r=0


Which means if the rates on higher earners increases, the taxes will increase on Fox viewers.


63% believe that the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts. [It did, of course, though for a great many people they were so tiny that they were overlooked -- a phenomenon that is, like global-warming skepticism, hardly unique to Fox News viewers.]



and were 14 points more likely to believe that “the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.”

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/study-some-viewers-were-misinformed-by-tv-news/



But the study is clearly not simply designed to discover whether certain Americans believe things that are not true, and that such beliefs correlate with partisan affiliation, ideology, media preferences, etc. That’s the sort of thing you can do all day: Democrats, for example, are about twice as likely as Republicans to believe in astrology, and are significantly more likely than Republicans to believe in a great deal of other superstitious nonsense, such as ghosts and fortunetellers.





Nonsense though it may be, it has nothing to do with how politically informed and savvy you are. Furthermore, it's still a low percentage altogether. 15%, while far higher than it should be, does not reflect on the Democratic party that much. Compare this to 49% of Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution



Oh no, but it IS entirely relevant. The entire purpose of such biased polls and claims by the Left is that they are the sole purveyors of truth and deal only in reality.


So the very question of "who is most misinformed in our society and believes wacky things?" turns out to be........the Left.


BlueOni wrote:


maxgale wrote:

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.


If you agree that the surveying methods were unscientific then there's really nothing else to say. Without scientifically sound surveying the results are contaminated and the expose makes unsound conclusions about even the attitudes and principles of participating subjects. This is to say nothing of the impact the survey's questionable methods would have on attempts to apply the results to a broader population, which is the expose's ultimate purpose.

But if you're not convinced, let me say this: when Horowitz decided to include a signatory that offered his name specifically because it was Horowitz collecting signatures (which is a conversation that actually happens at 1:10 in the video) the validity of the entire exercise evaporated.



Yes, I really do believe there is nothing really to say to those who refuse to acknowledge what is readily evident before them, and tries to discredit it be arguing that it is not something it never claimed to be.


That is no less a "gotcha!" than how you are claiming the Horowitz video as.


Which, it should be noted, if it was so dastardly edited to hide the truth as some here are claiming, forgot to leave out the part which shows that it is not perfect, which you yourself drew attention to.



35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

So my campus isn't the only stupid one. I feel better and worse at the same time.

My university basically had students who were out there demonstrating against pro-lifers who were picketing for, well....pro-life. Their reasoning? Pictures of the fetuses trigger people, so pro-lifers should be banned from picketing there. It almost made Writers' Week seem less awesome.


*sigh*

The sad part is that there are legitimate reasons for people to hold a counterprotest against a pro-life protest. That's just not one of them. The fact that the pictures opposing protesters are using are upsetting is irrelevant to whether one should counterprotest. One should counterprotest because one is pro-choice.


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.

At this point, I'm beyond being skeptical. Even Stanford has been pretty lulzy. You guys gotta demolish all those old dams but we don't have to demolish ours because we don't want to spend the money! Best and brightest, indeed.

Then, again, lots of the ivy league kids know jack squat. I've written essays for them, and they only got in because they paid people to do their application essays. I should not be surprised, but I want to have hope.


Including an explanation of the first amendment in one's survey or petitioning would be a necessary safeguard. It doesn't necessarily imply that someone doesn't know what the first amendment is, but it ensures that everyone who participates does. Having everyone on the same page when they're answering the question of whether to repeal that amendment is important since that's how you accurately gauge their attitudes and principles concerning free expression, assembly, and so on.

If they don't understand both the purpose of the petition and the thing that the petition proposes to repeal then there's no way you can say you've accurately revealed participants' attitudes toward freedom of expression. Maybe you could say you've highlighted their ignorance on the subject, but my criticism about potentially misleading participants about the petition's purpose while attempting to introduce social bias leaves me with a raised eyebrow about that conclusion as well. This is why it's such a problem that we're not shown the full context and content of these conversations, because a lot could be getting lost in editing.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

BlueOni wrote:


Nobodyofimportance wrote:

All republicans are degenerate evil monsters.
First is about the people complaining about fox news and republicans, absent any "republicans" saying anything, or defending themselves.


That's not really what I was doing, so it's not mine to answer. I only put out an innocuous cat photo.


Second:
Seriously, if somebody wants to eliminate the first amendment, do you think they'll write an unbiased argument for you?


Maybe this part wasn't directed at me either, but if it was then I would respond like this:

My complaint was that the social biasing was uncontrolled, not that it was present. I already allowed for the biasing to be present since it was part of the social experiment Horowitz was conducting. If we were dealing with an experiment where the independent variable was temperature and the dependent variable was cupcake rise times I would be complaining on this particular point that Horowitz didn't accurately control the temperature but is still reporting the rise time data as though he had. My complaints, however, go beyond the introduction of social bias. For example, he didn't account for surveyor effects. How many other signatories gave their names because they know Horowitz and like his politics? That's a legitimate question, and one that has a substantial impact on the validity of the exercise.

In order to actually do what Horowitz was trying to do, represent (or expose if you like) the attitudes and principles of the student body of Yale University and assess the effect of social pressure on those principles and attitudes, the methods are actually quite involved. You can't just do an informal survey, and if you introduce social biasing you have to do so very methodically.





Once again, you are comparing two very different methodologies and practices and demanding that one conform to the other when they are dissimilar things.


You are projecting the methodology and practice of one engaged in a scientific study onto one who is merely offering a journalistic expose .


The controlled conditions you are critiquing Horowitz not utilizing are fundamentally antithetical of what he is seeking to explore:


To inquire if the "best and brightest" have the most basic knowledge of fundamental liberties to this nation, and whether or not they would so casually and callously forbid those for others.


The methodologies you would prefer (where he tells them what the First Amendment is, etc.) defeats the entire purpose of inquiring if they have that most basic knowledge to begin with.


35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/23/15 , edited 12/23/15

maxgale wrote:

Yes, I really do believe there is nothing really to say to those who refuse to acknowledge what is readily evident before them, and tries to discredit it be arguing that it is not something it never claimed to be.


That is no less a "gotcha!" than how you are claiming the Horowitz video as.


Which, it should be noted, if it was so dastardly edited to hide the truth as some here are claiming, forgot to leave out the part which shows that it is not perfect, which you yourself drew attention to.


I have expressed that I don't believe Horowitz when he says he accurately determined the attitudes and principles of Yale's student body concerning freedom of expression/religion/assembly/etc. (which was the point of the exercise), and have stated the reason I don't is because of the problems I pointed out as I examined how Horowitz assessed those attitudes and principles he sought to reveal. This is not an attempt to find some way to discredit Horowitz or the exercise, and my complaints are rooted in methodological concerns rather than ideological or personal complaints.

Let's suppose that I want to run an expose on the attitudes of the people in whatever firm you work at concerning public flogging. I manage to get people in your firm to sign a petition to implement flogging, but I also have it on camera that they're giving that signature specifically because it's me and they like my politics and what I'm trying to do. In fact, the conversation even indicates that they wouldn't have signed my petition unless it was me. What's more, I'm mostly pointing to conversations I had on the sidewalk in front of your firm at one time of day. Exactly how long would you wait before you called me out for improper data gathering? Would you shrug and say "Meh, I guess it's an expose. Methods don't matter." as I went around saying "Maxgale Fail: Lawyers Support Public Flogging!!!!1111!!1!!11!!"?

No. You'd be on me like ants on a picnic saying my methods were flawed and my results were untrustworthy. Because they would be. That would be the truth.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

BlueOni wrote:


maxgale wrote:

Yes, I really do believe there is nothing really to say to those who refuse to acknowledge what is readily evident before them, and tries to discredit it be arguing that it is not something it never claimed to be.


That is no less a "gotcha!" than how you are claiming the Horowitz video as.


Which, it should be noted, if it was so dastardly edited to hide the truth as some here are claiming, forgot to leave out the part which shows that it is not perfect, which you yourself drew attention to.


I have expressed that I don't believe Horowitz when he says he accurately determined the attitudes and principles of Yale's student body concerning freedom of expression/religion/assembly/etc. (which was the point of the exercise), and have stated the reason I don't is because of the problems I pointed out as I examined how Horowitz assessed those attitudes and principles he sought to reveal. This is not an attempt to find some way to discredit Horowitz or the exercise, and my complaints are rooted in methodological concerns rather than ideological or personal complaints.

Let's suppose that I want to run an expose on the attitudes of the people in whatever firm you work at concerning public flogging. I manage to get people in your firm to sign a petition to implement flogging, but I also have it on camera that they're giving that signature specifically because it's me and they like my politics and what I'm trying to do. In fact, the conversation even indicates that they wouldn't have signed my petition unless it was me. What's more, I'm mostly pointing to conversations I had on the sidewalk in front of your firm at one time of day. Exactly how long would you wait before you called me out for improper data gathering? Would you shrug and say "Meh, I guess it's an expose. Methods don't matter." as I went around saying "Maxgale Fail: Lawyers Support Public Flogging!!!!1111!!1!!11!!"?

No. You'd be on me like ants on a picnic saying my methods were flawed and my results were untrustworthy. Because they would be. That would be the truth.




You assume Horowitz is making claims about the entire student population of Yale, versus the actual claim he is making that these attitudes merely exist and cannot be said to be boogeymen created by those opposed to the Left, and that since they can be found at one of the most prestigious institutions for higher learning that it should call into question just what they are learning (or not).


If you legitimately found people who supported public flogging for shoplifting or some other minor offense at the firm, but also were willing to show that some of those who claimed so did so out of the purpose of getting a laugh, then I would find no problem if you were to go on to claim, "It's kinda messed up that the people meant to ensure that our society remains civilised would advocate such brutality. Why is that, and how has that occurred?"




35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

maxgale wrote:

You assume Horowitz is making claims about the entire student population of Yale, versus the actual claim he is making that these attitudes merely exist and cannot be said to be boogeymen created by those opposed to the Left, and that since they can be found at one of the most prestigious institutions for higher learning that it should call into question just what they are learning (or not).


If you legitimately found people who supported public flogging for shoplifting or some other minor offense at the firm, but also were willing to show that some of those who claimed so did so out of the purpose of getting a laugh, then I would find no problem if you were to go on to claim, "It's kinda messed up that the people meant to ensure that our society remains civilised would advocate such brutality. Why is that, and how has that occurred?"


Except he very much did expand his claims to Yale's student body as a whole, and this is no more strongly punctuated than at the end of the video when he highlights just how many signatures he was able to obtain over the course of 60 minutes. That he introduces his short with an appeal to the Yale community's history and closes his short with a marching band behind a black screen and white text talking about the Yale community indicates that he was, in fact, talking about Yale as a community.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.