>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Sudden 180° turn on a highly contentious issue..?
Say anything. Do anything. To get elected.

It's the American way!


Actually, Obama was pro-same-sex-equality before his presidency.

Biden's unplanned statement on Meet the Press, plus the NC amendment pushed him to make this (also unplanned) statement that the White House said was haphazardly put together, and may actually endanger his standing with some African American and Latino constituents.

Even if your premise is true, how does that make african americans different from white americans? As I recall, AAs aren't going around sponsoring laws and bank rolling initiatives banning marriage in every state they can.>> ^Jinx:

Amen to that.
but srsly, what a perfect speech. Fair to say there is a lot of homophobia in the black and gospel communities, which is a shame given their history of fighting for civil rights. Few more preachermen like this guy and that might change. Good sift.

@longde

• I think knowledge about everything is always better (even about various ethnicities in my background); opposing data for normative reasons is never right.

• Ad hominems aren't an effective response to statistics, and I think in this case they also misunderstand; most of my interactions with African Americans are in athletic activities, where, by chance, my physical attributes are on the right side of the physical bell curve, and where people in general are nice and friendly. However, it'd be wrong to try to diminish someone's voice because of physical attributes, which are generally irrelevant in life.


Statistical differences in average crime rates between African Americans and e.g. Asians is a very reasonable statistical claim that everybody already agrees with; of course there are average differences between different groups in all manner of things. 1200% appears to be accurate.

My comment put AVERAGE in bold so that nobody would miss it. Using terms like "all black men" and references to Obama suggest you should take your advice on statistics and probability. The reason I tend to refer to Obama, Herman Cain's son, and Black Americans born in Africa is to emphasis differences in cultures and where group averages don't apply.


Sorry if it was upsetting. I know that when I feel misunderstood, it occopies time in my mind that'd I'd rather spend elsewhere. I do, though, like better knowledge achieved through multiple people's perspectives. So thanks for the discussions. Best wishes

@longde

A study arguing that jury composition is sometimes unbalanced doesn't excuse us from needing to know whether or not THIS jury was unbalanced. Or we might need to awkwardly explain why a jury like this would be racist against her.

Even if the jury was all White and Latino, it should be curious to us that they'd take the side of a violent African American male with 5 baby mommas. That's who they're supposed to be biased against, not for, particularly when it comes to firearms used for self-defense.

More details are needed, and journalists are only conveying one narrow side.

Ha. Well, if you can't disprove that the jury was significantly composed of ethnic minorities, it will be tacit admission that asking questions is a useful part of using our brains.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.


I thought your questions weren't really questions, just bullshit.

>> ^chilaxe:

It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.



I thought your questions weren't really questions, just bullshit.

It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.

>> ^chilaxe:

I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.


A whole lot of assumptions you're making.

I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.

Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

you're never going to just accidentally wind up with a random sample whose demographics are exactly in proportion with the national demographics

Yes you can. You randomly contact 1,500 people or 2,000 until you have a large sample, and then you randomly select a proportion of them in order to arrive at a proper percentage of the national average. It's called oversampling, and it is a common, simple way to obtain the right sample while avoiding the far more opaque and dubious method of "weighting" data ex post facto.

This very poll oversampled African Americans so as to do a seperate analysis on the population. 199 out of 1,103. 18% of the results - which for the final analysis they'd have to reduce down to 12.8%. Presumably they did this, but thier internals are hidden so there is no evidence they did any data correction whatsoever. This is a common problem with leftist "research". They conduct a study, publish crazy results, and then claim they have done magical mystery data correction behind the scenes and just trust them on it. Well, 9 times out of 10 so far when you peek at the actual methdology, it is a blatant cooking of the books. Frankly, until they show me the raw data I don't believe a word of it and neither should you.

Putting it bluntly, obtaining a sample population as badly out of proportion as the ones in this poll as REPEATEDLY as they are doing it (see the link) can only be through a slanted sampling practice that is being done on purpose. Much like how NBC had to purposefully edit out the middle of the Zimmerman phone call.

If I was doing an opinion study that consistently and regularly was resulting in a sample population of 39% Conservatives, 37% Moderates, and 24% Liberals would you call it a fair sampling? Oh - and remember - I "PROMISE" (wink wink) that I'm doing all the proper data correction behind the scenes - don't you worry about it!

Interview with notable African-American poet and journalist Frank Marshall Davis. Frank is mentioned in Barak Obamas "Dreams From My Father", as a drinking buddy of his grandfather and an African American that made an impression on the now President as a young man growing up in Hawaii. The Film & Media Archive partnered with the Center for Labor Education and Research (CLEAR) at the University of Hawaii West Oahu to preserve the interview.

From the YouTube link... HELL of a leap you make with that title...

It was 65 degrees that night. I've lived in florida, that is not "fucking cold" weather.

Edit: I looked at the other link, and this other expert claims Zimmerman says "fucking punks". So two enhanced sound tracks with two experts with two different conclusions. Doesn't sound like an exact science to me.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
The audio has since been clarified, but even in the beginning the "coon" claim was speculative.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324776/201204
06/cold-coon-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-911-racial.htm
http://s2smagazine.com/stories/2012/04/enhanced-audio
-george-zimmermans-911-call-released
Zimmerman campaigned in the past on the side of African-Americans in his community against the local police department. For some reason that gets left out of these narratives.
Science is best left to data, which is always more interesting than evocative narratives that pick and choose.
But the point is that nobody can change that you can put any gang member or someone who thinks of themselves in that way in a gated community and you get the same results. And on the other hand, if you put Herman Cain's son (2nd from right) there, who probably doesn't have a gold grill and gang-like tattoos and doesn't like to fight, you get entirely different results.

No, you get the same result. It could be young Obama, and you get the same result. That's the thing about racism: it is based solely on appearance. Any interpretation of behavior is influenced by pre-conceived bias.

Also, stop blaming the victim! You can pull up facebook photos and youtube videos of young people of every race imitating rap stars. It doesn't make them gang affiliated.

>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
The audio has since been clarified, but even in the beginning the "coon" claim was speculative.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324776/201204
06/cold-coon-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-911-racial.htm
http://s2smagazine.com/stories/2012/04/enhanced-audio
-george-zimmermans-911-call-released
Zimmerman campaigned in the past on the side of African-Americans in his community against the local police department. For some reason that gets left out of these narratives.
Science is best left to data, which is always more interesting than evocative narratives that pick and choose.
But the point is that nobody can change that you can put any gang member or someone who thinks of themselves in that way in a gated community and you get the same results. And on the other hand, if you put Herman Cain's son (2nd from right) there, who probably doesn't have a gold grill and gang-like tattoos, and doesn't like to fight, you get entirely different results.