The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 29 guests, and 26 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Devan Omega
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
1,987,444 Trump card
1,324,088 Picture Thread
473,917 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 7 of 22 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 21 22
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10


It took me some time to get through this incoherent mess. The key premise of this article is that there is no peer-reviewed papers that support the idea that Left's actions have a polarizing effect on Right. As counter-evidence, they offer a working paper (meaning, it wasn't peer reviewed) "The Effectiveness of a Racialized Counter-Strategy" by Antoine Jevon Banks from University of Maryland.

Here is his bio:
https://gvpt.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Banks/Antoine

Looking at his CV, here is other work he published:

Banks, Antoine J. and Heather Hicks. 2016.
“Fear and Implicit Racism: Whites’ Support for Voter ID laws” Political Psychology 37(5): 641-658.

Banks, Antoine J. and Nicholas A. Valentino 2014. “What Emotions Fuel Racism in America” American Journal of Political Science Blog, July 3, 2014

and so on...

---

Reading working paper that is cited by fair.org (https://www.dropbox.com/s/cufevh2ded015rh/Racialized%20Counter%20Strategy%20Draft_01_22_18.pdf?dl=0)

Abstract:
Quote
Our paper examines whether a politician charging a political candidate’s implicit racial campaign appeal as racist is an effective political strategy. According to the racial priming theory, this racialized counter-strategy should deactivate racism, thereby decreasing racially conservative whites’ support for the candidate engaged in race baiting. We propose
an alternative theory in which racial liberals, and not racially conservative whites,
are persuaded by this strategy. To test our theory, we focused on the 2016 presidential election. We ran an experiment varying the politician (by party and race) calling an implicit racial appeal by Donald Trump racist. We find that charging Trump’s campaign appeal as racist does not persuade racially conservative whites to decrease support for
Trump. Rather, it causes racially liberal whites to evaluate Trump more unfavorably. Our results hold up when attentiveness, old-fashioned racism, and partisanship are taken into account. We also reproduce our findings in two replication studies.


The cornerstone assertion of this paper is that racial priming theory is a thing. If you would like, we can have a separate discussion on this. However, to be charitable, this is a highly controversial theory with strong racist undertones. It also happens to be the kind of theory that is not falsifiable.

Reading on to methods:

Quote
We conducted an experiment through Survey Sampling International (SSI), a survey company which recruited participants to complete our study online in exchange for a variety of incentives; such as points, cash, and sweepstakes.


So it is a survey.

Quote
Participants are asked to read the article and watch the accompanying campaign ad. We created the political ad to resemble similar implicit racial appeals used in previous research... an image of young black men rioting in the streets appears on the screen.


They showed race-baiting video posing as a campaign add.

Quote
Our primary measure to capture whites’ racial attitudes is Kinder and Sander’s (1996) 4
-item Racial Resentment battery


To summarize, this is "have you stopped beating your wife" questionere. It first seen the light around Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action late 90s.

I won't bore you with critiques of statistical analysis used in the paper, but their method is inappropriate. They need to use multivariate analysis to make any kind of conclusion.

Some choice quote from results:

Quote
The findings show that racial conservatives do not feel significantly colder toward Trump after exposure to a politician’s charge of racism – relative to similar individuals in the implicit condition. In fact, resentful whites feel slightly warmer toward the Republican presidential candidate – though this difference does not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. This finding runs counter to the racial priming theory.


Quote
Racial liberals, in the explicit politician condition, are less likely to report voting for Trump relative to those in the implicit condition, but this difference is not statistically significant.


Then why are they talking about these differences?! A significant portion of this paper is "we didn't find statistically significant" and then proceed to talk about what it would mean if they did.


TL;DR This is a survey study that showed a fake racially-charged ad to a set of white people, asked them to self-identify on political spectrum, then used questionable method to measure effects of such ad. After that, questionable statistics were used to not find much of anything. From there, conclusions not supported by reported findings were reached.










[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Sini
It took me some time to get through this incoherent mess. The key premise of this article is that there is no peer-reviewed papers


Nowhere in the article do they mention requiring only peer-reviewed papers. They are looking for any sort of citation.


Originally Posted by Sini
that support the idea that Left's actions have a polarizing effect on Right. As counter-evidence, they offer a working paper (meaning, it wasn't peer reviewed) "The Effectiveness of a Racialized Counter-Strategy" by Antoine Jevon Banks from University of Maryland.

Here is his bio:
https://gvpt.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Banks/Antoine

Looking at his CV, here is other work he published:

Banks, Antoine J. and Heather Hicks. 2016.
“Fear and Implicit Racism: Whites’ Support for Voter ID laws” Political Psychology 37(5): 641-658.

Banks, Antoine J. and Nicholas A. Valentino 2014. “What Emotions Fuel Racism in America” American Journal of Political Science Blog, July 3, 2014

and so on...



So in other words, he's a competent source for analyzing racial animus in politics for having studied it his entire academic career.

Secondly, that they are providing some evidence to the contrary which you happen to take technical issue with does not negate the need for the other side to present any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever.


Originally Posted by Sini
The cornerstone assertion of this paper is that racial priming theory is a thing.


So the cornerstone of your suspicion surrounding this work is the legitimacy of an academic study with 1300 citations?


Originally Posted by Sini
If you would like, we can have a separate discussion on this.


It sounds like you have the makings of your own working paper on the issue. I look forward to discussing it after you publish and it makes the rounds on the blogosphere.

Last edited by rhaikh; 06/04/18 10:00 AM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Sini
Rhaikh, what are key ideas Harris is known for? Before I engage with you on this topic, I want to make sure we are actually talking about the same person.


I think it's sufficient for the purposes of this conversation to distill him down to these facts:

- As a philosophy and neuroscientist he rose to cultural prominence for views on atheism / religion
- He started forming let's say less-than-politically-correct ideas on Islam and subsequently collected some paychecks for TV appearances and faced backlash from the left
- He then found kindred spirit in Murray for what he observed as a similar unfair challenge to his ideas from the left
- He then went on to debate the merits of propping up the scientific racism Murray was peddling with Klein in an effort to collect even more paychecks


Fitting my mold of liberal willing to lend exactly just enough legitimacy to the basis of alt-right ideology in order to collect a paycheck, without admitting to holding such beliefs himself


Originally Posted by Sini
As to your proposition that conservatives are inherently racist


Which, again, is not something I've ever said or agree with.

Originally Posted by Sini
do you realize that logical conclusion of this position is to conclude that racism isn't a big deal? After all, if X is a natural trait someone is born with,


Both racism and conservatism are learned, not natural traits


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Rhaikh, what are key ideas Harris is known for? Before I engage with you on this topic, I want to make sure we are actually talking about the same person.


I think it's sufficient for the purposes of this conversation to distill him down to these facts:

- As a philosophy and neuroscientist he rose to cultural prominence for views on atheism / religion
- He started forming let's say less-than-politically-correct ideas on Islam and subsequently collected some paychecks for TV appearances and faced backlash from the left
- He then found kindred spirit in Murray for what he observed as a similar unfair challenge to his ideas from the left
- He then went on to debate the merits of propping up the scientific racism Murray was peddling with Klein in an effort to collect even more paychecks


Sam Harris, if distilled down to only few interests is known for advocacy of atheism, interest in free will, and relationship between science and religion. Only your first statement is even remotely neutral, the rest is knee-jerk ideology. Considering that you earlier agreed that Islam isn't a religion of peace, why is sudden regression and backslide to political correctness in your critique of Sam Harris? If we all agree that Islam is not a good thing, we only Harris is guilty of wrong-think?


Quote
Fitting my mold of liberal willing to lend exactly just enough legitimacy to the basis of alt-right ideology in order to collect a paycheck, without admitting to holding such beliefs himself


Alternatively, Sam Harris could be largely accurate in his criticisms of Islam and it is irrelevant whether alt-right agrees with him or not. It is also very telling that you consider that anything alt-right happen to agree with is automatically wrong and reprehensible. They probably also believe in gravity, does this make gravity a racist oppressive force that keeps minorities down (literally and otherwise)?


Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
do you realize that logical conclusion of this position is to conclude that racism isn't a big deal? After all, if X is a natural trait someone is born with,


Both racism and conservatism are learned, not natural traits



I am glad we both agree that racial priming theory is a bunch of bunk.




[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
The cornerstone assertion of this paper is that racial priming theory is a thing.


So the cornerstone of your suspicion surrounding this work is the legitimacy of an academic study with 1300 citations?


That, and bad statistics, questionable methods, lack of finding correlations for key arguments... and most importantly, the paper doesn't state what fair.org claims it says. It doesn't support their argument in any substantial way.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Sini
I am glad we both agree that racial priming theory is a bunch of bunk.


Originally Posted by Sini
Alternatively, Sam Harris could be largely accurate in his criticisms of Islam and it is irrelevant whether alt-right agrees with him or not. It is also very telling that you consider that anything alt-right happen to agree with is automatically wrong and reprehensible. They probably also believe in gravity, does this make gravity a racist oppressive force that keeps minorities down (literally and otherwise)?


Shame on you for falling back on straw men when you run out of good points, and shame on me for using euphemisms. Gravity is not alt-right ideology, racism is. Racial priming works on people who have already learned to be racist.

Originally Posted by Sini
Sam Harris, if distilled down to only few interests is known for advocacy of atheism, interest in free will, and relationship between science and religion. Only your first statement is even remotely neutral, the rest is knee-jerk ideology. Considering that you earlier agreed that Islam isn't a religion of peace, why is sudden regression and backslide to political correctness in your critique of Sam Harris? If we all agree that Islam is not a good thing, we only Harris is guilty of wrong-think?


He found purchase (multiple meanings implied) with controversy. It's not relevant to this topic his ideas on atheism, what's relevant is that he has become literally a peddler of controversy, and that is the reason he is giving platform to scientific racism. And herein is the intersection with the central point of this topic: Weinstein appearing on Fox is him following the same formula.

Originally Posted by Sini

That, and bad statistics, questionable methods, lack of finding correlations for key arguments... and most importantly, the paper doesn't state what fair.org claims it says. It doesn't support their argument in any substantial way.


I personally disagree with multiple facets of your assessment, but again, a) where's Gerard Alexander's evidence? and b) where's the formal refutation you are presenting? I think it's fair to leave criticism of academic work to academia.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by rhaikh

Shame on you for falling back on straw men when you run out of good points, and shame on me for using euphemisms. Gravity is not alt-right ideology, racism is. Racial priming works on people who have already learned to be racist.


You have no moral standing to shame anyone, as this would imply that you could have a moral high ground on this issue. I don't see how this would ever be possible after you attempted guilt-by-association.

I am also not clear how to take your response on Harris. Are you conceding that accusations of racism against him are baseless, or are you doubling-down on calling him alt-right because his atheism includes opposition to Islam? Please clarify.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
He found purchase (multiple meanings implied) with controversy. It's not relevant to this topic his ideas on atheism, what's relevant is that he has become literally a peddler of controversy, and that is the reason he is giving platform to scientific racism. And herein is the intersection with the central point of this topic: Weinstein appearing on Fox is him following the same formula.


So you are doubling-down.

Restating your argument for clarity:

P1. Harris general views on atheism are not relevant to his critiques of Islam
P2. Harris critique of Islam is controversial
P3. Alt-right criticizes Islam for racist reasons
P4. Alt-right is also controversial
---
C1 Therefore, Harris criticizes Islam for racists reasons
C2 Therefore, Harris is an alt-right

or

P1. Apples are round and small
P2. Baseballs are round and small
P3. Baseballs are sport implements
---
C1 Therefore, apples are sport implements

I don't think I even need to enumerate logical flaws in this, as it is plainly obvious that such argument is deeply flawed.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I personally disagree with multiple facets of your assessment, but again, a) where's Gerard Alexander's evidence? and b) where's the formal refutation you are presenting?


One valid, but weak, argument that fair.org has made is that polarization of conservative voters due to actions of Left have not been thoroughly researched. Everything else they say, including attempting to misinterpret a working paper to claim it as evidence to contrary, is bunk.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I think it's fair to leave criticism of academic work to academia.


I disagree. When academic work is core of your argument it behooves one to understand it. At the very least one must not misstate or overstate findings. It is also helpful to be familiar with statistics and research methods to spot flaws.



[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Sini
You have no moral standing to shame anyone, as this would imply that you could have a moral high ground on this issue. I don't see how this would ever be possible after you attempted guilt-by-association.

I am also not clear how to take your response on Harris. Are you conceding that accusations of racism against him are baseless, or are you doubling-down on calling him alt-right because his atheism includes opposition to Islam? Please clarify.

So you are doubling-down.

Restating your argument for clarity:

P1. Harris general views on atheism are not relevant to his critiques of Islam
P2. Harris critique of Islam is controversial
P3. Alt-right criticizes Islam for racist reasons
P4. Alt-right is also controversial
---
C1 Therefore, Harris criticizes Islam for racists reasons
C2 Therefore, Harris is an alt-right

or

P1. Apples are round and small
P2. Baseballs are round and small
P3. Baseballs are sport implements
---
C1 Therefore, apples are sport implements

I don't think I even need to enumerate logical flaws in this, as it is plainly obvious that such argument is deeply flawed.



This post is complete garbage.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by rhaikh
This post is complete garbage.


I am sorry, my bad. I forgot you are allergic to reason and logic.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
You’re so damn good at figuring out what I’m really trying to say, why don’t you give it a shot here. I’ll start replying again to stop you when you’ve figured out all the reasons why your post is garbage. As a hint, reason and logic is not correct, sorry.


[Linked Image]
Page 7 of 22 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 21 22

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5