These numbers are fairly shocking for both parties. The Democrats seem to have leveled off but that humber is still too high. And, as I have been saying right along, the Republicans have a serious problem with racism against black people. Combine this graphic with my previous two graphics and it's just plain awful. In addition, note the spike when President Obama took office.
Honestly, there's not really anything positive to take away from this question.
11 comments:
Still not linking to the poll/source in question?
Cite your sources dudd.
My sources are 538 and the General Social Survey. I cited them in the first post:)
Of course, I did that on purpose because I wanted to see if you even bothered reading any of my links from our last discussion. The link to the specific 538 page is in there. It's obvious that you didn't read that link and skipped right to imperial declarations about how I can't prove anything.
So, if you don't read my evidence, it's no wonder that I'm not proving anything. You have one finger in each ear and you're shouting, "I'm not listening to you!! You're talking about I'm not listening!!!" You'll never be convinced because you don't want to be, least of all by me.
Oh, I read the page - interesting that you aren't giving caveats the 538 does.
What I'm objecting to is that the reader - i.e. me, should not have to play fucking hide and seek trying to find your citations.
I don't care if you linked this study before - you are citing it here - link it here.
Further, you can't claim GSV as you haven't done anything other than link the GSV main page - show the data that you are citing.
Further, further - 538 doesn't bother to show their work nor their exact source data.
You want your fancy charts to be believable - show your work.
I'm citing evidence of someone else's work, GD. If you have a problem with General Social Survey or 538, you should be the one doing work, not me. Use your logic and reason and explain exactly how their methodology is flawed. Perhaps you should complain to 538 as well. They seem like a pretty shady outfit to me...been wrong many, many times in the past, right?
Of course, all of this is yet another dodge. Any sort of evidence that makes your party look bad...well, it's back to the games like this. It's not the fact that the GOP has more racists than Democrats, it's the data! It's Mark!! It's the methodology!! It's...it's...something...I just know it but I'm not going to do anything but say that it is and childishly redirect!!!
This is going to be a long series, GD, and it's going to involve more than these two outfits. I predict you are going to have the same response for each piece of evidence that I put up:)
So let me get this straight Mark, you are posting the 538 stuff straight, without even bothering to do a cursory check on what the source data is? I expect nothing less from you.
I don't have to do the work Mark. If neither you nor 538 can be bothered to provide the source data, the info is worthless.
You want to make a point, source your data. And if your data isn't sourced, find the source and cite it. That's the job of the person who wants his point to be believed. Not the reader.
I provided a link to the GSS site in which I did my check on the data, GD. If you had bothered to even put in a minimal amount of effort and check the data yourself by reviewing the variable selection folders in the cumulative data file as well as running the same entry variables that 538 did, you would have seen how the data checks out. You would have also noted that a user has to work within the database themselves and can't simply link it.
Help me out here, GD. Don't you and other conservatives foam at the mouth about how people are too coddled in schools these days and need to do more work for themselves? That's where the enduring understandings come from and the journey of discovery is where the real learning occurs. Of course, you don't want to do any real learning nor have any serious discussion and would rather play games rooted in fallacy. Your entire comment is a straw man, purposefully put forth to redirect from the original assertion which you continue to skirt.
As I have stated previously, if you have a problem with their work, you have to check their methodology. Read the background of the outfit and evaluate their history. Examine how they do data analysis. Check out the variables. That's why I started you off at their general web site. Take some time and explore it.
The mere fact that you have tied it all back to me once again shows that you aren't really serious about discussing this issue and would rather pursue your childish game of avoidance. So, I challenge you to do your own work within the GSS site and come to a conclusion that isn't filtered by me.
After all, why would you want me (someone you continually claim is dishonest) to be the filter/authority on the data? Or even 538? As you have assured me many times, you are more reasonable and logical than myself. Continue the dodge and..well...that pretty much renders your previous comments, as well as a good chunk of your ideology, without merit.
I've been to the gss site mark, why the hell do you think I'm harping on this so much. When it takes more effort to find the data than it does to check it, then the people presenting the data are assholes. And no, I don't for one minute believe you had at any point before today went to the gss site to verify the data.
When it takes more effort to find the data than it does to check it, then the people presenting the data are assholes.
Well, I'd say that sums up how serious you are about examining this issue. It also confirms my previous statements on your maturity level. Nice straw man at the end, btw:)
Our last two conversations have got me to wondering, GD. You've stated that your opinion doesn't really matter on the issues I present and that, since it's my blog, I need to be the one putting forth arguments and supporting them with evidence, not you.
If your opinion doesn't matter, why would it matter in your other comments about me and/or your critiques about the evidence I present? Way to massively undercut yourself!
Well, I'd say that sums up how serious you are about examining this issue.
So if I presented a cute chart and a set of numbers with poorly sourced data, you'd just accept it at my word?
Hell, I sent you a link once and you refused to dig into it because the writer regressively linked to his past posts. You couldn't be bothered to read his stuff because it was too much work for you to read - but you expect me to sort through a metric crap-ton of years and variables and - the entire point of it - alternate variables - learning a non-intuitive interface....
Not only are you an asshole, you are a hypocrite.
Hell, you couldn't even do a basic citation of your source - GSS and 538. How hard is it to post a link to the site and the article when you post material from it? But no, you expect the reader to wade back to a previous post to find the link. Like I said, asshole. Plus lazy, academically incompetent and yes, dishonest at the core.
Nice straw man at the end
You keep using that phrase - you still don't know what it means.
You've stated that your opinion doesn't really matter on the issues I present and that, since it's my blog, I need to be the one putting forth arguments and supporting them with evidence, not you.
If your opinion doesn't matter, why would it matter in your other comments about me and/or your critiques about the evidence I present? Way to massively undercut yourself!
Try reading for comprehension Mark.
I never said my opinion doesn't matter. What I have claimed in PARTICULAR discussions is that my opinion to a PARTICULAR item or question is irrelevant to the POINT or QUESTION under discussion.
In other words, my opinion on the color blue is irrelevant to a discussion about hot dogs. That you are incapable of seeing that when asking what I think of the color blue is telling in and off itself. That you are now telling me that you can't even figure out the difference between irrelevant to a subject and complete irrelevance paints you as someone who is only marginally in command of basic bodily functions.
Oh, and I'm not 'dodging' anything here. Are you done 'presenting' your 'evidence'? Please be sure to let me know when you are so I can reply - don't want to short circuit your train of thought before you are done.
We've got a number of days to go, GD, so you can save your ad hom and personal attacks for the summary post if you like.
For future reference, though, please indicate which comments containing your views are relevant and do indeed matter as opposed to the ones that don't. Based on past experience, any comment about me personally (Mark) or the manner in which I argue (Mark's style) I would think would be deemed relevant by yourself. Any comment that actually addresses the issue at hand, evaluates its strength and evidence as well as illustrates your understanding of the subject would not be relevant and thus will not be offered.
That about sum it up?
please indicate which comments containing your views are relevant and do indeed matter as opposed to the ones that don't.
Easy enough, the ones in which you attempt to change the subject and get me to comment on something irrelevant are, well, irrelevant.
Also, despite you claiming otherwise, a comment about something you said is not automatically a comment about you personally.
Post a Comment