If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

I've watched the video, multiple times. He hits him in a glancing blow off the front/side of his head.

I can't believe you're claiming to discern what Harris's "point" was from this evidence. It's purely presumptuous. As long as people keep appealing to this as suggestive of anything, I'll keep rolling my eyes.

 

[CiG]

Roll your eyes all you like, you haven't addressed what I said about the way his body moves when he strikes. He's quite blatantly not aiming for the pole which is at waist level just by the way he strikes and the angle of his shoulder etc.

 

[Dak]

Aiming for the pole wouldn't have even done anything. The claim makes no sense. But we see what we want to see I guess.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I've watched the video, multiple times. He hits him in a glancing blow off the front/side of his head.

I can't believe you're claiming to discern what Harris's "point" was from this evidence. It's purely presumptuous. As long as people keep appealing to this as suggestive of anything, I'll keep rolling my eyes.

No more presumptuous than the Canadian aiming only for the phone.

 

[CiG]

@Dak Yeah that's also true. Why swing a weapon at another weapon? Nobody would do something like that, even as an instinct it makes very little sense since we're humans with fingers and thumbs and strong arms. A normal person would use their hand and grab the weapon and yank it away.

Some of the shit people will believe due to partisanship is hilarious.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Goes deeper than partisanship. Trump was the sole Republican willing to say that both sides have a right to voice their opinions, and the sole Republican to call out violence on the left. Average Republicans are terrified of ever siding against a black person.

 

[CiG]

Republicans are pathetic, same with the U.K. Conservatives. Just weak-willed limp-dick status-quo scumfucks who think opposing the left/being right-wing means being a few steps behind the progressive agenda. If communists took over the country today the Republicans would be arguing for a return to liberal feminism.

 

[Dak]

Republicans have been cucking it up for a long time eg Boehner. Never would have thought Graham would have found some balls. McCain dying has probably helped. Hatch telling those harpies to grow up was great.

I'll reiterate I'm not a fan of Kavanaugh, but if lines are hardening between a worldwide tyranny of adult daycare and the lack thereof, I'll stick with the lack thereof. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

 

[Einherjar86]

@Dak Yeah that's also true. Why swing a weapon at another weapon? Nobody would do something like that, even as an instinct it makes very little sense since we're humans with fingers and thumbs and strong arms. A normal person would use their hand and grab the weapon and yank it away.

You're trying to project rationality onto people whose tempers are flaring and all of whom are already on edge. Nothing about the situation is "normal," and people won't act as expected.

Some of the shit people will believe due to partisanship is hilarious.

How have I stated a belief about anything? You've turned this whole discussion around on me as though I'm the one making outrageous claims based on inconclusive evidence. All I've said is that we can appeal to that video as evidence for completely different interpretations.

You're actually the one choosing to believe something based on--I can only assume--some predisposition you have to whatever occurred. And unless you have forensic training and experience analyzing body movements in violent situations, what expertise can you claim?

Again, I simply find it ridiculous how definitive you and others are when it comes to the Harris video/situation.

 

[CiG]

You're trying to project rationality onto people whose tempers are flaring and all of whom are already on edge. Nothing about the situation is "normal," and people won't act as expected.

I also said I don't think it makes sense if we're talking instincts.

You're actually the one choosing to believe something based on--I can only assume--some predisposition you have to whatever occurred. And unless you have forensic training and experience analyzing body movements in violent situations, what expertise can you claim?

I didn't even know about this Harris incident until I saw it here and I've already implied several times that it's plausible the Canuck was aiming for the woman's phone and hit her face because both potential targets are inches apart. Harris however, going by the footage, didn't do anything to indicate he was aiming at waist level and the arc of his swing was aimed high and what a shock, he landed high.

Dunno about you but I've been in/seen enough fights to understand something as basic as how body language telegraphs intent. The Canuck telegraphed his kick by pivoting his hip and doing a slight bounce with his feet. Harris telegraphed his head-strike with the angle of his shoulder and elbow and just now I've also noticed that he's seemingly looking at the man's head area as he swings, if he was aiming for the pole at the man's waist he would have been looking downward in that direction because who the fuck strikes a target while not looking at it? Is he Bruce Lee? Or is he some kind of sociopath who looks at targets with only his eyes while he keeps his head level?

I personally just think you're desperate to have a black victim at the hands of the whitenats with no ambiguity or chance that the black guy was in the wrong.

 

[CiG]

He was totally aiming at the guy's pole guys. It just looks like he's looking right at the guy's fucking head.

 

[Einherjar86]

And unless you have forensic training and experience analyzing body movements in violent situations, what expertise can you claim?

Dunno about you but I've been in/seen enough fights to understand something as basic as how body language telegraphs intent.

Seems super sound.

I personally just think you're desperate to have a black victim at the hands of the whitenats with no ambiguity or chance that the black guy was in the wrong.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis.

My entire point has been that there is ambiguity, but fine.

 

[CiG]

Your point was ceded to ages ago, nobody has said that one thing or another has definitely with 100% certainty happened. If only experts need apply what the fuck is the point of talking politics on a forum in the first place?

Seems super sound.

NOBODY CAN KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED.

Give a cookie to the genius.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

NOBODY CAN KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED.

Give a cookie to the genius.

That's Ein's entire driving philosophy of life.

 

[CiG]

It's a great quality for a technocrat to have.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've read a lot about this "grievance studies" hoax. They published some crazy shit, but overall I don't think they proved much of anything. This piece from Slate sums up my view:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html

The following paragraphs are particularly lucid:

The dog-rape study is supposed to have resulted from nearly 1,000 hours of observation at three dog parks in southeast Portland. The dildo paper pretends to draw from multihour interviews with 13 men—eight straight, two bisexual, three gay—about their sexual behaviors. And the breastaurant research claims to have its basis in a two-year-long project carried out in northern Florida, involving men whose educational backgrounds, ages, and marital statuses were duly recorded and reported.

How absurd was it for such work to get an airing? It may sound silly to investigate the rates at which dog owners intervene in public humping incidents, but that doesn’t mean it’s a total waste of time (as psychologist Daniel Lakens pointed out on Twitter). If the findings had been real, they would have some value irrespective of the pablum that surrounds them in the paper’s introduction and discussion sections. Indeed, one can point to lots of silly-sounding published data from many other fields of study, including strictly scientific ones. Are those emblematic of “corruption” too?

It’s true that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian tricked some journals into putting out made-up data, but this says nothing whatsoever about the fields they chose to target. One could have run this sting on almost any empirical discipline and returned the same result. We know from long experience that expert peer review offers close to no protection against outright data fraud, whether in the field of gender studies or cancer research, psychology or plant biology, crystallography or condensed matter physics. Even shoddy paste-up jobs with duplicated images and other slacker fakes have made their way to print and helped establish researchers’ careers. So what if these hoaxers did the same for fun? These examples haven’t hoodwinked anyone with sophistry or satire but with a simple fabrication of results.

Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian employed this made-up-data method for five of their 21 papers, and three of those were accepted for publication—yielding a hoax-success rate of 60 percent. When they wrote up papers without this added layer of deception, just four of 16 were accepted.

That's Ein's entire driving philosophy of life.

 

[Dak]

The data is irrelevant. It's the arguments that are the point. Data can be created, legitimately or otherwise, to support any number of hypotheses. p-hacking is where one collects data, finds a significant result from them, then configures a hypothis(eses) that seem to explain the data. These authors didn't p-hack, they created absurd arguments that sounded good to the journals, with some "data" to go with it. Argument-hacking? The data was a bonus. Do you think the reason they were rejected from sociological journals was the data?

 

[Einherjar86]

Do you think the reason they were rejected from sociological journals was the data?

mmmmm, no. That's the not the author's point though. His point is that hoaxes like this are always aimed at journals on the basis of argumentation. They never aim at scientific journals which might promote plausible arguments based on false data. There's an implicit assumption that objectionable arguments based on legitimate data are somehow worse than non-objectionable arguments based on false data.

Additionally, there's an operating flaw in their methodology that equates mimicry with comprehension, but I'm tired and don't have time to go into it now. Long story short, it's questionable whether they actually "know" they've created faulty arguments if all they're doing is imitating a discourse.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

mmmmm, no. That's the not the author's point though. His point is that hoaxes like this are always aimed at journals on the basis of argumentation. They never aim at scientific journals which might promote plausible arguments based on false data. There's an implicit assumption that objectionable arguments based on legitimate data are somehow worse than non-objectionable arguments based on false data.

Additionally, there's an operating flaw in their methodology that equates mimicry with comprehension, but I'm tired and don't have time to go into it now. Long story short, it's questionable whether they actually "know" they've created faulty arguments if all they're doing is imitating a discourse.

The point is that the author's point is retarded, and probably indicative of someone that has never published a paper in a remotely-decent scientific journal before. Even in social sciences there's an expectation of some statistical analysis of data, some formation of a testable model, etc. As Dak said, the issue wasn't the forgery of data, it was the fact that these papers were 90% conjecture based on 10% data.

I don't know what you mean by "objectionable" vs "non-objectionable", but people perform hoaxes against journals in the hard sciences as well. The controversy of such hoaxes isn't just forgery of data, it's primarily that the arguments themselves are bullshit and get accepted either because the reviewer dogmatically believes it to be true, or because the reviewer cannot understand the paper.