The News Thread

these sample sizes have to be tiny. syg as a subset of murders, and then racial demographics with syg cases. I can't imagine that list of cases is even near 100. whites kill whites like 80% of the time too. and the states in which SYG is a law is so small as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Low base rates create all sorts of issues when trying to make sense of the existing statistics.....other than to present that the incidents have a low base rate.
 
iirc, many murderers will claim self-defense in the course of their legal defense. Even if blacks and whites, whether validly arguing self-defense or not, claim self-defense at the same rate, the statistics will naturally be skewed to show more blacks failing to claim self-defense than whites, on the simple basis that blacks commit murder more often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG and Dak
New Zealand bans sales of homes to foreigners.
New Zealand's parliament has banned many foreigners from buying existing homes in the country - a move aimed at making properties more affordable.

The ban only applies to non-residents. Australians and Singaporeans are exempt because of free-trade deals.

New Zealand is facing a housing affordability crisis which has left home ownership out of reach for many.

Low interest rates, limited housing stock and immigration have driven up prices in recent years.
 

That's a rather misleading title, coming from the BBC. Banning sales to non-residents, considering the ascendant Chinese elite and New Zealand's increasing status as a vacation destinations, makes sense. Why let prices rise because of home purchases from people who aren't even going to live there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HamburgerBoy
Yeah I'm about as laissez-faire as you can get when it comes to most things global trade-related, but the fact that all nations don't try to curtail speculative investment on real estate is baffling when they tax the fuck out of their own citizens already. If not a ban, why don't governments at least add a foreign-national non-resident property tax bonus? Like, charge them triple or something, anything that at least improves social service funding for local residents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zabu of nΩd
I think BO was pointing out that the title will be read by many as denying housing to low-income immigrants and those in desperate need of shelter--not to vacationers looking to buy a second (or third, of fourth) house.

It's crude, but it's also highly suggestive considering our current geopolitical climate.
 
Just letting you guys in on a little secret about "privileged urban Americans."

BO's comment was on point because that headline would trigger a response from left-of-center readers, as HBB said. And it doesn't have to, given the information that BO provided. But we live in a social media culture of headlines, clickbait, and news notifications. Everything needs to be miniaturized for expediency. Not the fault of those who hold certain values, just the limitations of the information regime.
 
You can't just admit that interpretation isn't a matter of logic, but of values. There's no baseline "logical" interpretation of language, as the failure of logical positivism in the early-20thc has already demonstrated.
 
Either the title gets you to click based on the words included and their relation to certain topics that interest you, or you attack/avoid the article based on its title and you're an idiot. I take a title with a grain of salt most of the time, often I barely even register them as a sentence and just look for relevant words in them.

But it's the case that information saturation requires clickbait. It's really no different to OTT cover art on albums or movies which are used to manipulate consumption. Judging a book by its cover is simply the act of using your time economically, like any other resource that you shouldn't/wouldn't just piss away on any old thing that comes along.
 
But it's the case that information saturation requires clickbait.

I agree 100%. And all BO was saying was that the headline is misleading and/or politically suggestive based on the language used. That's all. He wasn't even objecting to the content of the piece.
 
Oh indeed. I simply thought it was funny that his description of the article more or less matched the admittedly crude title. It was a good example of political correctness making something more turgid than it needs to be.