The Political & Philosophy Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bc47...an-city-denies-black-people-equal-vote-rights

can't figure out where the 'dilution' is? anyone more knowledgeable than me on this?

lol what the fuck, I thought this was going to be one of those things where people complain about affirmative action when actual voter suppression occurs, but they literally say

Eastpointe's black voters consistently vote for black city council and school board candidates, however none of them have ever been elected, the lawsuit contends.

A review of elections shows "the black population of Eastpointe is politically cohesive and that the white population votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the preferred candidate of black voters," the lawsuit argues.

Can't wait until the current DOJ gets purged.

EDIT: Holy shit, the black population of the city changed from 4.7% black to to 29.5% black between the two most recent censuses? What the fuck is happening there? Moreover, the DOJ is going to make a case about black candidates never being elected, when they've been a sizeable percentage for barely more than a single decade? Fuck Obama's and Lynch's stupid race-baiting cunt faces.

 

[rms]

the thing I can't tell is if they are arguing that black candidates are not getting elected because of gerrymandering all the blacks into 1 district so overall their votes mean nothing?

but even then, don't really see a difference in whites voting for whites and blacks voting for blacks

 

[Dak]

No, the article states that there are no districts, therefore blacks are outnumbered. They want gerrymandered districts that give blacks a rep.

 

[rms]

I think there are 3 three districts since it said they want a 4th, but yeah I forgot..had to re-read

 

[Dak]

They want it carved into 4 with 1 being set up majority black.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think had they polled a wider source they may have still come to the same conclusion. Personally the main concerns I had with Trump were economically based.

Probably, and I too think his economic plans are shit, but I still find it striking how much garbage the NYT has been putting out lately.

 

[CiG]

Not surprising to me, it's the NYT haha.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I guess they have had that reputation for a while...

 

[CiG]

I think these last two years people are able to see just how ridiculous many of these companies are.

 

[Dak]

Speaking of the NYT: You know the situation is dire in libland when John Maynard Krugman is suggesting that politicians might create false flags to boost their legitimacy and/or power:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/809851823687368704?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Speaking of the NYT: You know the situation is dire in libland when John Maynard Krugman is suggesting that politicians might create false flags to boost their legitimacy and/or power:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/809851823687368704?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

What's so crazy about that? See: Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

 

[Dak]

What's so crazy about that? See: Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

I don't think it's crazy. BUT ERMGAGERD CONSIPIRACY THEORIST!

 

[Einherjar86]

Apparently a poll of 31 economists from a small handful of universities in liberal states is representative of "most economists"

Not surprising to me, it's the NYT haha.

Well, the Booth School isn't a bastion of left-wing politics; but that doesn't mean the survey isn't inadequate.

I also don't think it's the NYT's job to provide extensive statistics or surveys, although it would be nice if they could find them. Unfortunately, sometimes they don't exist, so you have to go with what's available. This isn't fake news by any means, but (as Dak and I have discussed elsewhere) it could still be misleading news. I don't think it's shirking journalistic responsibilities to provide this kind of data, though. The survey from the Booth School exists, and the NYT is just reporting it.

And for what it's worth, this probably isn't misleading news, except for the rather obvious fact that 31 economists aren't "most economists." It probably is accurate, however, that "most economists" disagree with Trump's economic policy. And if we're being fair, this is the point of surveys - to take a sampling and extrapolate from there. That's all that NYT is doing. It's really not all that misleading to say "most" if readers understand the extrapolation.

I don't know how much the news media can emphasize to their viewers "take this information with a grain of salt"; or "please reflect on this data critically." It's the media's job to provide verifiable information; I'm not sure it's their job to encourage people to go verify it.

 

[CiG]

This particular article isn't why I think NYT are shit, as I actually said I agree with their jumping off point about economists and Trump. I think if they polled 100% of western economists the overwhelming majority would disagree with Trump's economic policy.

 

[Dak]

It doesn't even really matter if "most economists disagree" at this point. The overwhelming number of economists didn't predict the "Great Recession", think the US is in a "recovery" etc. Standard economists have been proven to be useless in the "current year" for the last decade. Nearly all assumed experts and successful people in very publicized fields have been in sinking ships in the last decade + for that matter.

 

[rms]

what's the last great thing by an economist? just curious

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

it's definitely a pseudo-science when dealing with future projections

 

[Einherjar86]

Economists really have very little to go on when it comes to future projections. While most economists now lean left, there's still quite a divide between them; and it's crucial to consider the impact of politics on an economist's theoretical outlook. Climate change scientists are now suffering the same exposure. Fortunately, from my perspective at least, the science underscoring climate change is far less political than the science underscoring economics; it's the proposed measures in response to climate change that are political.

So long as political rhetoric and ideology continue to interfere with popular behavior, economists' predictions will rarely be accurate (i.e. economists' predictions will always be inaccurate ).

 

[arg]

Economics should be based on quantitative economic formulas / principles which are inherently right-wing; you have no business being an economist if you're a lefty and can fuck off

 

[Einherjar86]

Seeing as there's nothing inherent about right-wing-ness and that it's a descriptive term whose object is historically imprecise and contingent, I'd say that's an almost meaningless comment.