Member since May 31, 2011
This user has no shared collections.
View More Collections
commented on Candorville
about 1 month ago
It’s not really ridiculous. While you, and the others, are entirely right about the origins of the swastika, Bell isn’t talking about the Nazi’s original misappropriation of the swastika, he’s talking about the subsequent use of it by neo-Nazis. The latter are not taking it from its original Hindu origins. They’re taking it from the Nazis.
The analogy is that suggesting that the Confederate flag was fine until its recent usage by white supremacists and racists is akin to suggesting that the swastika was fine until its recent usage by neo-Nazis.
commented on The Comic Strip That Has A Finale Every Day
about 1 month ago
Don’t be so curmudgeonly. It’s their last strip!
commented on Peanuts
3 months ago
commented on (th)ink
7 months ago
“Do not put words in my mouth”? I think you’ll find that quoting someone is not “putting words in their mouth”.
If you don’t like me saying that you said, and I quote again, “13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race”, then might I suggest not saying it in the first place?
“If Obama has a 55% approval rating among the general population, but an 89% approval rating among Blacks, which make up a sizable 13% of the population … "
And so we can see the reasoning used is indeed dumb, and quite probably racist too.
Dumb, because the approval of other groups is not zero percent, which shows there are non-racial reasons to approve, and hence there is no basis whatsoever to assume that all approval from one group is entirely down to that group’s racial characteristics. It simply cannot be stated that “13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race”. There are evidently multiple other grounds for approval. Particularly since, as agrestic already pointed out, Bill Clinton had similar approval ratings.
And probably racist because, as there is no logical basis to make such an assertion, the only basis to do so is an illogical and inherently racist one. An assumption that those with black skin colour cannot be approving of a President’s performance because of the same factors that might result in approval from others, but only because they share a skin colour. That’s pretty darn racist. I doubt you attribute all disapproval from the 73% white population to not sharing skin colour.
That is, to address your point c, “Pointing out statistics is not racist.” No, no it isn’t. Making illogical racist statements based on them is though.
“Funny, but it was apparent to me they hadread the poll.” – Coming from someone who started by showing they hadn’t read the poll either, that’s not remotely surprising.
“Errors of omission are in fact misreporting.” – The source was provided to show there was no omission from myself. If you have a problem with an omission at the source, you can always take that up with Gallup.
"…I think you’re calling me a racist for pointing out statistics. " – Not necessarily. I didn’t just say I wasn’t racist…
But please, if you want to make it clear that such implications don’t apply to you, outline the reasoning you use to conclude from the statistics that " that 13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race." I’m sure it won’t turn out to be in any way racist or dumb. Mmm.
So, briefly, no, copying and pasting an argument from someone else who evidently hasn’t read the poll won’t change the fact that neither myself nor the comic that you’re commenting on are claiming that the poll says anything other than what it says.
No, I didn’t misreport anything, especially not in the bizarre way you imagine I did. I took the figures from here – Presidential Approval Ratings — Barack Obama and as you can the most recent results they list there by party identification are from Dec 8-14th and they’re exactly what I said they were. None of that changes the point being made in the slightest, which, unlike your ‘correction’, was entirely relevant.
And as for this:
“You also failed to mention that 13% of the population gives Obama an 89% Approval rating, based on nothing but his race.”
Yes, yes I did fail to mention that. Because I’m not dumb enough or racist enough to think that you see.
“Obviously you can’t prove they didn’t, or you would have.”
Or, it’s so glaringly obviously not going to be the case that only the most desperate clutching of straws would demand proof to start off with. American politics is so polarised Obama currently has a 6% approval rating amongst Republicans and an 83% rating amongst Democrats. That’s nuts. Any notion that responses to poll questions such as this one would not be similarly polarised is laughable. Hence the laughing.
Tell you what though, if that wasn’t the case, it would be easy for you to show it. Just find a few polls showing Democrats and Republicans blaming Obama for something – anything – equally. Good luck with that!
“If they say the same thing in relatively equal numbers” – Hahahaha! Good one!
“Now where’s the survey of Democratic primary voters?”
Probably with the survey of independent voters, in the box labelled “completely irrelevant to the comic you’re commenting on.”
Copyright © 2015. Universal Uclick, All rights reserved.