|
Post by Christine on Oct 14, 2017 22:04:25 GMT -5
You'll understand if I don't buy your explanation. The way it was explained to me is it means that 99 percent of the group scores lower than you. Dr. Seuss seems not to have played any role in it. Whoever explained it to you that way had no idea what they were talking about. I do statistics every day. I calculate percentiles all the time. This type of information is easily available on the internet but here, I did the work for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile_rankEveryone knows what everyone meant. This is like obsessively correcting spelling and grammar when you know what the person was trying to say. My opinion? Don't be that guy.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 14, 2017 22:14:28 GMT -5
"Fuck Ms. Soeiro" is rude behavior. To whom? If she said it to Soeiro's face, then I'd agree. But, you can't be rude to someone who's not here. So the rules of decorum change if they're not here? Calling Trump's third wife a "trophy wife" is rude, but "fuck Ms. Soeiro" is cool because she's not here, but Melania is? Your hypocrisy is glorious to behold. Being selectively offended is something you're a master of, Opty, but I won't appplaud your situational ethics and puppy dog eagerness to park your usual hot air about how one should conduct oneself in a debate to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to Cassandra's insulting "fuck Ms. Soeiro." My just look how quick you are to get your ass on your shoulders about calling Melania a trophy wife as bad, horrible and not good, but drop a couple of F-bombs on Soeiro and it's ahhh, no big deal.. Deflection is attempting to divert attention away from Cassandra's words and try to wave away her indefensible intolerant language directed at Ms. Soeiro. What a white knight you are! Throwing one woman under the bus to protect two others. How gallant. Oh, and you might want to try and figure out how to use the quote feature. Not sayin'. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 14, 2017 22:29:23 GMT -5
You'll understand if I don't buy your explanation. The way it was explained to me is it means that 99 percent of the group scores lower than you. Dr. Seuss seems not to have played any role in it. Whoever explained it to you that way had no idea what they were talking about. I do statistics every day. I calculate percentiles all the time. This type of information is easily available on the internet but here, I did the work for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile_rankI have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about. Just because you say you do statistics every day and calculate perecentiles all the time doesn't mean you're good at it. The type of information is easily available on the Internet, but continually reference a site which says up front " Wikipedia is not considered a credible source" and any doubt you don't know what you're talking about is removed an it becomes an absolute certainty. After all, when you're not doing statistics and calculating percentiles, you might be writing the Wikipedia entries you're so fond of referencing. Which is why Harvard rejects Wikipedia as a credible source. So do I. So should you. Though we both know you won't. Just because.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 14, 2017 22:44:02 GMT -5
Whoever explained it to you that way had no idea what they were talking about. I do statistics every day. I calculate percentiles all the time. This type of information is easily available on the internet but here, I did the work for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile_rankI have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about. Just because you say you do statistics every day and calculate perecentiles all the time doesn't mean you're good at it. Okay, I agree with that, but the fact remains that "percentile" is different than "percent." Factually, being in the 99th percentile is the same as being in the top 1 percent. Not that any of this has fuck-all to do with the topic, but arguments against this fact are invalid, the sketchiness of Wikipedia notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 14, 2017 23:40:37 GMT -5
I have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about. Just because you say you do statistics every day and calculate perecentiles all the time doesn't mean you're good at it. Okay, I agree with that, but the fact remains that "percentile" is different than "percent." Factually, being in the 99th percentile is the same as being in the top 1 percent. Not that any of this has fuck-all to do with the topic, but arguments against this fact are invalid, the sketchiness of Wikipedia notwithstanding. Notwithstanding, I'll grant this point about "percentile" because seriously who cares a lot? The point remains reading Dr. Seuss nonsense words do not magically enhance anyone's reading chops and Wikipedia is unreliable as all get-out.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 15, 2017 0:52:57 GMT -5
Being selectively offended is something you're a master of, Opty, but I won't appplaud your situational ethics and puppy dog eagerness to park your usual hot air about how one should conduct oneself in a debate to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to Cassandra's insulting "fuck Ms. Soeiro." My just look how quick you are to get your ass on your shoulders about calling Melania a trophy wife as bad, horrible and not good, but drop a couple of F-bombs on Soeiro and it's ahhh, no big deal.. It's hilarious that your attempts at deflection are so weak that you are seriously trying to make the false equivalence that the word "fuck" is worse than posting overtly sexist, slut-shaming statements. For the record, you not only repeatedly referred to her as a trophy wife, you also repeatedly slut-shamed her for posing nude and stated that you "prefer First Ladies who don't put theirs out there for horny guys to fap to." So, just so we're clear, in your world saying the word FUCK is unforgivably rude and offensive to your sensitive adult ears/eyes, but making sexist, slut-shaming comments about a woman and making a reference to masturbating to the First Lady are totally within the bounds of non-offensive critical debate? Seriously? I'm tempted to make a drinking game out of the logical fallacies and hypocrisy, but I don't want to die of alcohol poisoning. No, deflection is attempting to divert attention away from the criticism you've received for making multiple sexist, slut-shaming statements about nude photos and masturbation by feebly trying to "tone police" Cass for using the word FUCK.
About that drinking game...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 15, 2017 2:43:13 GMT -5
It's hilarious that your attempts at deflection are so weak that you are seriously trying to make the false equivalence that the word "fuck" is worse than posting overtly sexist, slut-shaming statements. For the record, you not only repeatedly referred to her as a trophy wife, you also repeatedly slut-shamed her for posing nude and stated that you "prefer First Ladies who don't put theirs out there for horny guys to fap to." So, just so we're clear, in your world saying the word FUCK is unforgivably rude and offensive to your sensitive adult ears/eyes, but making sexist, slut-shaming comments about a woman and making a reference to masturbating to the First Lady are totally within the bounds of non-offensive critical debate? Seriously? I'm tempted to make a drinking game out of the logical fallacies and hypocrisy, but I don't want to die of alcohol poisoning. No, deflection is attempting to divert attention away from the criticism you've received for making multiple sexist, slut-shaming statements about nude photos and masturbation by feebly trying to "tone police" Cass for using the word FUCK.
About that drinking game...
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 15, 2017 6:16:50 GMT -5
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 9:27:27 GMT -5
Yes, I'm ready to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 15, 2017 10:11:43 GMT -5
I have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about. Just because you say you do statistics every day and calculate perecentiles all the time doesn't mean you're good at it. The type of information is easily available on the Internet, but continually reference a site which says up front " Wikipedia is not considered a credible source" and any doubt you don't know what you're talking about is removed an it becomes an absolute certainty. After all, when you're not doing statistics and calculating percentiles, you might be writing the Wikipedia entries you're so fond of referencing. Which is why Harvard rejects Wikipedia as a credible source. So do I. So should you. Though we both know you won't. Just because. Oh FFS. Go pick up a book on statistics if you don't believe multiple people who do statistics professionally or Wikipedia. As for "Fuck Ms. Soreiro" it's as stupid an objection as "I ain't gonna trust you stoopid smarty-pants scientists and your Fake News Wikipedia." Yeah, Cassandra probably only said that out of frustration because this whole argument is idiotic, with you reflexively declaring anyone who flips the bird at a Trump to be doing the Lord's work and other people dissecting the finer points of Soreiro's gesture, how and whether she should have made it, and whether or not Dr. Seuss is racist. The difference is everyone else is actually debating issues. You're just debating people. Your positions are 100% based on the person. If me or Opty or rob says the sky is blue, you'll say it's racist to call some arbitrary sky shade blue. If Trump says the sky is blue, you'll fist-pump anyone who proposes painting the sky green. One more time for the slow folks in the back row - no one here said Ms. Soreiro should be fired, and it's unlikely that is going to happen. Personally, I would not have gone as far as Cassandra in saying "Fuck Ms. Soreiro" because she's probably a decent librarian and a decent person, just also a virtue-signaling fool with Trump derangement syndrome. The reason people keep bringing up the Obamas is that we all know there is a 0% chance anyone would have reacted with anything less than ecstatic cooing if the Obamas donated Dr. Seuss books to a library - no one would rail at Michelle about how she's ignorant of Theodore Geisel's wartime cartooning nor would she get flak from some overreeaching SJW academic constructing racist caricatures out of Loraxes and Zizzer-zazzer-zusses. So it's 100% an ideologically motivated argument designed to score political points, having nothing to do with any heartfelt belief that children's libraries don't need Dr. Seuss. I would bet money that any books Melania Trump might have donated, even if they came from Soreiro's preferred list of new children's literature, would have provoked her to write a similarly snarky open letter. And that's the topic of the thread. But go on and fight the power, man. Green Eggs and Ham and MAGA Hats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 10:28:29 GMT -5
Cassandra probably only said that out of frustration because this whole argument is idiotic That, and I'm deeply frustrated with the preachiness and sanctimony that, IMO, do as much as anything to drive people away from the left and have helped our country arrive at the horrifying pass we are currently in. FFS, I am often finding the people I agree with substantively more off-putting than many I disagree with. I've had to mute two-thirds of the Resisters and Nasty Women on my twitter feed -- with whom I generally agree on many issues and certainly on Trump -- simply because I find them insufferable. I don't want Ms. S fired. I'm sure she's a good librarian. But damn, I'm tired of the sanctimony and the mindless cheering of anything -- anything -- that purports to oppose Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 15, 2017 17:22:44 GMT -5
This thing about "SJW's"... I get it. I really do. I have my own frustrations sometimes. The other day, a Facebook friend posted a meme with two tweets from Trump: the first was of Trump saying he'd be with Florida, and Texas, and Louisiana "for as long as it takes, FOREVER!!!" The second was Trump's tweet about how they couldn't be in Puerto Rico forever. I know for a fact that the second tweet was legit. I had no recollection of the first tweet, and it didn't even sound like Trump, so I checked Trump's feed. No such tweet. It irritated me that this fake meme was put out there to 'prove' that Trump was essentially being a dick to Puerto Rico. Because (1) He WAS being a dick to Puerto Rico and (2) the second tweet by itself was enough to show it.
So yes, I get that in many cases, Trump-haters are assuming facts not in evidence. There's also a subset of folks who are willing to make shit up. That. Is. Annoying. With so much actual information, there's no fucking point.
I also get that there are high emotions which aren't necessarily warranted for any given topic. I have my own annoyances, not the least of which are aimed at the media -- sometimes those CNN banners have me banging my head against a wall, because as much as I hate him, even I can see that, e.g., a tweet calling for increased nuclear "capacity" does not equate to stockpiling nukes like some sort of madman.
But all of that said, Trump is a racist, he did treat P.R. differently than FL and TX, and he *is* mad, imo. He is dangerous.
So... a lot of these people are right, imo, even when they're wrong. Crazy as that sounds.
But getting back to the SJW thing: the idea that we now have a group of people, who are wholly against him, complaining about *other* people who are wholly against him, is also frustrating. Why should we waste our time nitpicking, judging, making sideline comments about the "appropriateness" or "real intent" of people who are fighting in whatever way they see fit, if we are, in fact, a country in a crisis?
TO WIT: What are people who are against Trump supposed to do when they see fake Trump news or don't like the behavior of those protesting their same cause?
I think it's definitely fine to point it out.
But switching to the side of antagonist is not helpful, imo. Switching to being a critic of those awful "SJWs" is not the answer. It might make people feel righteous, warriors for the truth, and nothing but the truth. No compromise. That's their right, of course, but at a certain point it turns into *hatred* of SJWs. It turns into scorn, and derision, and there is no common ground at all. And the anti-SJWs will say that this is the fault of those SJWs, because they haven't allowed room for dissent. But really, imo, it's as much the fault of the anti-SJWs who've gotten on their high horses with their hurt, disregarded feelings, and, seriously, taken up the fucking hobby of locating every single instance of "SJW" that they can to show how RIGHT they are and how PATHETIC those people were for not having taken their stellar opinions into account.
If a person is in the business of empathy, a person can overlook quite a lot of slights. If a person is in the business of reconciling differences, a person can overlook quite a lot of misguided opinions. Otherwise, it's just "my right opinion" versus "your wrong opinion" and ne'er the twain shall meet, never fucking mind that we are all essentially on the same side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 17:42:47 GMT -5
I'm just not interested in hanging out with people who grate on me. Nor do I want others to place me in the same bucket with them.
I'm not about to throw in my lot with the alt-right, obviously. I have no time at all for them and never will. But those are not my only two choices. There's a centrist movement afoot, and the more I look at my twitter feed and participate in threads like these, the more I think that's where I belong.
ETA:
My gut, by the way, is that it's also what all of our former presidents are currently pointing to as the way forward -- why they are making so many appearances together, working together for hurricane relief, etc. The first families have generally been pretty cordial, but lately it's quite remarkable.
That appeals to me -- and it also seems to me more antithetical to what I object to most about Trumpism. Order vs. chaos. Reason vs. shrieking. Truth vs. distortion. Working together productively for the common good vs. mindless obstruction and destruction and posturing.
Frankly, a portion of the left is increasingly striking me as looking like an inverted version of the alt-right. Anything that pisses on the conservatives is good -- just like the alt-right thinks anything the liberals hate is good. Yeah, I want no part of that.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 15, 2017 18:09:03 GMT -5
Not wanting to hang out with people who grate on you is fine, and understandable. Not wanting to be seen as belonging to a group you're not is fine, and understandable
Actively judging those who see things differently, calling their intent into question--or even assuming it--and being an outspoken antagonist to their particular cause, however misguided you might think it is, is a whole other thing, which was my point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 18:12:14 GMT -5
Ah. So we should demur from discussing such things on message boards unless we have something nice and supportive to say?
|
|