Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
26,556
41,371
Sebudai_sl said:
And we've come full circle. This is what passes for logic and reason on the left nowadays. Make assertions, fail to substantiate them in any serious way, claim they're "obvious", and repeat them over and over until they're considered facts.
Click to expand...
Tanoomba?!?!?!

In all honesty, though, that's a huge problem with the internet in general. I'd like to blame the younger generations and their latching onto Wikipedia as a bona-fide source for all information, however it really has permeated a very large percentage of our culture. It's ironic in some ways that Wikipedia is basically dismantling the scientific method and logical proofs. There is a select group of 'can be bothereds' that wanttheirversion of information and history (knowledge is too dubious a term) that update what is essentially the encyclopedia for the 'cannot be bothereds' (the people who have no interest in the scientific method). Any sort of discourse or debate (online or in real life) is shuffled around between feelings and unsupported claims drawn from information with no reputable source. At the end of the day, there are no credentials or proof... merely conjecture and group-think. The same people pushing an agenda from one study, do not correct themselves when it is disproved some time laterby the same people. See anti-vac campaigns and the 'gluten insensitivity' people.

I mean it's basically the science world's version of 'God did it' that the religious folks have been throwing around forever. There is a new religion of feelings masquerading as science. Their holy book is the internet. AS IT WAS WRITTEN SO IT SHALL BE!
 
S

Silence_sl

shitlord
2,459
4
Mist_sl said:
Obvious shit is obvious. This sounds like those people who need a scientific study to tell whether drinking makes you worse at driving.
Click to expand...
Drinking makes me vastly better at driving. For one, it lets me overcome my innate aversion to running over kindergartners. The only downside is that bloody mittens are a bitch to get out of the grille.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Araysar_sl said:
So they vote for men instead who are the other whores?

Doesn't even make sense
Click to expand...
You keep implying the general election is what matters. Your argument would make sense if half the general election candidates were women, or even half the primary candidates were women. Women get excluded from the process long before those phases. Long before public attention is cast onto races.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Dr. Mario Speedwagon_sl said:
Mist why do insist on bringing up valid issues and then ruin it by conflating them with identity politics?
Click to expand...
"Identity politics!" Isn't that like "rape culture?" Isn't that just a bullshit word white men toss around when they're under attack for their disproportionate control over the political process?
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
While we're making graphs, I'd like a chart of which bullshit poli-sci/sociology terms we are/aren't allowed to use in a reasonable discussion.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Mist_sl said:
Here's your fucking data.

Donor Demographics | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...
Oh wow, Mist, these charts are really fucking good. Look at how much closer the gender figures for Democratic donors are! That's a good explanation for why democrats have more genuine gender parity between their candidates, and less blatantly whorish opportunistic sluts like Sarah Palin. It really fits with your hypothesis!
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Sebudai_sl said:
What am I supposed to do with this? Jump to conclusions?
Click to expand...
You have to admit that it helps support my hypothesis.

Thanks to Citizens United we'll never get this granularity of data on the SuperPAC donations. And we'll never get real data on the pre-campaign donations, campaign seed money, etc, especially at the local level.

But the data we do have access to helps support my hypothesis.
 
Sebudai

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
How does this data help support the hypothesis that donors are reluctant to donate to female candidates?
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Sebudai_sl said:
How does this data help support the hypothesis that donors are reluctant to donate to female candidates?
Click to expand...
I know that you know that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about donors in general not giving to female candidates once they reach the actual publicized campaign stage. I'm talking about how the BIG donors, who, by this chart are mostly male, are the ones who get to choose who can run in the first place.
 
Sebudai

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
The question remains the same. How does this data support the notion that donors are reluctant to supportpotentialfemale candidates?
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,202
23,397
Like I said earlier, the strong correlation between Democrats having more female donors and also having more genuine female candidates.

Also, very few women give money to both parties compared to men. The subset of people who give to both sides could very easily be classified as 'the old boys network.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.