Worst Political Cartoons

[dpareja]

This could do to be reposted in any eventual thread about statistics, but to quote from Moore & McCabe, Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, 5th ed., 2006, pg. 238:

POPULATION SIZE DOESN'T MATTER

The variability of a statistic from a random sample does not depend on the size of the population, as long as the population is at least 100 times larger than the sample.

Why does the size of the population have little influence on the behavior of statistics of random samples? To see why this is plausible, imagine sampling harvested corn by thrusting a scoop into a lot of corn kernels. The scoop doesn't know whether it is surrounded by a bag of corn or an entire truckload. As long as the corn is well mixed (so that the scoop selects a random sample), the variability of the result depends only on the size of the scoop.

(Note: my degrees are in mathematics, not statistics; I took a single introductory statistics course during my undergraduate degree.)

[R. U. Sirius]

"Political correctness" = people actually getting called out for saying insulting and demeaning things about groups of people, particularly based on things they can't control such as gender, sexual orientation or country of birth. Hence, if you don't act like an asshole, you don't have any problems with PC.

Those are solely your own thoughts. The image says absolutely nothing of the sort.

My actual point when I made that picture is that, just as it says, there have always been social mores and taboos, but anti-PC hysterics try to make out as if not being able to spout off whatever you want whenever you want without consequence is some new and terrifying thing.

[Art Vandelay]

My actual point when I made that picture is that, just as it says, there have always been social mores and taboos, but anti-PC hysterics try to make out as if not being able to spout off whatever you want whenever you want without consequence is some new and terrifying thing.

Yeah, no. Claiming that PC isn't a concern because bigger problems exist or similar problems have existed in the past is a fallacy, no matter how you try and spin it. Turning around and saying that the point all along is actually that PC is a good thing and therefore the fallacious reasoning is totally not fallacious anymore is either a goalpost shift or a non-sequitor. Either way, you're kind of making an ass out of yourself.

[R. U. Sirius]

It's entirely possible that you're right, but since political correctness is an issue I only give thought to when someone starts bitching about it, it's an inconsistency I'm comfortable with for the moment.

[davedan]

My actual point when I made that picture is that, just as it says, there have always been social mores and taboos, but anti-PC hysterics try to make out as if not being able to spout off whatever you want whenever you want without consequence is some new and terrifying thing.

Yeah, no. Claiming that PC isn't a concern because bigger problems exist or similar problems have existed in the past is a fallacy, no matter how you try and spin it. Turning around and saying that the point all along is actually that PC is a good thing and therefore the fallacious reasoning is totally not fallacious anymore is either a goalpost shift or a non-sequitor. Either way, you're kind of making an ass out of yourself.

No I think he's saying that acting like PC is the only thing ever that has stopped peoples saying whatever the fuck they want is wrong and ignores the entirety of human history where what you said was strictly controlled and rather than being told you weren't PC consequences ranged from ostracisation to murder. As I understand it that he's not saying that because other cultures and different times people had harsher consequences the matter should be ignored rather that the whole Idea that it is new is fallacious.

[R. U. Sirius]

My actual point when I made that picture is that, just as it says, there have always been social mores and taboos, but anti-PC hysterics try to make out as if not being able to spout off whatever you want whenever you want without consequence is some new and terrifying thing.

Yeah, no. Claiming that PC isn't a concern because bigger problems exist or similar problems have existed in the past is a fallacy, no matter how you try and spin it. Turning around and saying that the point all along is actually that PC is a good thing and therefore the fallacious reasoning is totally not fallacious anymore is either a goalpost shift or a non-sequitor. Either way, you're kind of making an ass out of yourself.

No I think he's saying that acting like PC is the only thing ever that has stopped peoples saying whatever the fuck they want is wrong and ignores the entirety of human history where what you said was strictly controlled and rather than being told you weren't PC consequences ranged from ostracisation to murder. As I understand it that he's not saying that because other cultures and different times people had harsher consequences the matter should be ignored rather that the whole Idea that it is new is fallacious.

Thank you, Davedan.

[davedan]

That's thing about attacking PC in particular, it isn't a blanket rejection of any hindrance to free expression or a rejection of mores and standards which mean certain things cannot be said. It is not really a free speech argument but being upset that the mores and morals which govern public discourse have changed. So in essence the complaints about PC are usually reactionary complaints about how those mores and morals have changed. Now there are exceptions and those are usually the people who reject that social constraint outright and do not harken back to a comfortable set of constraints but want to move forward to where you can say whatever the fuck you want.

Now for my part I suspect UP would fall into the former category whereas I suspect Art's position is the latter category.

And my position is fuck you crackers...

[Sigmaleph]

I'll be honest, some of that flew straight over my head. Like you said, I'd need to have studied the field. I don't have the framework that you do, and pursuing this further would make me feel hopelessly out of my depth. I don't like feeling stupid, so maybe it's best that we end this here. I hope you understand.

Final statement on my part: I concede that taking 1 000 people at random would be a relatively more accurate method of gauging trends within a 300 000 000+ population than selecting 1 000 people based on some unifying factor. However, despite the possible ignorance of the position, I still maintain that measuring the will of a 300 000 000+ population by the demographics of a survey of 1 000 is wildly inaccurate. Also, flipping the same coin N times isn't really analogous to peering into the opinions of several individual people because the object being measured is fundamentally different.

Alright, sure. I'm really not doing this out of a desire to be antagonistic, so if you want to leave it here, I will.

(if someone else wants a math thread for whatever reason, I'm not gonna stop you, but I'm not starting one)

[lord gibbon]

1. Since when is being home schooled some mark of status?

2. Are they seriously still going with that picture? That's a different person named Trayvon Martin.

[mellenORL]

But since that dude with the same name is surly looking, they gotta hang on to it; becuz he iz Trayvon Martin for reelz.

I once Googled my name back when I lived in Atlanta, because I kept getting a bunch of friendly wrong number phone calls from friends of a stranger with my name. Turns out, there were 5 other women of roughly my age living in the region. And I do not have a common name. Shows you just how easy it is to post lying, manipulative bullshit online.

[mellenORL]

They tagged the South Carolina mass murderer who killed 9 black people in their church as a "Liberal Nut Job"? Wow. Makes me wonder if spontaneous human combustion starts out as a slow smoldering ember deep inside a tiny brain.

[Ultimate Paragon]

1. Since when is being home schooled some mark of status?

2. Are they seriously still going with that picture? That's a different person named Trayvon Martin.

Really?  I didn't know that.

[Ultimate Paragon]

That's thing about attacking PC in particular, it isn't a blanket rejection of any hindrance to free expression or a rejection of mores and standards which mean certain things cannot be said. It is not really a free speech argument but being upset that the mores and morals which govern public discourse have changed. So in essence the complaints about PC are usually reactionary complaints about how those mores and morals have changed. Now there are exceptions and those are usually the people who reject that social constraint outright and do not harken back to a comfortable set of constraints but want to move forward to where you can say whatever the fuck you want.

Now for my part I suspect UP would fall into the former category whereas I suspect Art's position is the latter category.

And my position is fuck you crackers...

Well, in my case, it's partly that I don't want every little thing I say to be scrutinized for anything that could be taken as having offensive subtext.  I'm sick and tired of having to watch every little thing I say be taken as a comment that may hurt some insecure snowflake's precious fee-fees.

And it causes legitimate problems in society.  I mean, when supporting meritocracy is labelled a "micro-aggression," something is wrong.

[Id82]

Even if that was the actual Trayvon Martin, who gives a fuck? He looks like a normal guy wearing a hat.

[Zygarde]

Because in their minds he was a thug and to them thugs should be shot. That is the problem that a lot of black men face,  when one dies by some racist cop or a George Zimmerman like person  the racists try to dig up any picture to justify the killing because to them that's not an innocent kid or innocent man getting shot it's some hood-rat who had it coming. Makes me fucking sick.