Beacon Editorializing: 7 February
I've decided to start a new thing where, every now and then when the Beacon opinion page is particularly interesting, I'm gonna write a review/opinion/response/whatver to the things appearing that day. As I've been on the recieving end of both praise and criticism for my works with the Beacon for two years now, I've decided to dish some out for once. But of course, if I criticize a fellow columnist's argument, my comments do not bear any ill-will toward the writers themselves and are merely meant to spark debate.
"Data, not politics, is blind" - by Jon Fish
There's that super-hot super-intelligent kid again. Damn what a great writer.
Alright, that's enough self-aggrandizing I think. I LOVED this article, and I loved writing it. It's probably my favorite one of the year, and one of my best of all time.
What's great about this one it it's 95% proven fact. Aside from my occasional snarky comments, this thing is virtually no opinion. You just cant argue with it! And you know what the best part was? People still argued! It was great. I just went hardcore technocrat on them: "Oh, you think that your unsupported belief is more legitimate than the 50+ people with doctorates in psychology, sociology, and political science who verified the results? Yeah, good logic. You might as well argue that the grass isn't green." Yeah, haven't gotten any second responses to that yet.
moving on...
"Complaining fun but fruitless" - by Sarah Pevey
Heh, this was funny. I'm also proud to say I was a primary inspiration for this piece. I bitch to Pevey all the time and vice-versa. All we ever end up doing is busting on each other, but hey; it's fun.
The big irony is that the piece is bitching about how much people bitch. It's intentional, but still damn funny when you think about it
Anyway, that's al I got folks. Talk to ya later,
~Peace
"Data, not politics, is blind" - by Jon Fish
There's that super-hot super-intelligent kid again. Damn what a great writer.
Alright, that's enough self-aggrandizing I think. I LOVED this article, and I loved writing it. It's probably my favorite one of the year, and one of my best of all time.
What's great about this one it it's 95% proven fact. Aside from my occasional snarky comments, this thing is virtually no opinion. You just cant argue with it! And you know what the best part was? People still argued! It was great. I just went hardcore technocrat on them: "Oh, you think that your unsupported belief is more legitimate than the 50+ people with doctorates in psychology, sociology, and political science who verified the results? Yeah, good logic. You might as well argue that the grass isn't green." Yeah, haven't gotten any second responses to that yet.
moving on...
"Complaining fun but fruitless" - by Sarah Pevey
Heh, this was funny. I'm also proud to say I was a primary inspiration for this piece. I bitch to Pevey all the time and vice-versa. All we ever end up doing is busting on each other, but hey; it's fun.
The big irony is that the piece is bitching about how much people bitch. It's intentional, but still damn funny when you think about it
Anyway, that's al I got folks. Talk to ya later,
~Peace
posted by Jon Fish at 10:44 AM
2 Comments:
Mr. Fish,
For what reason should I take PhD's at their word, simply because they have PhD's? Are you, in all due respect, serious? Did you just assert that there is no arguing with this study, simply because a group of college professors put it together?
Now, before I continue, allow me to say this: I could care less about who Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else likes or dislikes. Quite frankly, the moment one identifies themselves as a member of either party, I typically stop listening to what they have to say. All I need to do is visit the RNC or DNC website and I can get all of the talking points that I need.
But as a master's student (and I understand that you will be one soon -- good luck, by the way), I can assure you that I run into all sorts of studies, everyday, that aren't worth the paper that they are written on. Professors have agendas just like everyone else. These guys wanted (yes, wanted) to prove that Republicans hate black people. Another might wish to prove that Democrats are "soft on crime" or some other asinine point.
Now, does that mean that this particular study is incorrect? No, and I am not even arguing that. I guess I am just giving you some (admittedly unsolicited) advice: be careful how much stock you place in ANYTHING that you read. Or, at least be willing to acknowledge peoples' biases and predispositions when analyzing their work.
Wise words, of course, but herein lies the problem. The fact is that the IAT does not have a dissenting voice. The researchers did not set out to prove anything about Republicans or Democrats or anything of the likes.
You simply can't take anyhting at face value, I agree completely. People have ulterior motives and may set out to manipulate the data. But if you were to research the IAT, you would see the vast amount of support for it, how its effects have been repeatedly reproduced, and how it is completely without bias. These are the facts, and one can't argue with them. Like I said, one may as well argue that the grass isn't green. To say that this report is biased or isn't representative of the facts would involve manipulations of so many people across the world borders on implications so vast as to imply global conspiracy.
Anyway, thanks for the comment. I agree whole heartedly that you cannot just accept anything you read and you must scrutinize everything, even if you agree with it. But I searched long and hard for refuting evidence against this report, and simply could not find anything with substance.
~Peace
PS I'm the same way, I'd never claim a part affiliation for the same reason.
Post a Comment
<< Home