Lurker > Balrog0

its already plotted
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's literally not arbitrary. It's objective. You're aware that politicians and pundits use loaded rhetoric to cling to narratives, right? And that is why data needs to be presented as carefully and objectively as possible.

This data doesn't actually show that fewer Americans support the tax cuts. It shows that more Americans support it. Anything more than that becomes interpretation of specific ranges of an already limited data set.

Here's an idea: We should just throw this data out entirely since it's garbage. Basing our worldview on polls is insanity.

I mean, it isn't any more objective than your example of a breitbart article, which I said would be correct and you said would not be

because I feel like you're trying to trojan horse a ton of other assumptions about objectivity rather than just looking at the numbers the way you're acting like you are
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It would be incorrect because it ignores the bigger picture of what the data shows, in favor of making a point that is technically true but completely irrelevant.

You wouldn't use this type of analysis of data when betting money or someone's life, because it doesn't show the full picture. It isn't worth shit.

uuuuh what do you mean? if I'm analyzing data over a time period, then yeah I'm not going to just compare what happens at the beginning and the end, that would hide a lot of relevant information from me that could be useful in making my decision

I'm not just gonna look at the end points, why would you?
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

hey proudclad is this graph that shows visually the loaded narrative I said verbally also an example of a loaded narrative?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republicans_tax_reform_law-6446.html#polls
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Nope. That's loaded language meant to convey a narrative, dude. All you can say is what the exact numbers are. It'd be like me saying "The number of Americans who strongly disapprove of the tax cuts has plummeted since December" by looking at just that single data point. It'd be biased.

All you can objectively say is "the net disapprovals have gone down. The net approvals have gone up."

seems like an arbitrary rule but okay
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The data can be sliced around to show whatever you want it to show. With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range. Especially when you're trying to make an argument about what people in general are feeling NOW as opposed to THEN.

The data is clear. In December of 2017, 35% of the people who disapproved strongly disapproved. That number dropped to 27% in the most recent data point.

Imagine if Breitbart published some bullshit about how substantially fewer people strongly disapprove of the tax cuts by using that date range and that single data point. Antifar and co would be foaming at the mouth.

As such, all we can do is say 1) What data do we have? 2) What range? 3) What does the data show over that range? It shows that total approvals went up, total disapprovals went down. Completely the opposite of what the topic title was telling the low information voters who fled the topic.

seems like a pretty arbitrary set of rules

bold would be a fair point, but you're right people would get mad about it. it wouldn't make it incorrect.
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The data can be sliced around to show whatever you want it to show. With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range. Especially when you're trying to make an argument about what people in general are feeling NOW as opposed to THEN.

The data is clear. In December of 2017, 35% of the people who disapproved strongly disapproved. That number dropped to 24% in the most recent data point (and even more substantial drop to 16% in April if we were to cherrypick where we start measuring from)

Imagine if Breitbart published some bullshit about how substantially fewer people strongly disapprove of the tax cuts by using that date range and that single data point. Antifar and co would be foaming at the mouth.

As such, all we can do is say 1) What data do we have? 2) What range? 3) What does the data show over that range? It shows that total approvals went up, total disapprovals went down. Completely the opposite of what the topic title was telling the low information voters who fled the topic.

what we can say is that it surged in popularity after the vote and has faded since then, like I just said...
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If we do the same thing Antifar is doing, and exclude the most recent data point, it's overwhelmingly trending towards more popular. We could just as easily exclude the recent data point as being an outlier given the previous trend from the rest of the data points, and it'd be no less bullshit than what Antifar is doing.

I don't think that's true

Strongly approve 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 16% 17% 13% 27%

after the first point of data:
strongly approve drops 6, slight approve up 2
strongly disapprove down 2, slightly disapprove up 2

it shows a big surge in popularity right after passage followed by a decline, particularly among those who strongly approve
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Note the dishonesty, kids. He basically has to cherrypick an incomplete range of the data in order to make the bullshit conclusion. When in reality, if you look at the full data you can see that disapproval dropped from 47% to 43%.

With approval increasing from 26% to 34%.

Given that trend, for all we know the remaining 24% who said they don't know could end up approving strongly or somewhat strongly the next time the poll is run. Along with more people from the Disapprove camp changing their mind.

The law is only becoming less popular if you purposely exclude the entire range of data from this poll you just shared. All it takes is a month of CNN's bullshit to change the tide, so that's dishonest. Should've waited another few months until you could make the same narrative with all of the data rather than just the range that suits your narrative.

its still trending less popular even if you include the first data point

which you are now trying to discount by emphasizing the oldest point of data
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

wanted to be balrog cuz i like the balrog from lord of the rings

but it was taken so I chose the first number afterwards. i was gonna go balrog1 if this didn't work. then balrog2...
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

so eliminate corporate income taxes

raise capital gains and dividends taxes
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Sayoria posted...

This map seems off. I agree with the Massachusetts views (We like Baker except for the MBTA issues) but places like Tennessee being "SAFE" for GOP senate is kind of off. That should be more of a Lean GOP. There are a few places where there should be less SAFEs and more Leans.

in this context, they are talking about the state senate and not the senate election to US congress
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

pogo_rabid posted...

CT a tossup.

Speaking as a Dem, I wouldn't even be mad if Malloy got his ass kicked to the curb. He's a real piece of shit.

he is like the 2nd least popular governor in america lol

so I believe it
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

BWLurker2 posted...

Mass

Solid blue except Governor which says "likely", but I'd consider safe. Mass loves Baker, pretty sure he's the most (or at least top 3)popular Republican governor countrywide.

iirc, he is the most popular governor in america, period
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-state-races-handicapping-election-2018-governor-sos-ag-legislative.html

All safe republican for me here in Arkansas, except our secretary of state race which is likely Republican
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

I didnt know tubes had pay site versions
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Questionmarktarius posted...

Expect significant lobbying for origin-sourced sales taxes, very soon.

that wouldn't help state and local governments so I doubt it
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

It was glorious and I loved the memory card functionality. A mini display to hide certain choices in multiplayer games was great.

more games needed to use that VMU though
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

@TroutPaste please add me to the list
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

SkittyOnWailord posted...

The only games I rented didn't have saves. Mostly NES and a few SNES/Genesis.

thinking about it, this

I mostly rented stuff prior to the widespread use of battery saves, or stuff that doesn't have battery saving features like most shmups and beat em ups
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

I like rockstar, I just don't see any year where they had a lot of great games even by the standards of the time

it doesnt make them a bad company. I like treasure and they've never been putting out 2-3 great games a year, even at their most productive
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

eston posted...

I will happily go on record saying that Revolver was not a great game

It wasn't bad, but calling it great is a big stretch

I'm willing to concede it even though it isn't great the way red dead redemption was

it still isn't enough to save the topic if you allow it
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

AlecSkorpio posted...

Imagine thinking that San Andreas and Red Dead Revolver weren't great games.

they are, and that makes 2 great games, probably their most productive year for great games in the entire timeline
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This would probably collapse the economy. Investment income is generated (by the average person) by taking income they already paid taxes on and deferring gratification by putting it to work in the stock market or in real estate or in business ventures. The deferred gratification + risk warrant a lower tax rate as an incentive to get people to keep doing it.

I disagree. It definitely wouldn't collapse the economy -- don't be silly. You can argue over whether or not its more or less effective, but I would argue that given most american households don't have any investments, and those that do are largely through 401k plans, this thinking makes no sense to me. Let people write off losses more generously if this is the real concern, letting them carry forward more and for longer
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

most homeless people aren't impacted by market rate housing in any way, because they have issues outside of income that limit their ability to participate in said market (substance abuse, physical and mental impairment, etc)

its only in very, very cost-burdened places where you see significant working class homelessness -- like the bay area and L.A.

the overall cost of housing obviously impacts homelessness at the margins but focusing on that population is pretty much a dodge in the context of this conversation. as we've discussed in this topic, the issue is less one of homelessness and more one of debt burden and locational disavantage for those who are actually priced out of the area -- which means renters, specifically renters with no credit or low credit scores
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

I think wealth caps dont make much sense, but I also would like to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

averagejoel posted...

if the link between rising housing costs and rising homelessness is not immediately obvious to you then idk what to tell you

You are, and I mean this with all due respect, a very simple minded person if this is truly the level of thought you give to it

But I would like to talk about it. What happens if people don't build new housing? Do you think rich people don't move in? What would you think if, instead of not moving in, they still move in? That would actually be an example of how a lack of gentrification is bad for poor people. Do you imagine that never happens?
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

I don't see what it has to do with values. It's just about talking about how your values apply in reality. It's more than easy to say that pushing poor people out of their housing is bad. It's much more difficult to talk about what to do about it when you take into account the vagaries of reality that sometimes don't line up with your preconceived notions about the situation -- like maybe neighborhood investment lags other kinds of municipal investment in a way that makes gentrification good because it acts as an intervening variable that modulates how those non-neighborhood municipal investments impact poor people in areas of concentrated poverty?

But that requires a certain kind of system-level thinking that isn't wed to an ideology.
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

averagejoel posted...

I'm perfectly capable of proving that forcing poor people out of their homes is bad for them

right, what you're not capable of doing is linking this up to gentrification, the complex social phenomenon of neighborhood investment that we are currently talking about
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

averagejoel posted...

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

that claim is false.

there is evidence of how it helps poor people itt, would you like to furnish your own competing evidence?

not particularly

I question your ability to do so even if you wanted to, but okay, thank you for your contribution
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

averagejoel posted...

that claim is false.

there is evidence of how it helps poor people itt, would you like to furnish your own competing evidence?
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

averagejoel posted...

won't someone PLEASE think of the rich people?

the claim is that gentrification helps every one, including poor people, though
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

OctilIery posted...

Sunhawk posted...

RIP King Kong.

To be fair, that was a pretty average film even back in the day. I can't remember if I even finished it.

Average? It was largely considered one of the best Kong movies ever made.

really? I thought it was pretty unsuccessful
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

one of the first papers I wrote in grad school was about the relative costs of private trash collection vs public

I couldn't find any evidence there was a difference in overall costs, either on the production side or the costs that get passed on to consumers

but one big difference between services that were contracted out vs services that were done in-house is that private contractors were much MUCH more likely to invest in capital than in labor. and the opposite was true for public.

on those terms, even though the costs are nominally the same, I would prefer private collection since a capital investment is more likely to result in better services than hiring more people IMO

edit - lol wrong topic, I'm gonna leave it though
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

it wasnt good to begin with
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

I also like that post
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Antifar posted...

Rapid in they brought about massive changes in quick succession: the abolition of slavery and granting citizenship to black people wasn't a piecemeal, gradual process.

It really quite literally was a process that wasn't completed until the civil rights era (and arguably continues to this day) though

Antifar posted...

Stuff like social security and the WPA was made possible by the Democratic supermajority of the time (and the circumstances under which they came into power); they weren't on the table just a decade earlier. .

did the social security act of 1935 really reorganize society? what about all the additions we've made to it over several decades, like adding disability to it, adding dependents, being more inclusive of who is covered by it, etc? is none of that incremental?
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

its about economies of scale.one reason we grant trash pick up monopolies over areas is that it is more efficient -- there's no real additional cost to picking up every trash can on a route if you're already doing that route. so you tell people they get the service the way you want to provide it, whether they like it or not
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Antifar posted...

It really isn't, though. We've had decades of relative inaction, and then rapid fire reorganization of society: the civil war, the new deal, the civil rights era.

what was rapid about those societal reorganizations? how was society reorganized?
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Questionmarktarius posted...

treewojima posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Then you overly penalize people who have to drive a lot for a living.

...which a gas tax already does anyway.

plus there are plenty of ways for the market to adjust to a fuel tax - distances never change. the only way to get around a mileage tax would be to move

Worrying about "what about?" is how bloat and loopholes happen.
If you want to be "equitable" about a mileage tax, add gross vehicle weight and number of wheels into the formula.

I like it
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Coffeebeanz posted...

Abyssea posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

And if the ACA actually provided poor people useable health insurance you'd have a point.

It is better than nothing, which is what republicans have in mind for them instead. What was their health plan for the poor called again? Oh yes, "go to the emergency room." Don't need health insurance to get treated in the emergency room after all...

It's worse than nothing, actually.

But that doesn't absolve the Republicans for being morons about it too.

But this "better than nothing" crap has to go. It literally made our horribly broken hybrid system worse by forcing you to buy the product that shouldn't exist in the first place.

what are you talking about?? poor people were never impacted by the mandate, and they certainly aren't now that it doesn't exist

any one up to 250% of the federal poverty level is protected from out of pocket costs above a certain amount due to cost sharing reduction mandates, and everyone up to 400% FPL gets a subsidy

people under 138% FPL get medicaid expansion in states that elected to expand it -- check out how different medical debt burdens, foregone care, etc are between expansion and non-expansion states
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

MangaFan462 posted...

The majority of the previous population benefits from gentrification

okay, that's probably true

MangaFan462 posted...

Basically what anti-gentrifiers want are ugly super-high risers everywhere, further overpopulating areas and bringing crime to all communities.

lmao wat
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Coffeebeanz posted...

I cannot figure out how Democrats put up with her at the helm.

she rakes in the cash like few other liberals can
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Coffeebeanz posted...

And if the ACA actually provided poor people useable health insurance you'd have a point.

oh, it definitely does
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

so are the only real games sega arcade games from the late 80s?
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

DarthGravid posted...

My two oldest children are white/hispanic. They both got all of my white features, and almost nothing from their (very dark) hispanic mother. It drives her nuts that people always assume that she's the nanny.

when I was young the same thing happened to me and my dad about 50% of the time

50%, he looks just like you but different coloring
50%, there's no way that young white child is your son
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

Asherlee10 posted...

Near Houston, but further on the coast towards Corpus.

It wasn't just me. But the "right" people weren't close enough to it to be bothered. Most people around it ended up moving and last time I went by there 3 of the 5-6 houses around it were now vacant.

yeah I believe it, that is a notorious problem with local governments for sure
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

voldothegr8 posted...

Lets just stick to the real point here, there was never a time R* released 3 great games in a year and it was few and far between when they would release 2 great or even decent games in a year.

yep
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

its not really population growth that's the issue, though, the issue is about the distribution of the population

the people in belvedere aren't on public assistance but they are commuting an hour each way to get to SF each day. the built form they're using almost certainly represents a number of the subsidies we're talking about with respect to public infrastructure

and belvedere is a relatively close-in suburb of SF, there are people coming from much farther

it's about bad housing markets, not the number of people imo
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Go look at the legendary googlebus: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/technology/10google.html

This proves my point, I think. That shuttle is reserved for the workers because it's the avenue that most benefits Google's bottom line. You wouldn't see Google expand that to random cities/people, would you? Because they wouldn't make any money off of it.

relevant: https://marketurbanism.com/2017/11/21/curb-rights-at-20-a-summary-and-review/
---

It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives