or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 320

post #4786 of 6095

I try to skip the monologues. I guess it's impossible to not become an insufferable prig after having your own show for so long. His guests are good, but I never took him seriously due to his hilariously unsophisticated stance on Muslims, and the fact he seems way more concerned with celebrity compared to other comedy news hosts.

post #4787 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post

I try to skip the monologues. I guess it's impossible to not become an insufferable prig after having your own show for so long. His guests are good, but I never took him seriously due to his hilariously unsophisticated stance on Muslims, and the fact he seems way more concerned with celebrity compared to other comedy news hosts.

Unsophisticated stance? Not only his stance is more sophistitcated than 99%+ of the population he is also right. Unlike many liberals he does defend secular values instead of sucking up to minorities to get brownie points, virtue signal how he is not a racist(islam is not a race but many idiots have hard time understanding that) or simply ignoring the problem.

Sure you can think he is incorrect, but to call that 'unsophisticated stance' is most likely insincere or showing your own stance is not sophisticated casue you don't know what you are talking about.
post #4788 of 6095

Right, I forgot, he's not only against Islam but all religions, he's the /r/atheism incarnate.

post #4789 of 6095
That's one of his reedeming qualties
post #4790 of 6095

Well, I agree with Paglia:

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/camille_paglia_takes_on_jon_stewart_trump_sanders_liberals_think_of_themselves_as_very_open_minded_but_that%E2%80%99s_simply_not_true/

 

Quote:

You’re an atheist, and yet I don’t ever see you sneer at religion in the way that the very aggressive atheist class right now often will. What do you make of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the religion critics who seem not to have respect for religions for faith?

 

I regard them as adolescents. I say in the introduction to my last book, “Glittering Images”, that “Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination.”  It exposes a state of perpetual adolescence that has something to do with their parents– they’re still sneering at dad in some way. Richard Dawkins was the only high-profile atheist out there when I began publicly saying “I am an atheist,” on my book tours in the early 1990s. I started the fad for it in the U.S, because all of a sudden people, including leftist journalists, started coming out of the closet to publicly claim their atheist identities, which they weren’t bold enough to do before. But the point is that I felt it was perfectly legitimate for me to do that because of my great respect for religion in general–from the iconography to the sacred architecture and so forth. I was arguing that religion should be put at the center of any kind of multicultural curriculum.

 

I’m speaking here as an atheist. I don’t believe there is a God, but I respect every religion deeply. All the great world religions contain a complex system of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and human life that is far more profound than anything that liberalism has produced. We have a whole generation of young people who are clinging to politics and to politicized visions of sexuality for their belief system.  They see nothing but politics, but politics is tiny.  Politics applies only to society. There is a huge metaphysical realm out there that involves the eternal principles of life and death. The great tragic texts, including the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles, no longer have the central status they once had in education, because we have steadily moved away from the heritage of western civilization.

post #4791 of 6095
I always found Maher intolerable when he got talking about Islam. His over the top atheism comes out as a really juvenile understanding of a big problem. He's not really interested in hearing any other viewpoint either. Talking over your guests isn't a good habit for a talkshow host, but he'll almost inevitably do it if they're talking about Islam.


Haven't watched him in a year or two. Wonder how he's handling all the recent stuff.
post #4792 of 6095
Right, the last muslim guest he had was rula jebreal and he just shouted at her (i'm not counting asra nomani who's after the next book deal). he refuses to have anyone with academic credentials on (of course that won't help HBO with ratings and viewership) because he rather just repeat the same tired points which are very much obvious -- just because a purported liberal holds those views doesn't lend them any level of sophistication. he has a simplistic and incomplete understanding of a topic that he covers with sweeping generalizations, and unfortunately this extends to plenty of other subjects he covers. i agree with accordion that he does bring on interesting guests on occasion, and when the show isn't based on bashing the token conservative it can have interesting dialogue.
post #4793 of 6095
They are some of my favourites -.-
Quote:
All the great world religions contain a complex system of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and human life that is far more profound than anything that liberalism has produced.

Well, I don't think I would have very hard time undermining that claim, but that's not thread for it plus id have to write a wall of text.
Quote:
I don’t believe there is a God, but I respect every religion deeply

Sure you can respect religions, in social settings it's a preferable thing to do, if the topic comes up. But in a honest conversation like one here I do not think the case is clear they deserve more respect then any other set of ideas. I don't think this respect should be given on base that it is a religion. Should I respect religions that allow or even demand brutal punishments for crimes like adultery or witchcraft? Where is morality in this? How can a person who is a nonbeliever respect what he thinks is a false religion if it brings harm to the belivers of that very religion? This is shallow feel good reasoning, and at some level even disgusting morally.
post #4794 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

Right, the last muslim guest he had was rula jebreal and he just shouted at her (i'm not counting asra nomani who's after the next book deal). he refuses to have anyone with academic credentials on (of course that won't help HBO with ratings and viewership) because he rather just repeat the same tired points which are very much obvious -- just because a purported liberal holds those views doesn't lend them any level of sophistication. he has a simplistic and incomplete understanding of a topic that he covers with sweeping generalizations, and unfortunately this extends to plenty of other subjects he covers. i agree with accordion that he does bring on interesting guests on occasion, and when the show isn't based on bashing the token conservative it can have interesting dialogue.

 

To be fair, he's also had ayaan hirsi and reza aslan on the show, not that they're equals. Rula Jebreal seems like she's always more angry than necessary and takes longer than necessary to make a point so she was talked over. I think Maher also had on some super liberal Muslims, Canadian activism woman who was against Hijabs and some English dude who was once a radical but converted back, Maher was nice to them as long as they agreed with him. Anyways, maybe it's the format of the show, with laugh tracks and monologues, etc, that makes it appear more insulated than it is.

post #4795 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

They are some of my favourites -.-
1.) Well, I don't think I would have very hard time undermining that claim, but that's not thread for it plus id have to write a wall of text.
2.) Sure you can respect religions, in social settings it's a preferable thing to do, if the topic comes up. But in a honest conversation like one here I do not think the case is clear they deserve more respect then any other set of ideas. I don't think this respect should be given on base that it is a religion. Should I respect religions that allow or even demand brutal punishments for crimes like adultery or witchcraft? Where is morality in this? How can a person who is a nonbeliever respect what he thinks is a false religion if it brings harm to the belivers of that very religion? This is shallow feel good reasoning, and at some level even disgusting morally.

 

1.) I honestly thought that was extremely obvious, but yes, another topic.

 

2.) I'd like to think it's a learned reasoning, perhaps based on the history of morality,

 

I'll just campaign for the fact that less people in the US die from terrorist attacks than from getting struck by lightning.

post #4796 of 6095
wojt - to your second point, Foucault wrote in support of the Iranian revolution simply because it was in opposition to 'western imperialism' even though it brought about a regime that would put him to death for his homosexuality (this is a massive reduction of his argument but alas).
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post

To be fair, he's also had ayaan hirsi and reza aslan on the show, not that they're equals. Rula Jebreal seems like she's always more angry than necessary and takes longer than necessary to make a point so she was talked over. I think Maher also had on some super liberal Muslims, Canadian activism woman who was against Hijabs and some English dude who was once a radical but converted back, Maher was nice to them as long as they agreed with him. Anyways, maybe it's the format of the show, with laugh tracks and monologues, etc, that makes it appear more insulated than it is.

the quickest way to make a buck as a brown person is to walk the conservative line in the US and bash native/former religion.

- irshad manji who thinks muslims are robots, certainly a position to be taken seriously?
- ayaan hirsi ali who is not actually a muslim, and who was outed for lying her way into holland (making up story of forced arrange marriage and persecution), getting into the parliament but dismissed, and now a reformer of islam. in one interview, she admitted her hatred of the faith stems from the fact that her father, even on his death bed, refused to acknowledge her because she renounced her faith. unfortunate, but not surprising
- majid nawaaz, former nutjob who now joins forces with sam harris to write about reforming islam. swinging from one extreme to the next?
- reza aslan who is a twitter champion, i have nothing particularly against him but i wouldn't consider his scholarship to be of any islamic value, rather he's a public intellectual figure that has done some work focusing on religious studies which is entirely different
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post

I'll just campaign for the fact that less people in the US die from terrorist attacks than from lightning.

there are plenty of other metrics that can be substituted here as well, like dying in a bathtub rather than by a terrorist attack. hell you could have twice the chance of becoming an astronaut vs in fiery plane crash hijacked by terrorists
post #4797 of 6095
Regarding the thread topic, this is an interesting take on black vs white shootings, etc.
Quote:
The coverage of the results comes down to the following:

P(Shooting | Black, Escalation) = P(Shooting | White, Escalation)

(here I am using ‘Escalation’ as the set of arrests where use of force is considered justified. And for notational simplicity I have omitted the control variables from the conditional above).

However, the analysis actually shows that:

P(Shooting | Black, Sampled) = P(Shooting | White, Sampled),

Where (Sampled = True) if the person was either shot or the situation escalated and the person was not shot. This makes a huge difference, because with the right bias in the sampling, we could have a situation in which there is in fact bias in police shooting but not in the sampled data. We can show this with a little application of Bayes rule:

P(Shot|B, Samp) / P(Shot|W, Samp) = [P(Shot|B) / P(Shot|W)] * [P(Samp|W) / P(Samp|B)]

The above should be read as: the bias in the study depends on both the racial bias in the population (P(S|B) / P(S|W)) and the bias in the sampling. Any bias in the population can therefore effectively be undone by a sampling scheme that is also racially biased. Unfortunately, the data summarized in the study doesn’t allow us to back into the 4 terms on the right hand side of the above equality.

https://mathbabe.org/2016/07/19/race-and-police-shootings-why-data-sampling-matters/
post #4798 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by accordion View Post

2.) I'd like to think it's a learned reasoning, perhaps based on the history of morality,

I'll just campaign for the fact that less people in the US die from terrorist attacks than from getting struck by lightning.

I'll campaign for the fact how shitty a religion to its own believers; to all these muslim women stonned to death for adultery, all muslim homosexuals killed or jailed or closeted for life etc, etc And it's not limited to Islam either.

I wish people like Paglia gave a fuck about them, instead of showing the world how tolerant and virtous they are.
post #4799 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

Regarding the thread topic, this is an interesting take on black vs white shootings, etc.
https://mathbabe.org/2016/07/19/race-and-police-shootings-why-data-sampling-matters/

 

True, but,

 

Quote:
In other words, the positive population (those with shooting) is not drawn from the same distribution as the negative population (those arrests where use of force is justified). The article implies that there is no racial bias conditional on there being an arrest where use of force was justified. However, the fact that they used shootings that were outside of this set of arrests means that this is not what they actually tested.

 

I don't think that was implied. I'm not a statistician, and I can see how the study can be interpreted as that the shooting set is drawn from the arrest set. All of these arguments are sound.

 

But there's the police reports lie counter-argument that no study's safe from, and also, I think that common sense would suggest that there has to be proof of a gigantic conspiracy, across the twelve or so PDs they sampled from, to invalidate just how under-represented blacks are in the shooting dataset. More importantly, since the black data is measured against the white data, it would have to be that the police avoided the same grounds-for-lethal-force charges vs. whites than they made vs. blacks, which seems extremely unlikely.

 

Trying to read through this intoxicated.

 

1. Set A is arrest data from Houston only, which may be less biased because they were the only ones who agreed to release their data.

 

2. Set B is shooting data from 12 departments across the country.

 

If Set A is less biased than usual, than it would be even more unlikely that the intersection of Sets A&B found no bias in lethal force. If there were more violent arrests in Set A, then more shootings would be justified. The only way this argument could make sense if it was vice versa.

 

I wrote this on Rajiv Sethi's blog. But he never posted my comment after I asked him to edit it cuz he's a pussy or w/e. But basically, the point of the study is to find out if the police are biased, if you assume, by default, the police are biased, in that the sampled has some hidden bias that cannot be controlled for since there are not enough bodycams, yet there is no evidence that the data is, or to what degree, biased, then all it is is throwing mud. If the study assumes it, then it's self-defeating. Hence not a valid argument.


Edited by accordion - 7/20/16 at 9:22pm
post #4800 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post


I'll campaign for the fact how shitty a religion to its own believers; to all these muslim women stonned to death for adultery, all muslim homosexuals killed or jailed or closeted for life etc, etc And it's not limited to Islam either.

I wish people like Paglia gave a fuck about them, instead of showing the world how tolerant and virtous they are.

 

Don't wanna argue about religion, but Paglia made her career on intolerance. She's just a nice jewish woman who shits on everybody.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?