DeSean Jackson posts anti-Semitic messages

#101
#101
Chris4Vols22 said:
That was his mistake for sure. He could have qualified it in the description, but I'm sure there still would have been outrage.

This story will run for another 10 hours or so, then everyone will forget.
Click to expand...

He seems dumb. Most likely he does believe stupid shtt and the "outrage" is justifiable.
 
#102
#102
05_never_again said:
I didn't see any posts of his to this effect myself, but apparently all July 4th weekend he'd been posting videos of speeches by Louis Farrakhan and not explicitly endorsing them per se but leaving comments to the effect of "you need to watch this." Then this thing he posted was a "grand finale," so to speak. AFAIK that's the context he posted this in.

Honestly, it sounds like he went down an internet rabbit hole over the weekend, found some stuff he thought was at least interesting (if not outright believes), and thoughtlessly posted it to IG.
Click to expand...
That's how I was kinda taking it but didnt know the context with the Farrakhan stuff.
 
#104
#104
05_never_again said:
1280px-2016_Nationwide_US_presidential_county_map_shaded_by_vote_share.svg.png
Click to expand...

This is meaningless in relation to the question of how well location predicts how an individual will vote. We need to see data that says something like this to prove your statement:

location correlation = .75
race correlation = .60
religion correlation = .59
etc.
 
#108
#108
n_huffhines said:
This is meaningless in relation to the question of how well location predicts how an individual will vote. We need to see data that says something like this to prove your statement:

location correlation = .75
race correlation = .60
religion correlation = .59
etc.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? This isn't rocket science.

How many urban areas are red? How many rural areas are blue? There are some exceptions (e.g., Indian reservations, the Black Belt, Fort Worth, rural Massachusetts, etc.) but it's generally a pretty good indicator. If you live in a high population density county or precinct, odds are you vote Democrat regardless of what your race, religion, age, etc. is. The opposite is true for low population density areas. Even in the South, which is stereotypically very conservative, almost all the urban areas are blue and in a very liberal state, like Oregon, the rural areas are red.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#111
#111
05_never_again said:
What are you talking about? This isn't rocket science.

How many urban areas are red? How many rural areas are blue? There are some exceptions (e.g., Indian reservations, the Black Belt, Fort Worth, rural Massachusetts, etc.) but it's generally a pretty good indicator. If you live in a high population density county or precinct, odds are you vote Democrat regardless of what your race, religion, age, etc. is. The opposite is true for low population density areas. Even in the South, which is stereotypically very conservative, almost all the urban areas are blue and in a very liberal state, like Oregon, the rural areas are red.
Click to expand...

Dude, how do you not get this? You know what you said in OP, right? It was about predicting an individual's leanings by location vs. other predictors. You're not showing that it is more predictive than other factors, you're just saying it's a predictor.

Jews vote 70-80% for D POTUS candidates, so how could location explain that when locations typically lean less than 60% one way or another?
 
Last edited:
#114
#114
n_huffhines said:
Dude, how do you not get this? You know what you said in OP, right? It was about predicting an individual's leanings by location vs. other predictors. You're not showing that it is more predictive than other factors, you're just saying it's a predictor.

Jews vote 70-80% for D POTUS candidates, so how could location explain that when locations typically lean less than 60% one way or another?
Click to expand...
Because "Jews" is a very narrow category, and being Jewish is a predictor in addition to population density. When looked at in combination, it becomes an even better predictor. I guess my argument is actually that population density, not location per se, is probably the best predictor. Either that or atheist or theist, but there just aren't all that many atheists out there. Being black or being gay is a great predictor of Democratic voting patterns, but there just aren't that many black or gay people either. Simply knowing that somebody is non-Jewish, or not black, or straight isn't a great predictor in and of itself.

BTW, here's an Economist article that says that religion (technically atheist or theist, not particular types of religion), is the best predictor. Location/population density is a great predictor because it's one you can easily apply to large groups of people. If all you're told is that somebody is white, or what somebody is a theist, those aren't great statistical predictors in and of themselves. However, if you're told simply that somebody lives in a low population density area, you can not know any other factors and have a pretty good indication of how they vote (just look at the map).

How to forecast an American’s vote
 
#115
#115
05_never_again said:
Because "Jews" is a very narrow category, and being Jewish is a predictor in addition to population density. When looked at in combination, it becomes an even better predictor. I guess my argument is actually that population density, not location per se, is probably the best predictor. Either that or atheist or theist, but there just aren't all that many atheists out there. Being black or being gay is a great predictor of Democratic voting patterns, but there just aren't that many black or gay people either. Simply knowing that somebody is non-Jewish, or not black, or straight isn't a great predictor in and of itself.

BTW, here's an Economist article that says that religion (technically atheist or theist, not particular types of religion), is the best predictor. Location/population density is a great predictor because it's one you can easily apply to large groups of people. If all you're told is that somebody is white, or what somebody is a theist, those aren't great statistical predictors in and of themselves. However, if you're told simply that somebody lives in a low population density area, you can not know any other factors and have a pretty good indication of how they vote (just look at the map).

How to forecast an American’s vote
Click to expand...

Not surprised by this.

Really surprised to see white is a stronger R predictor (and 2nd strongest overall) than population density is, TBH. Even stronger than Spanish fluency predicts D. Really, what?
 
#116
#116
n_huffhines said:
Not surprised by this.

Really surprised to see white is a stronger R predictor (and 2nd strongest overall) than population density is, TBH. Even stronger than Spanish fluency predicts D. Really, what?
Click to expand...
The problem with ranking the predictors how they did is that some of them are very, very narrow. Being an atheist is a great Dem predictor. OK, no shock there. But simply being a theist isn't a great Republican predictor. You have to break it down into far more detail, and there aren't all that many atheists to begin with, so you can't apply it to large swaths of the population. Same thing with being black, or gay, or having a postgrad degree. Only small percentages of the population are those things...I mean, is having anything other than a postgrad degree a great indicator of voting Republican?

However, when you get to population density, that's the first one you can apply to big chunks of the population without really needing any further information.
 
#117
#117
05_never_again said:
The problem with ranking the predictors how they did is that some of them are very, very narrow. Being an atheist is a great Dem predictor. OK, no shock there. But simply being a theist isn't a great Republican predictor. You have to break it down into far more detail, and there aren't all that many atheists to begin with, so you can't apply it to large swaths of the population. Same thing with being black, or gay, or having a postgrad degree. Only small percentages of the population are those things...I mean, is having anything other than a postgrad degree a great indicator of voting Republican?

However, when you get to population density, that's the first one you can apply to big chunks of the population without really needing any further information.
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem, exactly? Whatever the data is, you take it FWIW, IMO.
 
#118
#118
FLVOL_79 said:
Oddly enough the only time I've ever heard anti semetic remarks in my entire life has been from black people, and its always dropped in casual conversation like its normal to them. Talking about the media in Orlando reporting some incident that was a racial thing a coworker was like "well the Jew run media etc"..all of us White dudes were like what?
Click to expand...


Trump has made a number of such remarks.
 
#119
#119
n_huffhines said:
Why is that a problem, exactly? Whatever the data is, you take it FWIW, IMO.
Click to expand...
Religion is a good predictor, but you have to slice and dice it in order to find something that is predictive. If, say, 50% of the population was atheist, and 95% of atheists voted Democrat, then atheist/theist would be a great predictor. There are multiple theist groups that are overwhelming Democratic, for example.

Population density is a good one because the country can be divided fairly easily into urban, suburban, and rural (Demographic and economic trends in urban, suburban and rural communities). Urban areas are heavily Dem, suburban areas lean Republican, and rural areas are heavily Republican. You don't have to slice and dice and get real specific like you do with religion to find something that is predictive (e.g., Christian/non-Christian, born-again/Mainline Protestant, Protestant/Catholic, etc.). Telling me that someone is religious isn't a great indicator either way - I need more info to predict with a high degree of confidence they are Republican. However, if you tell me that somebody lives in a really low population density area, I don't really need more info to predict with a high degree of confidence that they vote Republican. Of course there are the exceptions I've already mentioned, but there are fewer exceptions that with the other predictors.
 
#120
#120
05_never_again said:
Religion is a good predictor, but you have to slice and dice it in order to find something that is predictive. If, say, 50% of the population was atheist, and 95% of atheists voted Democrat, then atheist/theist would be a great predictor. There are multiple theist groups that are overwhelming Democratic, for example.

Population density is a good one because the country can be divided fairly easily into urban, suburban, and rural (Demographic and economic trends in urban, suburban and rural communities). Urban areas are heavily Dem, suburban areas lean Republican, and rural areas are heavily Republican. You don't have to slice and dice and get real specific like you do with religion to find something that is predictive (e.g., Christian/non-Christian, born-again/Mainline Protestant, Protestant/Catholic, etc.). Depending on what your specific religion is, that can be a huge indicator either way.
Click to expand...

I think I get what you're driving at. You're still trying to prove OP, but we're so far removed from that now. "Location" has become "population density" and you're also specifying "big chunk", broad predictors instead of all types of predictors. I think you've successfully clarified the point. You didn't mean what you originally said, you meant something different.
 
#121
#121
lawgator1 said:
Trump has made a number of such remarks.
Click to expand...
I should have been more clear. In person. I've heard plenty of anti semetic remarks. I watch American History X at least once a week.

What anti Jew comments has Trump made? I've missed those. Did he tell the joke about the invention of copper wire?
 
#122
#122
FLVOL_79 said:
I should have been more clear. In person. I've heard plenty of anti semetic remarks. I watch American History X at least once a week.

What anti Jew comments has Trump made? I've missed those. Did he tell the joke about the invention of copper wire?
Click to expand...
He actually made a comment that many noted was like the inverse of what Omar said...that if you're Jewish and vote Democrat, then you're either stupid or disloyal to Israel. It's an identity politics game that Trump himself, and others who support him, frequently get upset about.

Trump: Any Jew voting Democratic is uninformed or disloyal
 
#124
#124
05_never_again said:
He actually made a comment that many noted was like the inverse of what Omar said...that if you're Jewish and vote Democrat, then you're either stupid or disloyal to Israel. It's an identity politics game that Trump himself, and others who support him, frequently get upset about.

Trump: Any Jew voting Democratic is uninformed or disloyal
Click to expand...
Well thats true. Jews voting democrat is no different than White males voting democrat. You are voting for a party that hates you. I mean, that isn't even up for debates its a fact stated time and time again by democrat leadership.
 
#125
#125
05_never_again said:
I doubt it. He'll be allowed to "educate himself" and apologize for it, then move on.

Which I'm not opposed to, by the way. Others wouldn't be afforded that same chance though.
Click to expand...
I think they should force he and Ritchie Incognito to be roommates and turn it into a screwball sitcom
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top