Latest fact-checking follies from the New York Times: Yesterday morning, observing all procedures, a group of analysts awakened us at an early hour.
They assumed we'd want to see the report which had appeared in the New York Times. Written by Linda Qiu, the report appeared beneath this headline:
Fact-Checking Kamala Harris on the Campaign TrailLithely, we sprang into action. Soon, we were consulting with top anthropologists about what the Times had wrought.
We'd been curious to see how Qiu had handled an obvious misstatement Harris had made on a series of high-profile occasions. We ourselves had leaped into action when Harris told Ari Melber this:
MELBER (5/20/19): Let's start with this. What does your plan do to combat the gender pay gap?Rather plainly, Harris told the compliant Melber that women, on average, get paid 80 percent as much as men for doing the same or equal work—the same work a male colleague is doing right there in the next cubicle!
HARRIS: Well, first of all, it is just a fact, right? So the reality of this is that we don't have to debate the point, which is that, on average, women make 80 cents on the dollar to men. If you're talking about African-American women, that's 61 cents. If it's Latinas, it's 53 cents.
So there is an obvious issue that we have around, not only disparities but fairness, and equal pay for equal work. So let's get beyond that because it's not a debatable point.
The question becomes, what are we going to do about it? And I think the goal, we would all agree, should be that people should be paid equally for equal work.
[...]
HARRIS: Look, Ari, it's for real that that woman is getting paid 80 cents on the dollar. It's for real that that other woman is getting paid 61 cents on the dollar.
It's for real that that other woman is getting paid 53 cents on the dollar. And she's sitting at her kitchen table in the middle of the night trying to figure out how she can pay her bills.
When she wakes up at the same time the next morning as the guy who was working in the cubicle next to her, she performs the same work, but she's not getting paid the same amount. That's for real too.
Everyone knows that isn't true. But within our floundering, pitiful tribe, we very much like to say it.
(Almost) everyone understands that Harris' statement is bogus. Indeed, after she said it again to Stephen Colbert, PolitiFact offered this correction, noting that Harris' staff acknowledged that she had "misspoken."
Wearily, PolitiFact noted that the site had corrected this type of misstatement before. That said, so has everyone else on the planet!
For example, to see Fact-Check.org correct this groaner in 2012, you can just click here.
To see the Washington Post's Fact-Checker site correct it in 2016, you can just click this. Wearily, Glenn Kessler offered this overview of his struggles in this area:
KESSLER (4/14/16): "Equal Pay Day” is supposed to symbolize how far a woman must work into the next year to make as much as a man. Every April, Democrats hold events calling attention to a persistent wage gap between men and women, citing the latest number from the Census Bureau. (In 2012, 2013 and 2014, it was 77 cents; in 2015, it was 78 cents; and in 2016, it is now 79 cents.)For the record, Kessler said the basic statistic here is "misleading." When she spoke with Melber and Colbert, Harris made explicit statements about the statistic which were simply false.
And every year since 2012, The Fact Checker has offered an explanation of this figure and why it is misleading. We have updated this account with some new research on the issue.
Everybody knows that Harris' statements have been false. But leading anthropologists tell us that Harris' basic claim is a "sacred misstatement."
These experts, who report to us from the future, tell us that this unusual term became a staple of anthropology among the scholars who survived the conflagration they refer to as "Mister Trump's War."
According to these future experts, we humans were wired to create and promulgate pleasing tribal "fictions," much as Professor Harari futilely tried to explain. Some of these fictions were so central to the tribal perspective that they came to play the role of sacred scripture within our "poorly-wired" brains.
These were the "sacred misstatements" which apparently form a key part of retrospective future anthropology. This helps explain why we leaped out of bed yesterday morning, eager to see how Linda Qiu had handled Harris' misstatements.
Rather plainly, the New York Times is our dumbest and most absurdly tribal contemporary "liberal" newspaper. Hungrily, we fell upon our hard-copy Times and turned to Qiu's report.
Sure enough! Qiu had completely skipped these high-profile groaners by Harris! Instead, she examined five innocuous statements by Harris, finding only one to be "false."
At any rate, Linda Qiu completely skipped Harris' misstatements about the gender pay gap. We felt this confirmed the work of our anthropological experts, along with our own assessments of the New York Times.
Before we were done, though, we decided to conduct our own check! Our question:
Has the New York Times ever fact-checked that "sacred misstatement" about the gender pay gap?
Every fact-checker in the world has noted, often on a repeated basis, that statements like Harris' are false. Has the New York Times ever been willing to let its readers know that?
We googled, and when we did—well, good lord but the Times is just sad!
When we googled, we hit upon this recent piece by Maya Salam, a "gender reporter" for the Times.
The piece appeared on April 2 of this year. It ran beneath these dispassionate headlines:
Womansplaining the Pay GapIn short, the gender reporter spoke to the gender editor, after which she womansplained the matter. As she did, she produced a world-class example of journalistic misdirection and error, in service to tribal belief.
I asked the gender editor of The Times to walk us through the details.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we're beginning to think our future experts may be right.
Our tribe is just extremely sad. Thirty years of this mugging and clowning ended with Trump where he is.
"Our tribe is just extremely sad."
ReplyDeleteYes, dear Bob, indeed your full of shit zombie cult is extremely sad.
But only to those outside the cult. To your cult's zombie followers, it's beautiful, shiny, and full of life. Just like any other sad cult, seen through the eyes of its followers.
Harris kept emphasizing that the pay gap between men and women is real because people like Somerby think that challenging a single statistic's meaning (whether it is general or for equal work) negates the entire issue of equal pay. This gap is real and it is time to move beyond Somerby's quibble to the larger topic of what to do about it. The solution is to pay women fairly and that will apparently require legislation and enforcement, since corporations and employers aren't going to do this by themselves.
ReplyDeleteJohn Oliver last night asked why we don't have the equal rights amendment after all this time. The anniversary of the 19th Amendment was barely mentioned by the press or anywhere else. Abortion rights are being systematically challenged in the red states. But Somerby thinks it is most important to talk about whether that 80% figure is for the same work or a comparison across all women's and men's jobs. Somerby is acting like a neanderthal.
Meanwhile, the focus has been on the women's soccer team. Lots of excitement about that team but no mention of the huge disparities between pay of male soccer players and female players, who do arguably the same work. Before someone argues that the elite are not the same as everyday workers, realize that if the elite are not being paid equally, you can bet the rank and file are not either, even in jobs constrained by union rules or written policies. Men are in charge and they do not pay women equally for the same work. That is the heart of this matter. Women know it and men do not (witness Somerby).
At the very least Kamala Harris will attract female votes with her repeated support for women's issues. She is smart not to back down against pressure from men like Somerby or politifact and those who keep calling the gap a lie (conservatives leading that charge). She gets to demonstrate not only understanding of women's concerns but also strength in the face of opposition.
Women know the gap is not a lie. Somerby demonstrates his ignorance and his own performative virtue to a male and/or conservative audience that shows up regularly under names like CMike, AC/MA, Leroy and deadrat. Somerby needs to stop calling out women who are asserting the rights and needs of female voters. It is not a good look for someone supposedly "liberal" at a liberal blog.
11:13 AM argues that honesty in the face of right-wing ascendancy is no virtue; lying to advance the interests of a preferred group is no vice.
DeleteThis is the level of faux Democratic Party liberalism has sunk to over the course of the post-Great Society era.
Women on average make just 80 cents for every dollar a man is paid, and it’s even lower for women of color:
Delete-61 cents for Black women
-57 cents for Native women
-53 cents for Latina women
Equal pay for equal work is an issue of basic justice. #EqualPayDay
11:32 AM · Apr 2, 2019 · TweetDeck
https://mobile.twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1113116883488833536
There is no lie being told when someone says that women earn less than men, or that overall they earn 80% of what men make.
DeleteIt is not a lie that women do not make the same as men for equal work. The 80% statistic is not what supports that assertion. There are other studies that show it, and the amount of underpayment varies from job to job.
The job-for-job comparisons do not capture all of the nuances of how women are discriminated against in the workplace. That 80% figure reflects all of the ways women are discriminated against. It is a summary, which is why it is used so often.
There is no lying and no myth. There is a lot of mendacity coming from Somerby and from men who are resistant to the idea, and from conservatives (male and female).
As anon 6:58 points out, CMike’s Bernie the God told the same lie.
DeleteCmike, admirable as you may find your own adherence to the absolute truth in all circumstances and contexts, it is truly a silly notion.
DeleteFDR, as all politicians and indeed most people do, misled to advance what he thought were the best interests.
You do realize electrons do not really orbit the nucleus.
Is the difference between misleading about equal pay (and one could quibble with to what degree Harris did) and misleading about oh say weapons of mass destruction, not discernible?
Agreed, Bernie passed along the same falsehood on Twitter. Sanders shouldn't have done that and if he repeats it a couple more times I won't be able to chalk it up to him or his staff having made a sloppy mistake.
DeleteThere are no gods running for president, I'm stuck backing whomever I think is the best potential leader as president among the candidates who are running. Hands down that best potential leader is Sanders.
Going forward I hope Sanders does a better job, when discussing the issue of income inequality generally, of laying out how that failure impacts women, specifically- especially single mothers -and what we can do about it. Bernie calls for single payer health care, a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, and subsidized infant through pre-teen child as the most important priorities for improving the economic life of women.
Why don't all you Bernie-bashing neo-liberals and advocates of trickle-down feminism name your three preferred policy priorities for improving the economic lives of women over the course of the next fifteen years. (Taking the lead in expressing outrage doesn't qualify as a policy, at least not as a useful one.)
9:18 PM writes,
DeleteCmike... You do realize electrons do not really orbit the nucleus.
Yes, or so I am told. Here's the thing, the orbiting electron model, I think it's known as the Neils Bohr model, was originally proposed prior to the refinement of quantum mechanics in the 1920s and the understanding that branch of physics provides for electron behavior.
I'm not sure how the orbiting electron model is introduced these days in grade school. But certainly college students are always told that, though the orbiting electron model remains somewhat useful, it is not to be taken as literally true for how electrons behave.
I've seen a half a dozen introduction to physics YouTube videos that make this point even if they go on to use the orbiting (Bohr?) model. Asimov in his Understanding Physics made this point explicitly, that was my post elementary school introduction to the subject.
CMike at 10:10 PM botched his proofread of that Sanders priority list. It should have read:
DeleteBernie calls for single payer health care, a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, and subsidized infant through pre-teen child care as the most important priorities...
not
...subsidized infant through pre-teen child as the most important priorities...
It is commonly used to introduce the subject in order to get an initial grasp, later more advanced and complex models are taught to those pursuing deeper knowledge.
DeleteMost here likely support Bernie, as do I. I do not quarrel with his tweet. It gets the thrust of the issue across.
@7:06P sez
DeleteThere is no lie being told when someone says that women earn less than men, or that overall they earn 80% of what men make.
That’s what the stats say.
It is not a lie that women do not make the same as men for equal work.
That’s what the stats say.
The 80% statistic is not what supports that assertion. There are other studies that show it, and the amount of underpayment varies from job to job.
Again true. The statistic I see quoted is 2% to 5%.
The job-for-job comparisons do not capture all of the nuances of how women are discriminated against in the workplace. That 80% figure reflects all of the ways women are discriminated against. It is a summary, which is why it is used so often.
True.
There is no lying and no myth.
Well, then let’s use a less loaded term. How about misstating? It’s not true to say that women performing the same job as men earn only 80% of what the men earn.
So people who care about accuracy should stop saying otherwise. If you’re not among them, then <shrug>.
There is a lot of mendacity coming from Somerby and from men who are resistant to the idea, and from conservatives (male and female).
Even if TDH is a liar (which I don’t think is true) and even if “conservatives” are resistant to equality of the sexes (which I think is true), it wouldn’t affect the the accuracy of the 80% claim as a pay scale issue.
"it wouldn’t affect the the accuracy of the 80% claim as a pay scale issue."
DeleteThe 80% is an accurate figure. The question is what it means, not whether it is accurate or not.
It refers to the overall difference in earnings between men and women. It is accurate and it is a pay scale issue, among other issues related to women's employment.
The "misstatement" is about what the statistic measures, not whether it is accurate. It measures the difference between what women bring home in pay and what men do. That difference arises partly because women are not paid equally to men and partly because of other obstacles to women's success in the job market.
Movements like feminism are essentially negative. They have to have something to fight against. So, the equal pay myth is a necessity to the feminists' organizations. The New York Times is closely allied with these organizations. The Times is not going to bust their bubble.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, on their own, women are going to law school and medical school. They are passing actuarial exams. They are moving into higher paid professions. They're fixing the "pay gap" by achievements, not by whining.
Women who achieve deserve to be paid equally. The 80% figure is not a myth. It is a real statistic. It may not be job-for-job equal work, but it is an overall gap between full time male and female workers. You can argue about why that exists, but you cannot call it a myth. It is a government statistic, reported by the census.
DeleteIn the 1970s, women were less than 5% of those admitted to medical, law, and other professional schools. It wasn't that women didn't apply -- they weren't being admitted. That was changed because of the noise made by feminists. Women currently earn higher grades than men in college, attend in higher numbers, and get higher test scores. They should be admitted in greater than the 50% numbers occurring, but men are being given parity.
When they graduate with their higher grades and better achievement, they get lower entry level salaries and lesser opportunities in terms of being hired by top firms, being admitted to medical school residencies and so on. Discrimination starts at the beginning of women's careers before they have kids, when there is no question of competence. Entry level.
Then women are blamed for being less assertive in negotiating salaries. They are blamed for being unequal in the whining department. But David thinks they should whine less.
I have no doubt that men get tired of hearing women complain, tired of being called on their shit. Too bad. Feminists are the designated whiners because they don't care whether men like them, whether they are criticized and get called names. Feminists have studied how change occurs, implemented plans, and they work toward them relentlessly. They persist.
If the NY Time is unwilling to join in male attempts to hold on to their own privilege, good for them.
DinC,
DeleteThe entire Conservative movement is made up of whiners crying about how unfair Affirmative Action is. They have to be against something, and minorities getting equality is it.
In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, every Right-wing accusation is a confession.
@11:27 - You're talking about blame. I'm talking about what works. Different times require different strategies.
DeleteForty years ago protests were an effective way to promote acceptance of women in all jobs. I don't think that strategy is effective today.
Do you think women are sitting around waiting for feminists to create utopia? Women are doing their part by seeking out opportunities. You object to the noise making by feminists. That is the outrage every woman feels when she realizes that despite her hard work and talent, the game is rigged in favor of men.
DeleteYou'd better hope that protests will work, since the alternatives are much more unpleasant. How did unions achieve change? What might women do if men don't respond to protests?
David in Cal quivering in his boots, decries feminism as negative. Does not your wife still fulfill her duties (no doubt the most thankless burden)?
DeleteSilly bear, it is only negative to sexists. Those achievements you herald are the effects of feminism.
@11:27A sez,
DeleteWomen currently earn higher grades than men in college, attend in higher numbers, and get higher test scores.
Not on the MCAT they don't.
Anon 9:28 - my wife and I exemplify the principle deadrat has explained so well. I out-earned her because of choices we each made.
DeleteWe both have similar talents. She chose to become a bio-statistician and contribute to medical knowledge. I chose to become an actuary and make more money.
My daughter is another useful example. She's well-paid by Oracle. Had she been more ambitious, she could have moved up in management and made even more money. Or, she could have joined a promising startup, possibly leading to riches. However, she preferred not to dedicate he life solely to her career. She has a family, friends, hobbies. The company didn't hold her back. She held herself back.
David in Cal, the only principle you exemplify is willful ignorance.
DeleteYour biography, notwithstanding concern for your delicate emotions, is not interesting to anyone here. I too could sob out my heroic story, sacrificing for my children, out-earning commenters with goofy nyms, sending my tax dollars to lazy hicks in red states; I am not cruel.
The Mouse That Roared, notwithstanding modest explanatory ability, exemplifies the principle of petty quibbling over trivial points, preferring an empty virtue signal, or notch on the ego scorecard, over anything meaningful. Accuracy now, accuracy tomorrow, accuracy forever! To what end? (although it appears a question, not all questions indicate curiosity)
Were the rat resuscitated - made woke, so to speak, it might consider that turnout of the like-minded is key, not swaying imagined fence sitters.
Unfair wages, like most injustices, are not set in stone. Vote in enough progressives, eventually we could get progressive policies. AOC, Katie Porter, Ilhan Omar...Ayanna Pressley, Pramila Jayapal...charismatic, smart feminists. Jamie Raskin. A dude, not super charismatic, funny hair, smart, likely supports feminists.
Nugatory hairsplitting does nothing. Nitpicking is for nitwits.
Having said all that, I generally do appreciate efforts to be straightforward and avoid misleading assertions, but would it kill you to every once in a while play a little Foghat.
Darling deadrat, I recommend you not get your panties in a bunch, but if triggered, please fuss, we will be tickled for a laugh. "I won't disappoint".....bla, bla, bla, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, deathless defensive nonsense........bla, bla, bla, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
z
bla, bla, bla...................................................................................................................................................
blah
MCAT statistics for those admitted to medical school in 2018 show that women had higher mean gpas but men had slightly higher mean MCATs. By "slightly" I mean a difference of a few tenths of a point.
DeleteThat isn't a big enough difference to claim male superiority. The numbers look nearly equal.
He: We gave the promotion to Jim because we assumed you weren't ambitious and didn't want it.
DeleteShe: Why would you think that?
men had slightly higher mean MCATs. By "slightly" I mean a difference of a few tenths of a point.
DeleteFor values of a few tenths of a point equal to about three points. The AAMC says that it's a better than even bet that two points is noise.
Who said anything about male superiority? Not me. Everybody knows that women are superior to men. But if women don't outscore men on the MCAT, don't say they do. It's that simple.
The Mouse That Roared,
DeleteIs that me?
Accuracy now, accuracy tomorrow, accuracy forever! To what end?
What is that? Your family motto?
But what the hell, let’s go with inaccuracy.
(although it appears a question, not all questions indicate curiosity)
Ya know that saying that there’s no such thing as a stupid question? It’s wrong.
Were the rat resuscitated …
I guess it is me. Although, in the interest of accuracy, I think you mean resurrected.
… it might consider that turnout of the like-minded is key, not swaying imagined fence sitters.
It’s a plausible theory. I don’t think I’ve opined one way or another.
Having said all that, I generally do appreciate efforts to be straightforward and avoid misleading assertions,
So you’re in favor of accuracy now?
but would it kill you to every once in a while play a little Foghat.
It appears to be a question, but I’m reliably told they don’t all indicate curiosity.
Foghat? How old are you? And alas, Foghat isn’t Foghat any more.
Darling deadrat, I recommend you not get your panties in a bunch, but if triggered,….
Here’s someone who claims to be bored by what I say, says it’s all nonsense, but apparently hangs on my every word. You may think you’re my harshest critic, but bitch, you act like my biggest fan.
Why would I be “triggered” by such adulation?
Pretty sure the Foghat thing is a reference to some irreverence from a famous comedian, maybe they will confirm.
DeleteTriggering deadrat is child's play, and always produces the same performative meaningless defense.
Kudos to 8:33, who was obviously toying with deadrat, while deadrat remains deliciously unaware. I'd say 8:33 has your number deadrat, looks like it is you who hangs on their every word.
All I know is the band of that name, but perhaps someone will enlighten me about another meaning.
DeleteThings "look like" to you quite a bit, no? What "number" do you think anyone has from a nym divorced from any information about the user?
Do you really think I'm unaware that 8:33 might be a troll? I've attracted at least two here, one who even goes by my name. Imitation is the sincerest form of what, again?
8:33's comment isn't entirely frivolous. Perhaps the progressive path to victory is to inspire the like-minded and ignore the fence sitters.
I often respond to my name (er, nym) and I obviously love the sound of my own voice. So what? It's my time to waste as I see fit.
I suppose if you're clueless, it's hard to tell who's the mouse and who's the cat. Get back to me, when I start responding to people who bore me with long screeds on the fact that they bore me.
Accusing me of "performative defense" is like touching someone on the shoulder, and when they turn around saying, "Made you look!"
Good for you.
And are your sure you know what "triggered" means?
.....um, what?
DeleteThe South is not only engaging in renewed threats against Abortion rights and voting rights, but it is going backwards in terms of economic opportunities for residents. Is that related? Does support for Trump, regressive civil rights, and economic decay go hand-in-hand?
ReplyDeleteFrom Taegan Goddard at Political Wire:
"“The American South spent much of the past century trying to overcome its position as the country’s poorest and least-developed region, with considerable success: By the 2009 recession it had nearly caught up economically with its northern and western neighbors,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“That trend has now reversed. Since 2009, the South’s convergence has turned to divergence, as the region recorded the country’s slowest growth in output and wages, the lowest labor-force participation rate and the highest unemployment rate.”
“Behind the reversal: The policies that drove the region’s catch-up—relatively low taxes and low wages that attracted factories and blue-collar jobs—have proven inadequate in an expanding economy where the forces of globalization favor cities with concentrations of capital and educated workers.”
How to spin a positive achievement into a negative achievement: Find a subset that's worse than average.
DeleteTrump's policies have led to extremely rapid economic growth. But, by focusing on an area that has grown less than some other area, one can make it sound like a bad thing.
Suppose the economy in the South had grown faster than the North. Then a Trump critic could have complained that the North was lagging.
You don't find it ironic that the greatest Trump support is located in the South, where the greatest declines are occurring? It is tempting to notice that association and assume that voters prefer Trump there due to economic concerns, but studies are showing that voters there prefer Trump due his appeal to racism and sexism. It seems more likely that the preponderance of Trump voters arises due to the relative lack of education in the South. Talented people go where the opportunities, leaving behind the lower end of the bell curve, those who cannot see through Trump and who seek solace for their economic troubles by hating others, hence Trump's appeal.
Delete"the South, where the greatest declines are occurring?"
DeleteWhat declines are we talking about? Where I live in the south, we are booming. Are not the economic "declines" a rural/urban issue? Or are not the declines of the North what led Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to vote for Trump? What are the studies that show voters in the South prefer Trump due his appeal to racism and sexism?
Let's iron this out because I don't understand your logic.
Here is a description of the declines:
Deletehttps://www.wsj.com/articles/the-souths-economy-is-falling-behind-all-of-a-sudden-the-money-stops-flowing-11560101610?mod=hp_lead_pos5
I don't have time to look up the rest for you. You might start with Nate Silver's website, but this has been widely discussed over the past few months.
The North went for Trump not because of lots of Trump voters but because of suppression of Clinton voters. In particular, fewer blacks turned out and disgruntled Bernie voters either stayed home or voted for Jill Stein. This is evidence that the disinformation campaign funded by the Russians on social media and deliberately targeting those voting segments was effective at diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton. Some of the voters who are now switching away from trump said they voted for him as the lesser to two evils in 2016 and that they made a mistake. Making Clinton seem like a bad choice was the object of Russian interference. See the Mueller report on this.
4:33 PM writes,
Delete...The North went for Trump not because of lots of Trump voters but because of suppression of Clinton voters. In particular, fewer blacks turned out and disgruntled Bernie voters either stayed home or voted for Jill Stein. This is evidence that the disinformation campaign funded by the Russians on social media and deliberately targeting those voting segments was effective at diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton.
I thought Anonymous, in a previous thread, just got done arguing [LINK] that it was uncertain why blacks turned out for Obama in greater numbers than they turned out for Clinton, not that they were the demo the Russkies found easiest to manipulate. Why is 4:33 PM now assuming it was black voters who were the easiest to manipulate? (Awkward.)
Back voters were easier to suppress. Who's going to stop it, DavidinCal?
DeleteCMike, not the same anonymous, obviously.
DeleteThe person who said it was uncertain why blacks turned out for Obama in greater numbers than for Clinton is an idiot. Obama was a historic figure for black voters because he was the first African American nominated by a major party, with a chance to win the presidency. Black voters didn't have the same feelings about Clinton.
In 2008, Clinton and Obama had about equal support among black voters. Obama and his black surrogates made it untenable for prominent blacks to support Clinton, attacking them vigorously so that many black Clinton voters felt unable to talk about their enthusiasm among family and friends without getting major pushback. Clinton was unable to prevail against Obama's strong urging that black people vote their racial identity.
When Clinton ran in 2016, she did have strong support among black voters, but due to the propaganda against her coming from Sanders and from social media and the residue of the attacks on her by Obama supporters, she didn't get the same strong support. Further, the voters who came out for Obama simply to achieve a black milestone, obviously didn't have the same motive to support Clinton.
The expectation that Clinton should have held onto Obama's strength among black voters was unrealistic. This shouldn't be something anyone should have to have explained to them, if they were paying attention over the past decade.
You, CMike, are no doubt trying to make some point about absence of nyms. If you instead paid attention to what people say, you might use the contradictions to disambiguate one anon from another. This isn't rocket science.
6:59, I am the anonymous that CMike linked to; however, clearly my point was not an expression of doubt as to why black voters turned out in greater numbers for Obama than for Clinton. Indeed, I mocked such a notion, contextually this was clear, but perhaps to some...
DeleteIt is easy to believe black turnout was suppressed in 2016, and trivial to see how that population would be more susceptible to such suppression. Having said that, 2016 black turnout did match the 2004 turnout which itself was on the trend line of increasing black turnout over time.
The trick of pettifogging has been the bane of TDH readers and a favorite tool for certain commenters who I shall not name, but who do in fact possess and use proper nyms.
I do not deny any idiocy, and whilst not proud of such trait, do not take offense at your admonishment and hope only to better myself in the future.
After referring to 7:54 AM, aka 11:19 PM, as an idiot 6:59 PM holds forth further:
DeleteYou, CMike, are no doubt trying to make some point about absence of nyms. If you instead paid attention to what people say, you might use the contradictions to disambiguate one anon from another. This isn't rocket science.
Actually no, I was not making "some point about the absence of nyms." The point I was making with my use of the word "awkward" inside of brackets was in reference to 4:33 PM's comment.
4:33 PM, whom we are to assume is an enlightened post-racial woke liberal who, was not susceptible to the siren calls of Russian click-baiters went on to claim it was black people who, for some unstated reason for their susceptibility, ended up being the voters who were duped in 2016.
4:33
DeleteHey, you're way, way, way, way, way off. You make all these claims like they are facts when they're really just dumb assumptions and excuses, scapegoats.
You want me to check Nate Silver to find the studies that show southerners prefer Trump due his appeal to racism and sexism?
Get the fuck out of my face you dumb bitch.
Those studies are idiotic.
Somerby has been right all along about playing the race card. It is as dumb as it gets. The only thing you will ever get you is defeat at the ballot box.
"Obama was a historic figure for black voters because he was the first African American nominated by a major party"
DeleteIncidentally, Barry Obama is not all what the zombie cult identifies as an "African American" ethnic group.
Of course his father was a Kenyan Luo, and Kenya is indeed in Africa, but that certainly nothing like what the zombie priests mean by "African American".
Calling Barry "African American" is just a racist dembot slur, implying that all dark-skinned persons are the same.
CMike says,
Deletewent on to claim it was black people who, for some unstated reason for their susceptibility, ended up being the voters who were duped in 2016.
Perhaps CMike hasn't read the Mueller Report? Here, let me help him out and show him some reasons Mueller "stated".
************
More commonly, the IRA created accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. organizations and grassroots groups and used these accounts to pose as anti immigration groups, Tea Party activists, Black Lives Matter protestors, and other U.S. social and political activists. VOL 1, page 22
purported Black social justice groups ("Black Matters," "Blacktivist," and "Don't Shoot Us"), VOL 1, page 24
Similarly, on April 6, 2016, the IRA purchased advertisements for its account "Black Matters" calling for a "flashmob" of U.S. persons to "take a photo with #HillaryCiintonForPrison2016 or
#nohillary2016."58
[Were you there, CMike?]
For example, the IRA targeted the family of- and a number of black social justice activists while posing as a grassroots group called "Black Matters US."89 In February 2017, the persona "Black Fist" (purporting to want to teach African-Americans to protect themselves when contacted by law enforcement) hired a self-defense instructor in New York to offer classes sponsored by Black Fist. VOL 1, page 31-32
**********
Sure looks like the Russians went to a lot of trouble and expense to target black activists in this country with surgical precision and the aim to turn them against a good woman, Secretary Hillary Clinton. I wonder why, CMike.
I wonder if CMike understands that they will not hesitate to target his candidate next time?
Mitch McConnell, OTOH, has assumedly read the report. He still doesn't want Congress to act in regards to protecting U.S. elections against foreign interference.
DeleteThat reminds me Republicans accuse Democrats of hating the USA. It's almost like every Right-wing accusation is a confession. Without the "It's almost like" part, of course.
So the patronizing social justice activist mm thinks that it was black voters who were duped in 2016.
DeleteIn order for that 80% figure to emerge when female salaries overall are divided by male salaries overall, as it does, some women must be receiving a lot less than some men. It isn't a made up figure. Why should women overall be paid less for their work when women are educated at similar levels, work for the same reasons as men, and need the money as much as men. They work as hard as men and are, by some studies, more conscientious than men, good workers. Why should their overall pay be less?
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't Somerby asking that question? Why doesn't he demand that the press talk about it instead of insisting that the only valid comparison is job-for-job equal work? How is it fair to force women into lesser jobs by denying them access to better ones, then insist that they receive lower pay for the jobs open to them? Then assert that pay is fair because women don't do the same jobs as men.
This situation makes sense to men (and conservatives) only because they assume that women cannot do the same work as men, aren't as good at things as men, are lesser creatures with limited capabilities who cannot do equal work. It is the missing piece of this puzzled -- the only way that our current job market makes sense. The unfairness arises precisely because those assumptions are untrue.
Women are liabilities for male employers.
DeleteI'm a male employer.
DeleteIf you discriminate against women because you consider them more trouble than male employees, you are placing your business in legal jeopardy and you can be sued. You will lose.
Delete@11:39A sez
DeleteIn order for that 80% figure to emerge when female salaries overall are divided by male salaries overall, as it does, some women must be receiving a lot less than some men.
Thank you, Capt. Obvious. Women are overrepresented in professions that are undervalued and underpaid, like teaching in public schools and nursing.
It isn't a made up figure. Why should women overall be paid less for their work when women are educated at similar levels, work for the same reasons as men, and need the money as much as men. They work as hard as men and are, by some studies, more conscientious than men, good workers. Why should their overall pay be less?
It’s called the free market. I think nurses are more valuable than hedge fund managers, but so what?
Why isn't Somerby asking that question?
Because he wants to ride his own hobbyhorse, not yours.
Why doesn't he demand that the press talk about it instead of insisting that the only valid comparison is job-for-job equal work?
That’s not what he insists. He insists that what’s invalid is the 80% figure for “job-for-job equal work”; he’s right.
How is it fair to force women into lesser jobs by denying them access to better ones, then insist that they receive lower pay for the jobs open to them? Then assert that pay is fair because women don't do the same jobs as men.
It’s not fair, and no one asserts otherwise.
This situation makes sense to men (and conservatives) only because they assume that women cannot do the same work as men, aren't as good at things as men, are lesser creatures with limited capabilities who cannot do equal work. It is the missing piece of this puzzled -- the only way that our current job market makes sense. The unfairness arises precisely because those assumptions are untrue.
Yeah, that sucks. Why not do your part to combat the unfairness and not post dumb stuff?
Utter capitulation and still he attacks.
DeleteBusiness owners who decide not to hire women are at next to no risk for it especially when they don't interview them. They are at major risk if they hire one of the many who are unstable or angry which isn't always immediately obvious.
Delete"Utter capitulation and still he attacks."
DeleteIt is because I am always on the edge of pooping my pants. I sorry.
I'm sick of the crap.
ReplyDeleteMy skull is full of rocks.
DeleteWomen should be more concerned that business owners are overlooking women that are even slightly more qualified for a position because of the pain in the ass factor. Too much liability for fake me too and discrimination claims. It is happening and I say this with 100% certainty.
ReplyDeleteYes, and not just business owners.
DeleteIn the #MeToo era, powerful men are scared to be alone with their female co-workers
Some 60% of male managers say they are uncomfortable mentoring or socializing with women at work.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/men-are-afraid-to-mentor-female-colleagues-in-the-metoo-era-heres-what-not-to-do-2019-05-20
Men may be afraid, but false METOO accusations are a myth. Unreported sexual assault is much more often not reported and men get away with behaving badly. This so-called fear is a form of retaliation against women for speaking out.
DeleteThis is akin to saying "I don't drive on roads with overpasses because I'm afraid there may be an earthquake." or "I don't go out of my house because I might catch HIV." or "I never go shopping because I'm afraid the store manager will accuse me of shoplifting the things in my pocket."
You mention mentoring and socializing as if they are the same, work-related activities. There is no obligation for women to socialize with men who they work with. If a man thinks he should be asking such women to socialize with them, he is wrong-headed and needs to watch an HR video again.
But women have long avoided being alone with their bosses and coworkers because they don't want to be chased around a desk. It is about time that pendulum swung the other way. If a man treats women with the same respect as he treats his male coworkers there won't be any METOO complaints.
It's not something a few games of Tekken won't fix.
DeleteAll men know crazy women and know it's impossible to know who will be crazy and when they will be crazy. Avoiding employment of women solves the problem of being wrongly perceived or lied about as "hostile." Not meeting women without witnesses will be noticed if you're meeting with men. Best to avoid hiring women.
DeleteUnless you need a maid.
DeleteIf it is that hard for men to avoid misbehavior in the workplace, they are the ones who are "crazy," not women.
DeleteBy the way, "crazy" is a stigmatizing term that maligns the mentally ill. Nice people don't use that word, even when talking about people who aren't actually crazy, but you just dislike, such as women.
“Women, actually the number I have is: receive 72 cents for every dollar a man receives in a comparable job. But Al Gore and I have issued an economic plan in which we've stated specific goals for the future. And one of those goals is to eliminate the pay gap between men and women.”
ReplyDelete—Joe Lieberman, Al Gore’s running mate, in campaign 2000.
We would have to say that the Gore/Lieberman campaign was disgusting to utter this sacred misstatement. Progressives should have demanded better.
(Full text of the Vice-Presidential Debate, Part 1
By OCT. 5, 2000
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/05/politics/full-text-of-the-vicepresidential-debate-part-1.html)
"...receive 72 cents for every dollar..."
DeleteIndeed. Some things never change. Decades come and decades go, and yet zombie-cult rumblings, wails and bullshit mantras remain the same.
Kamala Harris’s big mistake was not being Bob Somerby’s roommate at Harvard.
DeleteSomerby evidently didn't read the article by Maya Salam, who womansplained the pay gap. She said, essentially, that women are underpaid but that explaining the nuances of how and why this occurs doesn't fit in a sound bite, so people use that 80% figures, which everyone understands is not technically accurate, while nevertheless being true.
ReplyDeleteIf Somerby cannot understand that, he is autistic or brain damaged. I suspect willful stupidity. Not for misunderstanding but because even after explanation, he insists that women must go through the lengthy explanation every time and cannot use a shorthand to talk about this issue, even though women are being not only underpaid but harmed every time someone insists that unequal pay is a myth. There are a bunch of guys walking around confused about whether women are whining about nothing or whether they are truly underpaid because Somerby keeps writing posts like this without going on to explain that women are in truth being underpaid, just in more complex ways than that 80% statistics describes.
So Somerby needs to either explain where he stands on women's pay issues whenever he talks about the "80% myth" or stop doing harm to women's efforts to achieve equal pay.
Instead, he mocks Maya Salam.
"... which everyone understands is not technically accurate, while nevertheless being true."
DeleteAre you a NYT "journalist"? Perhaps an editor?
If top scholars are saying something, shouldn't Somerby take what they say more seriously?
ReplyDeleteObviously, the liberal posters on this board are lost. Beyond dumb. Hopeless.
ReplyDeleteSince you dumdums don't know your ass from your elbow and can't see the future, let alone the present, I'm here to show it to you now.
Andrew Yang will be the next president.
The bad news for you, he is not going to do it by playing the race card and denigrating people from small towns like you ignorantly love to and stupidly do. No, he's going to do it by engaging them and showing them respect (I know that hurts.) and looking to the future to solve problems together, left and right.
BUT - the good news for you is that he is going to absolutely fucking crush Trump. And that will make you feel very good.
Don't debate or conjure or predict anything else about the election in 2020. It's a waste of time. I just described what will happen and that is the way it will go down.
Allow me to disambiguate. Turns out 6:59 PM really isn't a Clinton dead-ender after all.
DeleteYang is playing the anti-robot card.
DeleteI am so happy, i never believe i will be this happy again in life, I was working as an air-hoster ( cabby crew ) for 3years but early this year, i loose my job because of this deadly disease called Herpes virus (HSV), I never felt sick or have any symptom, till all workers were ask to bring their doctors report, that was how i got tested and i found out that am HSV positive that make me loose my job, because it was consider as an STD and is incurable disease, i was so depress was thinking of committing suicide, till i explain to a friend of mine, who always said to me a problem share is a problem solved, that was how she directed me to Dr Isibor, that was how i contacted him and get the medication from this doctor and i got cured for real, I just went back to my work and they also carry out the test to be real sure and i was negative. Please contact this doctor if you are herpes positive diseases his email is: drisiborspellhome@gmail.com. or you can call or whatsApp his mobile number +2348107855231.
ReplyDelete