Pangloss

I think you're playing to the SFN choir when you post something like you did above. It's an identity group in a very real way -- people interested in science and deductive reasoning and discussion along those lines. In our case the majority of those people lead by key heavy posters have arrived at specific conclusion sets, which are politically more acceptable than others. Copied from post #3 in this thread: Can you? It's not an authoritatively defined concept, bascule, and you are the ones trying to tell us that it has been defined, and that my definition is wrong. Why is the onus of proof on me? But we can look at some common sources, sure: The wikipedia (not an academic source, but it appears to be the definition you used when framing your questions): Do you agree with that definition? The language suggests it was the one you were thinking of earlier when you mentioned "minimizing offense", and you asked me about specific identity groups, so I'm guessing you've read this and that it's acceptable? So how is it inconsistent with my usage, Mr. Montoya? I think it's very consistent with what I've been saying. The last sentence, which specifically refers to political incorrectness, is revealing, saying that it is used to refer to ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy. In this societal group, the orthodoxy is a list of generally-accepted subjects, such as "global warming is caused by humans", or "Iraq is a disaster". Again, that doesn't mean that all members agree on those issues, it just means that certain issues generate more negative response than others, regardless of the accuracy of the stated positions. Good luck suggesting that humans may not be the cause global warming here (a perfectly defendable position), for example -- you'll be run out of town on a rail. And yet those positions are accepted elsewhere, and in scientific discourse and investigation. Just not here. In a pair of words, political correctness. Q.E.D. He isn't, I absolutely agree. I'm talking about long-term trends and generalizations here. I'm not accusing "Bob", I'm saying that we have an institutional situation that has developed quite reasonably and logically over time, based on the evolving membership. It probably has a lot to do with the current predominence of left-of-center political thinking amongst scientists and engineers, a generally-accepted supposition that has been discussed here at SFN several times (with one long-time member even posting scientific studies proporting to "prove scientifically" that liberalism is the more logical and scientific position!). Whether that makes sense or not (ever talk to a tree-hugger?) is a legitimate question, but there seems to be no doubt about leftist trending, at least in so far as things can be measured in that one axis (another good debate, but irrelevent at the moment). It seems to me that people accept things along peer-group lines, and they sometimes dislike and resent dissention inside those peer groups. It's just my opinion, and I think it's just human nature. I agree, and I've made that mistake in the past, and I've been corrected on it. I don't believe it is at issue in the current discussion. It is not my suggestion that challenging facts is an example of political correctness, and I've stated such in this thread already. Incidentally, I'm sure you just missed it when I stated it before, but hypothetically speaking, if someone knows that's my position, and then makes the above statement anyway, knowing it's not my position, then that is also a strawman. But again, I don't mean you. I think that's a very astute point, and I've highlighted in bold above a couple of things that are frequently overlooked in GW discussion here. I think you've done an admirable job bringing moderacy back into those discussions. But yes, I do agree with your final (and perhaps your main) point above about how "PC" has been used by both sides as (am I correct in this rephrase?) an accusation and a pejorative. I agree with the relativity example, and I think the Pseudoscience board is one of our most valuable resources. The separation of that area could be construed (for example by frequent posters in that area) as political correctness, and they would not be far wrong, but it is what I would consider to be legitimate, because it's what we SAY we're going to do. It is consistent with our purpose here. The stuff I'm talking about is really not. Though again, I don't really consider it to be seriously problematical either. It's there, it's worth pointing out on occassion, but it's not insurmountably detrimental to the quality of discourse here. And yet, you responded to my post, not bascule's, in spite of this sequence of events: Bascule: You're using a statement incorrectly! Here's a little joke about that from a common movie we've all seen. Isn't that funny? Pangloss: That quote is intended to resonate with members covertly at my expense. Swantont (am I paraphrasing you correctly?): PANGLOSS, you're assuming something about Bascule's argument that may or may not be there. You really don't see why anybody should have an issue with that sequence of events?

Ooo, nice catch. I had no idea he was going to testify on this issue. Thanks! He has a point -- we don't want bright, domestically-educated foreign students going back home if we can tempt them to stay here.

That's it in a nutshell, ParanoiA, and I appreciate the support. I do understand that silence is not the same thing as agreement (one of the more insidious aspects of online debate), but over time as we've gotten to know one another, it's not hard to spot trends in silence. But I think it's important to keep in mind that while there may be a PC tendency here, that doesn't mean the membership isn't open to reason and discussion. You and I have both had discussions with bascule and iNow and others where we disagreed but managed still to find common ground. That's why I ultimately think this is not so much a problem as just a fact of life.

Just to update this a bit, a Federal appeals court in Atlanta is going to hear on Monday a case from a Florida delegate claiming to have had his constitutional rights violated by the DNC ruling that knocked Florida's delegates out of the convention. The delegate in question is actually a John Edwards supporter and claims to be neutral in the Obama v Clinton saga. The suit was rejected at the district level but accepted in Atlanta on appeal, and they apparently cleared their entire docket for the afternoon to hear arguments. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/03/14/fladelegates_0314.html

That's ok, I'll take harsh with honest at the moment. Let me just reply briefly as I've got to head out. Yes I know, and I'm sorry about that. Rofl. I'll take three more hours, please. Just bill me. Well certainly of late I've had a harder time aiming my criticisms accurately, and I've acknowledged that with you privately and with board leadership as well. I think we probably agree more than disagree, but we also have a fundamental difference of opinion about how to handle dissent, and I've undermined my position on that by not treating your arguments fairly. But that doesn't mean that I think we're ultimately at odds -- I think your posts are extremely valuable and inciteful even when I disagree with both your points and your (if I may put it admittedly unfairly for the sake of brevity) underlying desire to run jokers out of town on a rail. The fact that we look at things differently should be a positive rather than a negative, I just haven't been very good at recognizing or supporting that lately. As I've said many times when bringing this issue up amongst mods/admins, I don't think we have a problem with PC here, I just think it is something that happens sometimes (yeah I know, I'm Captain Obvious). At this point it might be best if we moved this to the suggestions board, or private, or some other venue. But I would be happy to discuss it further if any/all are interested.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, though I guess I can understand how you got that impression from my last, rather simplified post. I'm not saying that challenging statements or asking for evidence is political correctness, or that it's wrong. What I'm saying is that it has become a predominent trait that unpopular opinions receive higher degrees of negative attention, regardless of whether the poster's opinion is accurate or not. Put another way, just because someone who brings up a subject here cannot defend that subject doesn't mean that they're wrong. If an engineer comes in here and states that gravity is <insert correct value here> and for some reason nobody here believes that value to be correct, and that engineer can't back up that value with a reference source that people agree upon, that does not mean that he has the incorrect value for gravity. It just means HE can't back it up. But all too often these arguments seem to go the way of "well if you can't back it up, then it must not be true, SEEYA CHUMP" followed up with high-fives all around. Not that you nor most people here would ever be so openly crass about it, but there IS often rudeness, there IS often disrespect, and there IS often an assumption that the truth has prevailed, when in fact that's not what happened at all. Such is how global warming is treated at SFN. It's not that you're wrong about it, and for the most part you (iNow) and most others are fairly cordial at least initially towards moderate dissenters. But it is often EXTREMELY difficult for anybody to get a word in edgewise about perfectly legitimate, rational points, such as how the economy might be affected by some of the more drastic suggested actions, or how uncertain some of the declarations are. Also, I have to say that you haven't really been here long enough to pass that kind of judgement about me, iNow (vis-a-vis "so frequently mistaken in your assumptions"). I know you're upset and I recognize that you're not alone in that, but frankly there are plenty of people on this board who know better. My attention to this and other, similar matters goes back several years, and has resulted in specific actions that moderated the presentations of members who still post here, some of whom probably seem quite reasonable to you today, but might not've had you seen them before. I'm sorry to digress this far off the thread subject, by the way, but I felt I had to respond, and not dodge the question by suggesting we take it elsewhere. But I'll happily discuss this subject with anyone, anytime, anywhere. Threads, PMs, the Suggestions board, wherever.

Contributions are contributions. Are you saying that the United States does not ever have to be held accountable for its actions anymore? I hear you saying it shouldn't perform military actions overseas, but you also seem to be saying that if it goes sour we should just wash our hands of the whole thing. Is that really doing the right thing? It doesn't seem that way to me. You do realize that Iraqis don't WANT us to leave immediately, right? Certainly the Sunni don't, at any rate, and they were some of the most ardent America-bashers earlier (you saw that report on Lehrer the other night, right?). I don't know how that's supposed to get us back on international good graces, either. Or are you disagreeing with ecoli that we also shouldn't have to pay for those mistakes, i.e. you're saying we should pull out and pay? Either way I don't know why you're being so belligerent all of a sudden. Like I said, I respect where you're coming from. I just think it sounds like not taking responsibility for the mess we've made. Am I really a bad guy for wanting to take responsibility for my country's actions, proposing we clean up the mess and take steps to ensure it never happens again? I think we actually have a lot of common ground in this area. Exactly, thank you. I don't want to be charged for Somalia, Panama, or Bosnia. I didn't vote for African AIDS funding (though I would have, so I guess I'll go ahead and check that box). Government isn't ala cart.

I've already acknowledged that the conclusion I suggested cannot be reached based on the single data point I raised.

What's politically correct about it is that when dissenting opinion is raised, it's data efficacy is questioned, it's objectivity is "exposed", it's motivations are "explored", it's poster's goals are interrogated, and so on and so forth. That is political correctness, and that is something that happens here. Not always, but too often.

I disagree on both counts. Political correctness is determined by a societal group. We have a societal group here, and it has tendencies and positions, some of which are accepted more than others. That doesn't mean that everyone here agrees on everything, or that we don't listen to people with other opinions, it just means that there's a generally accepted set of positions and arguments, and a wide gray boundary beyond which acceptability rapidly falls off. People who post in that "outside" region aren't hated or kicked from the board, but they most certainly have to deal with a higher number of dissenting replies, some of which often use suprious reasoning and/or disrespect, which often goes undetected because we tend to focus on messages that we agree with (which is normal human behavior). It is, in a pair of words, political correctness. And it overshadows our accomplishments here because it means that certain points of view -- points of view which may be completely valid -- receive poor treatment and disrespect, or perhaps just dismissal and lack of response, which is effectively the same thing. I'm not saying there should be a Mickey Mouse Roll Call every time someone posts something that people may not agree with but can't find enough substance to challenge, but I do think people with contrary points of view don't always get a fair shake. (Note that I'm NOT including somebody like RevPrez in this, for example. He made some great arguments, but it was his personal rudeness that got him kicked.)

Again, the comparison is not valid. You still haven't acknowledged the fact that the testimony in this case is objectively valuable because it's coming from a recognized expert in the field. It is NOT the same thing as a random person claiming psychics work. If you're so bent on teaching folks here how science works, why aren't you making the same point in response to the people posting expert testimony that torture doesn't work? Regarding the point of scientific evidence, I think you're wrong there as well. Scientific research studies are done all the time based on input from people, without a control.

Do you pay taxes, iNow? Vote? Buy products from companies that have lobbyists in Washington? You've definitely contributed to American foreign policy, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Saying we should leave now, after creating this situation, seems pretty specious to me. I do understand the attraction -- I've never felt it was exactly fair that I had to pay for things that weren't my fault. But American foreign policy and actions are, in the end, American actions. It's very convenient to opt out of the decisions you don't agree with, to pretend you aren't responsible for their consequences. But in fact, just as with global warming, we all have to deal with the consequences of those actions over the long haul.

I didn't cause global warming. Can I opt out of fixing it? Sweet, I like that deal. This is the better argument, IMO, and the less partisan one to boot. As you say I think it's *arguable* -- it's not clear-cut at all. I think you make a reasonable point in saying that it's been presented as a false dichotomy (stay-the-course vs cut-and-run), and I think you're right in saying we should explore all options and find the one which reduces the numbers of lives lost and dollars spent without plunging them into chaos. I think that was very well put, thoughtful, and a long way from a partisan response. Don't take this the wrong way, but you do so much better when you drop the Michael Moore rhetoric and dig a little deeper. But maybe that's my fault for digging into you when you post the rhetorical ones.

Right, plus you can blame the plight of the Iraqi people on people you didn't vote for. What's not to like? (SARCASM ALERT!!!!!!!! broop) I'm not giving you a hard time, though -- that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. It's certainly a common enough point of view -- I dont' think it can be marginalized or dismissed. I just think it's interesting to see it coming from the left. Usually that sort of thing is what the left accuses the right of doing -- abandoning our worldly responsibilities, and so forth. I don't really get that, but I can't really say that I disrespect it. People are really upset about Iraq and want us out regardless of the consequences, and I can't say that they're wrong in suggesting that the consequences aren't any worse than staying either. Nothing in life in certain. Not even, oh I don't know... global warming. (I'd add an ellipses there, if I did that sort of thing.)

Are you an expert on tigers?

From Iowahawk: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/03/amid-charges-of.html

That's a common belief amongst experts, but I also keep seeing stories about how programming jobs (of the routine business variety, e.g. web apps driven by database table contents for reporting orders, inventory, etc) are on the rise, especially in the $40-50k/yr salary range. For a while there was actual talk about the trend being "insourcing" jobs that were previously outsourced. I think the picture is unclear, but something that I think is being increasingly recognized is that many of the traditional reporting sources on this issue are corrupted by internal goals, e.g. Microsoft says "we aren't getting enough applications" or "the applications aren't good enough", publically concludes "there must be a lack of people", and then proceeds to apply for thousands of international work visas. They can do that anyway, but perhaps they're trying to cover their tush when it comes to public perception. Or it may have something to do with what they think some protectionist congresscritter might do to those visas if they don't make statements like that. I'm not an expert in this field, but I'm sensing that those who are experts, both academically and in business, are tossing these same issues around internally and perhaps trying to figure out new ways to approach and analyze the issue. I think the next couple of years in particular will be interesting to watch, especially going into this new recession. For example, a common meme in education is that when employment is down, enrollment automatically rises. That's been the case for decades, but it really spiked in the near-recession of 2000 because of the Clinton-era changes in federal student loan programs. But that well has run dry thanks to the mortgage crisis and rising interest rates, and there's a HUGE question right now in the education sector over whether enrollments will go up at all during this recession. The quarterly jobs report out this week was accepted with an ironic sigh of relief from this sector, because it was reported that huge numbers of people "gave up and stopped looking for work" -- the industry presumption being that they went back to school (which may not actually be the case). It'll be a couple months before we really know, but I thought it notable how many news reports included bits about laid-off workers going back to school.

Something very similar to that happens to me from time to time on one of my development machines at work, which is running Vista and IE7. I have to reboot it before it will play Flash videos again. It sounds pretty similar to what you describe, but I've never figured out what's causing it. I've had a hunch for a while now that it only happens after I put the machine through a 'sleep' cycle, which suggests a networking driver issue WRT Vista, maybe.

Nah, they're just watching for cops, they don't care whom they transport, so long as they have the cash. This is intuitively obvious.

You're just equivocating, swansont, and you did imply otherwise, and I don't think an argument about whether qualitative evidence "lacks rigor" is beneficial. Have I, or have I not, provided SOME level of something that can be termed "evidence" (even if you wish to qualify it with the word "anecdotal") in the form of a SINGLE INSTANCE of expert testimony? Yes or no?

[edit]split from here[/edit] So is your deductive reasoning, then. Halliburton is not an oil company, and its stock rise is due to the fast-track, bidless contracts they received from the Bush administration regarding the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, not the rising price of oil or the reopening of Iraqi oil production, neither of which benefit Halliburton in any way. You would have been better served linking ExxonMobil stock. But then you can't just throw an ellipses after it and auto-link them to the Bush administration, huh? This is what I mean by SFN political correctness, by the way. You can just scream "Hallburton!" and throw an ellipses on the end of a post and nobody on this board challenges your "argument" except for me. That is political correctness, bascule.

So is your deductive reasoning, then. Halliburton is not an oil company, and its stock rise is due to the fast-track, bidless contracts they received from the Bush administration regarding the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, not the rising price of oil or the reopening of Iraqi oil production, neither of which benefit Halliburton in any way. You would have been better served linking ExxonMobil stock. But then you can't just throw an ellipses after it and auto-link them to the Bush administration, huh? This is what I mean by SFN political correctness, by the way. You can just scream "Hallburton!" and throw an ellipses on the end of a post and nobody on this board challenges your "argument" except for me. That is political correctness, bascule.

Well first you'd have to get the UN to want to do that. If I remember correctly, the UN set conditions on its participation that I believe are still in effect and which still have not been met. I don't know what those conditions are off the top of my head. The UN doesn't have a great track record, but all sides have always agreed that international cooperation is preferable to unilateral action, so that would seem to be a step forward. But I think it's important to keep in mind that what constitutes a "step forward" means different things to different people. To an Iraqi civilian I think it means something very different than, say, an American voter hell-bent on proving BushandtheNeocons(AmenBrotherPasstheWeed) wrong, and there's an entire gamut in-between. IMO the focus should be on achieving peaceful democracy for the Iraqi people, not what's best for America, what's best for the UN, what's best for Europe, what's best for the global economy, etc.

If you think that it's completely unrelated, then what's your point?