garanduss

Misleading mainstream media, IMO. I'm conservative and the headlines about "election hacking" actually duped me until I had the time to read a thorough article about it.

It looks like it was from The Economist and YouGov - I falsely remembered it being Pew. Here's a WaPo article with a summary and a link to the raw data:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/am...

The point is that "election hacking" is an intentionally misleading phrase. A Pew poll found that, after this media circus, half of Hillary voters believed that Russia had tampered with vote tallies.

The NYT and WaPo (among others) are incredibly biased, and much of the problem is that their support base is too sheltered to understand how. I've said more on this in previous comments.

>It's all too easy to excuse adverse discriminatory practices when you can point to some statistics that appear to justify them.

Ironically, this is exactly what college administrations do when discriminating against white and Asian applicants.

I think we mostly agree.

As a nationalist and constitutionalist American, I strongly agree about treating individuals as such. However, the problem is that the left has demonized that approach and suggested that if a demographic underperforms, it's inherently because of oppression rather than culture or biology. These days, tribalism is the left's. If we ran an individualistic society, we wouldn't have to ask these hairy and unpleasant questions, but as long as the left phrases white, Jewish, and Asian success solely in terms of oppression, we'll be mistreating individuals of those ethnicities.

I agree that data on this is uncomfortable and can be misused, but (despite academia's wishes) science is not a tool for supporting progressive cosmopolitan perspectives. If people think that current policies are sensible, they shouldn't be afraid of what scientists might uncover about the nature of human genetics. Personally, I think I could logically defend egalitarianism and individualism in the face of significant racial IQ disparities. People who feel wedded to affirmative action and victimhood culture, however, are going to be hostile toward legitimate science in this area because it delegitimizes these institutions.

The science isn't out, but much evidence suggests significant genetic correlation between race and IQ. In that sense, I'm not "making a case for racial superiority", I'm simply pointing out that some of the racial injustice the left perceives may be due to biology, and that they denigrate and deny this science.

It would be great if every race had the same distribution for height, athleticism, IQ, etc. However, that doesn't seem to be the case -- we're genetically different in more ways than just our skin color and facial features. I simply don't understand people who make these emotional appeals or dark accusations against someone making a dispassionate scientific argument.

I come from an immigrant Catholic background as well. Personally, I'm mildly pro-choice (I see first-trimester abortions as necessary but distasteful).

I think that the populist conservatism I see and largely subscribe to has the following features:

* a concern with upholding abortion as a woman's right and morally unambiguous (this is a peripheral one but relevant to our discussion)

* a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them

* a frustration with the denigration of Western society that is becoming the norm in our education system

* a deep-seated respect for the individual, his agency, and the importance that he take responsibility for his actions

* a recognition that much of the rest of the world doesn't like us and wants to eat our lunch not because we're bad people (i.e. not because we deserve it), but because that's how tribalism works

* a respect for cultural diversity in the sense that sovereign nations are entitled to do things differently (e.g. guns in America)

* a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function

* an appreciation of both masculinity and femininity, and a belief that modern feminism and gender theory is based heavily in man-hating and biological denialism

* a frustration with the increasing integration of iffy and controversial progressive goals into so many aspects of corporate and academic life, and a frustration with the hegemony that threatens our livelihoods and reputations if we question these goals

* a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races

* a disappointment in the mainstream media for so thoroughly strawmanning and denigrating right-wing thinking that people are sheltered from basic facts of reality (e.g. the relative tolerance of the US, the senses in which transgenderism may be a mental illness or a symptom thereof, to give two randomly selected examples)

* a distaste for the fetishization of protest culture and the idea that any right-wing or traditionalist policymaking needs to be met with autistically shrieking hipsters and burning cars

* a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs

* a sense that "multiculturalism" often just means culturelessness, and that there is a real benefit to making sure people who immigrate are willing and able to integrate and arriving in small enough numbers to avoid major cultural disruption

* a concern with the absolutist and marauding culture of the Muslim world, its resistance to Westernization in Arab immigrants, and the New Left's refusal to acknowledge this problem

* and more

Hopefully that wasn't too long. I'm interested to see your list.

Ah right, I didn't realize that you didn't know who I was referring to.

The Wikipedia article is pretty thorough and well-cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

Without being combatant: it's usually best to quickly use Wikipedia and a search engine before asking for a reference in cases like this.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more conservative fake news, but remember that those lists showing a 9-1 balance are made by leftists whining about the election and trying to delegitimize its winner.

I'll focus on the second paragraph in this response.

I find it depressing how partisan and tabloidy Breitbart is, and I'm therefore unsurprised that people like Ben Shapiro have denounced it.

However, Breitbart presents an alternative to the mainstream media, which has developed such a pervasive bias that it no longer understands what fair reporting is.

The conservative community realized the depth of this problem in cases like the Kermit Gosnell trial, where the entire media ignores the topic and Fox, basically the only A-list conservative media outlet at this point, miss it too because it's simply under the radar. The mainstream media outlets rely so much on the AP and one another that you need a source that is fundamentally independent in determining what they find notable. So if I want news on immigration, abortion, or guns that isn't pandering garbage, Breitbart offers a better alternative.

Here's an example that stuck with me. A couple months ago, the NYT had an article called "The Week In Hate" prominently listed on the front page of its website. It was a short list of hate incidents, including a high schooler sending a Snapchat with a racial epithet in it, and someone writing "black bitch" in the snow on a black woman's car. The front page of the NYT. The same people who didn't write a word on a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords because it was "local news". The world has gone insane, and although Breitbart is insane too, it might be the kind of insanity we need.

In response to your last sentence: "serious" or "sensible" conservative thinking usually just means neutered conservative thinking. The current conservative revival is partially a backlash to the left's perceived entitlement to define acceptable right-wing thought.

>Then, deploying the rhetorical jujitsu Frank Luntz was so successful at popularizing on the right, Trump co-opted the term. "Fake news" wasn't webspam sites filled with literal manufactured news having no connection to reality or for that matter physics, but instead any news a partisan disagreed with.

No, the foodfight started when two things happened. Liberal pundits began blowing fake news' impact out of proportion and suggesting that it swung the election. They also began casting it as a characteristically conservative problem and put legitimate right-wing news outlets like Breitbart on lists of fake news sites. We right-wingers then began using the term tongue-in-cheek and people got all worked up thinking it was some kind of propaganda technique. It's just lighthearted needling/trolling.

Remember that right before "election hacking" became the only election topic discussed among Clinton supporters, it was "fake news".

American schools also use quota-like systems.

>It sounds like you just wish they were more like you? Isn't this the kind of mentality that prevents diversity?

Using your definition of diversity, yes. I think that part of the point in making is that people maintain diversity as the ultimate goal. If it's directly harmful to the more characteristic goals of your grad program or company, is it really worth it? (I'm not advocating for discrimination, but using fewer visas isn't discrimination.)

>I actually hate when teams go to pubs because it just marginalizes people who can't/don't drink, god forbid there are any recovering alcoholics or people allergic to it.

Meh. I don't think drinking should be the only group activity, but a little alcohol goes goes a long way in getting people comfortable with one another.

>It's our job to make them feel welcome and like they can express themselves in this country.

I generally agree with this. However, many of these people seem to have little interest in American culture, and wealthy leftists seem intent on pumping as many immigrants into the US as possible. For example, many STEM grad programs are completely overrun by Southeast Asian and East Asian students who did undergrad in their home countries. IME, these programs have a small minority of Americans and are absolutely abysmal socially. The professors tend to be SJW's, which makes me think that they don't want to acknowledge the consequences of this, although it may just be hard to find qualified American applicants.

You're pontificating too much on test scores when that's only part of it. Standards are generally lower for black and Hispanic applicants - they don't just receive a test score handicap. Also, they get much of this advantage regardless of the quality of their home life and previous schools.

The idea you describe in your second paragraph is to some extent rational, too. For example, a degree from a top college means less for a black job applicant because of the heavy affirmative action advantage given to them.

No, they're just using a different definition of diversity. Many people oppose mass immigration for reasons other than xenophobia.

Speaking personally, I found that work environments with lots of new or unamericanized immigrants had little collaboration, little in-office comraderie, and no socialization outside of work (e.g. pub nights). It was boring and I pined for a culturally American setting. Sometimes "multicultural" just means the subset of all cultures involved.

The concept of culture is in many ways a stereotype of personal and group behavior, so your argument doesn't make much sense to me.

>It's telling you created a throwaway to post this.

I rarely comment on HN and usually just register a new account when I do. I can understand why people would register a throwaway though, considering the blind hostility people like you have in these types of discussions.

>The collation between race and IQ is openly "admitted" right there in the into paragraph of the Wikipedia page!

Wha? The lead calls it a "contentious debate" and the body cites quality sources that suggest a causal connection.