|
Nnanji -> RE: Interesting Op-Ed in NY Times (11/26/2016 9:25:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals.
quote:
Is Mark Lilla telling us that white working class without college degrees and the strongly religious are not Identity Groups? Absurd.
Where is the absurdity? Lilla was examining and explaining his interpritation of data. While that data was not what failed leftists want to hear about a failed ideology, it is data. If you find the data absurd, then dispute the data with different or better data. Be scientific. Each of us should read alternate data, and the interpritation thereof, and come to our own conclusions. Your exclamation of absurdity because it doesn't conform to your particular beliefs deserves the same merit as does cloudboy's exclusion of others as a different breed of humans.
In fact, one of the salient points that most people, who are placed in leftist little groups, hold against leftist ideology is identification. Just as you are doing here, the leftists scream that their identity of people is the only correct identity as they force square pegs into round holes. And I can say the above, in this paragraph, with the same determination as you call absurdity. Your passion does not trump mine. Without data to dispute an absurdity your opinion is no more than a belief, an alternate absolute belief akin to religious thought.
quote:
As the child of immigrant parents I was always aware of my ethnic identity. My surname shouts it out loud and proud (thank you James Brown) Identity politics have been the American game since early in the 19th Century. Nothing new in that and not going to go away anytime soon. Hillary lost because she couldn't come up with an answer to the economic angst of the middle class.
Your story is of no importance. All it contains is one data point that you raise to silence other thought. Right here and now I say my story disputes your story and you are absurd. There...two stories in which the data dispute each other. Your story is now moot.
quote:
http://chancellor.ucsc.edu/communications/speeches/founders-2014.html
As we feel both the challenge and the opportunity of globalization, we must be guided by greater empathy, greater understanding, a greater sense of our interconnectedness
Your story may evoke emotional context, which is the vehicle the left uses to force those little square pegs, but it doesn't make scientific validity. In fact what it does is show just how wrongly aligned you are when you cry absurd when presented with data. A story may generate empathy, but emotion does not make scientific fact and does not actually contribute to greater understanding. A story creates, at most, one data point.
quote:
This ramble of an op-ed is just a long, erudite knock off of Rodney King's "Why can't we all just get along?" Don't hold your breath, bro.
Actually, your statement is factually incorrect. "Why can't we all just get along" is a story with no fact based standing. Lilla interpreted data and made suggestions in his article. He opened a discussion and discussed possible ways to forward a discussion based on data driven information. The fact that you liken it to your story only shows that you are emotional driven instead of fact base driven and that you are using your story to end discussion on an emotional note rather than deal with data.
|
|
|
|
