Synagogue Shooting in Pittsburgh

[Birdjaguar]

This post is far too good for a first time post.

Smart lurker?

 

[HoloDoc]

Smart lurker?

I lurked for almost a year, and my first post was nowhere near that good. And really, if he was smart, he would find a more productive use of his time, like we all should be doing.

No, in the interest of keeping this on topic, I must assume he's part of the international Jewish conspiracy.

 

[Cheetah]

He's Soros!?

 

[HoloDoc]

If he is, I want some money. I'll espouse any views he wants.

 

[Estebonrober]

For me the real bottom line is family trust and family loyalty of a few rich Jewish families, being strong enough to handle big amounts of money long distance. That family trust and loyalty greatly strenghtened by a separate religion under surpression, forging strong ingroup morals.

You want to set up an international network for international money ? Rothschild send his 5 sons to 5 big European cities to do it.
It is not unlike the Mafia loyalty-trust system, only without the violence.
Modern multinationals need rigid accounting systems and transparency to get that long distance trust by mechanical means, and have imo a lower degree of effectivity, especially in countries with a corruption culture. Risk assessments of such companies include and quantify those long distance risks.

Yea this is kind of the way I see this as well, and I agree with the overall poverty of the group as a whole but of course no one cares about the poor people of a group. Its a sad statement on society that this kind of familial cohesion inspires such loathing? Jealousy? I'm not sure.

I haven't lurked here in a long while, but I have been the last few days because of the stumbling ways in the US recently. Its nice to see better talk then the 140 character trolling going on in the social media circles. Usually I just read and click on links to learn. Idk why I felt compelled to post, probably because Trump called me out as a bad guy last week since I definitely consider myself a globalist.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I am curious about this "all globalists are jews thing".

It's not "all globalists are Jews"; it's that one can now use the word "globalist" as a dog-whistle meaning "Jew."

Can one easily dig up one's first post? I feel like there used to be a Posting History tab. I'm not seeing it. I know mine would have been in the game forums rather than OT; it took me a long time to discover OT; then I lurked for a long time after that. I think I know what my first post here was, but I'm not sure.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

It's 160 pages long, so I haven't been able to do more than skim it briefly

80% is at the upper end of the range of polls I've seen on the topic

The general gist of the conclusion matches what I've seen before

Are you saying that you briefly looked at a lengthy report, pulled numbers out of context, and then superimposed your own experience? As someone who works with data, I frequently see people do that either out of laziness or when misrepresenting data benefits them in some way. That's not... very nice.

But what is this source? I am also not going to read every one of the 160 pages, but I did look at their methodology section (as a statistician I always check sampling methodology of research), and there isn't much there. It's actually not clear how exactly they conducted their research, and there is no discussion of sampling errors, distribution assumptions, or statistical significance.

By the way, I am not saying the claim is not true, but I would like to see some more rigorous, scientific hypothesis testing to something so vague as "political correctness". Individual polls are generally of dubious value, and you want to look at aggregations anyway.

The other one is pretty trivially correct. I don't really want to do anti-Semites' work for them, but I'll do a brief stab at the politicians just with Wikipedia. This article lists 7 Senators and 22 Representatives. Estimates of the proportion of Americans who are Jewish run (per this Wiki article) at 1.7-2.6% of the population, while they make up 7% and 5% for the Senate and House respectively. Thus, they are overrepresented by factors of ~3 and ~2 respectively. Business is harder to quantify; I'm not going to try to tackle it at this point, but it would be surprising to me if there was not similar overrepresentation among e.g. executives for large multinational companies, especially if I narrow it to stereotypical fields like finance. Jews are a disproportionately successful group of people, and success breeds resentment.

Interesting, though it's also entirely possible to have such ethnic distribution in the government purely by chance even if it's not normally observed in the population. I would have to go remember some more on distribution randomization to actually be able to comment on this, though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Can one easily dig up one's first post? I feel like there used to be a Posting History tab. I'm not seeing it. I know mine would have been in the game forums rather than OT; it took me a long time to discover OT; then I lurked for a long time after that. I think I know what my first post here was, but I'm not sure.

Deep.

 

[JollyRoger]

If he is, I want some money. I'll espouse any views he wants.

It's a nickel per post if you volunteer to manage a FEMA camp.

 

[Bootstoots]

Are you saying that you briefly looked at a lengthy report, pulled numbers out of context, and then superimposed your own experience? As someone who works with data, I frequently see people do that either out of laziness or when misrepresenting data benefits them in some way. That's not... very nice.

But what is this source? I am also not going to read every one of the 160 pages, but I did look at their methodology section (as a statistician I always check sampling methodology of research), and there isn't much there. It's actually not clear how exactly they conducted their research, and there is no discussion of sampling errors, distribution assumptions, or statistical significance.

By the way, I am not saying the claim is not true, but I would like to see some more rigorous, scientific hypothesis testing to something so vague as "political correctness". Individual polls are generally of dubious value, and you want to look at aggregations anyway.

It's summarized in the article at The Atlantic that I linked to in the same post where I mentioned it. I have only read the Atlantic article summarizing it and a very brief skim of the article itself. The methodology is in the appendix starting on page 140 (PDF page 142). I have not had time to look at the methodology in any detail; I might look at it this coming weekend, time permitting.

The 80% figure comes from a sentence that begins with the stat that 82% of people surveyed consider hate speech a significant issue, but 80% also believe excessive political correctness is a problem; nearly 2/3 of the sample believe that both political correctness and hate speech are problems today. This appears in the brief section at the beginning that introduces the "exhausted majority", the c. 2/3 of people who hold relatively moderate views on race, gender, and other culture-war issues and are much less engaged than the people on the wings.

From an admittedly brief look, the organization behind this is called More In Common; it has conducted surveys of political beliefs in a number of Western countries. It is apparently dedicated to the memory of Jo Cox, a Labour MP stabbed to death shortly before the Brexit referendum. It appears to be a liberal group of the "can't we all just get along?" persuasion.

Interesting, though it's also entirely possible to have such ethnic distribution in the government purely by chance even if it's not normally observed in the population. I would have to go remember some more on distribution randomization to actually be able to comment on this, though.

I believe the binomial distribution is the exact way to do that for the most basic null hypothesis. I played around with Excel's BINOM.DIST function and got a p-value of .013 on there being 7 or more Jewish Senators if the population fraction is 2.5%, dropping to .004 on 2.0%. For the House, Excel didn't like the idea of messing with a number as enormous as 435!, and I don't remember how to approximate it using a more tractable distribution. Feel free to figure that out and remind me how to do it.

I assume this overrepresentation stems from the higher fraction of lawyers who are Jewish; unsurprisingly, law is by far the most common profession for a politician to have practiced before politics. I'm not sure what the historical reasons are that Jews are disproportionately likely to go into law - anyone who knows, please tell.

I suspect that your skepticism about Jews being disproportionately represented in various professions comes from the right place - wanting to disprove anti-Semitic stereotypes. But that's not the way to go about this: it is actually a matter of fact that Jews are more likely than average to go into a variety of fields, including finance, many other types of business, law, politics, medicine, and most STEM fields. Instead, you'd want to go into the historical reasons that these fields are disproportionately Jewish. I don't know much about that history myself, except for the fact that strict prohibitions on usury and a barring of Jews from a variety of "respectable" ways of life meant that Jews were the main source of credit in most of Europe during the Middle Ages.

 

[onejayhawk]

He's Soros!?

No. Just the funding.

Side note: Did you realize there is a Cheetah in the NFL--Tyreek Hill?

If he is, I want some money. I'll espouse any views he wants.

That's the way it usually works, yeah.

It's a nickel per post if you volunteer to manage a FEMA camp.

Nickel is facilitator rate. Managers get a quarter a post and options.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's the way it usually works, yeah.

J

C'mon J, don't sell yourself short. We know that you wouldn't be shilling so hard for the GOP if it was just for money.

 

[Berzerker]

Jews are a disproportionately successful group of people, and success breeds resentment.

sounds like we need more Jews moving in

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Instead, you'd want to go into the historical reasons that these fields are disproportionately Jewish.

I actually don't really care and didn't even know Jews were "overrepresented" in US government until you posted the link to Wikipedia yesterday. I was just curious where these assumptions come from, and I think I have my answer now.

PS: certainly not the case for binomial because outcomes need to be binary, and framing this kind of problem in binary terms (I assume you set it up like "Jew" vs "non-Jew"?) is some bad science.

 

[Bootstoots]

I actually don't really care and didn't even know Jews were "overrepresented" in US government until you posted the link to Wikipedia yesterday. I was just curious where these assumptions come from, and I think I have my answer now.

Okay, fair enough.

PS: certainly not the case for binomial because outcomes need to be binary, and framing this kind of problem in binary terms (I assume you set it up like "Jew" vs "non-Jew"?) is some bad science.

If I want to know if Jews are overrepresented compared to non-Jews, why wouldn't I use the binomial distribution with a binary split?

sounds like we need more Jews moving in

Totally agree. I've said before that I wish the US had accepted all Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, and all the surviving refugees from Europe post-WWII. If there were no state of Israel (just a Jewish minority in Palestine) and the US had gotten the benefit of being the home of most of the world's Jews rather than just ~40% of them, we would be better off and the Middle East would be less chaotic.

Mouthwash wasn't a fan of that idea though.

 

[Mouthwash]

This is why we need to support Israel.

That's funny. I haven't seen that from, well, anyone, but what I have seen quite a lot of is this:

"And a word to my fellow American Jews: This president makes this possible. Here. Where you live. I hope the embassy move over there, where you don’t live was worth it." - Julia Ioffe, Atlantic journalist

"Absolutely appalling and a criminal act, but does it ever occur to Bibi and the present Israeli government that it’s actions against Palestinians may be re-igniting anti Semitism?" - Jenny Tonge, former British MP

“When Trump said on Saturday that the attack in Pittsburgh might not have been as bloody if the synagogue had hired armed guards, he was essentially blaming the Jewish victims for their own death … Trump’s insensitive assertion proved to anyone who still harbored doubt that he is eminently unqualified to reassure liberal Jews in their hour of darkness.” - Chemi Shalev, Haaretz journalist

“Trump let the disgusting genie out of the bottle, he gave neo-Nazis security to march in the streets and run over a woman in Charlottesville, he gave white supremacists freedom to beat blacks in the street, he freed anti-Semitism in America and he has no intention of changing his ways, both because he can’t and because he views himself as the victim here,” - Tzipi Smilovitz, Yedioth journalist

You people have the nerve to criticize the right for politicizing tragedy?

Totally agree. I've said before that I wish the US had accepted all Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, and all the surviving refugees from Europe post-WWII. If there were no state of Israel (just a Jewish minority in Palestine) and the US had gotten the benefit of being the home of most of the world's Jews rather than just ~40% of them, we would be better off and the Middle East would be less chaotic.

First claim is true, second claim is false. Did you, like, not live through the past decade?

Mouthwash wasn't a fan of that idea though.

I'm the one with skin in the game here.

 

[Estebonrober]

Totally agree. I've said before that I wish the US had accepted all Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, and all the surviving refugees from Europe post-WWII. If there were no state of Israel (just a Jewish minority in Palestine) and the US had gotten the benefit of being the home of most of the world's Jews rather than just ~40% of them, we would be better off and the Middle East would be less chaotic.

I've often made the joke that we should cede western Florida to them instead of all the bickering of Israel. Of course I've also advocated annexing Mexico so our southern border is much smaller, so take that for what its worth.

 

[HoloDoc]

It's a nickel per post if you volunteer to manage a FEMA camp.

This explains why you've made over 42,000 posts.

That's the way it usually works, yeah.

So you have experiencing posting political hackery for cash?

Nickel is facilitator rate. Managers get a quarter a post and options.

J

I will openly advocate genocide for that sort of scratch.

C'mon J, don't sell yourself short. We know that you wouldn't be shilling so hard for the GOP if it was just for money.

But those options though...

I've often made the joke that we should cede western Florida to them instead of all the bickering of Israel. Of course I've also advocated annexing Mexico so our southern border is much smaller, so take that for what its worth.

Both excellent ideas. But if you annex the entirety of the Americas, you have no borders at all.

There was a train of thought in the 1930s to give the Jews Tasmania, since we wiped out the locals and there wasn't any indigenous society to complain anymore.

 

[Hehehe]

If you look at the past 2000 years, and look at the last 500 years where international banking becomes important, and the last 100-150 years where internationality emerges, that short modern period does not really plays a role anymore when it is about why Jews have such high degree of international contacts and why there are rich Jewish families.

I take it you support the internationalism theory? Do Jewish people even have any more international contacts than any other immigrant group? And surely this internationalism cannot account for things such as high educational attainment or Nobel price winners?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm the one with skin in the game here.

Thus calling the question:

Since it is your skin that "has to" be secured by genocide, why is it that you think the rest of us should not be appalled at said genocide? You aren't family, and you aren't endearing. Why in the world should we trade any number of Palestinians for you?