Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

"because he was gay"

Well, more like because he was found guilty of murder.

But yeah, the reasoning process of choosing between life imprisonment and death was farcical.

But he would not have been put in that position if he hadn't... you know... tried to rob a place he got fired from and then stabbed somebody 3 times (killing them) when they discovered him.
Why even bother commenting that? Literally no one is saying he should just be let free (though I'd argue a mistrial at this point).
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Why even bother commenting that? Literally no one is saying he should just be let free (though I'd argue a mistrial at this point).
Because, in my opinion, the punishment fits the crime. Yes, the process involved in getting there is ludicrous, I agree.

But the headlines make it sound like his only crime was being gay.
 

Dave

Staff member
This is the same Supreme Court that just passed the buck on politically motivated gerrymandering, making it more difficult to challenge.

Fuck the people, we've got power to consolidate!
 
Very cool

Wait, so they sentenced him to death because they thought he'd enjoy being in a men's prison too much? Doesn't that set the precedent that jurors of the future ought to be expected to avoid the death penalty for individuals who might have masochistic tendencies, or be suicidal? :p
 

GasBandit

Staff member
It also reminds me of Debra Lafave, the teacher/child molester who got house arrest instead of incarceration because she was "too pretty for prison."
 
So, wait, some of the kids end up staying, and, presumably, become citizens (if adopted?)?

That's both hilarious and, you know, child kidnapping.
 
That continues today.

I'll never understand people who claim Trudeau apologizes to indigenous people too much. Hell, we haven't apologized enough yet.
 
So Kansas just had a voter suppression law struck down and in the ruling against the state the court ordered the secretary of state back to law school or forfeit his license.
 
So Kansas just had a voter suppression law struck down and in the ruling against the state the court ordered the secretary of state back to law school or forfeit his license.
Yeah but they're just gonna keep suppressing votes anyways because republicans are cancer.
 
Worse yet is some older right wing citizen's view that they're nothing but leeches taking their money. Thanks best friend's parents for making that dinner awkward when I couldn't keep my mouth shur.
 
Worse yet is some older right wing citizen's view that they're nothing but leeches taking their money. Thanks best friend's parents for making that dinner awkward when I couldn't keep my mouth shur.
I mean, there is definitely an issue of corruption and financial mismanagement on many reserves, but it's at the administrative level, not the individual. I probably favour more fiscally conservative measures than you do, but they're certainly not leeches.
 
Sarah Sanders says she was asked to leave restaurant because she works for Trump

And Trumpers are already shouting about "discrimination". Damn hypocrites. They want to discriminate against people based on race and sexuality, but get pissed when people are discriminated against based on their politics.

EDIT: Hahaha!
On the flip side, one could say those that fight the most against discrimination are just as willing to dish it out when tables are turned. Unless of course we're going to say that discrimination based on politics is acceptable, in which case, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

figmentPez

Staff member
On the flip side, one could say those that fight the most against discrimination are just as willing to dish it out when tables are turned. Unless of course we're going to say that discrimination based on politics is acceptable, in which case, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Even then, it wasn't just because she was Republican, it was because she's press secretary for a specific president. There are states (not Virginia where she was dining) that define political party as a protected class, but even those wouldn't protect discriminating against a specific person because they're being an asshole on a regular basis in public.
 
On the flip side, one could say those that fight the most against discrimination are just as willing to dish it out when tables are turned. Unless of course we're going to say that discrimination based on politics is acceptable, in which case, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, why are you tolerance peddlers not tolerating my intolerance? THAT'S INTOLERANT!!!!
 
Maybe they should have taken part of her order, hide it on another plate somewhere in the restaurant and maybe she'll find it again someday before it gets adopt...er, eaten by another patron.
"Sorry, ma'am, you asked for extra ICE, didn't you?".
 

figmentPez

Staff member
A study shows what should not come as a surprise: People suck at differentiating between factual statements and opinion statements. (Note that "factual statements" can include statements that are false. "2 + 2 = 5" would be considered a factual statement by the terms used in the study.) Overall, people do barely better than random chance at distinguishing between the two, and less than a quarter were able to correctly categorize all 10 statements they were given. (There were 2 additional "borderline" statements that the researchers considered to be too difficult to categorize, because they contained a mix of speculation and facts that cannot be easily verified.)

People tend to think things they agree with are factual, and things they disagree with are opinions (This applies to both Democrats and Republicans). And, in case you were wondering, the study made it pretty clear that facts could be "accurate" or "inaccurate":

After classifying each statement as factual or opinion, respondents were then asked one of two follow-up questions. If they classified a statement as factual, they were then asked if they thought the statement was accurate or inaccurate. If they classified it as an opinion, they were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement.
When opinion statements were incorrectly identified as factual, 83 - 91% of the respondents said that they thought it was an accurate fact. Factual statements that were incorrectly labeled as opinion had a lot more variation, with 48 - 82% disagreeing with the statement.

More interesting, when a statement was attributed to a news source, it generally had no effect on people's ability to distinguish it as a factual statement. About 74% of people correctly identified a factual statement when it was unattributed, or was attributed to either the New York Times or USA Today. However, the big exception to this is when attributed to Fox News Republicans called it factual 77% of the time, while Democrats called it factual only 66% of the time. Just saying something was from Fox News changed people's ability to objectively judge the statement.

The "duh!" parts of the report:
- People who describe themselves as digitally savvy were better at correctly classifying the statements.
- People who reported having a high trust in news outlets were better at correctly classifying the statements.
But while people who reported greater interest in news were better at identifying factual statements, they were not any better in regards to opinions.

The :eek::aaah::

- 41% of those surveyed thought "Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the largest portion of the U.S. Federal Budget" is a statement of opinion. I'm sure that, even after explanation, some people were confused by this being a blatant falsehood something, but it's still not a statement of opinion; it can be proven true or false.
- Of the 57% who correctly identified it as a factual statement a whopping 62% thought it was accurate.

- 29% of those surveyed thought "Democracy is the greatest form of government" is a factual statement.
 
Last edited:
The :eek::aaah::

- 41% of those surveyed thought "Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the largest portion of the U.S. Federal Budget" is a statement of opinion. I'm sure that, even after explanation, some people were confused by this being a blatant falsehood, but it's still not a statement of opinion; it can be proven true or false.
- Of the 57% who correctly identified it as a "factual statement" a whopping 62% thought it was accurate.
Wait, but entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid DOES make up the majority of the federal budget. Per Politifact it makes up around 53% of the budget.
1529994631922.png
 
Last edited:

figmentPez

Staff member
Wait, but entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid DOES make up the majority of the federal budget. Per Politifact it makes up around 53% of the budget.
Huh, I remember seen pie charts with military spending exceeding all others. Guess I screwed up in my fact checking on this one.

AH, I see where I've screwed up. Military spending gets the biggest portion of discretionary spending most years. Which is different from mandatory or total spending. And probably why I've heard it brought up as the bigger number so often.
 
Top