08-17-2017, 09:36 AM
(08-17-2017, 05:52 AM)Ninurta Wrote: I agree. the "Study" is scientifically flawed. It's initial premise is flawed, in that the assumption is "alt-right=white supremacist", which is not true. That in turn led to what is called in scientific and statistical circles a "selection bias" - since alt-right was assumed to be exactly equivalent to "racist", the respondent pool selected for the study was skewed to begin with. It's no wonder that a study gets the very results it is intended to get when it is designed from the beginning to get those very results.
It's cheap of me, but I can't resist.
It's like saying humans are to blame for Climate Change because the information generated is from sources
who's natural stance is that only humans effect their environment deliberately.
Since it's assumed animals cannot perceive the human construct of self-awareness, they are not able to be
accountable or blamed.
Ergo, 'white supremacists' are a labelled group who's existence is beyond debate and they knowingly behave
in a manner that's negative. Anything outside that group is not negative because the rationale of morality-based
equality demands that other groups seek the opposite.
Cows farts and coal-mining.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.