I’m sorry, I’m reading back over that message and it came off at least twice as harsh as was intended. My fury should be directed towards others and it accidentally spilled onto you. I came at you a little sideways and I regret the tone.

There is, of course, value in hearing the lies from the horse’s mouth

access journalism? where you get some jerk in a chair and lob softballs to retain “access” to them? that thing? thats whats valuable? maintaining access to the people who you know for a fact are lying to you so that you can lob softballs is the valuable thing.

access journalism a bastard child: spawn of the unholy union of the media’s profit motive and the accessed’s desire to legitimize their message (you are invited to recall the message being legitimized in this case).

the government has means of sending its own messages. uncritical ‘stenographizing’ of those messages is indistinguishable from endorsement of them. if the media is being pressed into serving as propaganda outlets for the state, that should be the story, not “the white house said…” and clearly they still have some power to say these things remaining because here is tech dirt saying it.

telling someone the weather is dry when its actually wet because you want to deceive them into not carrying an umbrella has negative truth value.

a journalist doesnt prescribe, they describe. they describe the truth (which often includes reporting who is lying about what) as best they can. thats what makes them a journalist instead of an opinion-columnist. they document, record, critically analyze, and publicly journal their findings.

the only thing carrying disinformation-water for a tyrant serves as a “launching point” for is a career in propaganda.

buddy, theres a whole range of ages between 0 and 16, and i use that number 0 advisedly.

I tried the local credit union, same shit different name.

i feel like if 23 29 people cant tell what you mean it might just be you arent communicating well

see i still have no idea what youre talking about is the thing about that

I dont suppose you’d care to express an actual thought at all?

If the rules are “You gotta pay for the book” and they don’t pay for the book, they broke the rules, that’s what I consider cheating. I don’t necessarily agree with the rule, I disagree with cheating. This is, of course, relative, as truth and morality in general are.

“How are we supposed to win the race if we can’t cheat?!”

I don’t think what you describe is meaningful action either.

Do I understand that you agree the proposed “blackout” is symbolic, and that you wish there were something more meaningful being proposed; or are you defending the blackout as meaningful itself? Do you agree with the criticism of the blackout’s being symbolic, but want to go along with it despite its lack of meaning (or perhaps better stated, lack of effect)?

For my part, I’d be much more pleased with the idea of the blackout if I could be convinced that it would have useful results, and would generally be in favor of so-called “meaningful action.” This blackout wouldn’t effect me either way since I’ve already given up amazon and google stuff almost entirely except what I need for work. I just need to know what the meaningful next step would be.

It sounds like a call to avoid symbolic action and take meaningful action instead, to me.

I’m gonna leave it here for tonight, SMCF. It’s been nice chatting.

Do you mean violent statements are not true statements? If a person says, “I’m gonna break your legs because you didn’t pay me,” is that statement untrue because it is violent? Or perhaps do you mean that violence and truth are independent of one another, that violence is a quality of actions and truth is a quality of statements, that they are not inclusive of each other in that way? Or should I take the surface-level interpretation and say that truth is not compatible with violence- that being violent negates truth in some way and being truthful prevents violence?

Does the truth matter to you? It matters to me.

That’s not.

That’s a fair point.

Maybe there’s a miscommunication here, and my answer just now was a bit snarky so I apologize for that. I expected “Correlation does not imply causation” to be a reminder of common knowledge, an assumption that was apparently unfair for several people in the thread. You linked to a study, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault.” I responded to that study with the- well, I suppose it was an essay. I used my response to justify the position that statistical correlation does not imply causal relationship, which I quoted the study as saying they couldn’t determine “reverse causality-” they couldn’t determine whether carrying a gun makes people get shot more, or whether people who are more likely to get shot are also more likely to carry a gun.

Does that answer your question?

You were supposed to get it in response to a much, much larger study which I bothered to actually read.

This study asserts a statistical correlation, not a causal relationship:

We also did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault. Although our long list of confounders may have served to reduce some of the problems posed by reverse causation, future case–control studies of guns and assault should consider instrumental variables techniques to explore the effects of reverse causation. It is worth noting, however, that the probability of success with these techniques is low.

It does not successfully account for confounding factors. Perhaps people who were shot while carrying a gun weren’t shot because they were carrying a gun, but rather were carrying a gun in (apparently justified) fear they would be shot and hoped to have at least some chance to resist. In other words, people might be carrying a gun because they’re already at elevated risk for being shot, introducing the possibility of a strong selection bias. It’s like saying “black people are more likely to be arrested.” It’s true, but fails to account for a wide variety of confounding factors including and especially systemic racism in the police force that confound the implicit explanatory power of that simple statement.

The study makes a lot of, in my opinion, unwarranted assumptions. They assume that a person may be shot anywhere in philly at any time day or night, and this assumption is justified because “guns are mobile, potentially concealable items and the bullets they fire can pass through obstacles and travel long distances.” Which is undoubtedly true, but raises the question in my mind at least- what does a bullet passing through obstacles after traveling a long distance have to do with the victim’s carrying a gun themself? It’s a true assumption but one that should be considered as a confounding factor that needed to be controlled for rather than included in the statistical analysis. It is certain that a victim sitting at their desk who got shot through a wall had nothing to do with the shooting whether they were carrying a gun or not. This methodology tends to inflate the numerator, inappropriately in my opinion.

They also chose not to include self-inflicted, unintentional shootings, police shootings, and underage carriers (which they describe, without justification, as being somehow different from an adult being shot while carrying a gun). If carrying a gun truly increases your chance of getting shot, then the effect should manifest whether one is being shot by the police or as a juvenile delinquent or by a stray bullet from an accidental discharge. If not, then the thesis statement needs to be adjusted. The correlation does not imply causation- Having possession of a gun doesn’t increase your chance to commit suicide, it allows for the possibility of suicide by gun in those who already had suicidal impulses. It’s just there’s more ways for suicide to complete with a gun than with many other attempted methods, introducing survivorship bias in the results. Incidentally, I’m not convinced whether or not excluding self-inflicted shootings was appropriate. Overall, these methodological choices tend to deflate the denominator, inappropriately in my opinion.

Also, on a moral level the conclusion is flawed because it victim blames- ‘look what they were wearing’ type reasoning in the conclusion statement. It tends to suggest the person carrying a firearm bears the responsibility for not getting shot, rather than the responsibility to shoot or not shoot.

We coded case participants as in possession if 1 or more guns were determined to have been with them and readily available at the time of the shooting. We coded control participants as in possession if they reported any guns in a holster they were wearing, in a pocket or waistband, in a nearby vehicle, or in another place, quickly available and ready to fire at the time of their matched case’s shooting.

They used a different definition of possession for their control vs their case studies. I don’t need to read further. The methodology is flawed- a textbook case of information bias. This is shoddy work.

I do not deny that there does seem to be a consensus in the correlation between carrying a gun and being shot.

Having said all that, there may be practical considerations. If you’re considering carrying a gun out of fear you might be shot at and would like to assert your right of reply, it might be more practical to avoid the source of that fear than to confront it with lethal violence. To OP, while the dog still needs to be walked and you can’t change the color of your skin, you might be able to take a different route on your walk, or even move entirely. Often discretion is the better part of valor. On the other hand, solutions like that might just not be possible: maybe either direction you choose to walk down the street from your home presents danger. Maybe you’re too impoverished or have powerful ties to the community. What are you supposed to do then, hope the people harassing you don’t escalate? Has that been your experience of harassment, SatansMaggotyCumFart, that people tend to deescalate their harassment if you just ignore and/or comply with them?

You wanna have a conversation about justified fear vs paranoia, civilian arms races, or the tragic nature of the situation I just described, I’m here for it. Miss me with this cooked-p-value dressing up flawed methodology and victim blaming as serious research.

Correlation is not causation.