TheRiov wrote:
I agree the data is not a perfect sampling.
No one said anything about a "perfect sampling"; Shuyung and I have observed that the data presented is woefully incomplete and that the conclusions are fallacious both logically and procedurally when compared with your initial assertion. You see, post count means nothing and provides no useful benefit when multiplied by the results of the Political Compass questionnaire. More important, because the questions in the questionnaire produce a 2 dimensional result and you lack access to the questionnaire's processes, you don't know what content a given poster produces actually aligns methodologically, ideologically, or ontologically with the results. As such, you honestly have done nothing more than produce numbers which demonstrate your own confirmation bias about your own assertion.
TheRiov wrote:
No one is claiming that, but this does support the original assertion quite strongly. Stop trying to wriggle out of things when the data pins you to the wall.
Nothing you've presented supports the original assertion. Not all Hellfire topics are political. Not all non-Hellfire topics are a-political. So, please do explain to me how you're going to normalize variant content and points of contention/response across multiple subjects based on multiplying my post count by my economic freedom score on that questionnaire? I mean that's what you did, so why is it valid? How do you defend your assumption that 100% of my Hellfire posts are political? You have the entire sample, so you must have done some sort of rigorous analysis and data mining of the actual content right? It couldn't be that you started with a assumption, achieved a result you found amenable to your assertion, and ran with it? Because, honestly, that seems to be what you have done here.
In fact, this thread is being split into Hellfire at my request, so as to keep the debate itself out of general; however, the debate is entirely a-political. My responses have nothing to do with me being a "conservative" or "leaning right"; my responses are entirely about challenging the thought process that produced such a flaw analysis and unsubstantiated conclusions.
So, how does your "data" account for the fact that the majority of these posts are a-political?
_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Yes. The volume of posts from one side or the other has nothing to do with the overall tenor of the board.
