Is this an old study, I thought we knew this (not the idea, the actual data)
i know time has no meaning anymore but Jan 6 was only three months ago today
If I'm recalling correctly the original finding was in regards to where Trump's primary support came from - middle class suburbs with growing latino demographics.
And if I'm right this current study is basically just saying that the insurrection was carried out by Trump supporters.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Is this an old study, I thought we knew this (not the idea, the actual data)
i know time has no meaning anymore but Jan 6 was only three months ago today
If I'm recalling correctly the original finding was in regards to where Trump's primary support came from - middle class suburbs with growing latino demographics.
And if I'm right this current study is basically just saying that the insurrection was carried out by Trump supporters.
Trump supporters who could afford to go to DC on a weekday in the middle of a plague.
+40
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Is this an old study, I thought we knew this (not the idea, the actual data)
i know time has no meaning anymore but Jan 6 was only three months ago today
If I'm recalling correctly the original finding was in regards to where Trump's primary support came from - middle class suburbs with growing latino demographics.
And if I'm right this current study is basically just saying that the insurrection was carried out by Trump supporters.
Yeah he could just be correlating the previous study with the home addresses of the arrested insurrectionists. Top that with "I expected all these traitors to come from places with huge economic downturns, but actually they just come from places that already strongly correlate racism to being a Trump supporter. Imagine that!"
Is this an old study, I thought we knew this (not the idea, the actual data)
i know time has no meaning anymore but Jan 6 was only three months ago today
If I'm recalling correctly the original finding was in regards to where Trump's primary support came from - middle class suburbs with growing latino demographics.
And if I'm right this current study is basically just saying that the insurrection was carried out by Trump supporters.
Is this an old study, I thought we knew this (not the idea, the actual data)
i know time has no meaning anymore but Jan 6 was only three months ago today
If I'm recalling correctly the original finding was in regards to where Trump's primary support came from - middle class suburbs with growing latino demographics.
And if I'm right this current study is basically just saying that the insurrection was carried out by Trump supporters.
Ah that’s the one yeah
Also I'll add something I've seen anecdotally.
Middle class white suburb is a basic way of saying white flight suburbs.
While plenty of upper class folks left their enclaves in or near urban centers those that left didn't leave to intermingle with the unwashed masses white or not.
But those former farm or shore towns littered with bungalows, ranches and bi-levels, where most houses were built between 1970 and 1990?
That's fucking Trump country. Those towns were built by white flighters and now their kids and grand kids are the ones losing their minds as primarily latinos are looking to move out of the cities and into the "American Dream"
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+20
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that violent unrest follows economic turmoil
It isn't, but using the 2008 downturn as your operationalization strikes me as kinda weird this far down the line when you can look at, say, relative UI uptick during the pandemic, which is probably a more proximate cause and probably public data, if that's your actual hypothesis
Maybe back in 2015 a professional political scientist could make the argument that "economic anxiety" was real. In 2020, doing so shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the field they work in.
Nah im a shit head burnout software developer and i could tell you the problem was fuckin racism easy peasy, it wasn't even hard to do that in like 2003.
Like, you just have to look at the crowd shots at trump's speach or the rioters who were Literally crawling up the walls to see that there were basically no people of color in the mix.
Nah im a shit head burnout software developer and i could tell you the problem was fuckin racism easy peasy, it wasn't even hard to do that in like 2003.
The more online you are, the more you know about how prevalent racism is. Because at some point you read the comments section.
Maybe back in 2015 a professional political scientist could make the argument that "economic anxiety" was real. In 2020, doing so shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the field they work in.
Nah, that's a dumb response. It's a coherent hypothesis. The only reason we think it's wrong is because we've seen other data before now showing it is. Begin with a reasonable hypothesis and then reaching the conclusion the data actually shows you is good work and people complaining about it are being silly at best.
Complaining that they started at "Was it economic conditions?" even though they end at "The data showed it was actually racism" is exactly the kind of myopic missing-the-point shit social media is so bad for.
Historians often reduce complex social questions to economic. There seems to be a tendency to look for rationality in irrational social actions. The trend for people to downplay “crazy leaders” of the past is one example of this: was Caligula making a clever satire in declaring his horse a Senator, or was he just crazy? We can look at Trump and see that sometimes leaders are indeed just crazy and look at his followers and see that some social movements are just irrational.
If we were reading about the QAnon movement from Suetonius, surely clever historians would soberly point out that no-one could really have believed such things and most likely it was a clever ruse to cover for their secret revolutionary society. But we can see clearly that people do believe such things.
There is a natural tendency to (want to) believe that humans - ourselves first and foremost, of course, but humans in general - are mostly rational beings*. And, uh, hahahahano.
(* not least because the alternative, or one of them, is despair that oh god we're all fucked, aren't we? which is where I've spent a good part of these past four years going on five.)
Maybe back in 2015 a professional political scientist could make the argument that "economic anxiety" was real. In 2020, doing so shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the field they work in.
Nah, that's a dumb response. It's a coherent hypothesis. The only reason we think it's wrong is because we've seen other data before now showing it is. Begin with a reasonable hypothesis and then reaching the conclusion the data actually shows you is good work and people complaining about it are being silly at best.
Complaining that they started at "Was it economic conditions?" even though they end at "The data showed it was actually racism" is exactly the kind of myopic missing-the-point shit social media is so bad for.
Yeah in 2015
Earnestly asking if Trump’s cult is motivated by job/income loss in 2021 is some 21st century Lost Cause bullshit
Historians often reduce complex social questions to economic. There seems to be a tendency to look for rationality in irrational social actions. The trend for people to downplay “crazy leaders” of the past is one example of this: was Caligula making a clever satire in declaring his horse a Senator, or was he just crazy? We can look at Trump and see that sometimes leaders are indeed just crazy and look at his followers and see that some social movements are just irrational.
If we were reading about the QAnon movement from Suetonius, surely clever historians would soberly point out that no-one could really have believed such things and most likely it was a clever ruse to cover for their secret revolutionary society. But we can see clearly that people do believe such things.
A lot of folks seem to have an instinct to turn history into literature. A lot of history is just really dumb shit and coincidence.
Maybe back in 2015 a professional political scientist could make the argument that "economic anxiety" was real. In 2020, doing so shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the field they work in.
Nah, that's a dumb response. It's a coherent hypothesis. The only reason we think it's wrong is because we've seen other data before now showing it is. Begin with a reasonable hypothesis and then reaching the conclusion the data actually shows you is good work and people complaining about it are being silly at best.
Complaining that they started at "Was it economic conditions?" even though they end at "The data showed it was actually racism" is exactly the kind of myopic missing-the-point shit social media is so bad for.
Yeah in 2015
Earnestly asking if Trump’s cult is motivated by job/income loss in 2021 is some 21st century Lost Cause bullshit
No, it's not. You know why? Because the literal fucking conclusion they come to is that it was not based in that. You are doing the literal silly thing I'm talking about, which is complaining about the opening of the paper while trying to ignore the actual substance of the thing.
Asking if it was economics is just as credible as asking if it is about aliens, only with the added benefit of keeping that stupid idea out there where people can keep latching on to it to excuse the white backlash
Asking if it was economics is just as credible as asking if it is about aliens, only with the added benefit of keeping that stupid idea out there where people can keep latching on to it to excuse the white backlash
Asking if it was economics and then concluding it was not is something else, though.
The useful upshot here is that they can conclude it was *not* economics because they specifically looked at that angle and found nothing. It's just as important to highlight race as the real reason as it is to thoroughly disprove the economic explanation, as in there is next to zero overlap.
+26
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Maybe back in 2015 a professional political scientist could make the argument that "economic anxiety" was real. In 2020, doing so shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the field they work in.
Nah, that's a dumb response. It's a coherent hypothesis. The only reason we think it's wrong is because we've seen other data before now showing it is. Begin with a reasonable hypothesis and then reaching the conclusion the data actually shows you is good work and people complaining about it are being silly at best.
Complaining that they started at "Was it economic conditions?" even though they end at "The data showed it was actually racism" is exactly the kind of myopic missing-the-point shit social media is so bad for.
Yeah in 2015
Earnestly asking if Trump’s cult is motivated by job/income loss in 2021 is some 21st century Lost Cause bullshit
I don't know if you have ever met any political scientists but I guarantee you this dude was not earnest in his hypothesis that the insurrection was rooted in economic fallout from 2008
+14
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
edited April 2021
Like no joke I will put solid money down that the initial impetus behind this paper was the token Objectivist dipshit masters candidate claiming it was all economics in the faculty lounge as the insurrection was occurring live, and Dr. Pape writing this explicitly to call that motherfucker a moron in both the most humiliating fashion possible and in such a manner that only people in that department of that school will understand or know about
Monwyn on
+70
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
"Per my dedicated study, I have shown that this motherfucker right here don't know shit. And I've got data for days to prove it. "
Like no joke I will put solid money down that the initial impetus behind this paper was the token Objectivist dipshit masters candidate claiming it was all economics in the faculty lounge as the insurrection was occurring live, and Dr. Pape writing this explicitly to call that motherfucker a moron in both the most humiliating fashion possible and in such a manner that only people in that department of that school will understand or know about
Also getting those Impact Factor citation rankings.
Pape never hypothesized it was “economic anxiety” the fucking NYT dude Cous linked did
Pape’s starting hypothesis was “the white nationalist terrorists of Jan 6 would look demographically similar to previous white nationalist terrorists we’ve been studying for a long time” and he found that they are wealthier and older than the other terrorists
Oh that makes a lot more sense that the "economic anxiety" bullshit was put in there by the NYT. It's exactly the type of bullshit they like to try and push, because actually admitting to the real problems is way too inconvenient.
Like no joke I will put solid money down that the initial impetus behind this paper was the token Objectivist dipshit masters candidate claiming it was all economics in the faculty lounge as the insurrection was occurring live, and Dr. Pape writing this explicitly to call that motherfucker a moron in both the most humiliating fashion possible and in such a manner that only people in that department of that school will understand or know about
And yet by giving said "colleague" the fig leaf he did, he continues to enable the idea of "economic anxiety" as a legitimate argument. This is the same sort of argument that is used when colleges invite noted bigot Charles Murray to debate so as to "debunk" him, not realizing that by putting him on the stage, they are legitimizing him.
Asking if it was economics is just as credible as asking if it is about aliens, only with the added benefit of keeping that stupid idea out there where people can keep latching on to it to excuse the white backlash
I think it is a credible thing to ask. Everyone in here acts like its been a priori that these people are just a bunch of shitty racists, but I think for even tuned in progressives that fact hasn't really been obvious until the last year or two. And I imagine there are still plenty of middle of the road white people out there who think "nah, there's some other, justifiable, moral reason for their behavior."
Truth be told I don't think it's only racism pushing these people. To me it seems like there's some far more troubling and deeper sickness going on, some kind of dark combination of nihilism and boredom leaving people with a need to have some kind of us vs them purpose, no matter what it is.
Maybe back in 2015 a professional political scientist could make the argument that "economic anxiety" was real. In 2020, doing so shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the field they work in.
Nah, that's a dumb response. It's a coherent hypothesis. The only reason we think it's wrong is because we've seen other data before now showing it is. Begin with a reasonable hypothesis and then reaching the conclusion the data actually shows you is good work and people complaining about it are being silly at best.
Complaining that they started at "Was it economic conditions?" even though they end at "The data showed it was actually racism" is exactly the kind of myopic missing-the-point shit social media is so bad for.
Yeah in 2015
Earnestly asking if Trump’s cult is motivated by job/income loss in 2021 is some 21st century Lost Cause bullshit
I don't know if you have ever met any political scientists but I guarantee you this dude was not earnest in his hypothesis that the insurrection was rooted in economic fallout from 2008
Maybe, but only in an academic way. The Jan 6 riots give a way to look at such hypothesis in the past and get better intimation about whether or not they’re true. Because we do not have as much ability to look individually at rioters and coup’ers from riots and coups in the past. And also less so from riots and coups in places where there has been less public information about who was in the street.
We have, comparatively, a lot of information about economic conditions from times of historical unrest and even times of recent unrest. So testing whether or not the rioters are directly effected by it makes sense. We can use new data to give us a sense about whether or not past data was indicative or coincidental
Like no joke I will put solid money down that the initial impetus behind this paper was the token Objectivist dipshit masters candidate claiming it was all economics in the faculty lounge as the insurrection was occurring live, and Dr. Pape writing this explicitly to call that motherfucker a moron in both the most humiliating fashion possible and in such a manner that only people in that department of that school will understand or know about
And yet by giving said "colleague" the fig leaf he did, he continues to enable the idea of "economic anxiety" as a legitimate argument. This is the same sort of argument that is used when colleges invite noted bigot Charles Murray to debate so as to "debunk" him, not realizing that by putting him on the stage, they are legitimizing him.
Hedgie, I was all about this too and then actually looked into what Pape has said and done
This hypothetical that Monwyn proposed didn’t happen
Pape is a terrorism researcher compiling a profile of the insurrectionists to help identify where the movement may be growing so we can address it
The NYT writer manufactured all this bullshit
Captain Inertia on
+26
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
stop reading the New York Times
we're on to literal decades of irresponsible (at best) journalism from them
it is a trash paper
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+34
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Like no joke I will put solid money down that the initial impetus behind this paper was the token Objectivist dipshit masters candidate claiming it was all economics in the faculty lounge as the insurrection was occurring live, and Dr. Pape writing this explicitly to call that motherfucker a moron in both the most humiliating fashion possible and in such a manner that only people in that department of that school will understand or know about
And yet by giving said "colleague" the fig leaf he did, he continues to enable the idea of "economic anxiety" as a legitimate argument. This is the same sort of argument that is used when colleges invite noted bigot Charles Murray to debate so as to "debunk" him, not realizing that by putting him on the stage, they are legitimizing him.
Pape never hypothesized it was “economic anxiety” the fucking NYT dude Cous linked did
Pape’s starting hypothesis was “the white nationalist terrorists of Jan 6 would look demographically similar to previous white nationalist terrorists we’ve been studying for a long time” and he found that they are wealthier and older than the other terrorists
The study is useful. In particular, one conclusion is that we need "de-escalation approaches for anger among large swaths of mainstream society", which seems like it would be a really useful thing to have, if we can ever figure out what that would look like. Standard anti-domestic-terrorist actions won't work well here, because this is a political movement, not just a guy in the woods with a manifesto. Also important is that the movement exists beyond the people who actually broke the law, with a leader (Trump) who has already shown a willingness to break the law, so if Trump tells them to go somewhere, a few hundred people will probably do just that. (Which means that deplatforming Trump was a really good idea, and there should be extreme pushback on any attempt to reverse this.)
Posts
i know time has no meaning anymore but Jan 6 was only three months ago today
If I'm recalling correctly the original finding was in regards to where Trump's primary support came from - middle class suburbs with growing latino demographics.
And if I'm right this current study is basically just saying that the insurrection was carried out by Trump supporters.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Trump supporters who could afford to go to DC on a weekday in the middle of a plague.
Yeah he could just be correlating the previous study with the home addresses of the arrested insurrectionists. Top that with "I expected all these traitors to come from places with huge economic downturns, but actually they just come from places that already strongly correlate racism to being a Trump supporter. Imagine that!"
Ah that’s the one yeah
Also I'll add something I've seen anecdotally.
Middle class white suburb is a basic way of saying white flight suburbs.
While plenty of upper class folks left their enclaves in or near urban centers those that left didn't leave to intermingle with the unwashed masses white or not.
But those former farm or shore towns littered with bungalows, ranches and bi-levels, where most houses were built between 1970 and 1990?
That's fucking Trump country. Those towns were built by white flighters and now their kids and grand kids are the ones losing their minds as primarily latinos are looking to move out of the cities and into the "American Dream"
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It isn't, but using the 2008 downturn as your operationalization strikes me as kinda weird this far down the line when you can look at, say, relative UI uptick during the pandemic, which is probably a more proximate cause and probably public data, if that's your actual hypothesis
I'll let pundit Oliver Willis provide the counterpoint:
Maybe back in 2015 a professional political scientist could make the argument that "economic anxiety" was real. In 2020, doing so shows a fundamental lack of awareness of the field they work in.
The more online you are, the more you know about how prevalent racism is. Because at some point you read the comments section.
Nah, that's a dumb response. It's a coherent hypothesis. The only reason we think it's wrong is because we've seen other data before now showing it is. Begin with a reasonable hypothesis and then reaching the conclusion the data actually shows you is good work and people complaining about it are being silly at best.
Complaining that they started at "Was it economic conditions?" even though they end at "The data showed it was actually racism" is exactly the kind of myopic missing-the-point shit social media is so bad for.
If we were reading about the QAnon movement from Suetonius, surely clever historians would soberly point out that no-one could really have believed such things and most likely it was a clever ruse to cover for their secret revolutionary society. But we can see clearly that people do believe such things.
(* not least because the alternative, or one of them, is despair that oh god we're all fucked, aren't we? which is where I've spent a good part of these past four years going on five.)
Yeah in 2015
Earnestly asking if Trump’s cult is motivated by job/income loss in 2021 is some 21st century Lost Cause bullshit
A lot of folks seem to have an instinct to turn history into literature. A lot of history is just really dumb shit and coincidence.
No, it's not. You know why? Because the literal fucking conclusion they come to is that it was not based in that. You are doing the literal silly thing I'm talking about, which is complaining about the opening of the paper while trying to ignore the actual substance of the thing.
Asking if it was economics and then concluding it was not is something else, though.
I don't know if you have ever met any political scientists but I guarantee you this dude was not earnest in his hypothesis that the insurrection was rooted in economic fallout from 2008
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Also getting those Impact Factor citation rankings.
Pape never hypothesized it was “economic anxiety” the fucking NYT dude Cous linked did
Pape’s starting hypothesis was “the white nationalist terrorists of Jan 6 would look demographically similar to previous white nationalist terrorists we’ve been studying for a long time” and he found that they are wealthier and older than the other terrorists
Here’s the actual study, not the NYT meta that inserts “economic anxiety” into the discourse where it never existed prior:
https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/cpost/i/docs/americas_insurrectionists_online_2021_01_29.pdf?mtime=1611966204
And yet by giving said "colleague" the fig leaf he did, he continues to enable the idea of "economic anxiety" as a legitimate argument. This is the same sort of argument that is used when colleges invite noted bigot Charles Murray to debate so as to "debunk" him, not realizing that by putting him on the stage, they are legitimizing him.
I think it is a credible thing to ask. Everyone in here acts like its been a priori that these people are just a bunch of shitty racists, but I think for even tuned in progressives that fact hasn't really been obvious until the last year or two. And I imagine there are still plenty of middle of the road white people out there who think "nah, there's some other, justifiable, moral reason for their behavior."
Truth be told I don't think it's only racism pushing these people. To me it seems like there's some far more troubling and deeper sickness going on, some kind of dark combination of nihilism and boredom leaving people with a need to have some kind of us vs them purpose, no matter what it is.
Maybe, but only in an academic way. The Jan 6 riots give a way to look at such hypothesis in the past and get better intimation about whether or not they’re true. Because we do not have as much ability to look individually at rioters and coup’ers from riots and coups in the past. And also less so from riots and coups in places where there has been less public information about who was in the street.
We have, comparatively, a lot of information about economic conditions from times of historical unrest and even times of recent unrest. So testing whether or not the rioters are directly effected by it makes sense. We can use new data to give us a sense about whether or not past data was indicative or coincidental
Hedgie, I was all about this too and then actually looked into what Pape has said and done
This hypothetical that Monwyn proposed didn’t happen
Pape is a terrorism researcher compiling a profile of the insurrectionists to help identify where the movement may be growing so we can address it
The NYT writer manufactured all this bullshit
we're on to literal decades of irresponsible (at best) journalism from them
it is a trash paper
No, he doesn't
The study is useful. In particular, one conclusion is that we need "de-escalation approaches for anger among large swaths of mainstream society", which seems like it would be a really useful thing to have, if we can ever figure out what that would look like. Standard anti-domestic-terrorist actions won't work well here, because this is a political movement, not just a guy in the woods with a manifesto. Also important is that the movement exists beyond the people who actually broke the law, with a leader (Trump) who has already shown a willingness to break the law, so if Trump tells them to go somewhere, a few hundred people will probably do just that. (Which means that deplatforming Trump was a really good idea, and there should be extreme pushback on any attempt to reverse this.)