4 ms·
That's not what I'm saying.
by lambdaphagy 8y ago
That's not what I'm saying.
- mlevental 8y agofine you're not actually saying it (though I think you should be) but the direct implication of what you're saying is that.
- echotango 8y agoHe is saying that race is correlated with almost everything, not racism. You seem to be claiming all statistical differences between racial groups are a result of racism. But black people for instance aren't more likey to listen to rap music because of racism.
- mlevental 8y ago>He is saying that race is correlated with almost everything, not racism. and i didn't say that he said that racism is correlated with anything.
- CardenB 8y agoI can’t really interpret your comment any different way.
- dang 8y agoYou've been using this account primarily for political and ideological battle. That's destructive of what HN is for—regardless of your ideology—and we ban accounts that do it, as explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you want to keep commenting here, please (re-)read the guidelines and use this site as intended from now on. The intention is intellectual curiosity, and that is the first casualty of ideological war.
- lambdaphagy 8y agoApologies, and thank you for the correction. My comments betray a lack of intellectual curiosity and I will strive to harmonize them going forward.
- pokemongoaway 8y agoWow :(
- pokemongoaway 8y agoWhat exactly is wrong with him saying this: "Race is almost exactly the opposite problem: the signal in the data is so strong that you can't help but pick it up, even after you censor everything you can think of." As far as I can see it is a reasonable thing to say. Why not just come out and say: "I am on ideologically opposed to you and here is a threat of censorship." What is more intellectually curious than the idea that - as much as we want to - we can't remove a variable in many analyses because of its statistical significance?