|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 17, 2017 4:06:31 GMT
tpfkar If you're going to university JUST to get a degree in chemical engineering, or dentistry, then whether it's a diverse classroom or otherwise is not very important. And funny that you call me a 'rightist' when nothing that I've posted here is more right wing than your hidebound and disgusting views on assisted suicide. As a matter of fact I am not opposed to diversity at all, I simply don't think that people should be at a disadvantage for having 'boring' skin colour and 'boring' cultural background. I think that Affirmative Action may have been necessary as a corrective at some point in the history; but when the university is fighting for the right to use Affirmative Action, then that subverts what the policy was initially created for (i.e. to prevent institutions from dismissing minority candidates because they only want people like themselves.) It's axiomatic that if any institution WANTS to use Affirmative Action, then the policy isn't needed in that instance and shouldn't be used. Because the only cases in which Affirmative Action is needed are those cases where the institution would otherwise discriminate against non-whites. And I do not want to keep advantages previously obtained, not that I seem to be at an advantage in my life by virtue of being white. But I don't think that at an individual level, it should be terribly much harder to advance in life if you are a white person from a lower class background than if you are a black person from a lower class background. If you simply make it impossible for poor white people to get anywhere in life (no chance of getting a university scholarship because of your skin colour, can't get into a decent university, end up working in a dead end job, etc), then that will always fuel the ascent of right-wing demagogues. Tee-hee. You're the professed Trump supporter who in your fervent religious desire to end all human life sortof hopes the more-logical-and-less-shrilly-exaggerating-than-you orange one triggers an apocalypse. And you make things up whole cloth all the time, not just in this thread, in your raging boner-hates for "brown people" - that is when you're not posting posed naked pictures of them as "evidence" of torture in 3rd-world dungeon asylums, signifying nothing but your utter irrationality and perverse morbid nature all the way around. You're righter than most of the Log Cabiners ever were, and far more overtly psychopathic. And a bigger a hypocritical squealer than a Rush or an Ajones - wailing at atrocities against you because people reply to you and abominations against you because people stop replying to your pathologies. If you weren't so overtly deranged, you'd be a perfect fringe right guy, but you're a little too much even for them. And sorry, in a diverse world, both professionally and just population-wise in immigrant and imploded imperial societies it is far superior to have things reflect wider society. And having students go through their higher learning lily-white will just produce more of you Milo-Trump absurdists. And surprise surprise you make zero sense with the affirmative action; of course they're they're fighting for it because they want to use it. The guy you quoted even said why (in the part you left highlighted). And just because it is your tendency to worship to the point of dedicating sappy songs to It and then veering so extreme in the opposite direction that you want to sacrifice all humans to iT, don't project your sickly flighty moroseness on people not as broken as yourself. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 4:20:50 GMT
tpfkar If you're going to university JUST to get a degree in chemical engineering, or dentistry, then whether it's a diverse classroom or otherwise is not very important. And funny that you call me a 'rightist' when nothing that I've posted here is more right wing than your hidebound and disgusting views on assisted suicide. As a matter of fact I am not opposed to diversity at all, I simply don't think that people should be at a disadvantage for having 'boring' skin colour and 'boring' cultural background. I think that Affirmative Action may have been necessary as a corrective at some point in the history; but when the university is fighting for the right to use Affirmative Action, then that subverts what the policy was initially created for (i.e. to prevent institutions from dismissing minority candidates because they only want people like themselves.) It's axiomatic that if any institution WANTS to use Affirmative Action, then the policy isn't needed in that instance and shouldn't be used. Because the only cases in which Affirmative Action is needed are those cases where the institution would otherwise discriminate against non-whites. And I do not want to keep advantages previously obtained, not that I seem to be at an advantage in my life by virtue of being white. But I don't think that at an individual level, it should be terribly much harder to advance in life if you are a white person from a lower class background than if you are a black person from a lower class background. If you simply make it impossible for poor white people to get anywhere in life (no chance of getting a university scholarship because of your skin colour, can't get into a decent university, end up working in a dead end job, etc), then that will always fuel the ascent of right-wing demagogues. Tee-hee. You're the professed Trump supporter who in your fervent religious desire to end all human life sortof hopes the more-logical-and-less-shrilly-exaggerating-than-you orange one triggers an apocalypse. And you make things up whole cloth all the time, not just in this thread, in your raging boner-hates for "brown people" - that is when you're not posting posed naked pictures of them as "evidence" of torture in 3rd-world dungeon asylums, signifying nothing but your utter irrationality and perverse morbid nature all the way around. You're righter than most of the Log Cabiners ever were, and far more overtly psychopathic. And a bigger a hypocritical squealer than a Rush or an Ajones - wailing at atrocities against you because people reply to you and abominations against you because people stop replying to your pathologies. If you weren't so overtly deranged, you'd be a perfect fringe right guy, but you're a little too much even for them. And sorry, in a diverse world, both professionally and just population-wise in immigrant and imploded imperial societies it is far superior to have things reflect wider society. And having students go through their higher learning lily-white will just produce more of you Milo-Trump absurdists. And surprise surprise you make zero sense with the affirmative action; of course they're they're fighting for it because they want to use it. The guy you quoted even said why (in the part you left highlighted). And just because it is your tendency to worship to the point of dedicating sappy songs to It and then veering so extreme in the opposite direction that you want to sacrifice all humans to iT, don't project your sickly flighty moroseness on people not as broken as yourself. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I've never stated anything about 'supporting' Trump (merely that he isn't really any more of a conservative than Hillary Clinton, the other option, which is demonstrably true), and throughout my postings have shown that I am very 'left leaning' in my political views. Find one post of mine, for example, in which I decry the welfare system or universal healthcare. Or anything 'right wing' that isn't related to race and dislike of religious zealotry (because apparently not liking very conservative religion is itself indicative of a very conservative mindset). Whereas your views on the right to die are very typical of mainstream Christians (even most Christians will admit your very cautious allowance of assistance to die for the terminal ill). Given that the point of Affirmative Action is that it was something that institutions had to be FORCED to use because otherwise they would refuse to give a fair chance to black, female and minority candidates; the fact that the university wants to be MORE diverse than it needs to be proves that Affirmative Action is not needed in this instance and should be discarded. I don't see why it's fair that a white person who has the relevant qualifications should be dismissed in favour of a black candidate with considerable lesser qualifications, because the white person is 'too boring' to be fit to be seen on campus. Even if one allowed for the benefits of cross cultural exposure, that alone does not justify discriminating against a qualified candidate based on their skin colour. And as a point of fact, Asians are more likely to be victims of such discrimination than white people, and it's wrong. Again, you're saying that individual rights ought to be subordinate to some nebulous idea of a collective benefit.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 17, 2017 5:16:38 GMT
tpfkar Tee-hee. You're the professed Trump supporter who in your fervent religious desire to end all human life sortof hopes the more-logical-and-less-shrilly-exaggerating-than-you orange one triggers an apocalypse. And you make things up whole cloth all the time, not just in this thread, in your raging boner-hates for "brown people" - that is when you're not posting posed naked pictures of them as "evidence" of torture in 3rd-world dungeon asylums, signifying nothing but your utter irrationality and perverse morbid nature all the way around. You're righter than most of the Log Cabiners ever were, and far more overtly psychopathic. And a bigger a hypocritical squealer than a Rush or an Ajones - wailing at atrocities against you because people reply to you and abominations against you because people stop replying to your pathologies. If you weren't so overtly deranged, you'd be a perfect fringe right guy, but you're a little too much even for them. And sorry, in a diverse world, both professionally and just population-wise in immigrant and imploded imperial societies it is far superior to have things reflect wider society. And having students go through their higher learning lily-white will just produce more of you Milo-Trump absurdists. And surprise surprise you make zero sense with the affirmative action; of course they're they're fighting for it because they want to use it. The guy you quoted even said why (in the part you left highlighted). And just because it is your tendency to worship to the point of dedicating sappy songs to It and then veering so extreme in the opposite direction that you want to sacrifice all humans to iT, don't project your sickly flighty moroseness on people not as broken as yourself. I've never stated anything about 'supporting' Trump (merely that he isn't really any more of a conservative than Hillary Clinton, the other option, which is demonstrably true), and throughout my postings have shown that I am very 'left leaning' in my political views. Find one post of mine, for example, in which I decry the welfare system or universal healthcare. Or anything 'right wing' that isn't related to race and dislike of religious zealotry (because apparently not liking very conservative religion is itself indicative of a very conservative mindset). Whereas your views on the right to die are very typical of mainstream Christians (even most Christians will admit your very cautious allowance of assistance to die for the terminal ill). Given that the point of Affirmative Action is that it was something that institutions had to be FORCED to use because otherwise they would refuse to give a fair chance to black, female and minority candidates; the fact that the university wants to be MORE diverse than it needs to be proves that Affirmative Action is not needed in this instance and should be discarded. I don't see why it's fair that a white person who has the relevant qualifications should be dismissed in favour of a black candidate with considerable lesser qualifications, because the white person is 'too boring' to be fit to be seen on campus. Even if one allowed for the benefits of cross cultural exposure, that alone does not justify discriminating against a qualified candidate based on their skin colour. And as a point of fact, Asians are more likely to be victims of such discrimination than white people, and it's wrong. Again, you're saying that individual rights ought to be subordinate to some nebulous idea of a collective benefit. Right, guy who's happy Trump won and hopes he starts an apocalypse. And you being left, . Only when it personally affects you. Most rightists like their welfare, and you Europeans rightists of recent times haven't been bathed in the "socialism" bugaboo. And what's very conservative is construing anybody not wanting to wide-paint brown guys or whomever over extremes of their religion not necessarily held by them nor hold them to different personal standards than our "aesthetic favorite" religion that has been forcefully contained over time - as "liking" a religion. Or snorting inane about safe spaces then howling like a stuck muskrat over people responding to you or not responding to you and screaming "like n-word!" when somebody points out that your posts are deranged. And the "fact" that the University wants to be more diverse than it needs is not evidence of non-need, much less your numbskulled "proves". Just more ludicrous right-pap you're trying to assert coupled with your most bizarre imaginings and non sequiturs. Whether institutions are forced or not is orthogonal to the need or desire of any program, and especially anybody's interpretation thereof. What's "fair" is at issue, and whether it is enough to just snap fingers or instead try to reverse more ingrained effects. And my views on not being libertarian-crazy vicious with the incapable and incompetent, and with continuing breathing , and with not being an irrational flighty morbid purposely-helpless diva is very typical of mainstream Christians and mainstream non-Christians and mainstream atheists and mainstream theists and mainstream/eccentric sane people. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 5:37:27 GMT
tpfkar I've never stated anything about 'supporting' Trump (merely that he isn't really any more of a conservative than Hillary Clinton, the other option, which is demonstrably true), and throughout my postings have shown that I am very 'left leaning' in my political views. Find one post of mine, for example, in which I decry the welfare system or universal healthcare. Or anything 'right wing' that isn't related to race and dislike of religious zealotry (because apparently not liking very conservative religion is itself indicative of a very conservative mindset). Whereas your views on the right to die are very typical of mainstream Christians (even most Christians will admit your very cautious allowance of assistance to die for the terminal ill). Given that the point of Affirmative Action is that it was something that institutions had to be FORCED to use because otherwise they would refuse to give a fair chance to black, female and minority candidates; the fact that the university wants to be MORE diverse than it needs to be proves that Affirmative Action is not needed in this instance and should be discarded. I don't see why it's fair that a white person who has the relevant qualifications should be dismissed in favour of a black candidate with considerable lesser qualifications, because the white person is 'too boring' to be fit to be seen on campus. Even if one allowed for the benefits of cross cultural exposure, that alone does not justify discriminating against a qualified candidate based on their skin colour. And as a point of fact, Asians are more likely to be victims of such discrimination than white people, and it's wrong. Again, you're saying that individual rights ought to be subordinate to some nebulous idea of a collective benefit. Right, guy who's happy Trump won and hopes he starts an apocalypse. And you being left, . Only when it personally affects you. Most rightists like their welfare, and you Europeans rightists of recent times haven't been bathed in the "socialism" bugaboo. And what's very conservative is construing anybody not wanting to wide-paint brown guys or whomever over extremes of their religion not necessarily held by them nor hold them to different personal standards than our "aesthetic favorite" religion that has been forcefully contained over time - as "liking" a religion. Or snorting inane about safe spaces then howling like a stuck muskrat over people responding to you or not responding to you and screaming "like n-word!" when somebody points out that your posts are deranged. And the "fact" that the University wants to be more diverse than it needs is not evidence of non-need, much less your numbskulled "proves". Just more ludicrous right-pap you're trying to assert coupled with your most bizarre imaginings and non sequiturs. Whether institutions are forced or not is orthogonal to the need or desire of any program, and especially anybody's interpretation thereof. What's "fair" is at issue, and whether it is enough to just snap fingers or instead try to reverse more ingrained effects. And my views on not being libertarian-crazy vicious with the incapable and incompetent, and with continuing breathing , and with not being an irrational flighty morbid purposely-helpless diva is very typical of mainstream Christians and mainstream non-Christians and mainstream atheists and mainstream theists and mainstream/eccentric sane people. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I'm left wing even for causes that do not benefit me (I don't receive any benefits and don't use the NHS much), and wishing for an 'apocalypse' is not a right wing desire, but a desire to see an end to the cycle of perpetual harm (which is a radically left-wing view).And Hillary Clinton isn't remotely left wing except on the most superficial issue of 'don't say mean things to Muslims', so there was no (viable) liberal option to favour over Trump in the US election. It was a question of which conservative politician, inextricably beholden to the large corporations and the richest 0.1% of society would be less boring, and I would prefer Trump for entertainment value. Anything prevalent in the US culture is also something in which British people are immersed, because there is scant distinction between UK and US culture nowadays. The only thing that you've pointed out that's allegedly 'right wing' is the fact that I'm not in favour of political correctness and racial discrimination against white people. If Affirmative Action was based even on economic status, that would assist a disproportionate number of black people, and I would have no problem with that. But your preferred system would leave countless white and Asian people with no way of pursuing a higher education, and thus forming an embittered lower class rump that has every avenue of success blocked off to them, so that those opportunities can be given to middle class and wealthy blacks. And how does the university not 'need' to have Affirmative Action if the point of Affirmative Action is to FORCE institutions that WANT TO DISCRIMINATE to give opportunities to non-whites and women who would otherwise be excluded. Affirmative Action was NEVER intended to make university campuses or businesses more 'culturally enriched'; it was intended to ensure that discriminated-against groups of people could not be unfairly excluded. I'm interested to find out why you think that the University of Michigan 'needs' to be FORCED to give opportunities to black students when they are bitterly protesting against a system that doesn't allow them to socially engineer their campus in order to OVER-REPRESENT black and ethnic minority students (excluding Asians, of course, who get the shittiest end of this particular stick due to the insolence of having happened to come from a background that values academic achievement). And your very right-wing and religious views on assistance to dying are falling out of mainstream favour with atheists, and are about representative of the views of the typical non-evangelical Christian.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 17, 2017 6:05:50 GMT
tpfkar Right, guy who's happy Trump won and hopes he starts an apocalypse. And you being left, . Only when it personally affects you. Most rightists like their welfare, and you Europeans rightists of recent times haven't been bathed in the "socialism" bugaboo. And what's very conservative is construing anybody not wanting to wide-paint brown guys or whomever over extremes of their religion not necessarily held by them nor hold them to different personal standards than our "aesthetic favorite" religion that has been forcefully contained over time - as "liking" a religion. Or snorting inane about safe spaces then howling like a stuck muskrat over people responding to you or not responding to you and screaming "like n-word!" when somebody points out that your posts are deranged. And the "fact" that the University wants to be more diverse than it needs is not evidence of non-need, much less your numbskulled "proves". Just more ludicrous right-pap you're trying to assert coupled with your most bizarre imaginings and non sequiturs. Whether institutions are forced or not is orthogonal to the need or desire of any program, and especially anybody's interpretation thereof. What's "fair" is at issue, and whether it is enough to just snap fingers or instead try to reverse more ingrained effects. And my views on not being libertarian-crazy vicious with the incapable and incompetent, and with continuing breathing , and with not being an irrational flighty morbid purposely-helpless diva is very typical of mainstream Christians and mainstream non-Christians and mainstream atheists and mainstream theists and mainstream/eccentric sane people. I'm left wing even for causes that do not benefit me, and wishing for an 'apocalypse' is not a right wing desire, but a desire to see an end to the cycle of perpetual harm (which is a radically left-wing view).And Hillary Clinton isn't remotely left wing except on the most superficial issue of 'don't say mean things to Muslims', so there was no (viable) liberal option to favour over Trump in the US election. It was a question of which conservative politician, inextricably beholden to the large corporations and the richest 0.1% of society would be less boring, and I would prefer Trump for entertainment value. The only thing that you've pointed out that's allegedly 'right wing' is the fact that I'm not in favour of political correctness and racial discrimination against white people. If Affirmative Action was based even on economic status, that would assist a disproportionate number of black people, and I would have no problem with that. But your preferred system would leave countless white and Asian people with no way of pursuing a higher education, and thus forming an embittered lower class rump that has every avenue of success blocked off to them, so that those opportunities can be given to middle class and wealthy blacks. And how does the university not 'need' to have Affirmative Action if the point of Affirmative Action is to FORCE institutions that WANT TO DISCRIMINATE to give opportunities to non-whites and women who would otherwise be excluded. Affirmative Action was NEVER intended to make university campuses or businesses more 'culturally enriched'; it was intended to ensure that discriminated-against groups of people could not be unfairly excluded. I'm interested to find out why you think that the University of Michigan 'needs' to be FORCED to give opportunities to black students when they are bitterly protesting against a system that doesn't allow them to socially engineer their campus in order to OVER-REPRESENT black and ethnic minority students (excluding Asians, of course, who get the shittiest end of this particular stick due to the insolence of having happened to come from a background that values academic achievement). And your very right-wing and religious views on assistance to dying are falling out of mainstream favour with atheists, and are about representative of the views of the typical non-evangelical Christian. Sure, and you're rational too, happy-for-Trump hope he causes an apocalypse guy! And you're right with all of your wild Rushian and Jonseian absurd imaginations and non sequiturs, and with your hateons for as you so frequently like to chant "brown people", and with your hypocritical squeals of injury and "like n-word" after repeatedly, incompetently trying to mock college kid "safe-spaces". And in the fact that you don't care how absurd the lies that you emit are and that you're continuously patently irrational. And you and Rush and Ajones can pray to Hillary all you want, I sure didn't say anything about her. You volunteered and gloated on about how the T-bird was your guy and you were happy as a baked clam about him. And you can trot out all the supposed self-serving "left" positions you say you hold. It won't make up for all of your rightist nonsense. And you're just blowing more crap about "countless White and Asian people". We've had and will continue to have all kinds of opportunities, regardless of some percentage of accommodation for other classes previously beaten back. After some of the ingrained damage is wrung out of the system and communities have recovered, then it will make more sense not to give the former knocked back some help. Until then, some portion being reserved to ameliorate the situation makes sense. I mean seriously, you were talking about how non-diverse and unrepresentative is a-ok, and given recent history and even current attitudes of many that's enough to know that there's something that needs to be addressed. And you can try to frame opposition to your patent crazytime death-to-humanity and suicide-pills-for-all-at-the-pharmacy as "right-wing and religious" for however long you feel like chanting your mantra. Like that guy earlier who was going on about how opposition to homophobia supported by people's religions was because of tribalism. Not to mention your silly attempt to conflate offing the mentally ill with assistance to the terminally ill. Or really, like you going on about it at all with your careening from worship of procreation with ode songs to worship of death for all humans with tales of woe of your personal psychic suffering and helplessness without state assistance, and projecting your religious fervor on anybody else who hasn't caught your self-described crazy. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 17, 2017 6:27:52 GMT
No one is assuming it racist or bigotry. Bias is not bigotry. It's more akin to comfort level. We like being around people that are similar to us. Regulations regarding hiring practices is simply a way of curbing the bias toward choosing people that are like us or at least justifying why so many of our workers are like us. Affirmative Action or EEOC stuff does not force employers to hire a diversified staff unless the qualifications are met within that diversity and yet they look outside that community for the same talent. What empirical research are you using re the claim that people hire people similar to them (similar to them how, exactly?) purposefully/because they like being around people that are similar to them? HERE'S a meta-study on the issue, though it only shows that there is racial bias in hiring, not what the cause of that bias is (though xenophobia, in general, seems to be at the root of such things).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 6:31:53 GMT
tpfkar I'm left wing even for causes that do not benefit me, and wishing for an 'apocalypse' is not a right wing desire, but a desire to see an end to the cycle of perpetual harm (which is a radically left-wing view).And Hillary Clinton isn't remotely left wing except on the most superficial issue of 'don't say mean things to Muslims', so there was no (viable) liberal option to favour over Trump in the US election. It was a question of which conservative politician, inextricably beholden to the large corporations and the richest 0.1% of society would be less boring, and I would prefer Trump for entertainment value. The only thing that you've pointed out that's allegedly 'right wing' is the fact that I'm not in favour of political correctness and racial discrimination against white people. If Affirmative Action was based even on economic status, that would assist a disproportionate number of black people, and I would have no problem with that. But your preferred system would leave countless white and Asian people with no way of pursuing a higher education, and thus forming an embittered lower class rump that has every avenue of success blocked off to them, so that those opportunities can be given to middle class and wealthy blacks. And how does the university not 'need' to have Affirmative Action if the point of Affirmative Action is to FORCE institutions that WANT TO DISCRIMINATE to give opportunities to non-whites and women who would otherwise be excluded. Affirmative Action was NEVER intended to make university campuses or businesses more 'culturally enriched'; it was intended to ensure that discriminated-against groups of people could not be unfairly excluded. I'm interested to find out why you think that the University of Michigan 'needs' to be FORCED to give opportunities to black students when they are bitterly protesting against a system that doesn't allow them to socially engineer their campus in order to OVER-REPRESENT black and ethnic minority students (excluding Asians, of course, who get the shittiest end of this particular stick due to the insolence of having happened to come from a background that values academic achievement). And your very right-wing and religious views on assistance to dying are falling out of mainstream favour with atheists, and are about representative of the views of the typical non-evangelical Christian. Sure, and you're rational too, happy-for Trump hope he causes an apocalypse guy! And you're right with with all of your wild Rushian and Jonseian absurd imaginations and non sequiturs, and with your hateons for as you so frequently like to chant "brown people", and with your hypocritical squeals of injury and "like n-word" after repeatedly, incompetently trying to mock college kid "safe-spaces". And in the fact that you don't care how absurd the lies that you emit are and that you're continuously patently irrational. And you and Rush and Ajones can pray to Hillary all you want, I sure didn't say anything about her. You volunteered and gloated on about how the T-bird was your guy and you were happy as a baked clam about him. And you can trot out all the supposed self-serving "left" positions you say you hold. It won't make up for all of your rightist nonsense. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.[/quote]I was happy about Trump because I was looking forward to the segments that John Oliver would do about him on Last Week Tonight (I have impeccably left-wing tastes in the media that I consume). And like I mentioned (I think that this edit was after your quote), I have left leaning positions on matters that do not benefit me at present, such as benefits (I do not receive £0.01 in benefits), universal health care(which I scarcely use at all), free school meals for disadvantaged children (I'm an antinatalist and do not have children), rights to immigration, etc. I've also never said anything that can be fairly taken to indicate that I have a particular dislike for people based on the colour of their skin. In fact, as I have stated before, I actually tend to prefer the company of non-white people and prefer diverse environments. The difference is that I admit that this isn't particularly rational. If I'm racist at all, it's probably because I fetishise people based on skin colour, rather than because I hate people because of their skin colour. And as a misanthropic antinatalist, I want to see the entire human race fade gently into the good night, so could hardly be accused of being a 'white supremacist' committed to maintaining the purity of the 'white race'. There aren't infinite numbers of opportunities for a university education, or a decent job. Having Affirmative Action based on economic status rather than religion would help to elevate deprived minority communities, without leaving whites and Asians from poor backgrounds behind with no viable way of ever emerging from the poverty cycle. Keeping poor whites trapped in poverty is always going to fuel the rise of right-wing racist demagogues and inter-racial resentments. Black and Hispanic people aren't the only ones who are struggling with poverty, and if you choose to say that the problems facing poor whites and Asians 'aren't important' and there shouldn't be anything done to ameliorate the economic turmoil of those people, then you're only offering up identity politics rather than progressive solutions that work for the benefit of all of the unfortunate. Yes, it must be religious, because you can't name what it is of value that would be lost if a person who wanted to die could be allowed to die with assistance from someone who could ensure that the process would be fail safe and painless. Therefore the only source of value that you could be safeguarding would be something that derives from the individual's essence as a human. You may disingenuously try to distance yourself from your evangelical Christian brethren by designating this the 'value of life', but it is in fact what is commonly understood as the 'sanctity of life'. The life in question has only negative value to the person who has requested assistance, and the individual is NEVER deprived of any positive value that would otherwise be attainable (and have the full right to refuse the treatment right up to the point at which it is administered). I've offered numerous safeguards, but you reject all of them, because what you want is to have your own existence as a human being validated through laws which will condemn countless unfortunates to a lifetime of unremitting oppressive suffering that you could scarcely even imagine. Oh, and I haven't really given details of my own personal suffering. The most important thing is that being trapped is an affront to my dignity and my liberty; and I empathise with those whose conditions are far more desperate than mine and I am angered by their plight as much as, or even more than, my own.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 17, 2017 6:45:59 GMT
I was happy about Trump because I was looking forward to the segments that John Oliver would do about him on Last Week Tonight (I have impeccably left-wing tastes in the media that I consume). Sure, sure, Oliver will be sure to deliver you reports of his glee about the coming apocalypse. And no matter how many left positions you "claim" it doesn't erase the right. You might have heard this before. Wait, i stand corrected. Your ever chanted "brown people" inanity is completely atoned for by your stated preference of ethnic booty. Or maybe just your "dead can't bitch about it" psychopathic justifications. Write moar! On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 7:58:26 GMT
I was happy about Trump because I was looking forward to the segments that John Oliver would do about him on Last Week Tonight (I have impeccably left-wing tastes in the media that I consume). Sure, sure, Oliver will be sure to deliver you reports of his glee about the coming apocalypse. And no matter how many left positions you "claim" it doesn't erase the right. You might have heard this before. Wait, i stand corrected. Your ever chanted "brown people" inanity is completely atoned for by your stated preference of ethnic booty. Or maybe just your "dead can't bitch about it" psychopathic justifications. Write moar! On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I haven't posted anything derogatory about 'brown people' generally. The 'brown people' is meant to mock the fatuous attitudes and coddling behaviour of the regressive politically correct left. More or less everything I post about ethnic people is actually a comment on white 'social justice warriors'.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 11:10:08 GMT
What empirical research are you using re the claim that people hire people similar to them (similar to them how, exactly?) purposefully/because they like being around people that are similar to them? HERE'S a meta-study on the issue, though it only shows that there is racial bias in hiring, not what the cause of that bias is (though xenophobia, in general, seems to be at the root of such things). Right, that's a meta-analysis of a pretty disparate group of studies that weren't about what he claimed or what I asked him. It would take a long time to analyze the studies they're doing a meta-analysis of, which I don't have any motivation to do (it would literally take months of my time for no pay-off on my end), but just a quick glance at one of them, the Bendick et al paper on "Situation Testing for Employment Discrimination in the United States of America" claims, for example, "Increasingly, unequal employment outcomes tended to be the product not of conscious racism or sexism but of more subtle, often unconscious, bias," which is a problem, because there's no reason at all to buy that there's such a thing as unconscious or subconscious mental content. Plus that conclusion is apparently from another paper (they give a series of sources for that claim and supposed detailed characterizations of it), so just how many levels of remove from an actual empirical study is the meta-analysis you referred to? The only thing that would really count as evidence of people hiring people similar to them (in whatever regards) because they're similar to them (in those regards) would be some sort of more or less explicit statement to that effect from the hiring parties. Why someone hired whoever they did is knowable in principle--simply by interviewing the persons who did the hiring, even if it's difficult to know in practice, because (a) it's difficult to set up the interviews you'd need to set up, partially because the hiring parties often are not interested in sharing such information, and (b) hiring parties may often be publicly dishonest about their selection reasons, including that perhaps some choices were made for reasons that they know would be considered socially unacceptable, or because they may feel they're giving away proprietary secrets. There's no way to really do controlled experiments about this, where we for example set up candidates who are identical in every regard aside from some demographic feature like "race"/ethnicity, gender, age, etc., because any person doing the hiring is going to notice two candidates with literally identical resumes. And otherwise, we're either talking about non-identical resumes, in which case any of the resume differences could be making the hiring difference, or we're talking about different hiring agents, in which case any resume feature could still be making the hiring difference.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 17, 2017 11:33:57 GMT
HERE'S a meta-study on the issue, though it only shows that there is racial bias in hiring, not what the cause of that bias is (though xenophobia, in general, seems to be at the root of such things). Right, that's a meta-analysis of a pretty disparate group of studies that weren't about what he claimed or what I asked him. It would take a long time to analyze the studies they're doing a meta-analysis of, which I don't have any motivation to do (it would literally take months of my time for no pay-off on my end), but just a quick glance at one of them, the Bendick et al paper on "Situation Testing for Employment Discrimination in the United States of America" claims, for example, "Increasingly, unequal employment outcomes tended to be the product not of conscious racism or sexism but of more subtle, often unconscious, bias," which is a problem, because there's no reason at all to buy that there's such a thing as unconscious or subconscious mental content. I have a feeling this objection would come down to nothing more than another semantic debate over what counts as "unconscious or subconscious mental content," but basically what they're describing are the kind of biases found in "fast thinking" ala Kahneman. The only thing that would really count as evidence of people hiring people similar to them (in whatever regards) because they're similar to them (in those regards) would be some sort of more or less explicit statement to that effect from the hiring parties. Evidence that they're not hiring people different than themselves would be evidence that they're hiring people similar to themselves. There's no way to really do controlled experiments about this, where we for example set up candidates who are identical in every regard aside from some demographic feature like "race"/ethnicity, gender, age, etc., because any person doing the hiring is going to notice two candidates with literally identical resumes.Apparently not. There have been studies done using identical resumes but with different (black-sounding/white-sounding) names. HERE'S a NYTimes article by one of the authors of the above study that references several more related ones.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 17, 2017 11:53:44 GMT
No one is assuming it racist or bigotry. Bias is not bigotry. It's more akin to comfort level. We like being around people that are similar to us. Regulations regarding hiring practices is simply a way of curbing the bias toward choosing people that are like us or at least justifying why so many of our workers are like us. Affirmative Action or EEOC stuff does not force employers to hire a diversified staff unless the qualifications are met within that diversity and yet they look outside that community for the same talent. What empirical research are you using re the claim that people hire people similar to them (similar to them how, exactly?) purposefully/because they like being around people that are similar to them? Lol
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 12:03:43 GMT
What empirical research are you using re the claim that people hire people similar to them (similar to them how, exactly?) purposefully/because they like being around people that are similar to them? Lol LOL re LOL
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 17, 2017 12:04:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Nov 17, 2017 12:10:13 GMT
The idea that diversity = skin color is racist.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 12:11:31 GMT
I have a feeling this objection would come down to nothing more than another semantic debate over what counts as "unconscious or subconscious mental content," but basically what they're describing are the kind of biases found in "fast thinking" ala Kahneman. It's an ontological disagreement, about what sort of stuff/phenomena exist. If there's a bias, it's a conscious bias that the person in question is aware of (at least in the sense of being aware of having a preference). The issue is whether there's any reason to believe that someone can have a bias (again, at least in the form of having preferences) that they're not aware of having. There's no reason to believe this. If for some reason you believe that they're not in fact referring to having a bias that the subjects are not aware of having by the word "unconscious," then you'd have to explain how both that sentence and the research methodology and conclusions make sense in light of whatever they'd alternately be referring to re mental content that the people are in fact aware of. What happened to the part of the sentence beginning with "because"? It wasn't a case of identical resumes to the same hiring manager/HR person/etc.. A hiring manager is going to notice two identical resumes, the same dates for the same exact employment history, education history, the same exact wording re job responsibilities, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 12:19:57 GMT
That's probably what's happening in schools now. When something is critically challenged re whether a particular claim actually has good epistemic support, it's more or less just met with "LOL."
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 17, 2017 12:25:17 GMT
That's probably what's happening in schools now. When something is critically challenged re whether a particular claim actually has good epistemic support, it's more or less just met with "LOL." Well, you aren't critically challenging anything or else you would simply be debating your view without expecting someone to go an extra step above you. I'm not sure why anyone thinks normal conversations require reams of statistical data. If that's what you want that's what you should start with. It's not like Google does not exist. If you don;t feel you need to, then you are just saying the argument is worth the effort which is something I agree with. I am perfectly OK with you thinking that any notion of bias as a norm of human behavior does not exist since your version of alternate reality doesn't affect me.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 17, 2017 12:35:24 GMT
That's probably what's happening in schools now. When something is critically challenged re whether a particular claim actually has good epistemic support, it's more or less just met with "LOL." Well, you aren't critically challenging anything or else you would simply be debating your view without expecting someone to go an extra step above you. I'm not sure why anyone thinks normal conversations require reams of statistical data. If that's what you want that's what you should start with. It's not like Google does not exist. If you don;t feel you need to, then you are just saying the argument is worth the effort which is something I agree with. I am perfectly OK with you thinking that any notion of bias as a norm of human behavior does not exist since your version of alternate reality doesn't affect me. Apparently you have a belief that people only challenge whether there's good epistemic support for a claim just in case they believe an opposite claim. That's not the case though. I don't have a view on this. You made a claim. I don't accept claims about general empirical phenomena just because someone made them. So I was asking for epistemic support of the claim. (Hopefully this is something you care about, too, but maybe not.)
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Nov 17, 2017 12:53:31 GMT
IMO diversity depends more on where people were raised and how they were brought up.
The idea that you can't have ten people in a room, all with the same skin color, and not have diversity in thought and ideas is so racist it makes me sick.
|
|