Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 07, 2023, 01:46:26 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 07, 2023, 01:24:35 PM

it's not
saying black people are by nature poor and arent' smart enough for tutors or know how to spend their money properly is racism.
there's a difference between acknowleding people are in a generalized predicment vs because they deserve their predicament.

It is racism.
There is a difference between saying a group on average is poorer than another group; and saying that all members of that group deserve benefits because of the group average.

Like I said, target the actual issue, not race.
In this case, target the lack of wealth.
Why should a rich black kid be given benefits because black people on average are poor, while a much poorer white kid is discarded because white people on average are richer.
That is blatant racism and is completely unjustifiable.
Targeting the actual issue, wealth, would mean the rich black doesn't get any benefits for being black, because being black isn't the issue, just like a rich white kid with a private tutor wouldn't get benefits; while the poor black kids and poor white kids would get benefits for being poor.

i don't htink anyone is arguing that dave chappelle or shaq are poor.
or that obama or condoleezza aren't smart people.
gov't deals with big numbers.
policy is based on big numbers.
it's harder to make individualized plans on a policy level.
to benefit the 50-80% or whatever the number is and have a handful "over benefit"?
is that a problem?



and as per the old video, keeping them poor is by design.
some will get "through".

Person A & Person B

Both grew up in the same neighborhood
Both went to the same schoools
Both participated in teh same school activities
Both had the same grades.
Both have similar jobs making the same salaries.


Person A is white, Person B is black.

According to you, Person A should be doing better, and Person B should be poorer, because the system keeps the black man down.

Stop being a racist.

There are numerous black people that have started out with nothing and have become successful in life, starting businesses, becoming lawyers, doctors, etc..  They must have only gotten there because they slipped through the cracks of oppression.  They made choices and didn't just blame others for their situation.  The system didn't hold them back.

There are leaders and there are slackers and there are the middle.
We re talking about the middle whih occupy the majority under the bell curve.


Demographically speaking and in general govt big numbers - poor and black were segregated to diffeeent communities and diferent schools with differing levels of funding.
So your bad example is bad.

But if you insist on your bad example then a good example exists where 'deshaun johnson' submits a resume and background and 'sean mcdonald' sumbits the exact same resume and on average guess who gets hired.
Then you hear the racists say affirmative quotas take jobs from "qualified white man" and give them to a (un)qualified blackman.

i don't htink anyone is arguing that dave chappelle or shaq are poor.
or that obama or condoleezza aren't smart people.
gov't deals with big numbers.
policy is based on big numbers.
it's harder to make individualized plans on a policy level.
to benefit the 50-80% or whatever the number is and have a handful "over benefit"?
is that a problem?

When you are being blatantly racist, yes it is a problem.

The simple question is why target race?
It is identified that past racism has lead to other issues.
With these other issues then persisting.
However, not every black person actually suffers from those issues, nor are white people immune from that suffering.

So why not target the actual issue instead of being racist scum?

Focus on the poor people, rather than acting like if a white person is poor they deserve it and should suffer because of it, while if a black person is poor it is because of racism and they don't deserve it and should get bonus points.

But if you insist on your bad example then a good example exists where 'deshaun johnson' submits a resume and background and 'sean mcdonald' sumbits the exact same resume and on average guess who gets hired.

Well if it is just based on resumes, probably Deshuan Johnson. To make the company appear more diverse and less discriminatory.

Then you hear the racists say affirmative quotas take jobs from "qualified white man" and give them to a (un)qualified blackman.

No, we hear people who oppose racism say that, while the racists continue to defend it and pretend to not be racist and act like anyone who opposes them is racist.

Again, if you don't want to be racist scum, you stop focusing on race, and instead focus on other factors, like how wealthy their family is.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 06, 2023, 11:51:01 AM

The basic tenant is that there’s a complex set of social, cultural and historical factors that affect racial inequality.  Ie it’s not just about whether people are actively discriminated against.

And that boils down to claiming that white people are successful because they are white and black people aren't because they are black.

As I said, what it fails to do is look at other factors (or instead pretends that those other factors are intrinsically tied to race and pretending that you can target those factors by targeting race.

So yes, it is actively promoting racism.

It’s about looking at why white people are generally more successful.  It’s specifically looking at those factors and how they affect racial inequality and racism.

If it wasn't actively promoting racism, they would be targeting those other factors, not race.
For example, they would focus on socioeconomic status, where poor people, especially those that need to work to live in high school, get bonus points.
But that would allow poor white people to get bonus points while rich black people wouldn't be able to.

What “bonus points” are you talking about?

CRT is about looking into root causes of racial inequality and racism, it’s not a policy.  You seem to be confusing it with affirmative action. CRT is actually highly critical of things like affirmative action, because it reinforces notions of black people being an underclass:

Critique of liberalism

First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993 was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the U.S. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence", including affirmative action,[41] color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle.[42] Specifically, they claimed that the liberal concept of value-neutral law contributed to maintenance of the U.S.'s racially unjust social order

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Instead they take the correlation between black people on average having a lower socioeconomic status and white people having a higher socioeconomic status to pretend that all black people are poor and should get bonus points, including the rich black kids with private tutors; while also pretending white kids are privileged and can all afford private tutors and never have to work so they shouldn't get bonus points.

You seem to have heard a twisted version.

They take the correlation between black people having lower socioeconomic status and look at the reasons behind it.  No one is pretending all black people are poor and all white people are privileged.  But wealth isn’t the whole picture either.

Unless you have active discrimination against a group of people, race isn't the factor you should be looking at.
Instead you should look at other factors and target them.

So the study of causes of racial inequality should ignore race, otherwise it’s racist?  That makes no sense.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 06, 2023, 07:03:11 AM

Why do we not see you in the other bit of the forum anyway?

Because I prefer to focus more on discussions regarding the FE instead of the political or religious back and forth, and will only engage if they appear here.
But if there is a particular discussion you want me to weigh in on feel free to link it.

That was me, and not especially.  Just curious, as you’re probably the most prolific poster here and clearly have opinions on things other than flat earth.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 07, 2023, 02:42:38 PM

i don't htink anyone is arguing that dave chappelle or shaq are poor.
or that obama or condoleezza aren't smart people.
gov't deals with big numbers.
policy is based on big numbers.
it's harder to make individualized plans on a policy level.
to benefit the 50-80% or whatever the number is and have a handful "over benefit"?
is that a problem?

When you are being blatantly racist, yes it is a problem.

The simple question is why target race?
It is identified that past racism has lead to other issues.
With these other issues then persisting.
However, not every black person actually suffers from those issues, nor are white people immune from that suffering.

So why not target the actual issue instead of being racist scum?

Focus on the poor people, rather than acting like if a white person is poor they deserve it and should suffer because of it, while if a black person is poor it is because of racism and they don't deserve it and should get bonus points.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 07, 2023, 04:30:31 PM

But if you insist on your bad example then a good example exists where 'deshaun johnson' submits a resume and background and 'sean mcdonald' sumbits the exact same resume and on average guess who gets hired.

Well if it is just based on resumes, probably Deshuan Johnson. To make the company appear more diverse and less discriminatory.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 07, 2023, 04:30:31 PM

Then you hear the racists say affirmative quotas take jobs from "qualified white man" and give them to a (un)qualified blackman.

No, we hear people who oppose racism say that, while the racists continue to defend it and pretend to not be racist and act like anyone who opposes them is racist.

Again, if you don't want to be racist scum, you stop focusing on race, and instead focus on other factors, like how wealthy their family is.

We re off thread topic.

But id have to say youre now off subtopic too.

Flipflopping between the purpose of afirmative action and my ref to a study in name bias is apples oranges.

Assuming the white male is rhe only qualified individual and the black male is by nature unqualifed is racist.
Deshaundre can be both qaulified and affirmed in and if so, his only disqualification is (without bringing in personality or anyotherfactor) racism.



Poor white boy and poor black boy are singular.
The govt doesnt deal with singular.
If an entire community, from 5th St to West side avenue is policied to fail, for no other reason its filled with black peole, well thats racism.



There are other battles that focus on economics problems.
Thats the sme argument why does BLM only care about black deaths by cops when there are also white deaths?
Well
Resolving the issues over blm will resolve issues with alm.
To deflect to alm is akin to being more upset at being called racist than the actual racism.
Youre more mad about alm than the actual problem.
You would rather argue the a vs b than the validity of the complaint.

For example:   We can debate my (in)ability to type properly or we can debate the content of my claims.

It’s about looking at why white people are generally more successful.

To then ignore those reasons and instead use them as an excuse for blatant racism.

What “bonus points” are you talking about?

They exist in a variety of forms, ultimately some kind of bonus point to increase rank in a competitive selection process, like university admission, eligibility for scholarships, eligibility for promotion or being hired, and so on.

CRT is about looking into root causes of racial inequality and racism, it’s not a policy.  You seem to be confusing it with affirmative action. CRT is actually highly critical of things like affirmative action, because it reinforces notions of black people being an underclass

I notice how you look at that quote and focus on AA, while entirely ignoring the ideas of colour-blindness and the merit principle.
It also uses 2 references for affirmative action, which support affirmative action.
The actual criticism towards affirmative action is that it is too slow and ineffective.

And because there is no CRT manifesto, there are diverse attitudes among its proponents.
Some CRT proponents fully support affirmative action programs.
And those that criticise them typically do so because they find them ineffective.

Some actual quotes ( https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=lawineq ):

affirmative action "is an act of verification and of vision. It is an act of social as well as professional responsibility."

women, people of color, and the disabled "are entitled to the preferences not only to remedy past discrimination and abate the effects of today's exclusionary practices, but also to stem the tide of perpetual domination that has been the prerogative of the 'normal' white male for all too long."

And "opposing it":

affirmative action is "the latest contrivance the society has created to give blacks the sense of equality while withholding its substance."
...
Bell suggests that affirmative action policies are intended to benefit African-Americans only to the extent that their gains do not threaten or impinge on the status of whites.

So no, I don't see proponents of CRT actually saying affirmative action is racist and should be stopped.
Quite the opposite, I see them claiming that affirmative action is ineffective and more racist things need to be done.

You seem to have heard a twisted version.

No, I haven't.
I just view it through an honest lens, rather than one that ignores discrimination against white males.

They take the correlation between black people having lower socioeconomic status and look at the reasons behind it.  No one is pretending all black people are poor and all white people are privileged.  But wealth isn’t the whole picture either.

And I didn't mean that in the literal sense of actually pretending that.
Instead it uses this correlation as an excuse for why this blatant racism is needed.

So the study of causes of racial inequality should ignore race, otherwise it’s racist?

Phrasing it like that already presumes that race IS the factor. So yes, it is racist.
What you should be looking at is the cause of inequality.
And you need to consider if you are focusing on the past, which means any suggestions for change or to fix it can be entirely outdated, or if you are focusing on the present.
If you want to focus on the past, where there was significant blatant racism against black people, go ahead; just don't pretend it means we should do anything about it today.

Assuming the white male is rhe only qualified individual and the black male is by nature unqualifed is racist.

And who was doing that?

You provided an example of a qualified white person not being hired and instead an unqualified black person being hired in their place doesn't mean all black people are unqualified nor all white people are qualified.

Deshaundre can be both qaulified and affirmed in

The other issue here is that "qualified" is not a simple binary.
There are different levels.
The question is who is the better person for the job?

If it was a black person that was more qualified, they wouldn't need affirmative action to be hired.
If the black person was equally qualified, you would expect on average a random distribution of which gets hired.

Poor white boy and poor black boy are singular.

Black person and white person are singular.
Poor PEOPLE are plural.
The government can deal with the poor people, without needing to invoke blatant racism.

If an entire community, from 5th St to West side avenue is policied to fail, for no other reason its filled with black peole, well thats racism.

And is it?
Or is it that it is filled with poor people?
Assuming the sole reason it is policed to fail is because of black people is racism.

Thats the sme argument why does BLM only care about black deaths by cops when there are also white deaths?
Well
Resolving the issues over blm will resolve issues with alm.

Which in no way makes BLM any less racist.
And no, it really doesn't.

When the "issues" raised are that police are being racist and killing black people, instead of police brutality in general, it will not intrinsically address the actual issues.

Should the police be given racial sensitivity training to make them better at handling black people, or should they be given more general training of how to arrest someone without killing them?

Will it actually stop police brutality, or just police action against black people, effectively making black people a protected class which can't be touched, where a police officer will be scared to act against a black person for fear of being labelled racist while they will happily go and shoot white people?

To deflect to alm is akin to being more upset at being called racist than the actual racism.

Quite the opposite.
To object to the idea that all lives matter, and suggest people should instead focus on BLM, is being racist and being more upset at having that racism called out, than the racism you are promoting.

Youre more mad about alm than the actual problem.
You would rather argue the a vs b than the validity of the complaint.

Again, quite the opposite.
It is focusing on what the complaint should be and how to address it.

Youre swipswapping affirmative action points

1   there was a study on resumes showing favorability towards whiteywhite names

2.   The common arguement by a racist is that the affirm action gives a job to the unqalified ninorty
That inherently the minority is unqaulifed.





Policy:

Is it poor?
Is it classist?
Or is it rasicm?

Well it could be all.

But to answer 'is it racist?'
we ask 'do racists exist?'

If racists exist, can a racist run for office or hold a position of authority?

If the racist can hold a position of authority can they bend the rules?


So considering dailywire, fox, crowder, turningpoint are so well funded and one of their main msging is to convince people systemic racism doesnt exist and given they are liars, and there are people cheering desantis for rewriting black history, then i have only to believe the opposite - systemic racism exists.


And also

"Ngrngrngr"

favorbikity tiwaess whiteywhite bames

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

Hahah oh man
Ill go back and do a touch up.

Hahah oh man
Ill go back and do a touch up.

I like it better the way it is...

1   there was a study on resumes showing favorability towards whiteywhite names

Provide the study.

2.   The common arguement by a racist is that the affirm action gives a job to the unqalified ninorty
That inherently the minority is unqaulifed.

I don't give a damn what an argument by a racist opposing affirmative action would be.
I care about what the rational arguments against it are.

Would you like me to do the same for a common argument by a racist in support of affirmative action?

And those rational arguments, which are NOT racist, expose it as racist.
Those arguments do not claim that the minority is inherently unqualified, but that they are being given an unfair advantage based purely upon their race.
i.e. it is racism.

If racists exist, can a racist run for office or hold a position of authority?
If the racist can hold a position of authority can they bend the rules?

Yes, they can, and have, as we see with these blatantly racist policies.

The important thing to remember about racists (which plenty of racists declare to be false) is that racists can be for any race and against any race.
This includes being supportive of a race other than Caucasians, and includes being racists against white people.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 08, 2023, 06:12:46 AM

It’s about looking at why white people are generally more successful.

To then ignore those reasons and instead use them as an excuse for blatant racism.

So you keep saying, but a subject that specifically looks into these factors is hardly ignoring them.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 08, 2023, 06:12:46 AM

What “bonus points” are you talking about?

They exist in a variety of forms, ultimately some kind of bonus point to increase rank in a competitive selection process, like university admission, eligibility for scholarships, eligibility for promotion or being hired, and so on.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 08, 2023, 06:12:46 AM

CRT is about looking into root causes of racial inequality and racism, it’s not a policy.  You seem to be confusing it with affirmative action. CRT is actually highly critical of things like affirmative action, because it reinforces notions of black people being an underclass

I notice how you look at that quote and focus on AA, while entirely ignoring the ideas of colour-blindness and the merit principle.

Because that’s what you were talking about.

It also uses 2 references for affirmative action, which support affirmative action.
The actual criticism towards affirmative action is that it is too slow and ineffective.

And because there is no CRT manifesto, there are diverse attitudes among its proponents.
Some CRT proponents fully support affirmative action programs.
And those that criticise them typically do so because they find them ineffective.

Some actual quotes ( https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=lawineq ):

Quote

affirmative action "is an act of verification and of vision. It is an act of social as well as professional responsibility."

Quote

women, people of color, and the disabled "are entitled to the preferences not only to remedy past discrimination and abate the effects of today's exclusionary practices, but also to stem the tide of perpetual domination that has been the prerogative of the 'normal' white male for all too long."

And "opposing it":

Quote

affirmative action is "the latest contrivance the society has created to give blacks the sense of equality while withholding its substance."
...
Bell suggests that affirmative action policies are intended to benefit African-Americans only to the extent that their gains do not threaten or impinge on the status of whites.

So no, I don't see proponents of CRT actually saying affirmative action is racist and should be stopped.
Quite the opposite, I see them claiming that affirmative action is ineffective and more racist things need to be done.

Partly right.  CRT does argue that affirmative action is ineffective, along with various other measures including colour blindness.

That’s where this all started.  When the authors of the original works noted that the gap between black and white communities on average in America is as wide as it’s been since the civil rights movement.  While there is notable improvement in some metrics, on things like wealth and average earnings, it’s as bad as ever and has actually been getting worse in the last couple of decades.  Despite all the improvements on legal rights, etc.

You appear to acknowledge that there is disagreement about what could be done differently, but miss my main point which is that CRT does not set policy.  It’s mainly a study of why things are the way they are, which you then dismiss as fundamentally racist.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 08, 2023, 06:12:46 AM

You seem to have heard a twisted version.

No, I haven't.
I just view it through an honest lens, rather than one that ignores discrimination against white males.

Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 08, 2023, 06:12:46 AM

They take the correlation between black people having lower socioeconomic status and look at the reasons behind it.  No one is pretending all black people are poor and all white people are privileged.  But wealth isn’t the whole picture either.

And I didn't mean that in the literal sense of actually pretending that.
Instead it uses this correlation as an excuse for why this blatant racism is needed.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 08, 2023, 06:12:46 AM

So the study of causes of racial inequality should ignore race, otherwise it’s racist?

Phrasing it like that already presumes that race IS the factor. So yes, it is racist.
What you should be looking at is the cause of inequality.
And you need to consider if you are focusing on the past, which means any suggestions for change or to fix it can be entirely outdated, or if you are focusing on the present.
If you want to focus on the past, where there was significant blatant racism against black people, go ahead; just don't pretend it means we should do anything about it today.

The correlation is very clear, but for some reason you find it offensive to ask why.

You could perhaps argue that poor communities regards of race are poor because they’ve always been poor and the socioeconomic system keeps them poor.  You could compare that to black or Hispanic communities to see if they follow the same trend, but you appear to being saying that even looking into it is inherently racist.  It would also involve “focusing on the past” which you apparently don’t approve of either.

And there still is significant racism, both blatant and not so blatant.  Are you really suggesting it’s all been fixed and should therefore be totally ignored?

The funny thing about all this is that it’s usually the same people who support banning things like CRT who whinge about “cancel culture”  being an attack on freedom of speech.

So you keep saying, but a subject that specifically looks into these factors is hardly ignoring them.

They look into the factors, only to serve as a justification for their continued racism.

If they were doing it honestly, they would recognise these factors are the big issue currently, and try to address them, rather than pretending it is racism that is the problem.

Partly right.  CRT does argue that affirmative action is ineffective, along with various other measures including colour blindness.

But typically it will not oppose it.
That is different to other things, like the merit principle and colour blindness which they do oppose as claiming it further promotes the racial divide.

That’s where this all started.  When the authors of the original works noted that the gap between black and white communities on average in America is as wide as it’s been since the civil rights movement.  While there is notable improvement in some metrics, on things like wealth and average earnings, it’s as bad as ever and has actually been getting worse in the last couple of decades.  Despite all the improvements on legal rights, etc.

You appear to acknowledge that there is disagreement about what could be done differently, but miss my main point which is that CRT does not set policy.  It’s mainly a study of why things are the way they are, which you then dismiss as fundamentally racist.

As if the blatantly racist policies which don't actually address the issue which is causing the problem wont help fix the problem.

As for not setting policy, that is true, but they do make suggestions, such as trying to make AA far more effective.

Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?

That is the typical, racist, sexist response.
The only way you can say that is if your be a racist and group together all white people in society, and be sexist to group the males together in that group.

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

The correlation is very clear, but for some reason you find it offensive to ask why.

No, I say it is offensive and discriminatory to pretend that that correlation means it is still active racism today causing it.

You could perhaps argue that poor communities regards of race are poor because they’ve always been poor and the socioeconomic system keeps them poor.  You could compare that to black or Hispanic communities to see if they follow the same trend, but you appear to being saying that even looking into it is inherently racist.  It would also involve “focusing on the past” which you apparently don’t approve of either.

No, merely looking into it is not inherently racist. But that is not what CRT is doing.
I'm also not opposed to looking at the past, the issue is when you try to say what is happening in the past is still what is happening now, so the same causes should be addressed.
If you start with the idea that race is the current causative factor, and look in the past for excuses to justify that being the cause, while ignoring the cause in the present, it is racist.

And there still is significant racism, both blatant and not so blatant.

And that blatant racism goes in all directions.
And I see far more of it going against white people than going against black people (or other minorities).

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 09, 2023, 11:46:24 AM

Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?

That is the typical, racist, sexist response.
The only way you can say that is if your be a racist and group together all white people in society, and be sexist to group the males together in that group.

LOL

YOU grouped those demographics together when you said this:

I just view it through an honest lens, rather than one that ignores discrimination against white males.

So I guess that makes you sexist and racist by your own standards.

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

And you accuse me of this?  Fuck off.

And I see far more of it going against white people than going against black people (or other minorities).

Given your responses, I’m not surprised you see racism against white people everywhere (as well sexism against males). 

YOU grouped those demographics together when you said this:

There you go ignoring context again.
I'm not saying that because the group on average is not the most disadvantaged that individual members of the group can't be disadvantaged.

An individual white male can be severely disadvantaged. But you don't care if people are racist and sexist against this disadvantaged person to keep them disadvantaged or make them more disadvantaged.

And you accuse me of this?  Fuck off.
Given your responses, I’m not surprised you see racism against white people everywhere (as well sexism against males).

You mean because I am sane and don't just ignore parts of reality I don't like?
There are countless examples of such racism and sexism.

Given your response, I take it you are a racist and a sexist that wants to ignore this, because you don't care about white people or males being disadvantaged because of their race or sex.

I take it you wouldn't have any issues with an event like the following cancelled event:
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/11/15/gettysburg-postpones-event-critical-%E2%80%98white-cis-men%E2%80%99

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 10, 2023, 04:14:12 AM

YOU grouped those demographics together when you said this:

There you go ignoring context again.
I'm not saying that because the group on average is not the most disadvantaged that individual members of the group can't be disadvantaged.

An individual white male can be severely disadvantaged. But you don't care if people are racist and sexist against this disadvantaged person to keep them disadvantaged or make them more disadvantaged.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 10, 2023, 04:14:12 AM

And you accuse me of this?  Fuck off.
Given your responses, I’m not surprised you see racism against white people everywhere (as well sexism against males).

You mean because I am sane and don't just ignore parts of reality I don't like?
There are countless examples of such racism and sexism.

Given your response, I take it you are a racist and a sexist that wants to ignore this, because you don't care about white people or males being disadvantaged because of their race or sex.

I take it you wouldn't have any issues with an event like the following cancelled event:
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/11/15/gettysburg-postpones-event-critical-%E2%80%98white-cis-men%E2%80%99

Right, because it’s totally rational to think you get to tell me who or what I care about?  I am the sole authority on that particular subject.  Of course we’ve been on similar ground before on what I believe, and now you’ve upped the ante.  Did you think you “won” those arguments when I got tired of your shit and stopped posting?

But why stop now?  Tell me what I think of that event, why don’t you?  You know me soooo well. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 08, 2023, 05:31:38 PM

1   there was a study on resumes showing favorability towards whiteywhite names

Provide the study.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 08, 2023, 05:31:38 PM

2.   The common arguement by a racist is that the affirm action gives a job to the unqalified ninorty
That inherently the minority is unqaulifed.

I don't give a damn what an argument by a racist opposing affirmative action would be.
I care about what the rational arguments against it are.

Would you like me to do the same for a common argument by a racist in support of affirmative action?

And those rational arguments, which are NOT racist, expose it as racist.
Those arguments do not claim that the minority is inherently unqualified, but that they are being given an unfair advantage based purely upon their race.
i.e. it is racism.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 08, 2023, 05:31:38 PM

If racists exist, can a racist run for office or hold a position of authority?
If the racist can hold a position of authority can they bend the rules?

Yes, they can, and have, as we see with these blatantly racist policies.

The important thing to remember about racists (which plenty of racists declare to be false) is that racists can be for any race and against any race.
This includes being supportive of a race other than Caucasians, and includes being racists against white people.

1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-applicants-with-black-names-still-less-likely-to-get-the-interview

Google the prhase "black name resume study"

Apparently they do this test every couple years so its well trended.







2.
We ll have to agree to disagree.
But remeber this guy?
Last time me and you discussed affirmative action this guy hapoenstanced to be in the news amd we both agreed with each other and with him.

Except you thought (still think) the policy is dumb where as i thought the admin adminisitering the policy was acting like a dumbass robot.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/minority-professor-denied-grants-because-he-hires-on-merit-people-are-afraid-to-think









3.
Every population has a typical distribution of sucessors, average, and bums.

And every will have the victim cryers and the victim deniers and the average no cares.

And there are women who wont get assualted, get assaulted and lie about assults.

Sounds like we re im agreement the racism exists.

It where we disagree is that where it is applied.
Life is grey.
Not every instance is racist and not every isntance is not racist.

Racism like a dog that bites.
When its a chiauua no one cares.
When its a 100lb dog then we should care.
When its a majority overbearing on a minoroty we should care.

The racer bater from the bottom who cries black victim this black victim that is ignored and should be ignored.

But punching down is differnet
Reverse racism does happen.
But claiming basic equalizing methods are as bad as systemic racism well.... thats just silly


equally eacist but unequally in power are different things as seen in reverse genocidic israel and the reverse aparteid south africa.




Skip to 7:59 for that kids face when asked about his home.

Right, because it’s totally rational to think you get to tell me who or what I care about?  I am the sole authority on that particular subject.  Of course we’ve been on similar ground before on what I believe, and now you’ve upped the ante.  Did you think you “won” those arguments when I got tired of your shit and stopped posting?

No, I "won" those arguments, as you were incapable of refuting my position nor defending yours.
You just got upset and but hurt and need to dismiss it as shit, to pretend you are tired of it.

Just like how now you need to run and deflect because you can't address the issue.

Discrimination against a white person because they are white is racism.
Discrimination against a male because they are male is sexism.

Dismissing that sexism and racism because stereotypically white males are successful is racist and sexist.

1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/job-applicants-with-black-names-still-less-likely-to-get-the-interview

I asked for the study, not a news website.
If you had that website, and bothered spending more than 5 seconds, it wouldn't be hard for you to provide the study itself.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29053/w29053.pdf

I find their null hypothesis blatantly racist:
"we cannot reject the null hypothesis that all 108 firms in our experiment weakly favor white names"
The null hypothesis should be that there is no discrimination, and they need evidence to show that is not the case.
Otherwise, you can just say that the effect was too small to be picked up by the survey, so of course they wont be able to reject that null hypothesis.

They sent 83,000 applications and had a 24% response rate, with 2.1 pp reduction for black people, with a standard deviation across companies of 1.9 pp for the gap.
So the gap is quite close to 1 standard deviation, and with some firms favouring black names.

And they end up with 23 of the 108 firms being shown to discriminate, with a 5% error rate. And of these, they are significant variations in industry. e.g. a lot come from the auto dealer industry, with one having a difference of 9.5 pp.

And it also suffers from selection bias with how they have chosen their companies to look at, and possible issues with the applicant pool not matching the population.
And the biggest that it is just the first step of the application process where it is halted, and it is just names.
(Some names did quite badly, e.g. Geoffrey did the third worst, maybe because they were such a crappy spoilt king).

2.
We ll have to agree to disagree.
But remeber this guy?
Last time me and you discussed affirmative action this guy hapoenstanced to be in the news amd we both agreed with each other and with him.

Except you thought (still think) the policy is dumb where as i thought the admin adminisitering the policy was acting like a dumbass robot.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/minority-professor-denied-grants-because-he-hires-on-merit-people-are-afraid-to-think

I don't remember the discussion, but I remember the story.
Yes, the policy is incredibly stupid, but the admin person is meant to act as a robot.
Allowing an exception to the policy for a "minority" person would be blatant racism and should not be permitted.
If you think the policy is good, then you should be happy this person didn't get a grant. You shouldn't change your mind because the policy served to disadvantage a "minority" person.

Racism like a dog that bites.
When its a chiauua no one cares.
When its a 100lb dog then we should care.
When its a majority overbearing on a minoroty we should care.

People do care when they are bitten by a chihuahua.
When it is racism we should care, regardless of who is the victim.

But claiming basic equalizing methods are as bad as systemic racism well.... thats just silly

"equalising" methods which target race, rather than the actual issue, are just as bad as systemic racism, as they are a form of systemic racism.
They also typically don't help, as we have already seen.
And one likely contributing factor is that the people they help the most are the ones that don't need it as much. i.e. people quite close to being qualified for whatever they are applying for, but just failing.

Skip to 7:59 for that kids face when asked about his home.

Not available in my country.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 10, 2023, 03:12:10 PM

Right, because it’s totally rational to think you get to tell me who or what I care about?  I am the sole authority on that particular subject.  Of course we’ve been on similar ground before on what I believe, and now you’ve upped the ante.  Did you think you “won” those arguments when I got tired of your shit and stopped posting?

No, I "won" those arguments, as you were incapable of refuting my position nor defending yours.
You just got upset and but hurt and need to dismiss it as shit, to pretend you are tired of it.

We’re not talking about my position vs yours.  We’re talking about what you claim my position is vs my actual position.  It doesn’t  matter how good you think your arguments are or even how poor you think mine are, you lose by default. 

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

Just like how now you need to run and deflect because you can't address the issue.

I was happily discussing the issues. It went to shit the moment you started throwing bullshit accusations at me.

This is not a defection.  You made it very fucking personal.  If you wish to correct your mistake we can maybe have a civilized discussion on the issues again.  Not before.

PS Other times I “run” when we are just going round in circles or I have other shit to do in my life.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 10, 2023, 10:44:46 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 10, 2023, 03:12:10 PM

Right, because it’s totally rational to think you get to tell me who or what I care about?  I am the sole authority on that particular subject.  Of course we’ve been on similar ground before on what I believe, and now you’ve upped the ante.  Did you think you “won” those arguments when I got tired of your shit and stopped posting?

No, I "won" those arguments, as you were incapable of refuting my position nor defending yours.
You just got upset and but hurt and need to dismiss it as shit, to pretend you are tired of it.

We’re not talking about my position vs yours.  We’re talking about what you claim my position is vs my actual position.  It doesn’t  matter how good you think your arguments are or even how poor you think mine are, you lose by default. 

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

Quote

Just like how now you need to run and deflect because you can't address the issue.

I was happily discussing the issues. It went to shit the moment you started throwing bullshit accusations at me.

This is not a defection.  You made it very fucking personal.  If you wish to correct your mistake we can maybe have a civilized discussion on the issues again.  Not before.

PS Other times I “run” when we are just going round in circles or I have other shit to do in my life.

The closest it got to making it personal against you, and accusing you of things, before you deflected from the issues, was this:

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 09, 2023, 11:46:24 AM

Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?

That is the typical, racist, sexist response.
The only way you can say that is if your be a racist and group together all white people in society, and be sexist to group the males together in that group.

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

And the thing you took to be an accusation was the racist not giving a damn.
So if you think that is describing you, you are just calling yourself a racist.

And if you support policies which discriminate against people on the basis of their race, including by defending them, then you are racist.

So just what mistake should I be correcting?

Are you going to say that you accept that discriminating on the basis of race, even if it is against white people, is still racism?
Or that you do not support such racism against white people?

If you do support such racism, just what am I meant to be correcting?

Or do you mean your more general claim of not caring about disadvantaged white males?
Because if you bothered paying attention to what I said, you would notice the part I have emphasised above with bold, and this part of the following quote:

don't care about white people or males being disadvantaged because of their race or sex.

So again, just what am I meant to be correcting?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 01:14:46 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 10, 2023, 10:44:46 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 10, 2023, 03:12:10 PM

Right, because it’s totally rational to think you get to tell me who or what I care about?  I am the sole authority on that particular subject.  Of course we’ve been on similar ground before on what I believe, and now you’ve upped the ante.  Did you think you “won” those arguments when I got tired of your shit and stopped posting?

No, I "won" those arguments, as you were incapable of refuting my position nor defending yours.
You just got upset and but hurt and need to dismiss it as shit, to pretend you are tired of it.

We’re not talking about my position vs yours.  We’re talking about what you claim my position is vs my actual position.  It doesn’t  matter how good you think your arguments are or even how poor you think mine are, you lose by default. 

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

Quote

Just like how now you need to run and deflect because you can't address the issue.

I was happily discussing the issues. It went to shit the moment you started throwing bullshit accusations at me.

This is not a defection.  You made it very fucking personal.  If you wish to correct your mistake we can maybe have a civilized discussion on the issues again.  Not before.

PS Other times I “run” when we are just going round in circles or I have other shit to do in my life.

The closest it got to making it personal against you, and accusing you of things, before you deflected from the issues, was this:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 09, 2023, 12:53:35 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 09, 2023, 11:46:24 AM

Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?

That is the typical, racist, sexist response.
The only way you can say that is if your be a racist and group together all white people in society, and be sexist to group the males together in that group.

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

And the thing you took to be an accusation was the racist not giving a damn.
So if you think that is describing you, you are just calling yourself a racist.

Nice try.  You started with saying I was being racist and sexist and then said the racist doesn’t give a damn.  And just to confirm that you were actually talking about me, you followed up with:

An individual white male can be severely disadvantaged. But you don't care if people are racist and sexist against this disadvantaged person to keep them disadvantaged or make them more disadvantaged.

And if you support policies which discriminate against people on the basis of their race, including by defending them, then you are racist.

Do I?  Or did you assume it?

So just what mistake should I be correcting?

That you make wild and insulting assumptions about people you don’t know and then continue to insist on being right even after being corrected.

Are you going to say that you accept that discriminating on the basis of race, even if it is against white people, is still racism?
Or that you do not support such racism against white people?

Maybe should have asked this question before calling me a racist?

If you do support such racism, just what am I meant to be correcting?

Your wild and insulting assumptions.

Or do you mean your more general claim of not caring about disadvantaged white males?
Because if you bothered paying attention to what I said, you would notice the part I have emphasised above with bold, and this part of the following quote:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 10, 2023, 01:12:41 PM

don't care about white people or males being disadvantaged because of their race or sex.

So again, just what am I meant to be correcting?

Your wild and insulting assumptions.

Nice try.

Not really, it is just going based upon your own posts:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 09, 2023, 12:53:35 PM

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

And you accuse me of this?  Fuck off.

The quote of mine you are focusing on comes after you deflected from the issue, so that clearly can't be the reason.

I pointed out your response follows the typical racist, sexist response; of just dismissing any discrimination against white males because they aren't "disadvantaged"; as if plenty of white males being rich and powerful should mean you can be discriminatory towards other white people, on the basis of their race, without being racist.

Then only after your response, further dismissing this racism and sexism against whites and males that I said that line.
So it clearly isn't the reason for your deflection.
Try again.

And if you really want to object to that line that came after, if you actually cared, why just dismiss it as "Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?".
And why follow it up by telling me to fuck off, instead of even attempting to clarify that you see such racism (and sexism) as bad?

Do I?  Or did you assume it?

Your post history indicates that you do.
I concluded it based upon your actions.
Including you still not explicitly confirming that such actions would be racist and should not be allowed.

That you make wild and insulting assumptions about people you don’t know and then continue to insist on being right even after being corrected.

I am yet to see the correction.
If you think you have provided such a correction, then please provide a quote for it.

Maybe should have asked this question before calling me a racist?

And notice that you still don't answer?

Your wild and insulting assumptions.

Not assumptions, conclusions based upon your actions.
Until I get an explicit correction to what has led to these, I see no mistake.
With each post you make, avoiding any kind of explicit correction and instead just clinging to being offended you just further support these conclusions.

You misrepresented CRT as if it was critical of affirmative action because it is racist, when instead the criticism mainly focuses on it being ineffective and that more should be done to promote black people.
When I pointed out that I am viewing it through an honest lens which doesn't ignore discrimination against white people, you just dismiss it as if white people aren't disadvantaged, rather than even attempting to focus on the discussion of if CRT does promote racism against white people (such as by calling for more drastic measures like AA, which would further discriminate).
When I indicated that is the typical racist and sexist response, you just use it as an excuse to further ignore the issue and get offended.
And now when asked simple questions which you could easily use to clarify your position, you refuse to answer.

All of this when examined honestly and rationally leads to the conclusion that you do not care about racism against white people, and you support it due to your defence of such racist policies (and likely that you don't care about sexism against males, but that it only tangentially related to this thread); which in turn leads to the conclusion that you are racist against white people.

If you think this conclusion is incorrect, then feel free to correct it, such as by explicitly stating that practices which disadvantage white people on the basis of their race are racist in nature and that you do not support such racist practices.

Otherwise, you are just showing offence to being called out for your racism, without actually providing any correction.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 03:12:05 AM

Nice try.

Not really, it is just going based upon your own posts:

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 10, 2023, 04:14:12 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 09, 2023, 12:53:35 PM

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

And you accuse me of this?  Fuck off.

The quote of mine you are focusing on comes after you deflected from the issue, so that clearly can't be the reason.

I pointed out your response follows the typical racist, sexist response; of just dismissing any discrimination against white males because they aren't "disadvantaged"; as if plenty of white males being rich and powerful should mean you can be discriminatory towards other white people, on the basis of their race, without being racist.

Then only after your response, further dismissing this racism and sexism against whites and males that I said that line.
So it clearly isn't the reason for your deflection.

It really was the reason.  Didn’t take a whole lot for the accusations of racism and sexism to come out, did it?

It’s not always “deflection” when people say something you don’t agree with. 

And if you really want to object to that line that came after, if you actually cared, why just dismiss it as "Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?".
And why follow it up by telling me to fuck off, instead of even attempting to clarify that you see such racism (and sexism) as bad?

You insulted me, I told you to fuck off.  Simple.

You want clarification, maybe change your approach.  Start by admitting that you’ve made a whole lot of assumptions based on a few words on a complicated subject.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 03:12:05 AM

Do I?  Or did you assume it?

Your post history indicates that you do.
I concluded it based upon your actions.
Including you still not explicitly confirming that such actions would be racist and should not be allowed.

But strangely not the part where I explicitly told you that you are WRONG about what I think.  Why is that not factoring into your detective work, Columbo?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 03:12:05 AM

That you make wild and insulting assumptions about people you don’t know and then continue to insist on being right even after being corrected.

I am yet to see the correction.
If you think you have provided such a correction, then please provide a quote for it.

Sure:

We’re not talking about my position vs yours.  We’re talking about what you claim my position is vs my actual position.  It doesn’t  matter how good you think your arguments are or even how poor you think mine are, you lose by default. 

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 03:12:05 AM

Maybe should have asked this question before calling me a racist?

And notice that you still don't answer?

And nor will I until you acknowledge your assumptions about me.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 03:12:05 AM

Your wild and insulting assumptions.

Not assumptions, conclusions based upon your actions.
Until I get an explicit correction to what has led to these, I see no mistake.
With each post you make, avoiding any kind of explicit correction and instead just clinging to being offended you just further support these conclusions.

OK then, your conclusions are wrong. 

You misrepresented CRT as if it was critical of affirmative action because it is racist, when instead the criticism mainly focuses on it being ineffective and that more should be done to promote black people.
When I pointed out that I am viewing it through an honest lens which doesn't ignore discrimination against white people, you just dismiss it as if white people aren't disadvantaged, rather than even attempting to focus on the discussion of if CRT does promote racism against white people (such as by calling for more drastic measures like AA, which would further discriminate).
When I indicated that is the typical racist and sexist response, you just use it as an excuse to further ignore the issue and get offended.
And now when asked simple questions which you could easily use to clarify your position, you refuse to answer.

All of this when examined honestly and rationally leads to the conclusion that you do not care about racism against white people, and you support it due to your defence of such racist policies (and likely that you don't care about sexism against males, but that it only tangentially related to this thread); which in turn leads to the conclusion that you are racist against white people.

If you think this conclusion is incorrect, then feel free to correct it, such as by explicitly stating that practices which disadvantage white people on the basis of their race are racist in nature and that you do not support such racist practices.

Otherwise, you are just showing offence to being called out for your racism, without actually providing any correction.

Such lengthy rationalization, as expected.  I’ve told you that’s not what I think, therefore your honest and rational conclusion about me is wrong.

I will clarify my position once you deal with the fact that you jumped to accusations of racism and sexism at the drop of a hat.

It really was the reason.  Didn’t take a whole lot for the accusations of racism and sexism to come out, did it?

How could it possibly be the reason, if it was done after you deflected?
Are you saying you could see the future and know what I would post, so you decided to take it personal before the accusation was even made?

It’s not always “deflection” when people say something you don’t agree with.

And where did I ever indicate anything of the sort.

This was a discussion on CRT and how racist it was.
But instead of discussing that, you decided to take offense to me calling out your dismissal as matching that of racists, and choose to focus on that rather than CRT.
That is deflection.
You are using a perceived attack to deflect from the issue that was being discussed.

That is deflection.

And your comment which led to that was a deflection itself.
Instead of discussing the issue, you just dismiss it with a sarcastic remark about white people not being disadvantaged.

You insulted me, I told you to fuck off.  Simple.

No, I didn't insult you.
I pointed out your response matched that of racists and sexists, and explained the position of such racists and sexists.
If that position matches yours, then you are racist and sexist, and labelling you as that is not an insult.

You want clarification, maybe change your approach.  Start by admitting that you’ve made a whole lot of assumptions based on a few words on a complicated subject.

Why would I admit to such delusional BS?
If you want an apology or anything of the like, then perhaps you should change your approach?
Instead of getting offended when it is pointed out your response matches that of racists and sexists, you could clarify what your position is.
But you don't want to. I wonder why?

But strangely not the part where I explicitly told you that you are WRONG about what I think.

You mean where you claimed I was wrong about something I never claimed?
Just where did I claim you don't care about disadvantaged white males?
No where.

Instead, I said the racist thinks that if they suffer because they are white the deserve it; and later said that you don't care if people are racist and sexist to this disadvantaged person.

Not caring about disadvantaged white males is fundamentally different to not caring about racism and sexism which serves to disadvantage said white male.

So no correction, and no saying what I have actually claimed is wrong.
Instead, you set up a strawman and attacked that.

So still waiting for a quote on that correction.
Try not to use a straw man this time.

And nor will I until you acknowledge your assumptions about me.
OK then, your conclusions are wrong.

Again, not assumptions, conclusions.
Until you explicitly correct them, I will be sticking to those, as that what the evidence supports, and your continued refusal to correct them further supports the conclusions.

If you think my conclusions are wrong, explain why, and provide a correction.

I will clarify my position once you deal with the fact that you jumped to accusations of racism and sexism at the drop of a hat.

No, I didn't.
I pointed out how your response mirrors that of racists and sexists, which you then took as an accusation, quite strongly, with a reaction far too drastic for someone who was being falsely accused.
And there was also your comments prior to that (and subsequent actions), which collectively paints the picture that you do not care about racism against white people.

Until I get something that actually shows the conclusions are wrong (and not merely that you dislike them), I will stick to them.
The simplest way would be an explicit statement from you saying that you think that practices which disadvantage white people on the basis of their race are racist in nature and that you do not support such racist practices.

How did we go from Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity to CRT is good or bad & institutional racism exists or it doesn't?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 04:02:37 PM

It really was the reason.  Didn’t take a whole lot for the accusations of racism and sexism to come out, did it?

How could it possibly be the reason, if it was done after you deflected?
Are you saying you could see the future and know what I would post, so you decided to take it personal before the accusation was even made?

Nothing I said before your insults was deflection.

You mean where you claimed I was wrong about something I never claimed?
Just where did I claim you don't care about disadvantaged white males?
No where.

Here:

An individual white male can be severely disadvantaged. But you don't care if people are racist and sexist against this disadvantaged person to keep them disadvantaged or make them more disadvantaged.

I removed everything else so you can’t ignore it again.

Nothing I said before your insults was deflection.

In order for that to be the case, you need to have taken this as an insult:

That is the typical, racist, sexist response.
The only way you can say that is if your be a racist and group together all white people in society, and be sexist to group the males together in that group.

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

But there really is no way for that to be considered an insult.
You would need to agree with what is being described to consider that calling you racist, and if you do agree, then you are racist.

But more importantly, that was after this quote of yours:

Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?

That is you deflecting from the issue of racism against white people.

Here:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 10, 2023, 01:12:41 PM

An individual white male can be severely disadvantaged. But you don't care if people are racist and sexist against this disadvantaged person to keep them disadvantaged or make them more disadvantaged.

No, not there.
As you are yet to say you care about racist and sexist against disadvantaged while males.
Again, this is your "correction":

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

I never said that you don't care about disadvantaged white males.
I said you don't care about racism and sexism against them.
Fundamentally different.

So your correction still fails.
And now your attempt at showing where I said something has failed.

Try again.

I removed everything else so you can’t ignore it again.

Is now the part where I demand you apologise for lying about me?
I haven't ignored anything.
I explicitly dealt with that strawman in the last post:

Not caring about disadvantaged white males is fundamentally different to not caring about racism and sexism which serves to disadvantage said white male.

So no correction, and no saying what I have actually claimed is wrong.
Instead, you set up a strawman and attacked that.

Care to try again, but be more honest this time?
Or just do the sane thing and either admit you don't care about racism against white people, or be explicit and state that you think that practices which disadvantage white people on the basis of their race are racist in nature and that you do not support such racist practices.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 12:36:59 AM

Nothing I said before your insults was deflection.

In order for that to be the case, you need to have taken this as an insult:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 09, 2023, 12:53:35 PM

That is the typical, racist, sexist response.
The only way you can say that is if your be a racist and group together all white people in society, and be sexist to group the males together in that group.

If instead you look at it on an individual level, white males can be severely disadvantaged.
But the racist doesn't give a damn. They think they are white so who gives a shit, being white makes them privileged, so if they suffer because they are white, they deserve it.
And the sexist says the same about men.

But there really is no way for that to be considered an insult.
You would need to agree with what is being described to consider that calling you racist, and if you do agree, then you are racist.

Or that you were already basically calling me a racist in the proceeding sentence, perhaps?

But more importantly, that was after this quote of yours:

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 09, 2023, 11:46:24 AM

Clearly the most disadvantaged members of society, right?

That is you deflecting from the issue of racism against white people.

OK, OK, I’ll explain this one.

You were saying that CRT ignored discrimination against white males.

But where did CRT start?  What is the basic question that CRT is examining?

Basically “Why has the gap between black and white demographics not closed since the civil rights movement (now over 50 years ago), despite all the apparent progress on equality, legal rights, etc?”

Is the answer to that question because of discrimination against white males?  Seems highly unlikely to me.

That’s why I gave it a sarcastic response.  Not because discrimination against white males doesn’t happen and not because I think it’s fine.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 12:36:59 AM

Here:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 10, 2023, 01:12:41 PM

An individual white male can be severely disadvantaged. But you don't care if people are racist and sexist against this disadvantaged person to keep them disadvantaged or make them more disadvantaged.

No, not there.
As you are yet to say you care about racist and sexist against disadvantaged while males.
Again, this is your "correction":

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 11, 2023, 01:14:46 AM

You claim I don’t care about disadvantaged white males.  You are WRONG and doesn’t matter how much you insist you are right.

I never said that you don't care about disadvantaged white males.
I said you don't care about racism and sexism against them.
Fundamentally different.

So your correction still fails.
And now your attempt at showing where I said something has failed.

Try again.

It’s still wrong and you still think you get to tell me who and what I care about.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 12, 2023, 12:36:59 AM

I removed everything else so you can’t ignore it again.

Is now the part where I demand you apologise for lying about me?
I haven't ignored anything.
I explicitly dealt with that strawman in the last post:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 11, 2023, 11:32:36 PM

Not caring about disadvantaged white males is fundamentally different to not caring about racism and sexism which serves to disadvantage said white male.

So no correction, and no saying what I have actually claimed is wrong.
Instead, you set up a strawman and attacked that.

May I remind you that all this is your claims about what I think. 

It’s fascinating that you think I’m the one lying about you and inventing strawmen. 

Care to try again, but be more honest this time?
Or just do the sane thing and either admit you don't care about racism against white people, or be explicit and state that you think that practices which disadvantage white people on the basis of their race are racist in nature and that you do not support such racist practices.

I give up.  You’re clearly not going to acknowledge how bonkers it is to argue with me about what I think, based on your interpretation of a few lines of text. 

So here goes:

I do NOT support policies such as affirmative action that discriminate  based on race.  It’s not actually legal where I live, and I think that’s right. 

It is of course much harder to identify and enforce racial discrimination based on personal prejudice, which is also illegal.

So based on this new information are you going to revise your “conclusions” about me?