"Classical Liberals"

[laughing dog]

Is there reason to believe that current NBA teams do discriminate against white and Asian basketball players as opposed to basing their hiring and playing decisions on basketball skill and salary?

If the NBA did set racial quotas irrespective of talent, you'd presumably be okay with that.

How did society get so stupid?

Yeah, people who reject objective measures and instead cling to nebulous abstractions are not very smart. What to do?

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

 

[Trausti]

Is there reason to believe that current NBA teams do discriminate against white and Asian basketball players as opposed to basing their hiring and playing decisions on basketball skill and salary?

If the NBA did set racial quotas irrespective of talent, you'd presumably be okay with that.

How did society get so stupid?

Yeah, people who reject objective measures and instead cling to nebulous abstractions are not very smart. What to do?

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

You go get'em, ya Russia Truther.

 

[Trausti]

Is there reason to believe that current NBA teams do discriminate against white and Asian basketball players as opposed to basing their hiring and playing decisions on basketball skill and salary?

If the NBA did set racial quotas irrespective of talent, you'd presumably be okay with that.

Your ability to fling these straw men out is a true testament to your kneejerk ideology.

When properly done, AA is not about disregarding ability or talent.

That's the leftist fantasy of good AA. It's not the reality of what happens.

Saying that is so does not make true.

You've been given evidence in this very thread of different standards based on race, and still . . . (or maybe it's in the split thread, whatever)

 

[laughing dog]

Is there reason to believe that current NBA teams do discriminate against white and Asian basketball players as opposed to basing their hiring and playing decisions on basketball skill and salary?

If the NBA did set racial quotas irrespective of talent, you'd presumably be okay with that.

How did society get so stupid?

Yeah, people who reject objective measures and instead cling to nebulous abstractions are not very smart. What to do?

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

You go get'em, ya Russia Truther.

Ah, TDS rears its debilitating head.

 

[laughing dog]

Is there reason to believe that current NBA teams do discriminate against white and Asian basketball players as opposed to basing their hiring and playing decisions on basketball skill and salary?

If the NBA did set racial quotas irrespective of talent, you'd presumably be okay with that.

Your ability to fling these straw men out is a true testament to your kneejerk ideology.

When properly done, AA is not about disregarding ability or talent.

That's the leftist fantasy of good AA. It's not the reality of what happens.

Saying that is so does not make true.

You've been given evidence in this very thread of different standards based on race, and still . . . (or maybe it's in the split thread, whatever)

In this thread, I see no evidence that 1) AA sets standards regardless of talent, or 2) that AA properly done does not disregard ability or talent. Perhaps you could point to the evidence that you think supports the first or the second statement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there reason to believe that current NBA teams do discriminate against white and Asian basketball players as opposed to basing their hiring and playing decisions on basketball skill and salary?

If the NBA did set racial quotas irrespective of talent, you'd presumably be okay with that.

How did society get so stupid?

Yeah, people who reject objective measures and instead cling to nebulous abstractions are not very smart. What to do?

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

Note the objections to the SAT and ACT as "racist".

That's exactly what you're saying people don't do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In this thread, I see no evidence that 1) AA sets standards regardless of talent, or 2) that AA properly done does not disregard ability or talent. Perhaps you could point to the evidence that you think supports the first or the second statement.

2 is a strawman. Nobody has said that it disregards ability.

You want to hire 10 people. This should be:

select top 10 from applicants where ability > threshold order by ability asc;

However, what's actually happening is (assume the population is 20% black):

select top 2 from applicants where race like 'Black' order by ability asc;
select top 8 from applicants where race not like 'Black' order by ability asc;

and set the threshold to the minimum from these lists.

Note that ability does matter, it's just not the primary characteristic.

 

[laughing dog]

In this thread, I see no evidence that 1) AA sets standards regardless of talent, or 2) that AA properly done does not disregard ability or talent. Perhaps you could point to the evidence that you think supports the first or the second statement.

2 is a strawman. Nobody has said that it disregards ability.

I refer to you to your post #163.

You want to hire 10 people. This should be:

select top 10 from applicants where ability > threshold order by ability asc;

However, what's actually happening is (assume the population is 20% black):

select top 2 from applicants where race like 'Black' order by ability asc;
select top 8 from applicants where race not like 'Black' order by ability asc;

and set the threshold to the minimum from these lists.

Note that ability does matter, it's just not the primary characteristic.

Wherever I have worked, AA has not been practiced in such a manner. Everywhere I have worked, the hiring practice is to set the desired characteristics and then search more intensively to find qualified candidates from people in "protected" classes.

 

[laughing dog]

Is there reason to believe that current NBA teams do discriminate against white and Asian basketball players as opposed to basing their hiring and playing decisions on basketball skill and salary?

If the NBA did set racial quotas irrespective of talent, you'd presumably be okay with that.

How did society get so stupid?

Yeah, people who reject objective measures and instead cling to nebulous abstractions are not very smart. What to do?

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

Note the objections to the SAT and ACT as "racist".

That's exactly what you're saying people don't do.

You are mistaken on multiple levels. First, I specifically said "most" people. Second, to put it politely, the notion that the SAT or the ACT is a truly objective measure is debatable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wherever I have worked, AA has not been practiced in such a manner. Everywhere I have worked, the hiring practice is to set the desired characteristics and then search more intensively to find qualified candidates from people in "protected" classes.

With the internet it shouldn't require an intensive search. You post it, see who responds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

Note the objections to the SAT and ACT as "racist".

That's exactly what you're saying people don't do.

You are mistaken on multiple levels. First, I specifically said "most" people. Second, to put it politely, the notion that the SAT or the ACT is a truly objective measure is debatable.

The SAT and the like are the closest to objective measurements we have. They're just being attacked in a case of shoot-the-messenger.

 

[Tigers!]

Wherever I have worked, AA has not been practiced in such a manner. Everywhere I have worked, the hiring practice is to set the desired characteristics and then search more intensively to find qualified candidates from people in "protected" classes.

Does "desired characteristics" = "protected classes."? Whilst I desire the aim of AA (it took me a while to work out that AA = Affirmative Action not Alcoholics Anonymous), when you speak of protected classes you are continuing discrimination, just now on other classes.
I do not know how to square that circle, protect without discrimination.

 

[laughing dog]

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

Note the objections to the SAT and ACT as "racist".

That's exactly what you're saying people don't do.

You are mistaken on multiple levels. First, I specifically said "most" people. Second, to put it politely, the notion that the SAT or the ACT is a truly objective measure is debatable.

The SAT and the like are the closest to objective measurements we have.

Which means they are not objective measures.

 

[laughing dog]

Wherever I have worked, AA has not been practiced in such a manner. Everywhere I have worked, the hiring practice is to set the desired characteristics and then search more intensively to find qualified candidates from people in "protected" classes.

Does "desired characteristics" = "protected classes."?

No. Which makes the rest of your comment moot.

 

[laughing dog]

Wherever I have worked, AA has not been practiced in such a manner. Everywhere I have worked, the hiring practice is to set the desired characteristics and then search more intensively to find qualified candidates from people in "protected" classes.

With the internet it shouldn't require an intensive search. You post it, see who responds.

You really have no clue what you are talking about. Posting on internet does not mean that everyone will see it. You need to post or advertise openings where people are likely to see it.

 

[Enigma]

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

Note the objections to the SAT and ACT as "racist".

That's exactly what you're saying people don't do.

You are mistaken on multiple levels. First, I specifically said "most" people. Second, to put it politely, the notion that the SAT or the ACT is a truly objective measure is debatable.

The SAT and the like are the closest to objective measurements we have.

Which means they are not objective measures.

What exactly do you consider to be "true objective measures"?

Surely you have some examples you could point at if you are willing to make statements about what people do or don't do with them.

 

[laughing dog]

Most people do not reject true objective measures. Of course, there are people embrace subjective measures as "objective" in order to support or impose their ideological biases, You know, like Trump supporters.

Note the objections to the SAT and ACT as "racist".

That's exactly what you're saying people don't do.

You are mistaken on multiple levels. First, I specifically said "most" people. Second, to put it politely, the notion that the SAT or the ACT is a truly objective measure is debatable.

The SAT and the like are the closest to objective measurements we have.

Which means they are not objective measures.

What exactly do you consider to be "true objective measures"?

In terms of testing general intelligence or general educational aptitude, I don't think there are true objective measures.

Surely you have some examples you could point at if you are willing to make statements about what people do or don't do with them.

Examples of what sorts of "true objective measures"?

 

[Enigma]

What exactly do you consider to be "true objective measures"?

In terms of testing general intelligence or general educational aptitude, I don't think there are true objective measures.

Surely you have some examples you could point at if you are willing to make statements about what people do or don't do with them.

Examples of what sorts of "true objective measures"?

At this point, I'll settle for any examples you have of what constitutes a "true objective measure".

I'm trying to work out whether this statement:

Most people do not reject true objective measures.

...is an indication you consider objective measures to be real things that exist but only consider certain ones to be "true" objective measures (i.e. objective measures are like Scotsmen) or just you having fun with making vacuously true statements.

 

[laughing dog]

What exactly do you consider to be "true objective measures"?

In terms of testing general intelligence or general educational aptitude, I don't think there are true objective measures.

Surely you have some examples you could point at if you are willing to make statements about what people do or don't do with them.

Examples of what sorts of "true objective measures"?

At this point, I'll settle for any examples you have of what constitutes a "true objective measure".

I'm trying to work out whether this statement:

Most people do not reject true objective measures.

...is an indication you consider objective measures to be real things that exist but only consider certain ones to be "true" objective measures (i.e. objective measures are like Scotsmen) or just you having fun with making vacuously true statements.

I think objective measures exist. Something a centimeter long is objectively one centimeter long.

I leave having fun with vacuously true statements to others.

 

[bilby]

Something a centimeter long is objectively one centimeter long

Not according to Einstein, Lorentz and Fitzgerald.

Length is dependent upon the motion of an object relative to the observer(s).

/nitpick