Discrimination -- the reality

[TomC]

Oh, I knew who Trump was decades before he decided to play politics. I still struggle with the reality of who his supporters are. Sigh.

You're more culturally literate than I am.

Prior to his presidential candidacy, I barely remembered him as a character from an old Simpson's episode. Where Lisa is elected president and has to clean up the mess he left.
Tom

 

[bilby]

The reality is that almost all hiring boils down to trying to choose the best candidate, from a shortlist of candidates all of whom have an equal probability of being the best.

HR departments hate to admit it, but picking the best candidate is impossible. You can weed out the people who are very obviously unsuitable, but having done that, the opportunity to optimise the final choice is gone.

All you can do to pick between apparently equally skilled candidates is cross your fingers and hope that the one you finally favour is as good at doing whatever role your are hiring for, as they are at bullshitting their way through a hiring process - a pair of disparate skills that are rarely correlated in any way.

What usually happens, consciously or unconsciously, is that people hire people who are most like themselves. Which is a big obstacle for anyone who's not much like the typical company owner or senior manager.

If you get to the point where it's a choice between you and one other person, the question of which is the better person for the job is utterly meaningless. The issue then is whether the arbitrary decision between you is made on a purely random basis (which is fair and reasonable), or on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic such as skin colour, ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, age, etc., etc., (which isn't fair or reasonable).

And when we see that most successful applicants from this very small pool of otherwise indistinguishable, fully qualified, applicants are male, white, heterosexual, etc., then despite Loren Pechtel's protestations to the contrary, we can be sure that disparities of outcome are indicative of unreasonable discrimination.

 

[ZiprHead]

Roughly half the people in this country feel this way,

I gotta take issue with this. Trump got 70 million votes. There are 330 million people in the country. So no where near half of the people feel this way.

 

[laughing dog]

And who were these slaves that had allegedly been captured by other black people being sold to? Who was creating the demand for slaves to begin with?

There's no "allegedly" involved here. That the bulk of Africans sold in American slave markets were sold by black Africans is well documented.

The demand for slaves far predates European culture. They made the slave trade a global market, but they didn't create the market.
Tom

History and reason dictate that it is almost always DEMAND that creates and sustains a market. The position that slavers created the market for slaves is rather a peculiar one.

 

[atrib]

Roughly half the people in this country feel this way,

I gotta take issue with this. Trump got 70 million votes. There are 330 million people in the country. So no where near half of the people feel this way.

You are correct. I misspoke. I should have said roughly half the people that voted.

 

[TomC]

The position that slavers created the market for slaves is rather a peculiar one.

If anyone said that you'd have a point.

But nobody did that I remember.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The position that slavers created the market for slaves is rather a peculiar one.

If anyone said that you'd have a point.

But nobody did that I remember.
Tom

You conveniently snipped out the part of my response that had this from you

There's no "allegedly" involved here. That the bulk of Africans sold in American slave markets were sold by black Africans is well documented.

The demand for slaves far predates European culture. They made the slave trade a global market, but they didn't create the market.

Ordinary reading of your post suggests that "they" (in red) to whom you refer are black African (in red as well). If I misinterpreted your post, I do apologize.

If you are arguing the slavers did not create the market, then your response is simply irrelevant to the question "to whom are they selling the slaves"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thus slaves and refugees and their descendants would be expected to be average, and thus perform below immigrants.

I think what you mean is that immigrants that are accepted into the US are likely to be more successful already, where as refugees would be all over the map.

I don't see that what you are saying is in any way contrary to what I said.

And note that the very fact that they were willing to take the chance of immigrating says something good about them. Even without having to deal with border requirements that's a big step if you don't already have a support base where you are going.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't see what your problem is.

Immigrants in general are self-selected to be superior.

Slaves and refugees are not.

Genetics exists.

Thus slaves and refugees and their descendants would be expected to be average, and thus perform below immigrants.

Can you explain to me how being kidnapped/taken prisoner and forced into the hull of a ship and sailed across oceans to be sold/resold into slavery...changes genetics? Are you under the impression that only 'lesser' individuals from West Central Africa were sold into slavery? And their 'genetic betters' managed to avoid being so captured and sold (or sold the 'lesser' individuals) and now those who managed not to be enslaved have decided to immigrate, their genetics are somehow better?

Explain that to me like I'm stupid.

You've got it ass backwards--it's being an immigrant that's relevant. Slaves and refugees will generally be average, immigrants will generally be above average.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

 

[bilby]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

So this effect ruins the career prospects of men who have children too, does it?

 

[Toni]

I don't see what your problem is.

Immigrants in general are self-selected to be superior.

Slaves and refugees are not.

Genetics exists.

Thus slaves and refugees and their descendants would be expected to be average, and thus perform below immigrants.

Can you explain to me how being kidnapped/taken prisoner and forced into the hull of a ship and sailed across oceans to be sold/resold into slavery...changes genetics? Are you under the impression that only 'lesser' individuals from West Central Africa were sold into slavery? And their 'genetic betters' managed to avoid being so captured and sold (or sold the 'lesser' individuals) and now those who managed not to be enslaved have decided to immigrate, their genetics are somehow better?

Explain that to me like I'm stupid.

You've got it ass backwards--it's being an immigrant that's relevant. Slaves and refugees will generally be average, immigrants will generally be above average.

I get it now: if you’re stupid or average, you are more likely to be kidnapped and sold into slavery or to have to flee war or a famine fir your life.

More intelligent people have the good sense to be born to wealthier parents ts and inherit wealth and go to the best schools and when they flee the country if their birth, they can afford nicer transportation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or cultural... which makes one ponder why alcoholism became "a thing" for the Indigenous in the United States... when it wasn't as much an issue before the assimilation.

Actually, I think this is genetics.

In the old world alcohol was available year-round, this provided more opportunity for people to take themselves out of the gene pool. The new world didn't have this and thus there was less evolutionary pressure against alcoholism. It's the same thing as how diseases devastated the new world--the same thing must have happened in the old world but so long ago we aren't aware of it.

 

[Metaphor]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

So this effect ruins the career prospects of men who have children too, does it?

The career prospects of women who have children are not 'ruined'.

However, men who have children do not take as much time out of the workforce as women who have children. So the comparison is apples to oranges.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

So this effect ruins the career prospects of men who have children too, does it?

Caretakers. Which of course are traditionally the mothers.

 

[Toni]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

So this effect ruins the career prospects of men who have children too, does it?

The career prospects of women who have children are not 'ruined'.

However, men who have children do not take as much time out of the workforce as women who have children. So the comparison is apples to oranges.

Men who have children do not take as much time off from work to care for children because:

1. They do not get pregnant. They do not need time off for medical appointments or to give birth and recover from childbirth. They do not breastfeed children. Even if they feed their babies breast milk, their bodies did not produce the milk and they did not have to pump and store the milk, a significant time/energy drain.

2. Fir the most part, they have some other person or persons, usually a woman, to provide care for the child.

3. This continues as the child grows older and goes to school full time. Someone, usually female, is responsible for ensuring the child gets to school on time, is cared for after school, and during school holidays.

And of course when the child is ill, Someone, most often a female someone, must fetch the child from school or daycare and stay with the child until they are able to return to school. So, generally 24 hrs.after temperature has returned to normal, and 24 hrs. after last bout of vomiting abd/or diarrhea.

Unless there’s a rash.

 

[Toni]

Or cultural... which makes one ponder why alcoholism became "a thing" for the Indigenous in the United States... when it wasn't as much an issue before the assimilation.

Actually, I think this is genetics.

In the old world alcohol was available year-round, this provided more opportunity for people to take themselves out of the gene pool. The new world didn't have this and thus there was less evolutionary pressure against alcoholism. It's the same thing as how diseases devastated the new world--the same thing must have happened in the old world but so long ago we aren't aware of it.

This is extremely ill-thought out and not born out by actual data/facts.

Problems with substance abuse are partially determined by genetics but also even more so by circumstances/stresses/poverty/lack of social and emotional supports. Such as are found in pockets of impoverished populations—on reservations, for example.

I think that no one disputes that Asian immigrants have faced some very ugly racism in the US. However, they were allowed to maintain their cultural heritage: family structure, language, religion, history, etc. I’m not suggesting that there were not terrible injustices—but generally speaking, there was no effort to exterminate the Chinese or Japanese immigrants. More recent groups from Asia have faced varying degrees of discrimination, depending on the circumstances.

In the US, the worst discrimination has been against Indians and African Americans descended from enslaved peoples.

 

[laughing dog]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

So this effect ruins the career prospects of men who have children too, does it?

The career prospects of women who have children are not 'ruined'.

However, men who have children do not take as much time out of the workforce as women who have children. So the comparison is apples to oranges.

Your response ignores the social context of the decisions on why men take less time out of the workforce than women in order to care for children. So the comparison is still apples to apples.

 

[Swammerdami]

The position that slavers created the market for slaves is rather a peculiar one.

If anyone said that you'd have a point.

But nobody did that I remember.
Tom

You conveniently snipped out the part of my response that had this from you

There's no "allegedly" involved here. That the bulk of Africans sold in American slave markets were sold by black Africans is well documented.

The demand for slaves far predates European culture. They made the slave trade a global market, but they didn't create the market.

Ordinary reading of your post suggests that "they" (in red) to whom you refer are black African (in red as well). If I misinterpreted your post, I do apologize.

Although fine parsing of English is nitpicking, I shall point out that I deduced that Europeans were the antecedent of "they" — both the "they" laughing dog painted red AND the "they" I painted Blue.

"Ordinary reading" strikes me as an ambiguous phrase so I won't comment on that, but proper paragraphs have a natural progression; the underlined paragraph has such a progression ONLY if "they" refers to Europeans. I required a "double take" on Tom's paragraph before making this deduction. (And note that "slaves" is the only noun in the paragraph available to be an alternate antecedent!)

This DOES introduce a severe flaw: "They" should refer to a noun, but "European" occurs only as an adjective. I sometimes make errors just like that one, but usually fix them during proof-reading.

 

[laughing dog]

The position that slavers created the market for slaves is rather a peculiar one.

If anyone said that you'd have a point.

But nobody did that I remember.
Tom

You conveniently snipped out the part of my response that had this from you

There's no "allegedly" involved here. That the bulk of Africans sold in American slave markets were sold by black Africans is well documented.

The demand for slaves far predates European culture. They made the slave trade a global market, but they didn't create the market.

Ordinary reading of your post suggests that "they" (in red) to whom you refer are black African (in red as well). If I misinterpreted your post, I do apologize.

Although fine parsing of English is nitpicking, I shall point out that I deduced that Europeans were the antecedent of "they" — both the "they" laughing dog painted red AND the "they" I painted Blue.

"Ordinary reading" strikes me as an ambiguous phrase so I won't comment on that, but proper paragraphs have a natural progression; the underlined paragraph has such a progression ONLY if "they" refers to Europeans. I required a "double take" on Tom's paragraph before making this deduction. (And note that "slaves" is the only noun in the paragraph available to be an alternate antecedent!)

This DOES introduce a severe flaw: "They" should refer to a noun, but "European" occurs only as an adjective. I sometimes make errors just like that one, but usually fix them during proof-reading.

If that is the case - the "they" refers to the Europeans, then TomC's post is off point because he promoting that blacks were the slavers while evading the question of who was buying the slaves.