A White teacher taught White students about White privilege. It cost him his job.

[Gospel]

So the new point of contention is: do you think there ought to be a law against homeless people sleeping in train stations?

I don't see what a law against or the lack of a law against homeless people sleeping at the trains station has to do with white privilege. I'm willing to answer the question if you'd advise how it's relevant to the discussion. Otherwise, the moderators would be correct in considering my reply a derail.

Edit: Or prooves the nonexistence of white privilege (meant to add that and missed it).

 

[Politesse]

Hiring quotas aren't the only way to pursue the goal of affirmative action. They're illegal at the federal level as well as state law where I live, yet we do have a strong program of affirmative action that is largely based on other strategies, such as retraining HR and admissions staff in systemic behaviors, education of the young and increased access to training in desirable fields, research into the causes of systemic discrimination, and economic reform. To say that there are no options except either quotas or complete inaction is to paint a false dichotomy. And no, I don't think that simply declaring ourselves equal now and hoping for the best will somehow cause equality to magically appear without some kind of affirmative action to tear down racial barriers. The ERA was never even passed, so the only meaningful Constitutional protection in such cases is the 14th amendment. We're going on 154 years since its passing, and though its scope has expanded, its reach has decreased during that time. When is the legal magic supposed to start? How long are racial minorities supposed to wait for their alleged equal rights to kick in? 150 more years? 450? After the death of the nation sometime?

No, your company doesn't just get fined, or you as an individual pay a fine but you go to jail, period full stop.

While I approve of a legal approach to severe cases of individual discrimination, the law requires an enormous burden of proof before it will send an upper-class white man to jail, and that burden of proof is nearly impossible to meet in most cases of racial discrimination in hiring or admissions. If the accused can show that there is any possible alternative explanation for their actions (up to and including hand-wavey things like "he seemed to be of good character"), they can generally avoid legal prosecution even if they work directly for the federal government, unless they were dumb enough to confess their racism openly in speech or writing somewhere. The idea of having only individual accountability would further hamstring the government in dealing with problem cases, since any prosecution at all is then contingent on making the above sort of cases stick. The legal challenge is even more impossible if you're trying to pinpoint a private business, which has considerabel latitude in hiring practices when it comes down to it.

There's also the fact that a large share of racial discrimination of this kind is unconscious - is it even fair or ethical to put someone in jail for a "crime" they didn't intend to commit and had no idea they were committing? The law says no, at least as things stand on the particular issue of racial discrimination in hiring.

The stigma thing is real, and my minority students routinely deal with racist assumptions about their status. So I do think the issue you're raising is valid. On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates. You really think publically eshewing quotas even more will somehow convince conservative Americans that everything is fair, now? Especially if there's a giant pogrom going on to send their friends and neighbors to jail for hiring the wrong person? They already have everything they want, a strong White advantage in hiring and admissions that is backed by the legal system itself, but they aren't happy. What will make them happy?

 

[Jarhyn]

So the new point of contention is: do you think there ought to be a law against homeless people sleeping in train stations?

I don't see what a law against or the lack of a law against homeless people sleeping at the trains station has to do with white privilege. I'm willing to answer the question if you'd advise how it's relevant to the discussion. Otherwise, the moderators would be correct in considering my reply a derail.

Edit: Or prooves the nonexistence of white privilege (meant to add that and missed it).

So, maybe pertinent is that I watched Le Mis last night with the husband and housemate.

I can't help but think after Javert reading this thread. I have very mixed feelings about his death.

 

[Metaphor]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

 

[Metaphor]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

Law and medical school admissions are university admissions. Though of course I'm hardly surprised you don't see my evidence as 'remotely convincing', but you accepted Politesse's remark without any evidence at all.

For evidence that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, and admits far more black students than would be predicted from aptitude and achievement alone, I suggest people have a look through this document.

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

Law and medical school admissions are university admissions.

As I said, but they represent a small percentage of them. Which means they are not convincing evidence against a claim about "university admissions".

Though of course I'm hardly surprised you don't see my evidence as 'remotely convincing', but you accepted Politesse's remark without any evidence at all.

As usual, you are mistaken. I didn't accept anyone's remark. I pointed out your "evidence" represents such a small portion of university admissions that I did not find it remotely convincing.

For evidence that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, and admits far more black students than would be predicted from aptitude and achievement alone, I suggest people have a look through this document.

Oh, well, if Harvard does it, then it must be universal practice (and that assumes that aptitude and achievement alone are the only valid characteristics for admissions).

 

[Metaphor]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

Law and medical school admissions are university admissions.

As I said, but they represent a small percentage of them. Which means they are not convincing evidence against a claim about "university admissions".

Though of course I'm hardly surprised you don't see my evidence as 'remotely convincing', but you accepted Politesse's remark without any evidence at all.

As usual, you are mistaken. I didn't accept anyone's remark.

Politesse asserted something without evidence. You did not challenge it. Yet I asserted something with evidence, and you challenged me.

Your biases are transparent.

I pointed out your "evidence" represents such a small portion of university admissions that I did not find it remotely convincing.

I'm sure you do not.

For evidence that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, and admits far more black students than would be predicted from aptitude and achievement alone, I suggest people have a look through this document.

Oh, well, if Harvard does it, then it must be universal practice (and that assumes that aptitude and achievement alone are the only valid characteristics for admissions).

Politesse made the claim:

and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

He made a claim about the entire 'university system', without evidence. Now, one can try and address that claim with central data pertaining to the entire 'university system' - data which does not exist - or one can refute it (though again, Politesse asserted it without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence) piece by piece.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hiring quotas aren't the only way to pursue the goal of affirmative action. They're illegal at the federal level as well as state law where I live, yet we do have a strong program of affirmative action that is largely based on other strategies, such as retraining HR and admissions staff in systemic behaviors, education of the young and increased access to training in desirable fields, research into the causes of systemic discrimination, and economic reform. To say that there are no options except either quotas or complete inaction is to paint a false dichotomy.

Nice words, but the reality is that a company that is being completely fair is probably going to "discriminate" because educated blacks are under-represented amongst blacks in general.

The reality is there are a bunch of fuzzy don't-do-this rules and an easy-to-measure don't-have-"enough"-blacks rule. The rules are in conflict, the one that is clear is the one that will be obeyed.

The stigma thing is real, and my minority students routinely deal with racist assumptions about their status. So I do think the issue you're raising is valid. On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates. You really think publically eshewing quotas even more will somehow convince conservative Americans that everything is fair, now? Especially if there's a giant pogrom going on to send their friends and neighbors to jail for hiring the wrong person? They already have everything they want, a strong White advantage in hiring and admissions that is backed by the legal system itself, but they aren't happy. What will make them happy?

Of course there's a stigma issue--the only way to fix it is to remove the cause of the stigma: discrimination in favor of blacks.

And just because quotas are illegal doesn't mean it's not going on. And the university system is biased for black students, not against them. It's just that so many don't make it that far because of growing up in bad communities. If the system was fair you would see black students equally qualified with white students.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

The problem is the universities switched to a policy of not publishing the damning data anymore. That response makes it very clear they are discriminating.

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

Law and medical school admissions are university admissions.

As I said, but they represent a small percentage of them. Which means they are not convincing evidence against a claim about "university admissions".

Though of course I'm hardly surprised you don't see my evidence as 'remotely convincing', but you accepted Politesse's remark without any evidence at all.

As usual, you are mistaken. I didn't accept anyone's remark.

Politesse asserted something without evidence. You did not challenge it. Yet I asserted something with evidence, and you challenged me.

Your biases are transparent.

You are correct about the sequence of events. What bias of mine is transparent?

I pointed out your "evidence" represents such a small portion of university admissions that I did not find it remotely convincing.

I'm sure you do not.

Thank you, because no rational person would find it remotely convincing.

For evidence that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, and admits far more black students than would be predicted from aptitude and achievement alone, I suggest people have a look through this document.

Oh, well, if Harvard does it, then it must be universal practice (and that assumes that aptitude and achievement alone are the only valid characteristics for admissions).

Politesse made the claim:

and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

He made a claim about the entire 'university system', without evidence. Now, one can try and address that claim with central data pertaining to the entire 'university system' - data which does not exist - or one can refute it (though again, Politesse asserted it without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence) piece by piece.

The rational approach would be to either
1) ask for supporting evidence of the claim, or
2) provide system-wide evidence to the contrary.

Pointing to a particular small portion as evidence is neither logical or rational.

 

[Metaphor]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

Law and medical school admissions are university admissions.

As I said, but they represent a small percentage of them. Which means they are not convincing evidence against a claim about "university admissions".

Though of course I'm hardly surprised you don't see my evidence as 'remotely convincing', but you accepted Politesse's remark without any evidence at all.

As usual, you are mistaken. I didn't accept anyone's remark.

Politesse asserted something without evidence. You did not challenge it. Yet I asserted something with evidence, and you challenged me.

Your biases are transparent.

You are correct about the sequence of events. What bias of mine is transparent?

It is obvious. Politesse made a sweeping claim without evidence, but because it is a narrative you are sympathetic to, you did not challenge it.

I provided a counterclaim, but because it is a narrative you are not sympathetic to, you challenged me immediately.

I pointed out your "evidence" represents such a small portion of university admissions that I did not find it remotely convincing.

I'm sure you do not.

Thank you, because no rational person would find it remotely convincing.

I'm sure you believe that.

For evidence that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, and admits far more black students than would be predicted from aptitude and achievement alone, I suggest people have a look through this document.

Oh, well, if Harvard does it, then it must be universal practice (and that assumes that aptitude and achievement alone are the only valid characteristics for admissions).

Politesse made the claim:

and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

He made a claim about the entire 'university system', without evidence. Now, one can try and address that claim with central data pertaining to the entire 'university system' - data which does not exist - or one can refute it (though again, Politesse asserted it without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence) piece by piece.

The rational approach would be to either
1) ask for supporting evidence of the claim, or
2) provide system-wide evidence to the contrary.

Pointing to a particular small portion as evidence is neither logical or rational.

2) is impossible, especially since it could only be built up from data from individual universities, which you are all too ready to dismiss, one university at a time, as 'not system wide'.

But you are right. I'll ask Politesse for the evidence for his claim. I'm sure it will be system-wide and convincing.

 

[Metaphor]

and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

What is your evidence for this claim?

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

That is completely false.

At the same grade point average and aptitude score, black students are (depending on the particular combination of grades and aptitude) slightly to many times more likely to be admitted to law and medical schools compared to white or Asian students.

Law and medical school slots comprise a small percentage of admissions to universities and colleges. So I fail to see how your evidence is remotely convincing (and that assumes it is accurate).

Law and medical school admissions are university admissions.

As I said, but they represent a small percentage of them. Which means they are not convincing evidence against a claim about "university admissions".

Though of course I'm hardly surprised you don't see my evidence as 'remotely convincing', but you accepted Politesse's remark without any evidence at all.

As usual, you are mistaken. I didn't accept anyone's remark.

Politesse asserted something without evidence. You did not challenge it. Yet I asserted something with evidence, and you challenged me.

Your biases are transparent.

You are correct about the sequence of events. What bias of mine is transparent?

It is obvious. Politesse made a sweeping claim without evidence, but because it is a narrative you are sympathetic to, you did not challenge it.

I provided a counterclaim, but because it is a narrative you are not sympathetic to, you challenged me immediately.

Once again, you are mistaken on all counts. I made the rational observation that your evidence was not convincing because it covered an extremely small and unrepresentative sample of the entire population. That is not challenging you, it is challenging the relevancy of the data.

I pointed out your "evidence" represents such a small portion of university admissions that I did not find it remotely convincing.

I'm sure you do not.

Thank you, because no rational person would find it remotely convincing.

I'm sure you believe that.

I know it.

For evidence that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, and admits far more black students than would be predicted from aptitude and achievement alone, I suggest people have a look through this document.

Oh, well, if Harvard does it, then it must be universal practice (and that assumes that aptitude and achievement alone are the only valid characteristics for admissions).

Politesse made the claim:

and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates.

He made a claim about the entire 'university system', without evidence. Now, one can try and address that claim with central data pertaining to the entire 'university system' - data which does not exist - or one can refute it (though again, Politesse asserted it without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence) piece by piece.

The rational approach would be to either
1) ask for supporting evidence of the claim, or
2) provide system-wide evidence to the contrary.

Pointing to a particular small portion as evidence is neither logical or rational.

2) is impossible, especially since it could only be built up from data from individual universities, which you are all too ready to dismiss, one university at a time, as 'not system wide'.

You are mistaken - people aggregate data all the time. Picking a private university that represents a very small percentage of the applications and admissions to private and public universities for evidence represents poor reasoning.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Whites and African Americans have different profiles of the schools they apply to.¹ One example: Morehouse medical school, predominately African American with a school mission to get doctors into underserved areas as I recall from the last 40 times this was brought up. Because the selection criteria are different for the different profiles, it doesn't quite make sense to broadly contrast admission rates across races.

This is not to say the proposition is not correct for some other reason.

¹ Paper: "When applying to college, minorities are influenced by more than just matching their academic ability to the institution, and prefer institutions with a large proportion of same-race students and campuses where same-race students from their high school have been successful in the past."

 

[Gospel]

Hiring quotas aren't the only way to pursue the goal of affirmative action. They're illegal at the federal level as well as state law where I live, yet we do have a strong program of affirmative action that is largely based on other strategies, such as retraining HR and admissions staff in systemic behaviors, education of the young and increased access to training in desirable fields, research into the causes of systemic discrimination, and economic reform. To say that there are no options except either quotas or complete inaction is to paint a false dichotomy. And no, I don't think that simply declaring ourselves equal now and hoping for the best will somehow cause equality to magically appear without some kind of affirmative action to tear down racial barriers. The ERA was never even passed, so the only meaningful Constitutional protection in such cases is the 14th amendment. We're going on 154 years since its passing, and though its scope has expanded, its reach has decreased during that time. When is the legal magic supposed to start? How long are racial minorities supposed to wait for their alleged equal rights to kick in? 150 more years? 450? After the death of the nation sometime?

No, your company doesn't just get fined, or you as an individual pay a fine but you go to jail, period full stop.

While I approve of a legal approach to severe cases of individual discrimination, the law requires an enormous burden of proof before it will send an upper-class white man to jail, and that burden of proof is nearly impossible to meet in most cases of racial discrimination in hiring or admissions. If the accused can show that there is any possible alternative explanation for their actions (up to and including hand-wavey things like "he seemed to be of good character"), they can generally avoid legal prosecution even if they work directly for the federal government, unless they were dumb enough to confess their racism openly in speech or writing somewhere. The idea of having only individual accountability would further hamstring the government in dealing with problem cases, since any prosecution at all is then contingent on making the above sort of cases stick. The legal challenge is even more impossible if you're trying to pinpoint a private business, which has considerabel latitude in hiring practices when it comes down to it.

There's also the fact that a large share of racial discrimination of this kind is unconscious - is it even fair or ethical to put someone in jail for a "crime" they didn't intend to commit and had no idea they were committing? The law says no, at least as things stand on the particular issue of racial discrimination in hiring.

The stigma thing is real, and my minority students routinely deal with racist assumptions about their status. So I do think the issue you're raising is valid. On the other hand, I also note that a strong majority of White Americans believe that Blacks have in unfair advantage in university admissions, despite the fact that quota systems of admission have been illegal since 1978, and university system remains strongly biased against Black students by any objective measure of differential admissions rates. You really think publically eshewing quotas even more will somehow convince conservative Americans that everything is fair, now? Especially if there's a giant pogrom going on to send their friends and neighbors to jail for hiring the wrong person? They already have everything they want, a strong White advantage in hiring and admissions that is backed by the legal system itself, but they aren't happy. What will make them happy?

All good points. I'll need to retreat and rethink.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oh, well, if Harvard does it, then it must be universal practice (and that assumes that aptitude and achievement alone are the only valid characteristics for admissions).

I agree with both your sarcastic and literal points.

Cambridge, MA is pretty liberal and Harvard is additionally influenced by and part of economically elite culture. They have the most sports programs of any college and funding through legacies and a so-called Director's List make them a bit non-representative of US at-large. As stated in previous post, when we consider broad statistics, there is an apparent difference in admissions by race, but the actual schools that persons of different races apply to are different, i.e. have different selection criteria. Minorities tend to go to other schools they know minorities have gone to and succeeded...or in other words, the schools may have less systemic racism and more support through either peers or to counter-balance relative disadvantage.

For example, for medical school, 14% of African Americans go to just 3 schools. Morehouse, Howard, and another. Other races do not typically apply to these schools. Part of schools' mission is to create doctors for underserved areas. So they may be looking at community-based exracurricular activities and intent to work in those areas in selection. Those schools are not intended to be a complete list, but rather to highlight how different selection criteria can impact a broad comparison of admission rates, creating apples to orange comparison.

I will add that profile of extracurricular activities by race are different: more community based activity and sports by African Americans. Number of activities may be more for groups who can afford more activities. The paper linked for Harvard tries to eliminate one confounding variable in this regard: recruited athletes which % is likely different by race. 10% of incoming Harvard class are this type and they have a 90% acceptance rate. However, recruitment of athletes comes in degrees and there are just as many athletes who are not officially "recruited athletes" due to soft recruitment or simply admissions taking sports activities into far, far more consideration than other activities. So there is an invisible confounding variable in his analysis.

All the above said, I do not think it is an unreasonable proposition that maybe Harvard is trying to correct for something. If so, the thing they might be trying to correct for is access difference. Access differences include connections, economics, and awareness of preparation and other things due to long family histories in college, among others. To add--natural aptitude and test aptitude may be different, test aptitude supplemented by preparatory courses, the frequency of which differ by race. What's the best solution?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whites and African Americans have different profiles of the schools they apply to.¹ One example: Morehouse medical school, predominately African American with a school mission to get doctors into underserved areas as I recall from the last 40 times this was brought up. Because the selection criteria are different for the different profiles, it doesn't quite make sense to broadly contrast admission rates across races.

This is not to say the proposition is not correct for some other reason.

¹ Paper: "When applying to college, minorities are influenced by more than just matching their academic ability to the institution, and prefer institutions with a large proportion of same-race students and campuses where same-race students from their high school have been successful in the past."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the credentials of those who are admitted.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Whites and African Americans have different profiles of the schools they apply to.¹ One example: Morehouse medical school, predominately African American with a school mission to get doctors into underserved areas as I recall from the last 40 times this was brought up. Because the selection criteria are different for the different profiles, it doesn't quite make sense to broadly contrast admission rates across races.

This is not to say the proposition is not correct for some other reason.

¹ Paper: "When applying to college, minorities are influenced by more than just matching their academic ability to the institution, and prefer institutions with a large proportion of same-race students and campuses where same-race students from their high school have been successful in the past."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the credentials of those who are admitted.

The schools do not require the same credentials and therefore it IS related.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Thanks for that Angra, I suppose I'm doing to Bomb#20 what I'm complaining about. Anyhow, hopefully, my current attempt to answer the question can move things along. Honestly, I find Bomb#20 intriguing (yes I know bomb#20 can read this) in a likable supervillain sort of way.

Well, at least you said "super". But he is no villain. I see him more as a very misunderstood logic and rationality champion: his arguments are superb, but most of his opponents do not understand what he says because either it challenges some of their most important beliefs, or it's too difficult for them - or both.