Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

[Angra Mainyu]

Yeah, you umm... skipped the later part about developments in the last year alone in the US. You did so because it impacted your 'see no evil, hear no evil' spin on this. This law was created to deal with an imaginary problem. Much like the election reform bills in GOP controlled states were put forth to deal with the non-existent voter fraud problems. I'm sorry you are willingly blind to this. You ask questions, but don't care about the answers.

It is easy to find the evidence that the problem is real. But that is not my point. Let us say it was created in order to deal with a non-existent problem out of the evilness of their hearts. Even then, the law does not say anything to support what you are saying.

I propose something: how about we wait for a couple of years, and come back to the thread, to see whether it had the effects you predicted?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Did you not say "It seems unrealistic."? That could be an encyclopedia example of an argument from incredulity.

That is not at all the case, but let me clarify. By "It seems unrealistic", I meant on the basis of the available evidence, the probability is extremely low. That is an epistemic probabilistic assessment of the sort humans instinctively do all the time.

Because they don't want to end up in court taking on all the expence that sort of thing entails. That's where the chilling effect come in.

If that is the case, then the law is not needed. They will stop teaching history because they can be sued even without the law, and a law that specifically says that historical events like slavery in America are to be taught is not remotely a law on which one can build a case against teaching those events. Granted, anyone can sue with no grounds whatsoever. But they can do it with or without the law.


As I said to Jimmy Higgins, how about we wait for a couple of years, and come back to the thread, to see whether it had the effects you predicted?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Seriously, if you need to ask this question, maybe it should have been your first post.

Different posters have different beliefs, so I ask on a poster-by-poster basis.

- slavery
- Jim Crow
- Mexican War
- "Manifest Destiny"
- Native American massacres
- Civil War
- treatment of women
- Reagan response to AIDS epidemic
- treatment of immigrants
- Violent Civil Rights Movement pushback in the south
- Support of 9/11 Coup in Chile / minor massacre
- General support for bad leaders to "fight against Communism" in Central/South America

Why do you think they would stop teaching any of the above? It seems unrelated to what the law bans. It does not ban the teaching of history at all.

We've got a couple hundred years worth of mistakes to feel a bit guilty over.

Actually, it would be irrational to feel guilty about the wrongdoings of other people. For that matter, some students might feel guilty if they learn the are likely descendants of Gengis Khan, because of his crimes. But that is irrelevant, because the law does not say anything about teaching stuff that people irrationally might feel guilt about.

But of course, teachers en masse aren't blaming the white students for these events.

Great, so why do you even suspect they would stop teaching them?
It seems unrealistic.

Argument from incredulity.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with US conservatives.

First, with that sort of reasoning, you do not need to justify anything at all, ever, whenever you choose to say something about a law promoted by conservatives. You can say "argument from incredulity" when one points out that the claims you make are simply not based on any evidence you presented, and then you can just say they are conservatives.

You must make a really good enabler.

Second, actually, the teachers are surely not conservatives. Why would they stop teaching history? Because some conservatives threaten to sue them with a law that says nothing in support of the lawsuits? For that matter, conservatives can do the same without the law, so you should predict that teachers will stop teaching history regardless of whether there is SB148.

There is no basis to meddle without these modifications in SB148.

You do not seem to get the problem with the reasoning in the post I was replying to, but I don't think explaining it any further will be of any use here. I will just suggest coming back in a couple of years and see whether your predictions came true. And also, in other threads.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your analysis misses the point - the standard of "discomfort, guilt, or any other form of psychology distress" literally enshrines irrationality as a standard.

No, you miss the points. First, you miss the point about where the "discomfort, guilt, or any other form of psychology distress" is used. Obviously, if someone feels guilty because he is white (or German, or whatever) and so was Hitler, teaching that the Holocaust happened does not violate the principle as stated (which I quoted so that you could see what it meant in context). In fact, the law even mandates the teaching of the history of the Holocaust, slavery, etc.

Your pseudo-rational analysis as to what logically should or reasonably will happen is inappropriate. Moreover, the implication that everyone shares your morality (Moral guilt is individual) is not only false, it is irrelevant to the issue. Your view(s) as to how the world (or the USA) should be is irrelevant to the reality of how the USA is

I suggest coming back to this thread in a couple of years, to see what happened to your predictions about conservatives. Actually, I suggest you do that in other threads too. It could be fun.

BTW, one of my many character flaws that I have to struggle with is that whenever I see someone use "the Woke", I see an incredibly fearful, kneejerk conservative.

Yes, some of the failures are to jump to the conclusion that the opponents of one's ideology/religion are all similar, and/or not to see one's own ideology/religion for what it is. I can't do anything about it. But again I recommend you come back in a couple of years to this thread, and see whether teachers stopped teaching the history of slavery.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, with that sort of reasoning, you do not need to justify anything at all, ever, whenever you choose to say something about a law promoted by conservatives. You can say "argument from incredulity" when one points out that the claims you make are simply not based on any evidence you presented, and then you can just say they are conservatives.

Second, actually, the teachers are surely not conservatives. Why would they stop teaching history? Because some conservatives threaten to sue them with a law that says nothing in support of the lawsuits? For that matter, conservatives can do the same without the law, so you should predict that teachers will stop teaching history regardless of whether there is SB148.

This is clearly about using lawsuits as an enforcement mechanism. The failure to promptly strike down SB8 has opened the floodgates. We really need some blue states to pass some such measures that target Republicans before the Supreme Court does a full review on SB8.

An enforcing mechanism, but enforcing what? Not what Jimmy Higgins or laughing dog are saying.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The "controversial stuff" is anything the right doesn't want taught.

First, the right is not a person. Different right-wingers want different things.
Second, there is no good reason to think so. This will not stop the teaching of the history of slavery, even if some conservatives wanted to stop it. In fact, it is even part of the law. Sure, they can sue. But they would have no basis in the law for that. And baseless suits can be brought with or without the law.

But how about we wait a couple of years and do some thread necromancy, to see whether teachers stopped teaching everything some right-wingers wanted them not to teach?

 

[laughing dog]

Your analysis misses the point - the standard of "discomfort, guilt, or any other form of psychology distress" literally enshrines irrationality as a standard.

No, you miss the points. First, you miss the point about where the "discomfort, guilt, or any other form of psychology distress" is used. Obviously, if someone feels guilty because he is white (or German, or whatever) and so was Hitler, teaching that the Holocaust happened does not violate the principle as stated (which I quoted so that you could see what it meant in context). In fact, the law even mandates the teaching of the history of the Holocaust, slavery, etc.

You are the one missing the points at level of obtuseness unforeseen up to this point.

It is pretty clear you do not understand the US, how these snowflakes work or even how teaching subjects is achieved. There are many ways to teach a subject - what to include or omit, how deep to delve, etc. - all of which may be affected by this stupid law.

Your pseudo-rational analysis as to what logically should or reasonably will happen is inappropriate. Moreover, the implication that everyone shares your morality (Moral guilt is individual) is not only false, it is irrelevant to the issue. Your view(s) as to how the world (or the USA) should be is irrelevant to the reality of how the USA is

I suggest coming back to this thread in a couple of years, to see what happened to your predictions about conservatives. Actually, I suggest you do that in other threads too. It could be fun.

I suggested that long before your obtuseness intruded into this thread. But I suggest you model your suggestion - I guarantee it would be more fun.

BTW, one of my many character flaws that I have to struggle with is that whenever I see someone use "the Woke", I see an incredibly fearful, kneejerk conservative.

Yes, some of the failures are to jump to the conclusion that the opponents of one's ideology/religion are all similar, and/or not to see one's own ideology/religion for what it is. I can't do anything about it.

Yet, you continue to practice it at a high level.

But again I recommend you come back in a couple of years to this thread, and see whether teachers stopped teaching the history of slavery.

Does it make you feel better to repeat your idiotic straw man about the elimination of the teaching of the history of slavery?

 

[jab]

not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.

Someone having their legs broken by the mob doesn't enrich people whose legs are not broken. All of society is poorer and worse off.

Your reply seems to shows a deep and complacent ignorance. Read Virginia Woolf's "Professions for Women" for a case study of how discrimination disadvantages the discriminated against, and in a any competitive fields or in life experience in generally gives those who don't experience that discrimination a comparative advantage.
I would feel quite safe jogging in broad daylight in an upscale neighbourhood in Florida, enjoying the beautiful scenery. (Well I might worry about getting a heart attack, but not about racist whites. But, no, no advantage.
When I went to high school and university in the 1960s and 1970s, and then while teaching in University in the 1970 mto the present, I saw that as a student, as a white male had unasked for advantages over women and non-white students: no teacher or prof posted on their desk a sexy cartoon of someone who looked like me, and wrote my name on it; o-one told me that I was a pretty bubbly blonde girl therefore I didn't have to try hard at school, but I could be head cheerleader, and thus, unlike my classmate i was not shocked when it was leaked to me in the final year of high school that I had the second highest I Q in the class, upon which my classmate decided to work hard and raise her grades at the last minute; no-one mocked my race and its culture in class while the prof did nothing; no teacher or prof opined that men couldn't write great literature, that "Savages" couldn't write great literature or contribute to history; no prof sexually propositioned me while I was taking his course and when I refused him dropped my grades from As to Ds; no student insulted my racial identity directly and in very personal terms, in the pre-Internet days of research I was not afraid of being raped if i went to do research at the University library late at night. And of course, when I studied literature, I didn't have to wonder why there were so few people of my sex and race represented on the reading lists
As a gay man, closeted when I was young, I do know the discouraging effects of discrimination and prejudice, by presenting as a white male, I have been advantaged in comparison to the real-life people, my peers and then my students, who have suffered--real life people who dropped classes, changed majors, dropped out of university, stopped attending class.

 

[jab]

The USDA has a long history of discrimination against black farmers.

I am addressing laughing dog's false statement.

White farmers can still apply for debt relief.

White farmers were specifically excluded from this program. In fact, it was found to be unconstitutional.

I don't know why you and laughing dog have such a hard time admitting this: presumably you approve of white farmers being excluded. So why the need to spread false statements about what is happening?

ever heard of, um, reparations?
affirmative action?

 

[Metaphor]

Your reply seems to shows a deep and complacent ignorance. Read Virginia Woolf's "Professions for Women" for a case study of how discrimination disadvantages the discriminated against, and in a any competitive fields or in life experience in generally gives those who don't experience that discrimination a comparative advantage.

Discrimination disadvantages the discriminated-against, absolutely. The individual discriminated against bears the worst of it, but all of society suffers because of it. There is an overall net loss to society,

As a gay man, closeted when I was young, I do know the discouraging effects of discrimination and prejudice, by presenting as a white male, I have been advantaged in comparison to the real-life people, my peers and then my students, who have suffered--real life people who dropped classes, changed majors, dropped out of university, stopped attending class.

The people who have dropped out or changed majors because they were discriminated against have suffered a personal loss, especially if they liked their previous major more (of course, there might be an occasional exception where the change turns out to better than the original course). It's not a question that the discriminated against bear the brunt of the loss.

But society suffers because of it, too. Every time talent is not used to its full potential, that is a net loss to society. Society is not enriched by discrimination. And whilst an individual may have a temporary gain from someone else's discrimination against that individual's competitor, they still live in a society that is poorer overall.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is pretty clear you do not understand the US, how these snowflakes work or even how teaching subjects is achieved. There are many ways to teach a subject - what to include or omit, how deep to delve, etc. - all of which may be affected by this stupid law.

On the contrary, you - alongside many other people, when their ideology and in-group/out-group mentality gets in the way of clear thinking - do not understand much of the US: more precisely, you do not understand the vast majority of right-wingers, whom you tend so see as comic book/cartoon villains. And you do not see the trend when a rising religion is on your side, etc.

I suggested that long before your obtuseness intruded into this thread. But I suggest you model your suggestion - I guarantee it would be more fun.

What do you mean, precisely? Modeling can be done in different ways, but my time is limited. Still, if I remember, we will see in a couple of years.

Does it make you feel better to repeat your idiotic straw man about the elimination of the teaching of the history of slavery?

It is neither idiotic nor a straw man. In fact, it addresses specifically the claims that teachers will stop teaching whatever some unspecified people labeled "the right" want them to stop teaching, as well as other, similar claims. You can see the claims in my exchanges in this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I understand the difference between correlation and causation.
Again, from your own link

From 2014 to 2019, Campbell tracked more than 1,600 BLM protests across the country, largely in bigger cities, with nearly 350,000 protesters. His main finding is a 15 to 20 percent reduction in lethal use of force by police officers — roughly 300 fewer police homicides — in census places that saw BLM protests.

Campbell’s research also indicates that these protests correlate with a 10 percent increase in murders in the areas that saw BLM protests.

Finally, that study is basically and "event" study - it looks for possible disparate effects by comparing before an event and after the event.
So, why do you think that this disparate effects proves anything when you consistently deny that disparate effects cannot prove discrimination?

When you have disparate effects you look for what might be causing them. With the racism issue the "researchers" continually fail to consider whether it's socioeconomic in nature.

You cannot have it both ways - either disparate effects are legitimate evidence or they are not. You are engaging in special pleading - disparate effects are not evidence when it disagrees with my bias but are evidence when it supports my bias.

Disparate outcomes are a reason to look further, they are not proof.

It's just that with racism research there is a willful blindness to whether it's actually socioeconomic. When they fail to look at obvious confounding factors it's worthless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Correlation does not prove causation!

The top line on that chart has no apparent racial cause but has obvious cultural causes. Why do you assume the other lines must be racially caused?

Correlation does not prove causation!

Unresponsive. The real median household income for blacks has been half that of the real median household income for non-Hispanic whites for at least the past six decades. Why?
(HINT: not because correlation doesn't prove causation)

You say I was being unresponsive--but you failed to quote the part of my message that addressed what you're asking about.

You do not say what causes the 2:1 ratio, you only point out that part of the chart doesn’t identify racism.

We don't know what causes the rest of it. You're working from a standpoint that racism is assumed and the burden of proof is on us to show otherwise--but your side is the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. The chart was presented as supposed evidence--but we can clearly see that one of the numbers is cultural in origin. If one number isn't racism how can it be taken as evidence the others are??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can anyone even imagine a black man or woman running for President with the credentials of Donald Trump?

His Flatulence didn't run on credentials in the first place, the comparison is meaningless.

I disagree. His credentials were more phony than a three dollar bill, but they were printed nicely in big bold type, and repeated ad nauseum.
* Great dealmaker
* Very Big Brain
* Patriotic, even hugs flags
* The best people
* Unbelievably rich billionaire
... and the one that wasn't phony:
* Well known white supremacist sympathizer

Other than at least being friendly to the white supremacists (he's so phony I do not know if he actually sympathizes with them or it's just a political maneuver) all of this is a matter of charisma, not credentials.

 

[Hermit]

You do not say what causes the 2:1 ratio, you only point out that part of the chart doesn’t identify racism.

We don't know what causes the rest of it. You're working from a standpoint that racism is assumed and the burden of proof is on us to show otherwise--but your side is the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. The chart was presented as supposed evidence--but we can clearly see that one of the numbers is cultural in origin. If one number isn't racism how can it be taken as evidence the others are??

I provided evidence of racism in this post.

 

[Trausti]

You do not say what causes the 2:1 ratio, you only point out that part of the chart doesn’t identify racism.

We don't know what causes the rest of it. You're working from a standpoint that racism is assumed and the burden of proof is on us to show otherwise--but your side is the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. The chart was presented as supposed evidence--but we can clearly see that one of the numbers is cultural in origin. If one number isn't racism how can it be taken as evidence the others are??

I provided evidence of racism in this post.

Asians don't exist.

 

[Hermit]

You do not say what causes the 2:1 ratio, you only point out that part of the chart doesn’t identify racism.

We don't know what causes the rest of it. You're working from a standpoint that racism is assumed and the burden of proof is on us to show otherwise--but your side is the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. The chart was presented as supposed evidence--but we can clearly see that one of the numbers is cultural in origin. If one number isn't racism how can it be taken as evidence the others are??

I provided evidence of racism in this post.

Asians don't exist.

Yes. To the same degree that Africans don't exist.

Your point escapes me, though, especially since there is no mention of Asians in anything you quoted.

 

[Trausti]

You do not say what causes the 2:1 ratio, you only point out that part of the chart doesn’t identify racism.

We don't know what causes the rest of it. You're working from a standpoint that racism is assumed and the burden of proof is on us to show otherwise--but your side is the one making the claim, you have the burden of proof. The chart was presented as supposed evidence--but we can clearly see that one of the numbers is cultural in origin. If one number isn't racism how can it be taken as evidence the others are??

I provided evidence of racism in this post.

Asians don't exist.

Yes. To the same degree that Africans don't exist.

Your point escapes me, though, especially since there is no mention of Asians in anything you quoted.

Your chart on wealth inexplicably excluded Asians. Why? We know why.

 

[laughing dog]

It is pretty clear you do not understand the US, how these snowflakes work or even how teaching subjects is achieved. There are many ways to teach a subject - what to include or omit, how deep to delve, etc. - all of which may be affected by this stupid law.

On the contrary, you - alongside many other people, when their ideology and in-group/out-group mentality gets in the way of clear thinking - do not understand much of the US: more precisely, you do not understand the vast majority of right-wingers, whom you tend so see as comic book/cartoon villains. And you do not see the trend when a rising religion is on your side, etc.

Unsurprisingly, you have no clue what I think about conservatives. Most of my family and in-laws are conservative. Some conservatives are thoughtful, considerate and generous people. Others are not. Some are villains, some are misguided, some are right about some matters and wrong about others (like most people of all ideological stripes).

But hey, at least you are consistent in your baseless and sometimes very stupid characterizations of those with whom do not agree with your uninformed and shallow views.

I suggested that long before your obtuseness intruded into this thread. But I suggest you model your suggestion - I guarantee it would be more fun.

What do you mean, precisely? Modeling can be done in different ways, but my time is limited. Still, if I remember, we will see in a couple of years.

[removed]. Plainly stated, it means for you to adopt your own suggestion and wait a couple of years before posting again in this thread.

Does it make you feel better to repeat your idiotic straw man about the elimination of the teaching of the history of slavery?

It is neither idiotic nor a straw man. In fact, it addresses specifically the claims that teachers will stop teaching whatever some unspecified people labeled "the right" want them to stop teaching, as well as other, similar claims. You can see the claims in my exchanges in this thread.

Of course it is idiotic. No one remotely familiar with the USA or its history knows it would be idiotic to teach US history without slavery.

The issue is how to approach the issue of slavery. I will use two movies about the pre-Civil War South to provide a simple example. The first is  Song_of_the_South which presents slavery as a relatively benign institution, and  12_Years_a_Slave_(film) which does not. Both are hypothetical examples of a presentation of slice of "history" of the slavery in the USA.

 

[laughing dog]

I understand the difference between correlation and causation.
Again, from your own link

From 2014 to 2019, Campbell tracked more than 1,600 BLM protests across the country, largely in bigger cities, with nearly 350,000 protesters. His main finding is a 15 to 20 percent reduction in lethal use of force by police officers — roughly 300 fewer police homicides — in census places that saw BLM protests.

Campbell’s research also indicates that these protests correlate with a 10 percent increase in murders in the areas that saw BLM protests.

Finally, that study is basically and "event" study - it looks for possible disparate effects by comparing before an event and after the event.
So, why do you think that this disparate effects proves anything when you consistently deny that disparate effects cannot prove discrimination?

When you have disparate effects you look for what might be causing them. With the racism issue the "researchers" continually fail to consider whether it's socioeconomic in nature.

You cannot have it both ways - either disparate effects are legitimate evidence or they are not. You are engaging in special pleading - disparate effects are not evidence when it disagrees with my bias but are evidence when it supports my bias.

Disparate outcomes are a reason to look further, they are not proof.

So, will you stop posting "Disparate outcomes are not proof" whenever someone brings up disparate outcomes as evidence of racism?

It's just that with racism research there is a willful blindness to whether it's actually socioeconomic. When they fail to look at obvious confounding factors it's worthless.

There are always confounding factors in social analysis. There are in the investigation into the upswing in violence after the George Floyd tragedy. Yet you and Trausti cling to a monocausal theory, and reject any possible confounding factors.