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

[ZiprHead]

Maybe this will help those who don't understandthe objections to this bill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So financial evidence only counts when it favors your side? Because the chart I'm pointing to has Asians on top (yours omits them entirely) and the reasons are very obviously cultural, not racial. If Asians are on top for non-racial reasons then racial differences in income can't be proof of racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That was his point--no mention of Asians in your chart.

 

[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.

So financial evidence only counts when it favors your side? Because the chart I'm pointing to has Asians on top (yours omits them entirely) and the reasons are very obviously cultural, not racial. If Asians are on top for non-racial reasons then racial differences in income can't be proof of racism.

You have yet to establish that racial differences in income can't be proof of racism. Towards the end of my series of posts in this thread I have concluded that Asians earn more despite the racism they face.

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.

That was his point--no mention of Asians in your chart.

Read on.

 

[Hermit]

Redundant post

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We are pointing to an uptick in murders in cities with large BLM protests. Not in other cities. They already looked for confounding factors, unlike most racism "research" that fails to consider socioeconomic factors even though it's almost always an obvious one that should be considered.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Because most Asian Americans are not descended from generations of Asian slaves held by White Americans.

Granted, there were a LOT of Chinese immigrants brought into the Country as indentured servants, and were forced to work in horrid and dangerous conditions. (The history of the property I had in Boulder County is full of tales of "Chinamen" being sent into mines with explosives and getting killed in the explosions. I read that there was a fixed fine of fifty cents for killing a "Chinaman".)

But that was not nearly the millions of people who were brought to America in chains, and whose descendents now comprise the majority of black Americans. Americans enslaved a population of black Africans for generations. Suddenly their "owners" were forced kicking and screaming to set them free.

Only a moron could possibly think that a few generations later, that population would be on equal economic footing with the descendents of their ancestors' "owners".

Frankly, it's shameful to have to explain this to you.

In both cases their economic status was set to basically zero. They were on equal footing. How long they were oppressed may have cultural influences but it can't have economic ones because debts don't descend upon one's offspring. Nobody can be born below zero.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, at least we know why you're pointing out that Asians have been included in "All other". It's the "Asians earn more than non-Hispanic whites, therefore the poverty of blacks can't be down to racism" mantra again, right? As I mentioned earlier, it belongs to the same family of arguments as saying "We elected a Kenyan Negro as our nations leader twice, for crying out loud. Therefore no racism." and "I'm no racist. One of my best friends is a Jew."

No, it's because they expose the flaw in your data.

There is a crucial difference between the Asian-American and Afro-American segments of the US population. 78% of Asian-Americans are foreign born, and they brought money with them. They tend to be former members of the financially better off sector in the countries they came from. Also, better educated and better qualified as well as experienced in the professional class of jobs. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are very selective about who they let into the country and become citizens.

1) Most immigrants from third world areas bring little with them other than education.

2) Immigration is picky when it comes to work-based visas, but there's no such pickiness for relationship visas. My wife's application listed the schools she had attended, that's it--and there was nothing on the form about the results of that education. Nothing said she left secondary education at 16 because she tested out rather than by dropping out. Her tertiary education only listed the name of her school (and is a pain to verify.) What they were interested in was whether it was a genuine marriage and whether I had the financial means to keep us above 125% of the poverty line.

 

[Elixir]

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

Because most Asian Americans are not descended from generations of Asian slaves held by White Americans.

Granted, there were a LOT of Chinese immigrants brought into the Country as indentured servants, and were forced to work in horrid and dangerous conditions. (The history of the property I had in Boulder County is full of tales of "Chinamen" being sent into mines with explosives and getting killed in the explosions. I read that there was a fixed fine of fifty cents for killing a "Chinaman".)

But that was not nearly the millions of people who were brought to America in chains, and whose descendents now comprise the majority of black Americans. Americans enslaved a population of black Africans for generations. Suddenly their "owners" were forced kicking and screaming to set them free.

Only a moron could possibly think that a few generations later, that population would be on equal economic footing with the descendents of their ancestors' "owners".

Frankly, it's shameful to have to explain this to you.

In both cases their economic status was set to basically zero. They were on equal footing. How long they were oppressed may have cultural influences but it can't have economic ones because debts don't descend upon one's offspring. Nobody can be born below zero.

Of COURSE it’s cultural. The economic disparity is a symptom of the persistent stratification of American society that has its roots in slavery. They (Asians and Africans) are nowhere near “on the same footing”.
Most of the Asian people I have known immigrated (or their parents/families did) of their own volition. Their cultural support systems included generations of self support. Even those who arrived broke had a history of supporting themselves working for pay, and had skills to allow that to happen.
Most black people I have ever met had ancestors who had been kidnapped, enslaved and brought to a foreign land where a white master held power of life and death over them, providing their food shelter and clothing and scripting their entire lives. They never had a chance to learn about economic autonomy. Even without the discrimination and stigma of dark skin, that population never had a chance to compete with Asians.
My younger brother married a Japanese woman. She came from a family described to me as very formal, one that raised expensive koi. I understand they’re quite wealthy. But she immigrated and got disowned, at least for a bunch of years.
She knows how to do all kinds of things, from working with her hands to accounting to art and even retail. She could have washed up naked on American soil and done just fine despite speaking only very broken English. I don’t think many Africans have arrived that well equipped to thrive in America. And if they did, their chances of success would be less than that of Asians due to the discrimination against blacks that is their cultural heritage. Blacks are brute force workers, Asians are clever little ones who can’t be trusted. Jews are clever larger ones who can’t be trusted Irish are hotheads, native Americans are drunks.
But blacks are property. Born to property that was born to property. They have never had a chance in American society and not due to any fault of their own.

 

[Hermit]

Well, at least we know why you're pointing out that Asians have been included in "All other". It's the "Asians earn more than non-Hispanic whites, therefore the poverty of blacks can't be down to racism" mantra again, right? As I mentioned earlier, it belongs to the same family of arguments as saying "We elected a Kenyan Negro as our nations leader twice, for crying out loud. Therefore no racism." and "I'm no racist. One of my best friends is a Jew."

No, it's because they expose the flaw in your data.

How so? "No racism involved in the lower income of Afro-Americans because the average income of Asian-Americans is higher than that of non-Hispanic Whites." is just an assertion. You need more than a 'because' to make that assertion stick.

There is a crucial difference between the Asian-American and Afro-American segments of the US population. 78% of Asian-Americans are foreign born, and they brought money with them. They tend to be former members of the financially better off sector in the countries they came from. Also, better educated and better qualified as well as experienced in the professional class of jobs. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are very selective about who they let into the country and become citizens.

1) Most immigrants from third world areas bring little with them other than education.

Sheesh. Notwithstanding your anecdote, none of them were brought in as slaves, lived like slaves for a hundred years after the abolition of slavery, were denied the kind of education and job opportunities, which is still a thing on an informal but effective basis. Apart from education they were not encumbered by the ballast of past and present discrimination. That, in a very important way, is something else they brought with them.

2) Immigration is picky when it comes to work-based visas, but there's no such pickiness for relationship visas. My wife's application listed the schools she had attended, that's it--and there was nothing on the form about the results of that education. Nothing said she left secondary education at 16 because she tested out rather than by dropping out. Her tertiary education only listed the name of her school (and is a pain to verify.) What they were interested in was whether it was a genuine marriage and whether I had the financial means to keep us above 125% of the poverty line.

Nice anecdote.

 

[laughing dog]

then clearly the reason there are more murders is due to the police not doing their jobs.

That, and local lefty DA's that refuse to prosecute. Blame the police sure, but that's just the stereotypical lefty ignoring that there are consequences to building their great utopia.

You are the one who brought up blaming the police, not me. Moreover, your DA rationale makes no sense unless you are saying the DAs refuse to prosecute murder cases.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

We are pointing to an uptick in murders in cities with large BLM protests. Not in other cities. They already looked for confounding factors, unlike most racism "research" that fails to consider socioeconomic factors even though it's almost always an obvious one that should be considered.

You are mistaken. All this researcher did is find a correlation. Read the linked Vox article.

We have gone over the rest of your hand-waved response many times - it is opinion masquerading as fact. No social science study can ever control for all other likely (or unlikely) influences.

 

[Gospel]

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.

So financial evidence only counts when it favors your side? Because the chart I'm pointing to has Asians on top (yours omits them entirely) and the reasons are very obviously cultural, not racial. If Asians are on top for non-racial reasons then racial differences in income can't be proof of racism.

I wonder where African Americans got their culture from? For a minimum of two centuries, we were stripped of language, family, and everything that had to do with culture. Then given "freedom" in a country that still didn't accept us all while we're struggling to build our American culture out of a fucked up history. We've come a long way and still have a long way to go and some (not all) Americans are still hell-bent on standing in the way. I'm not insinuating that Asian Americans or all other races in America (even white people in general) had it easy peasy nor am I making a comparison, I'm just stating a fact that underscores the African American culture that some may not consider, or think is no big deal because some bearded top hat-wearing republican stud signed a document ending a bad spell on paper.

 

[laughing dog]

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).

I do have a clue what you tend to think of right-wingers, and a lot more than a clue, because I have your posts, in which you describe what you think about them. Okay, so you know that some conservatives are thoughtful, considerate and generous people. Great! But on the basis of your regular posting here, you still got the vast majority of them wrong (and yes, some are villains; some left-wingers are as well).

You are mistaken. Contrary to your beliefs, you have no clue what i think.

I am sorry you cannot parse simple English. Plainly stated, it means for you to adopt your own suggestion and wait a couple of years before posting again in this thread.

I can understand English reasonably well; as you should know, misunderstandings on this boards are ubiquitous, even among native English speakers, and your suggestion was not clear.

That said, my suggestion was not to stop posting now, but to come back in a couple of years regardless of when the ongoing discussion in this thread stops. But if I remember and I'm still posting on this website, I will come back and to see what happened with the predictions that teachers would stop teaching.

You are mistaken. Your suggestion was to stop posting in this thread for a couple of years. Not to stop posting entirely.

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.

Of course that it would be idiotic to do so. .But what you called 'idiotic' was not "to teach US history without slavery".

......

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.

That is a straw man.

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.

I did not watch "Song_of_the_South". I did watch "12 Years a Slave". But iirc, while based on a true story, that was fiction. I would expect that teachers would teach history, rather than movies. Still, let me ask you: are you claiming that teachers today teach history by showing children "12 Years a Slave" or similar movies, and that due to SB148, they'll stop doing so?

You are clearly unfamiliar with teaching in the US at that level. Movies can be a very useful pedagogical tool in helping student understand concepts or history.

Furthermore, if you read my post carefully, you'd see I did not claim that anyone used those movies (or any movie) to teach anything. I made no claim about using any movie to teach history, I provided examples of two very different presentations/view of slavery. So the answer to your question is no.

Your entire response indicates to me that you completely misread my post.

 

[ZiprHead]

Florida teachers unions opposed to bill suggesting cameras, microphones in classrooms

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. —
Florida House Bill 1055 is raising some eyebrows on the education front.

Behind the bill, Republican lawmaker Bob Rommel is proposing cameras at the front of the classroom, requiring teachers in session to also have a microphone.

If the bill is passed, board members from each school district would have to take a vote if they want to implement the policy at their schools by Jan. 1, 2023.

“It’s nonsense,” said David Freeland, president of the Education Association of St. Lucie County.

Like many other teachers unions, Freeland is opposed to the idea.

“We have a growing teacher shortage, really they should be focusing on getting teachers in classrooms with meaningful pay, child security, those types of things. Instead, they choose to spend their time working on a bill that is completely unnecessary,” Freeland said.

 

[Politesse]

Parents raise holy hell about needing cameras in their homes during the pandemic, but then they want cameras pointing the other way?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not going to last.

Right now, it's illegal for teachers to film students, so when the student and the teacher tell different stories about what happened in the classroom, it's 'he said/she said.'
Or 'he said/she and her parents screeched.' Our Sheila said YOU said she was a bitch! She said you don't care if she fails! She said you called her a slut! And she NEVER lies.

But after a few of their darling angels get shown up by 'let's go to the tape you fuckers insisted on,' the same parents that demanded classroom cameras will be crying for their removal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Florida teachers unions opposed to bill suggesting cameras, microphones in classrooms

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. —
Florida House Bill 1055 is raising some eyebrows on the education front.

Behind the bill, Republican lawmaker Bob Rommel is proposing cameras at the front of the classroom, requiring teachers in session to also have a microphone.

If the bill is passed, board members from each school district would have to take a vote if they want to implement the policy at their schools by Jan. 1, 2023.

“It’s nonsense,” said David Freeland, president of the Education Association of St. Lucie County.

Like many other teachers unions, Freeland is opposed to the idea.

“We have a growing teacher shortage, really they should be focusing on getting teachers in classrooms with meaningful pay, child security, those types of things. Instead, they choose to spend their time working on a bill that is completely unnecessary,” Freeland said.

This seems absolutely ridiculous. It would be a lot more cost effective to put classroom content moderators in there to stop problems of teaching science, math, history, and literature. This simply provides us the most effective manner to meddle in the classroom, and then we can be at peace that the alt-right is in control of the message and there is no longer any indoctrination in the schools.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

We are pointing to an uptick in murders in cities with large BLM protests. Not in other cities.

So... the large increase in homicides in rural areas is due to?

Homicide rates increased in cities of all sizes. The largest percent increase occurred in the biggest cities. In Los Angeles, homicides increased from 258 to 351 in the past year, a 36% jump. Rural areas were not exempt from the rise in homicides. Homicide rates in cities of 10,000 people or less increased by 25% last year, though the total number of homicides were still small compared to larger areas.

 

[Gospel]

It's not going to last.

Right now, it's illegal for teachers to film students, so when the student and the teacher tell different stories about what happened in the classroom, it's 'he said/she said.'
Or 'he said/she and her parents screeched.' Our Sheila said YOU said she was a bitch! She said you don't care if she fails! She said you called her a slut! And she NEVER lies.

But after a few of their darling angels get shown up by 'let's go to the tape you fuckers insisted on,' the same parents that demanded classroom cameras will be crying for their removal.

Facts. The last thing anyone needs are armchair specialists on Reddit reviewing every tape made public. Then there is the freedom of information act and how that plays out with requests for classroom footage from people looking to make Youtube content out of it.