• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Discrimination -- the reality

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom
I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?
Toni, it is rather obvious to others that TomC did not claim enslaving people changed their genetics. He is not proposing Lamarckian evolution.

It seems to me that the claim is 'the Africans who were sold into slavery were genetically different to the Africans who sold them', which seems like a plausible claim to me.
It was not clear to me what he ( or Loren) meant. It is clear to me that any assertion that there was a significant or meaningful ( on any level ) difference in the genetic makeup between those who sold Africans and the Africans themselves or that any such difference translated into a difference in intelligence or quality is based upon multiple levels of ignorance. About genetics. Intelligence. The history of slavery. The practice of slavery in West Central Africa. For starters.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom
I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?
Toni, it is rather obvious to others that TomC did not claim enslaving people changed their genetics. He is not proposing Lamarckian evolution.

It seems to me that the claim is 'the Africans who were sold into slavery were genetically different to the Africans who sold them', which seems like a plausible claim to me.
It was not clear to me what he ( or Loren) meant. It is clear to me that any assertion that there was a significant or meaningful ( on any level ) difference in the genetic makeup between those who sold Africans and the Africans themselves or that any such difference translated into a difference in intelligence or quality is based upon multiple levels of ignorance. About genetics. Intelligence. The history of slavery. The practice of slavery in West Central Africa. For starters.

I don't remember anyone but you suggesting that genetics plays any role in any of the important issues being talked about. You brought up genetics. Not me.

And I said, a few times, I see no reason to think genetics plays any part in this.
Tom
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom
I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?
Toni, it is rather obvious to others that TomC did not claim enslaving people changed their genetics. He is not proposing Lamarckian evolution.

It seems to me that the claim is 'the Africans who were sold into slavery were genetically different to the Africans who sold them', which seems like a plausible claim to me.
It was not clear to me what he ( or Loren) meant.
It was clear to me, but perhaps I am wrong. Nothing TomC wrote caused me to think he thinks or said or implied that being enslaved changed your genetics.

 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?
I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?

I would not consider racial self-identification irrelevant to the issue of job interviews. For one thing, most employers see an application well before they see a face. While apparent race is also a significant factor in employment discrimination cases, it is seldom the only factor.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?
I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?
It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom
I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

I’m very well aware that slavery has existed for most of human history, throughout the world. Which would be obvious if you read my actual posts rather than tried to score points about things you really do not seem to understand.
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?
I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?
It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?
Nothing can "make you Black". Your situation would no doubt become complicated if you reached the stage of a personal interview and your interviewer had a conflicting perception of your race. But that doesn't necessarily make them "right" to pigeonhole you, if you are asking for my personal opinion on such things.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?
I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?
It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?
Nothing can "make you Black".
I'm confused. There are people who are black, correct? Is being black an uncaused quality? Or do you mean nothing can make me (Metaphor) black? If so, it appears to me you believe race is not a self-identity and cannot be changed. Is that correct?

Your situation would no doubt become complicated if you reached the stage of a personal interview and your interviewer had a conflicting perception of your race. But that doesn't necessarily make them "right" to pigeonhole you, if you are asking for my personal opinion on such things.
I'm even more confused by this response than I could have anticipated. Are you saying it is not "right" to perceive somebody's race as different to their self-perception of it?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?
I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?
It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?
Nothing can "make you Black".
I'm confused. There are people who are black, correct? Is being black an uncaused quality? Or do you mean nothing can make me (Metaphor) black? If so, it appears to me you believe race is not a self-identity and cannot be changed. Is that correct?

Your situation would no doubt become complicated if you reached the stage of a personal interview and your interviewer had a conflicting perception of your race. But that doesn't necessarily make them "right" to pigeonhole you, if you are asking for my personal opinion on such things.
I'm even more confused by this response than I could have anticipated. Are you saying it is not "right" to perceive somebody's race as different to their self-perception of it?
I would try to answer your questions, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
No it is not. I never said anything about anyone be inherently anything.

Here's a quote:
No, but your "analysis" about why the average black american less able than immigrants is so bigoted that it does make one wonder.

I never said any such thing. If you want to talk to me go ahead.
If you want to make up stuff, attribute it to me, then talk about that instead, you go ahead. But it's not the same thing at all. You aren't talking to me, you're talking to a figment of your imagination.
Tom
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
...
Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.
... even if what is on the table is outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups rather than direct discrimination against those who are in power, I do not agree with that sentiment as you should well realize by my postings in this thread alone.
Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student who applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?
Your post sets up a dichotomy in which either a white person is "in power" in critical economic situations, or they are victims of "direct discrimination". There is no such dichotomy,
My post did not set up any such dichotomy. That is a figment of your imagination. Obviously some white people are both "in power" and discriminated against, obviously some are neither "in power" nor discriminated against, and obviously you will be unable to exhibit a logical derivation to the contrary from my post.

Your post set up an entirely different dichotomy between (1) Affirmative Action programs that are outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, and (2) Affirmative Action programs that are direct discrimination against those who are in power. In my first question I asked you why you set up that dichotomy. In my second question I asked you if you have any evidence to offer in defense of your dichotomy -- any evidence that the people discriminated against by the non-type-1 AA programs in fact really are in power. It appears on its face to be a patently false dichotomy -- plenty of Affirmative Action programs directly discriminate against people who are not in power.

because people are not, in the first place, owed special privileges just because they identify as white.
You are insinuating that I implied white people are owed special privileges and am in need of a lecture that they are not. I implied nothing of the sort, and was not in need of such a lecture. You did not have a reason to think I did, or was. For you to have taken such a sneering swipe at me without cause appears on its face to have been malicious. But I will keep Hanlon's Razor in mind.

Now, if you are asking whether a person is more or less likely to <ludicrous hypothesis snipped>
I asked you two questions. They were in plain* English. They were both questions about you. You elected not to answer them. Instead you replied with a misrepresentation of my post, a nasty insinuation about my personal character, and a proposal that I meant to ask a question about somebody other than you. But that doesn't make my questions about you go away. Feel free to answer them now.

(* Sorry, I see there was a typo in my second question. That should have been:

Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white** people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?
)

(** All this discussion leaves aside the subset of AA programs that are direct discrimination against Asians, since you and the other quoted posters appeared to already be leaving Asians aside.)
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.
In the U.S. only 14% of us are immigrants; in Canada it's 23%. Latin America's numbers are lower.

If by "immigrants" you mean "immigrants or descendants of immigrants", it isn't "nearly all" -- it's all of us.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.
In the U.S. only 14% of us are immigrants; in Canada it's 23%. Latin America's numbers are lower.

If by "immigrants" you mean "immigrants or descendants of immigrants", it isn't "nearly all" -- it's all of us.

I suppose, when it comes down to brass tacks, everyone who isn't a central African is an immigrant.

Let me be more precise, since sometimes that matters on IIDB. By "immigrants" in that post I was referring to Americans whose ancestors crossed an ocean within recorded history and stayed.

Sorry to be such a mess.
Tom
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I suppose, when it comes down to brass tacks, everyone who isn't a central African is an immigrant.
When it comes down to brass tacks, nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant. Everybody born here, the descendant of 12,000 BC Beringians and the "anchor baby" of two 2022 illegal aliens alike, is exactly as native an American as every other. "Immigrant" is not a property one can ascertain by examining a person's parents.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
When it comes down to brass tacks, nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant.

Sorry, once again I was insufficiently precise.

Anyone who isn't a current central African resident, descended from peoples who have lived there since the dawn of man, is an immigrant.

Everybody who doesn't live in central Africa either immigrated or is the descendants of people who did. From Japanese people to Patagonian people to Scandinavian people, everyone but central Africans are immigrants.

Sorry to be such a mess.
Tom
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
As a white man who has always benefited from the advantages the system has afforded me, the idea of "reverse discrimination" has always seemed more than a little specious. To claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring, even more so.
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
Only when they think it applies to themselves.
Can you quote anyone in particular claiming that, or does the "they" refer to fictional characters in your internal dialogue with your mental caricature of people you disapprove of?

You made an extraordinary claim. I'd ask you for your extraordinary evidence, but, actually, even a smidgen of ordinary evidence would be fine.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
When it comes down to brass tacks, nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant.

Sorry, once again I was insufficiently precise.

Anyone who isn't a current central African resident, descended from peoples who have lived there since the dawn of man, is an immigrant.

Everybody who doesn't live in central Africa either immigrated or is the descendants of people who did. From Japanese people to Patagonian people to Scandinavian people, everyone but central Africans are immigrants.

Sorry to be such a mess.
Tom
Sorry to be such a pedant, but "either immigrated or is the descendants of people who did" is not what the word "immigrant" means. It means "one that immigrates" (Merriam-Webster). Nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant, regardless of whom he's a descendant of. This pedantic point is pertinent to the topic of the thread -- a great deal of the misleading rhetoric about racial discrimination policies was derived by fudging the distinction between what's a characteristic of an individual and what's a characteristic ascribed wholesale to a group of people the individual is lumped in with. There isn't an inch of difference between saying people that were born in west Africa are immigrants because other people of their ethnicity immigrated to there from central Africa, and saying high-school students that some AA policy discriminates against are in power because other people of their ethnicity are in power.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom
I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

I’m very well aware that slavery has existed for most of human history, throughout the world. Which would be obvious if you read my actual posts rather than tried to score points about things you really do not seem to understand.
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.
That is exactly what I was trying to get at: How are are those genetics different and from whom? And why are they different? And how do you know?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.

This is extremely ill-thought out and not born out by actual data/facts.
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.
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.
You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.
You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.
You are making an assertion about alcohol tolerance by race/geography with no data or reference to back it up. Please support your assertion with links to data, studies, articles, something.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
...
Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.
... even if what is on the table is outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups rather than direct discrimination against those who are in power, I do not agree with that sentiment as you should well realize by my postings in this thread alone.
Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student who applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?
Your post sets up a dichotomy in which either a white person is "in power" in critical economic situations, or they are victims of "direct discrimination". There is no such dichotomy,
My post did not set up any such dichotomy. That is a figment of your imagination. Obviously some white people are both "in power" and discriminated against, obviously some are neither "in power" nor discriminated against, and obviously you will be unable to exhibit a logical derivation to the contrary from my post.

Your post set up an entirely different dichotomy between (1) Affirmative Action programs that are outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, and (2) Affirmative Action programs that are direct discrimination against those who are in power. In my first question I asked you why you set up that dichotomy. In my second question I asked you if you have any evidence to offer in defense of your dichotomy -- any evidence that the people discriminated against by the non-type-1 AA programs in fact really are in power. It appears on its face to be a patently false dichotomy -- plenty of Affirmative Action programs directly discriminate against people who are not in power.

because people are not, in the first place, owed special privileges just because they identify as white.
You are insinuating that I implied white people are owed special privileges and am in need of a lecture that they are not. I implied nothing of the sort, and was not in need of such a lecture. You did not have a reason to think I did, or was. For you to have taken such a sneering swipe at me without cause appears on its face to have been malicious. But I will keep Hanlon's Razor in mind.

Now, if you are asking whether a person is more or less likely to <ludicrous hypothesis snipped>
I asked you two questions. They were in plain* English. They were both questions about you. You elected not to answer them. Instead you replied with a misrepresentation of my post, a nasty insinuation about my personal character, and a proposal that I meant to ask a question about somebody other than you. But that doesn't make my questions about you go away. Feel free to answer them now.

(* Sorry, I see there was a typo in my second question. That should have been:

Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white** people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?
)

(** All this discussion leaves aside the subset of AA programs that are direct discrimination against Asians, since you and the other quoted posters appeared to already be leaving Asians aside.)
I don't understand how your "personal character" or my personal opinion have any bearing on the discussion at hand, in any case.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
And the very same white males that whinge about this discrimination are usually happy to deny that blacks themselves continue to suffer from many other forms of discrimination.
...
Whingeing against affirmative action is popular but misplaced IMO. Present company excepted of course, but I'll guess that many of the whingers are themselves racist.
If a non-white person whinged about discrimination against his ethnicity, would you insinuate that his motivation for whinging about it was hostility toward white people?

Too hypothetical.
No worries. Gospel wrote some posts upthread complaining about discrimination against black people. Would you insinuate that his motivation for complaining about it is hostility toward white people?

And how come the whites and non-whites get to whinge, but I only get to insinuate?
The heck are you on about? As you say, the whites and non-whites both get to whinge, and you're white or non-white, so of course you get to whinge. But people of all skin tones get to insinuate as well as whinge, and since you insinuated racism on the part of white whingers, I asked about insinuating. If you go beyond insinuating and produce evidence that some particular whinger is himself racist, that would be a good time for you to whinge about it.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I asked you two questions. ... They were both questions about you. You elected not to answer them. Instead you replied with a misrepresentation of my post, a nasty insinuation about my personal character...
I don't understand how your "personal character" or my personal opinion have any bearing on the discussion at hand, in any case.
My personal character has no bearing on the discussion so when you impugned it you were off-topic as well as wrong. As for your personal opinion, you've been expressing your personal opinion about the thread topic, so analysis of the reasons you've offered for your opinion is on-topic. In particular, you made two arguments that appear to be derived from prejudicial stereotypes about white people.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,286
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
And the very same white males that whinge about this discrimination are usually happy to deny that blacks themselves continue to suffer from many other forms of discrimination.
...
Whingeing against affirmative action is popular but misplaced IMO. Present company excepted of course, but I'll guess that many of the whingers are themselves racist.
If a non-white person whinged about discrimination against his ethnicity, would you insinuate that his motivation for whinging about it was hostility toward white people?
Every piece of your implicit syllogism is based on presumption, not fact or evidence.

See above.

And how come the whites and non-whites get to whinge, but I only get to insinuate?
The heck are you on about?

:confused2: What happened to your sense of humor?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
No it is not. I never said anything about anyone be inherently anything.

Here's a quote:
No, but your "analysis" about why the average black american less able than immigrants is so bigoted that it does make one wonder.
There is nothing in there about "inherent". Nothing.
I never said any such thing. If you want to talk to me go ahead.
If you want to make up stuff, attribute it to me, then talk about that instead, you go ahead. But it's not the same thing at all. You aren't talking to me, you're talking to a figment of your imagination.
Tom
The record is clear. You jumped into to defend/clarify LP's claim which is a based on genetics. I get it - you misinterpreted his claim. Your misinterpretation is pretty confused (as you admit in a post with "a mess"). While you did not intend to base your claim on genetics, it was reasonable to link to the original claim of LP's. I apologize for assuming your defense of LP's claim was made in the context of its meaning.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Every piece of your implicit syllogism is based on presumption, not fact or evidence.
If so, then the sensible course is to collect some facts and evidence. That's what I tried to do...

... but you snipped out that part of my post. So reveal a fact.

Gospel wrote some posts upthread complaining about discrimination against black people. Would you insinuate that his motivation for complaining about it is hostility toward white people?

:confused2: What happened to your sense of humor?
It's the late Roman Empire. Society has been safe for atheists for ages. But now that's all disintegrating under the rising tide of an aggressive new religion. Sorry if I don't find the coming Christian theocracy funny.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,554
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
As a white man who has always benefited from the advantages the system has afforded me, the idea of "reverse discrimination" has always seemed more than a little specious. To claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring, even more so.
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
Only when they think it applies to themselves.
Can you quote anyone in particular claiming that, or does the "they" refer to fictional characters in your internal dialogue with your mental caricature of people you disapprove of?

You made an extraordinary claim. I'd ask you for your extraordinary evidence, but, actually, even a smidgen of ordinary evidence would be fine.
There's nothing extraordinary about it, and you declaring it to be, does not make it so. If my saying I have heard it many times in conversations with people, is not enough for you, I doubt a link to someone on the internet will convince you.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,554
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Telling a white man who only hires other white men, that he has to look closer at applicants of other races and he is expected to find a few suitable non white non male employees is not a disease. It's actually an accommodation for an employee with an obvious impairment.

It would be simpler for everyone to fire the guy and replace him with someone better equipped for the job.

I see this sort of simplistic analysis a bigger problem in 21st century USA than institutional racism.

You've completely ignored any possible explanation for racially disparate results other than white racism. There are other explanations. Explanations that are well supported by more sophisticated statistics and statistical analysis. From the staff of the local BurgerDoodle to the staff of a sophisticated engineering company in South Carolina, there are probably dramatically different reasons for the racial makeup of the employees.

Pretending that every employment situation is the same, and therefore racial disparities are evidence of a racially biased management team is ridiculous.
It's wrong and counterproductive and results in a worse world for all of us.
Tom
I apologize for all my short comings. No one said every employment situation is the same, but I speak from the experience of a man who has worked in the southern United States from the age of 15, until the present time. The drama of different reasons not withstanding, maybe things are different in South Carolina and they have special engineering needs which would require a less racially diverse workforce than a hamburger stand.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
As a white man who has always benefited from the advantages the system has afforded me, the idea of "reverse discrimination" has always seemed more than a little specious. To claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring, even more so.
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
Only when they think it applies to themselves.
Can you quote anyone in particular claiming that, or does the "they" refer to fictional characters in your internal dialogue with your mental caricature of people you disapprove of?

You made an extraordinary claim. I'd ask you for your extraordinary evidence, but, actually, even a smidgen of ordinary evidence would be fine.
There's nothing extraordinary about it, and you declaring it to be, does not make it so.
Try to argue like that in front of Judge Judy and see how far it gets you. "If it doesn't make sense, it's not true."

If my saying I have heard it many times in conversations with people, is not enough for you, I doubt a link to someone on the internet will convince you.
Doubt what you please, but a link to someone on the internet saying it would convince me somebody said it at least once; you telling me you've heard it many times in conversations with people is exactly as convincing as you telling me you've been abducted by aliens many times.

What you say happened to you many times has never happened to you at all. I know this, because it doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense it's not true. Why would any person in conversation with you ever have a reason to say to you "It's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring."?

Of course it's entirely plausible that many people have said to you "It's unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring." <-- That would make sense for someone to have said. There are plenty of normal human motivations that would get someone to say that to you. But the "suddenly" bit? No. You have no explanation for why anyone would say that to you. It's beyond ludicrous. Therefore it didn't happen -- the "suddenly" was inserted by you.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,286
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Bomb#20 said:
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
When I saw Mr. Bomb's initial query, suddenly echoing "suddenly" back at his quarry, I concluded that he was picking on the bad sentence construction with this inappropriate or ambiguous adverb. What do I win? I'll guess many Infidels including Bomb's victim — whoever it was; I've forgotten and don't care — didn't know what had Bomb's dander up. Scrutinizing the sentence might have helped them guess the picayune complaint, but who has time for that?

If Bomb is so smart to nitpick the "suddenly", surely he knew his complaint was likely to be misunderstood. Yes, I think he did realize that. He could have boldened and reddened the "suddenly" to call attention to his specific grievance, but evidently he preferred to get a long round of confused rejoinders in first, with the ever-lengthening and increasingly boring nested quote streams.

Bomb#20 said:
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?

In hindsight, the fact that I was paying enough attention to understand Bomb's peculiar complaint — the mock-horrid "suddenly" — is my own failure. I failed myself by wasting minutes wading through the increasingly useless dialog, minutes that could have been better spent. I could have been reading the Tom Wolfe novel on my bedstand. I could have telephoned my son or sister; I could have worked a more interesting puzzle than "Find the wrong adverb." I'd be on my way to Floating Fortune Road, but feel it best to minimize adventure until my red eye improves.

Why would any person in conversation with you ever have a reason to say to you "It's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring."?

Do you play Bridge or Backgammon, Bomb? If so, please join me at PlayOK.com some time! I am sure those games are more fun than "Babble about the misplaced adverb".

Bomb#20 said:
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?

Maybe I've never heard it out loud but now, like the tedious ending of the tedious Joseph Conrad novel, we'll all be hearing it in our dreams: "Suddenly, the Horror. Suddenly the Horror. Suddenly."
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom
The people that voluntary choose to move from one country to another tend to be above average--they trust themselves to be able to land on their feet in an alien environment. While it's possible the effect is entirely cultural I think there's also a genetic component. The children of immigrants tend to outperform locals.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are making an assertion about alcohol tolerance by race/geography with no data or reference to back it up. Please support your assertion with links to data, studies, articles, something.
Geography, not race.

And it should be obvious that in the old world there has been far more time for alcohol-problem-prone genes to be selected against. This happens with every threat, over time a population becomes less susceptible to problems they repeatedly experience because the more susceptible are more likely to not pass on their genes. Why should alcohol go against the normal pattern of evolution?
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom
The people that voluntary choose to move from one country to another tend to be above average--they trust themselves to be able to land on their feet in an alien environment.
It isn't just a self-selection effect. Countries such as Australia specifically selects its non-humanitarian immigrants on a points basis.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
You are making an assertion about alcohol tolerance by race/geography with no data or reference to back it up. Please support your assertion with links to data, studies, articles, something.
Geography, not race.

And it should be obvious that in the old world there has been far more time for alcohol-problem-prone genes to be selected against. This happens with every threat, over time a population becomes less susceptible to problems they repeatedly experience because the more susceptible are more likely to not pass on their genes. Why should alcohol go against the normal pattern of evolution?

You're actually arguing (again) that it is related to genetics. That' what it means when genetic problems are selected for or against.

Aside from that, you're incorrect about modern day alcohol use/abuse:

 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,541
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom
Loren seems to believe it is important. But he won't explain why. That is how this nonsense got started.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
You are making an assertion about alcohol tolerance by race/geography with no data or reference to back it up. Please support your assertion with links to data, studies, articles, something.
Geography, not race.

And it should be obvious that in the old world there has been far more time for alcohol-problem-prone genes to be selected against. This happens with every threat, over time a population becomes less susceptible to problems they repeatedly experience because the more susceptible are more likely to not pass on their genes. Why should alcohol go against the normal pattern of evolution?

You're actually arguing (again) that it is related to genetics. That' what it means when genetic problems are selected for or against.

Aside from that, you're incorrect about modern day alcohol use/abuse:

What is it in that link that you think conflicts with Loren's claim? It looks to me like your data mildly supports his position. The most relevant chart appears to be this one:


Draw a diagonal line from the 0,0 origin through "World". If Loren is correct then we'd expect to see places with high-fraction new-world indigenous populations -- South and Central America -- more likely to be in the upper left triangle, with relatively few in the lower right triangle. And that's just what we see: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Colombia all in the upper left, with only Peru bucking the trend in the lower right. (The other countries in the region are in the broad stripe in the middle, close to the world average.) From the vertical and horizontal distribution and the overall scatter, obviously environmental factors have a stronger influence on alcoholism, but the diagonal distribution supports the hypothesis that there's a moderate genetic contribution too.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Bomb#20 said:
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
"I suddenly don't want to post this, but I have gone to the bother of typing it."
Well, you could have answered my question to you, but if you think Bronzeage's position is more defensible, suit yourself.

When I saw Mr. Bomb's initial query, suddenly echoing "suddenly" back at his quarry, I concluded that he was picking on the bad sentence construction with this inappropriate or ambiguous adverb. What do I win? I'll guess many Infidels including Bomb's victim
...
Do you play Bridge or Backgammon, Bomb? If so, please join me at PlayOK.com some time! I am sure those games are more fun
I play both, but this isn't a game. This is a prosecution, and Bronzeage is a perp, not a victim. The victims here are the people he misrepresented.

than "Babble about the misplaced adverb"
And now we get to the heart of the matter. If you feel this is about the adverb being misplaced, then by all means, please enlighten us. Where was the adverb supposed to have been placed?

Surely you know how crime investigation works. The cops pick up a perp for a minor violation. Interrogation leads to evidence of a greater crime. That leads to identification of accomplices and their own crimes. The accumulation of evidence eventually lets the police flip one of the perps and he gives up evidence against his boss, the real target of the investigation. Establishing that Bronzeage put words in his victims' mouths -- that he introduced the "suddenly" rather than merely reporting it -- is only the minor violation, only the first step in a longer chain of discovery. As long as he was claiming people said that, he got to duck responsibility for it. If we're past that -- if all parties agree the adverb was misplaced -- then the next question is, where did he mean to insert "suddenly" and why did he insert it? If it turns out he had a good reason, then he's done. The police stop questioning him, leave him a card with their phone number, and focus back on the remaining two known perps. (That's you and Politesse, by the way.) But since he's responsible for the "suddenly", if it turns out he didn't have a good reason to insert it, then that's evidence of a greater crime, and the investigation goes on for another round. But this isn't about trying to take down Bronzeage. I'm trying to help him. If I secure his cooperation and take down his boss then he can get out of the gang and he'll have a better life.

So if you're volunteering to speak in Bronzeage's defense, where was the adverb supposed to have been placed?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,286
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Bomb#20 said:
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
"I suddenly don't want to post this, but I have gone to the bother of typing it."
Well, you could have answered my question to you, but if you think Bronzeage's position is more defensible, suit yourself.

When I saw Mr. Bomb's initial query, suddenly echoing "suddenly" back at his quarry, I concluded that he was picking on the bad sentence construction with this inappropriate or ambiguous adverb. What do I win? I'll guess many Infidels including Bomb's victim
...
Do you play Bridge or Backgammon, Bomb? If so, please join me at PlayOK.com some time! I am sure those games are more fun
I play both, but this isn't a game. This is a prosecution, and Bronzeage is a perp, not a victim. The victims here are the people he misrepresented.

than "Babble about the misplaced adverb"
And now we get to the heart of the matter. If you feel this is about the adverb being misplaced, then by all means, please enlighten us. Where was the adverb supposed to have been placed?

Surely you know how crime investigation works. The cops pick up a perp for a minor violation. Interrogation leads to evidence of a greater crime. That leads to identification of accomplices and their own crimes. The accumulation of evidence eventually lets the police flip one of the perps and he gives up evidence against his boss, the real target of the investigation. Establishing that Bronzeage put words in his victims' mouths -- that he introduced the "suddenly" rather than merely reporting it -- is only the minor violation, only the first step in a longer chain of discovery. As long as he was claiming people said that, he got to duck responsibility for it. If we're past that -- if all parties agree the adverb was misplaced -- then the next question is, where did he mean to insert "suddenly" and why did he insert it? If it turns out he had a good reason, then he's done. The police stop questioning him, leave him a card with their phone number, and focus back on the remaining two known perps. (That's you and Politesse, by the way.)
:help::help:
But since he's responsible for the "suddenly", if it turns out he didn't have a good reason to insert it, then that's evidence of a greater crime, and the investigation goes on for another round. But this isn't about trying to take down Bronzeage. I'm trying to help him. If I secure his cooperation and take down his boss then he can get out of the gang and he'll have a better life.

So if you're volunteering to speak in Bronzeage's defense, where was the adverb supposed to have been placed?
:help::help:
With the right jury I think I could get off, but I have severe red-eye infection in both eyes, allegedly exacerbated by the intense blue light from computer monitors; thus I'd like to expedite. (Is the need for anti-blue glasses truth or myth? I could Google for an answer, but that would require more staring at the blue-light monitor.)

So at this point I think I'd like to negotiate a plea agreement, as long as I won't need to testify against my fellow perps. :parrot: What sort of punishment did you have in mind? Incarceration is available here on Floating Fortune Road, but I've yet to find jailers with whips or handcuffs.

Meanwhile, one of my PlayOK handles is swammerdami. Perhaps we can play Bridge or Backgammon during my incarceration.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
Bomb#20 said:
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
"I suddenly don't want to post this, but I have gone to the bother of typing it."
Well, you could have answered my question to you, but if you think Bronzeage's position is more defensible, suit yourself.

When I saw Mr. Bomb's initial query, suddenly echoing "suddenly" back at his quarry, I concluded that he was picking on the bad sentence construction with this inappropriate or ambiguous adverb. What do I win? I'll guess many Infidels including Bomb's victim
...
Do you play Bridge or Backgammon, Bomb? If so, please join me at PlayOK.com some time! I am sure those games are more fun
I play both, but this isn't a game. This is a prosecution, and Bronzeage is a perp, not a victim. The victims here are the people he misrepresented.

than "Babble about the misplaced adverb"
And now we get to the heart of the matter. If you feel this is about the adverb being misplaced, then by all means, please enlighten us. Where was the adverb supposed to have been placed?

Surely you know how crime investigation works. The cops pick up a perp for a minor violation. Interrogation leads to evidence of a greater crime. That leads to identification of accomplices and their own crimes. The accumulation of evidence eventually lets the police flip one of the perps and he gives up evidence against his boss, the real target of the investigation. Establishing that Bronzeage put words in his victims' mouths -- that he introduced the "suddenly" rather than merely reporting it -- is only the minor violation, only the first step in a longer chain of discovery. As long as he was claiming people said that, he got to duck responsibility for it. If we're past that -- if all parties agree the adverb was misplaced -- then the next question is, where did he mean to insert "suddenly" and why did he insert it? If it turns out he had a good reason, then he's done. The police stop questioning him, leave him a card with their phone number, and focus back on the remaining two known perps. (That's you and Politesse, by the way.)
:help::help:
But since he's responsible for the "suddenly", if it turns out he didn't have a good reason to insert it, then that's evidence of a greater crime, and the investigation goes on for another round. But this isn't about trying to take down Bronzeage. I'm trying to help him. If I secure his cooperation and take down his boss then he can get out of the gang and he'll have a better life.

So if you're volunteering to speak in Bronzeage's defense, where was the adverb supposed to have been placed?
:help::help:
With the right jury I think I could get off, but I have severe red-eye infection in both eyes, allegedly exacerbated by the intense blue light from computer monitors; thus I'd like to expedite. (Is the need for anti-blue glasses truth or myth? I could Google for an answer, but that would require more staring at the blue-light monitor.)

Just change your monitor settings to 'night light' settings, which reduce blue tones.

 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,286
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I have severe red-eye infection in both eyes, allegedly exacerbated by the intense blue light from computer monitors; thus I'd like to expedite. (Is the need for anti-blue glasses truth or myth? I could Google for an answer, but that would require more staring at the blue-light monitor.)

Just change your monitor settings to 'night light' settings, which reduce blue tones.

Thanks! I will look for that setting BOTH in Windows and my external monitor's Menu.

ETA: Windows Settings Display Night Light. VERY orange now. I'll try it like this for a while!
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
I have severe red-eye infection in both eyes, allegedly exacerbated by the intense blue light from computer monitors; thus I'd like to expedite. (Is the need for anti-blue glasses truth or myth? I could Google for an answer, but that would require more staring at the blue-light monitor.)

Just change your monitor settings to 'night light' settings, which reduce blue tones.

Thanks! I will look for that setting BOTH in Windows and my external monitor's Menu.

ETA: Windows Settings Display Night Light. VERY orange now. I'll try it like this for a while!
Yes, Windows 10 has it. If you had a Mac my advice was going to be to kill yourself so I'm glad we avoided that unpleasantness.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,554
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
As a white man who has always benefited from the advantages the system has afforded me, the idea of "reverse discrimination" has always seemed more than a little specious. To claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring, even more so.
Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?
Only when they think it applies to themselves.
Can you quote anyone in particular claiming that, or does the "they" refer to fictional characters in your internal dialogue with your mental caricature of people you disapprove of?

You made an extraordinary claim. I'd ask you for your extraordinary evidence, but, actually, even a smidgen of ordinary evidence would be fine.
There's nothing extraordinary about it, and you declaring it to be, does not make it so.
Try to argue like that in front of Judge Judy and see how far it gets you. "If it doesn't make sense, it's not true."

If my saying I have heard it many times in conversations with people, is not enough for you, I doubt a link to someone on the internet will convince you.
Doubt what you please, but a link to someone on the internet saying it would convince me somebody said it at least once; you telling me you've heard it many times in conversations with people is exactly as convincing as you telling me you've been abducted by aliens many times.

What you say happened to you many times has never happened to you at all. I know this, because it doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense it's not true. Why would any person in conversation with you ever have a reason to say to you "It's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring."?

Of course it's entirely plausible that many people have said to you "It's unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring." <-- That would make sense for someone to have said. There are plenty of normal human motivations that would get someone to say that to you. But the "suddenly" bit? No. You have no explanation for why anyone would say that to you. It's beyond ludicrous. Therefore it didn't happen -- the "suddenly" was inserted by you.
In our age, we seldom get an opportunity to parse adverbs. The universe is much older than our planet, so let's consider an ice age compared to the brief life of Planet Earth. It suddenly got cold, in a manner similar to the way a human senses the quality of suddenly, when one wakes up to discover snow on the ground when the previous day was sunny and warm. Isobars move at a measurable speed, so there's really no suddenness to it. I hope this helps you understand "suddenly' is a linguistically vague term and is dependent upon the time frame and context.

If you want to believe there is no one who gave a lot of thought to racial preferences in hiring until they were no longer the preferred race de jour, and took a relatively short period of time to determine such a practice was wrong, I can't find any reason to be concerned.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The means by which traits are transmitted from one generation to the next is thriugh genetics.

Lemme dumb this down a bit.

The most important traits we're talking about here have nothing to do with genetics. Genetic traits in such large groups are infinitesimally small. It's cultural traits that matter. Those can be huge.
Tom
I thank goodness I'm white and my grandfather was able to take advantage of the GI bill and get a college degree to provide for his family.

Instead of a black person descended from slaves who is told that the reason it sucks is cultural, not because of the slavery / race riots / property theft / and when my grandfather served in WWII he wasn't allowed the benefits of the GI bill, instead he had dogs lashed him for demanding equal rights while kept in the inner city unable to benefit for the wealth increase in the 60s with the boom of the suburbs where governments spent lots of money to support suburb growth in lieu of supporting the inner city. It's just culture baby!
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom
The people that voluntary choose to move from one country to another tend to be above average--they trust themselves to be able to land on their feet in an alien environment.
It isn't just a self-selection effect. Countries such as Australia specifically selects its non-humanitarian immigrants on a points basis.
Which, of course, has not a single thing to do with race, religion, skin color or country of origin.

Just like the USA.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom
The people that voluntary choose to move from one country to another tend to be above average--they trust themselves to be able to land on their feet in an alien environment. While it's possible the effect is entirely cultural I think there's also a genetic component. The children of immigrants tend to outperform locals.
Except for those who were kidnapped and stolen and enslaved, everyone chooses whether or not to immigrate--even refugees. They may not WANT to immigrate but they need to. Even among your preferred group of immigrants, the ones you see as having chosen to come, not all end up where they wanted to be.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
When it comes down to brass tacks, nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant.

Sorry, once again I was insufficiently precise.

Anyone who isn't a current central African resident, descended from peoples who have lived there since the dawn of man, is an immigrant.

Everybody who doesn't live in central Africa either immigrated or is the descendants of people who did. From Japanese people to Patagonian people to Scandinavian people, everyone but central Africans are immigrants.

Sorry to be such a mess.
Tom
This is true only in that Native Americans immigrated to the Americas exactly the same way that Europeans immigrated from Africa.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
This is true only in that Native Americans immigrated to the Americas exactly the same way that Europeans immigrated from Africa.
That was rather my point.
Bomb was contrasting immigrant and native. I was contrasting immigrant and indigenous.
In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African.
Perhaps we could use "indigenous" and "invader"?
Tom

ETA ~It was only after the Twitter thing that I realized that Elon Musk isn't a native American. He's an african American. He's just so rich, powerful, and white plus I didn't care about his history at all.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
That was rather my point.
Bomb was contrasting immigrant and native. I was contrasting immigrant and indigenous.
How long after your ancestors arrive in a place do their descendants become indigenous to that place? Does it take 600 years? So if you're an English-American whose ancestors came to America in 1607 you're not indigenous, but if you're a Navajo whose ancestors came to America in 1200 you're indigenous?

In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African.
Indigenous central Africans probably are too the way you're using the term. What are the odds that in the million-odd years since Home erectus evolved in central Africa, the place was never overrun by their distant cousins, descendants of some group who'd moved to another part of Africa?

Perhaps we could use "indigenous" and "invader"?
Calling somebody who didn't invade an "invader" seems just as dubious as calling somebody who didn't immigrate an "immigrant".
 
Top Bottom