Objective rational thinkers use facts to inform their opinions on social and political topics.
Ideologues use their social and political opinions to
twist the facts. We see a vivid demonstration of that in this thread. Let's start by reviewing some
actual facts.
https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy said:
If the Confederacy had been a separate nation, it would have ranked as the fourth richest in the world at the start of the Civil War. The slave economy had been very good to American prosperity. By the start of the war, the South was producing 75 percent of the world’s cotton and creating more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. Enslaved workers represented Southern planters’ most significant investment—and the bulk of their wealth.
https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/georgia-in-1860/ said:
The per capita wealth of white Georgians in 1860, for example, was nearly double that of New Yorkers or Pennsylvanians. On average, slaveholders in the state owned property worth nearly five times that of a typical landholder in the North. Enslaved people in Georgia were worth more than $400 million in 1860, and accounted for at least half the state’s total wealth.
Despite this reality, one can find many mistruths or half-truths on-line. Did the cotton gin save labor and reduce the need for slaves? Obviously not — it increased total production enormously, and more slaves than ever were needed. Unable to import more slaves, the birth of baby slaves brought economic joy to plantation owners.
Slavery in America made all of America poorer.
I can only imagine what a great place this would have been if the owner had been a little richer due to lack of slavery.
View attachment 41126
As usual, you are determined to not get the point, or perhaps you are simply economically ignorant.
Here is a parallel: war makes everyone poorer, even if certain actors may be temporarily better off. There is a net loss overall.
Who is not getting which point, who is simple, and who is economically ignorant?
Metaphor has found some remarks on-line and twisted them to serve his political agenda. Were enslaved uneducated blacks stooping in the fields less productive, on average, than free white laborers? Sure. Slightly. Did the semi-feudal Southern society inhibit some types of technological or organizational progress? You betcha!
But Metaphor writes "makes
everyone poorer." Does he think Jefferson's slaves made Jefferson poorer? That had Jefferson freed his slaves, Jefferson would suddenly have become richer?
Who knows?
Who cares? If challenged, Metaphor will make dozens of posts defending his claim based on some comma in his post or some alternative definition of 'everyone' I've overlooked![/sarcasm]
I read the article. It reports that 16% of managers report they have been told to “deprioritise” hiring white men. Literally interpreted, the OP claim to “stop hiring” is false.
The OP put in a direct link to a webpage. That is the title of the webpage. Also, you do not know that the 'stop hiring' claim is false. The article does not reveal the question wording and the answer options.
There is nothing in the article that says anyone was told to stop hiring.
There is also nothing in the article that rules it out. You don't know the question wording and you don't know what the authors meant by 'deprioritize'. There is no evidence that the claim is false.
I hold in my hand one of John le Carre's novels. Nothing there rules out either possibility. I hold an image processing textbook in the other hand. Like the novel, and like OP's cited article with its click-bait title, it has nothing to rule out that Sean Hannity has syphilis.
Is this our new standard of evidence? Some random article on the 'Net "has nothing to rule out" that Donald Trump and MTG are stable geniuses?
