Discrimination -- the reality

[Bomb#20]

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]

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

Spoiler: I suddenly don't want to post this, but I have gone to the bother of typing it.

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.

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".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Alcohol Consumption

Who consumes the most alcohol? How has consumption changed over time? And what are the health impacts?

ourworldindata.org

 

[atrib]

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]

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:

Alcohol Consumption

Who consumes the most alcohol? How has consumption changed over time? And what are the health impacts?

ourworldindata.org

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:

Share of population with alcohol use disorder vs. alcohol consumption

Age-standardized prevalence of alcohol use disorder (classified based on alcohol dependency criteria), versus the average annual alcohol consumption of those aged 15+ years, measured in litres of pure alcohol per capita.

ourworldindata.org

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]

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]

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?

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. 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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".