Multi-Billionaire Oprah Whines About Sexism & Income Inequality At DNC

[Bomb#20]

No.

Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power is not racist. Nor does including ( some) Asians make the assumption that whites and Asians are superior to everyone else make it less racist or less incorrect.

But thank you for demonstrating that (some) white men feel oppressed when they are no longer at the front of the line for all good things but are forced to sometimes make room for other people.

Hey, I'm all for competition... just as long as I get to win all the time.

Good choice of pronoun.

 

[Toni]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

No.

Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power is not racist.

But that's not what you said that I called racist. I was perfectly clear about what you said that I called racist. I quoted what I was calling racist. You do not have an intellectually honest reason to imagine that what I was calling racist was "Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power".

Nor does including ( some) Asians make the assumption that whites and Asians are superior to everyone else make it less racist or less incorrect.

And that would be a substantive contribution to the discussion if you could quote another member assuming whites and Asians are superior to everyone else.

But thank you for demonstrating that (some) white men feel oppressed when they are no longer at the front of the line for all good things but are forced to sometimes make room for other people.

You do not have an intellectually honest reason to imagine I have demonstrated anything of the sort -- you are making a false, damaging claim about me with malice and reckless disregard for the truth, Ms. "goodwill towards all".

I'm sorry that what I wrote was so confusing to you.

You are demonstrating over and over and over again that by pointing out that (some) white men seem to struggle with the idea that they are not automatically the best qualified (except for good minorities like some Asian men) but that in fact, Hispanic, Black, Native American and other non-white applicants might also be well qualified for the hallowed halls of medical school. That characteristic: struggling to recognize and acknowledge that white male is not necessarily the best but that other people who are not white are every bit as good as white men is not racism.

 

[laughing dog]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

You have no evidence to support any of your inferences. I have personally heard some white men express their resentment of no longer being first in line. Hence, that subset of white men is not being judged - it is an accurate representation of their resentment. And an accurate representation of their view is not racist.

 

[Bomb#20]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

Apparently not as what I wrote did not demonstrate a prejudice against white men

Of course it did, for the reasons I belabored.

but an out and out embrace of a paradigm shift that no longer centers white male as the apex of all achievement and status.

Oh, come off it! The entire discussion is right there for anyone who wants to review it, so why do you feel misrepresenting what you said is going to do you any good? You could perfectly well "embrace of a paradigm shift that no longer centers white male as the apex of all achievement and status" without also throwing in all your artful snippets of character assassination, your "white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things" libels. You do that as a way to put infidels in their place and appeal to the prejudices of the choir you're preaching to.

But thank you for once again demonstrating so clearly how some white men (I am presuming you are) lose their ...at any suggestion that they are not the bestest smartest most deserving people out there, superior in every single way that counts.

You said that about me because you do not have goodwill toward all. You said that about me because you do not give a hoot whether the things you write about your outgroup are true. You do not have any reason to think what I'm calling you on the carpet for is "any suggestion that they are not the bestest smartest most deserving people out there, superior in every single way that counts.' I'm calling you on the carpet for making vicious unfounded racism accusations against your opponents. You are deliberately strawmanning me because you have no defense against my actual accusation. You are guilty as charged.

It is indeed telling that you seem to believe that treating white men like everyone else is treating them like second class citizens.

"Equal protection of the law" is in the 14th Amendment. It is against the law for universities that take federal funds to discriminate against a student on grounds of race. In this country the general practice of the courts for decades has been to enforce that law when black people are discriminated against but not to enforce it when white people and Asians are discriminated against. That is not equal protection. That is not "treating white men like everyone else." That is the government treating white men as second class citizens.

Actually, what I believe is that everyone should be treated with the expectations and deference that white men have enjoyed for many centuries now. In other words: you don't need to step to the back of the line but welcome individuals of all colors and complexions and genders as equals. It does not actually diminish white men to recognize that being white and male is not a mark of superiority but rather that all are created equal and all deserve a chance to succeed.

Everyone you are arguing with here agrees with that. You are insinuating that they do not, and you are doing it for rhetorical purposes, not because you have a reason to think they do not. That is not a civil way to carry on a discussion that should be a shared pursuit of truth. So stop with the character assassination and start exhibiting some of that goodwill toward all.

 

[lpetrich]

Or to put it another way, the Democrats mentioned above became successful despite their humble beginnings, while the Republicans simply cashed in on the family money.

I'll look back to FDR.

FDR D upper, Harry Truman D middle, Dwight Eisenhower R lower middle, JFK D upper, LBJ D lower, Richard Nixon R lower middle, Gerald Ford R upper middle, Jimmy Carter D middle, Ronald Reagan R middle, George Bush I R upper, Bill Clinton D middle, George Bush II R upper, Barack Obama D middle, Donald Trump R upper, Joe Biden D upper middle -- Kamala Harris D middle

• Upper class: FDR D, JFK D, George Bush I R, George Bush II R, Donald Trump R
• Lower to upper-middle class: Harry Truman D, Dwight Eisenhower R, LBJ D, Richard Nixon R, Gerald Ford R, Jimmy Carter D, Ronald Reagan R, Bill Clinton D, Barack Obama D, Joe Biden D -- Kamala Harris D

Right-wingers ought to be proud of the noble birth of every Republican President since George Bush I.

 

[Toni]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

Apparently not as what I wrote did not demonstrate a prejudice against white men

Of course it did, for the reasons I belabored.

but an out and out embrace of a paradigm shift that no longer centers white male as the apex of all achievement and status.

Oh, come off it! The entire discussion is right there for anyone who wants to review it, so why do you feel misrepresenting what you said is going to do you any good? You could perfectly well "embrace of a paradigm shift that no longer centers white male as the apex of all achievement and status" without also throwing in all your artful snippets of character assassination, your "white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things" libels. You do that as a way to put infidels in their place and appeal to the prejudices of the choir you're preaching to.

But thank you for once again demonstrating so clearly how some white men (I am presuming you are) lose their ...at any suggestion that they are not the bestest smartest most deserving people out there, superior in every single way that counts.

You said that about me because you do not have goodwill toward all. You said that about me because you do not give a hoot whether the things you write about your outgroup are true. You do not have any reason to think what I'm calling you on the carpet for is "any suggestion that they are not the bestest smartest most deserving people out there, superior in every single way that counts.' I'm calling you on the carpet for making vicious unfounded racism accusations against your opponents. You are deliberately strawmanning me because you have no defense against my actual accusation. You are guilty as charged.

It is indeed telling that you seem to believe that treating white men like everyone else is treating them like second class citizens.

"Equal protection of the law" is in the 14th Amendment. It is against the law for universities that take federal funds to discriminate against a student on grounds of race. In this country the general practice of the courts for decades has been to enforce that law when black people are discriminated against but not to enforce it when white people and Asians are discriminated against. That is not equal protection. That is not "treating white men like everyone else." That is the government treating white men as second class citizens.

Actually, what I believe is that everyone should be treated with the expectations and deference that white men have enjoyed for many centuries now. In other words: you don't need to step to the back of the line but welcome individuals of all colors and complexions and genders as equals. It does not actually diminish white men to recognize that being white and male is not a mark of superiority but rather that all are created equal and all deserve a chance to succeed.

Everyone you are arguing with here agrees with that. You are insinuating that they do not, and you are doing it for rhetorical purposes, not because you have a reason to think they do not. That is not a civil way to carry on a discussion that should be a shared pursuit of truth. So stop with the character assassination and start exhibiting some of that goodwill toward all.

You are making a LOT of assumptions about my motivations and thought process ceases and you are incorrect in your assumptions

It is very easy to see in this thread and in many of the other similar threads that the people who insist most loudly that the only proper way to choose which applicants should be accepted into medical schools is to use only GPA and MCAT scores, criteria that favors white and Asian applicants are typically white males who shift the conversation to the evil inflicted upon Asian applicants who are not admitted while applicants who are Hispanic, black or Native American are admitted. Of course implicit in this argument is the oh so not racist assumption that all of the highest scoring applicants are Asian or white and all of the lower scoring applicants are neither white nor Asian, an assumption that it simply is not possible to make unless you believe that black, Hispanic and Native American students cannot possibly outperform white or Asian students on the MCAT or through coursework. Because data published does NOT list the metrics of individual students alongside their demographic information. It absolutely is quite possible that the applicants with the highest scores are neither white nor Asian. That is a possibility that those protesting the admissions process seem unwilling to consider. Why not?

Why is it that I describe a general garment for a subset of white makes and you claim that it is made to your fit?

 

[barbos]

Bill Burr on Oprah:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Faith based thinking. It must be money because it's not possible that there might be any other factor.

Yet in the cases where it most certainly isn't money (Poland, China) the effect persists.

I was unaware of large numbers of Chinese and Polish students taking SATs.

Your faith in your personal opinion that Asians and white people are just smarter than other people is evident.

I said "Poland", not "Polish" and "China", not "Chinese".

I was referring to the countries, not the ethnicities. Both cases have been discussed on here before so I didn't spell them out.

Those are two countries that used a very heavy hand to equalize things. Poland had to rebuild it's educational system from scratch after WWII. Despite that there's still a considerable correlation between parental job level and the job level of their offspring. Despite money clearly not being relevant in either case.

Really? Job levels in Poland and China do not correspond to level of earning? Money? I don’t think that’s correct. Money in China and Poland dues not purchase extra tutors? Enrichment opportunities? Influence?

That dues not seem correct to me.

Because your faith is blinding you.

That's not what I said. What I said is that despite the systems doing everything they could to stamp out intergenerational effects they persist anyway. They obtained no benefit from the money their parents no longer had--yet still ended up in higher skill jobs than the offspring of parents who had been in low skill jobs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those are two people I know off the top of my head who would make lousy doctors despite being highly intelligent. More people would make bad doctors than would make good ones. It is the job of medical schools to sift through candidates to decide who is likely to be successful in their program and as a physician and who is not, from among the large number of applicants each year.

Unless you can determine that they never admit Asian applicants with lower gpas and MCAT scores, all you’ve demonstrated is that on average Asian students score more highly on MCATs and have higher gpas on average than black students or NA students.

So what?

You are still left with having to explain why the soft skills that supposedly differ exactly line up with what you would expect from an attempt to admit based on population prevalence rather than qualifications.

Why are Asians worse doctors, Hispanics better doctors and blacks even better doctors? And how are the medical schools determining this??

Three factors rather than one very simple one. Occam does not like your position.

I’m not left with anything.

You are the person talking about ‘soft skills’ I’m talking about people being pushed into career paths they sit want to satisfy mommy and daddy’s egos. I’m talking about the need for newly minted physicians to be willing to work in less lucrative areas of medical care, to underserved areas and populations.

And these somehow perfectly line up with the claimed injustices??

Do Asian prospective medical students demonstrate a commitment towards those needs? Or do they pursue the so called higher status specialities? I honestly do not know.

Faith based "logic" detected.

But I absolutely do know that medical schools and their admissions directors are deeply committed to accepting those students they believe are most likely to be successful as med students and as physicians.

Why do you dismiss the notion that perhaps they are putting their belief in discrimination ahead of the data? Especially since they won't defend their decisions unless forced to in court.

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

Which utterly does not explain the discrimination against Asians.

Occam still does not like your position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has anybody here ever asked their doctors what their undergraduate GPA was? Or their MCAT score? How do you judge the quality of your care?

I haven't! This is a sensitive subject to me. To me, the issue is how should we judge people's qualifications to get into institutions or schools. Should it be based on objective criteria (in which race dosn't matter); or should it based on subjective criteria? Personally, I want my kids to be judged on objective criteria in which they have a fair and transparent chance.

I don’t disagree. But seriously, people need to just quit acting like med schools go scrounging around community colleges looking for black, Hispanic and NA students and convince them to apply to medical school in order to screw over black, Hispanic and Native American communities by sending them stupid unqualified doctors so that white people and Asians can keep all the good, smart doctors.

Strawman.

Nobody is saying they do that. "Qualified" is not a binary. And the reality is that the medical care received in such underserved areas often leaves a lot to be desired.

It’s just out and out nonsense. Medical schools prize nothing more than their reputation for providing the very best doctors possible. Medical school admissions is a very arduous, rigorous process.

And how is that measured?

I do not understand why ( some) people lose their minds at the idea that the nerdiest people do not necessarily make the best physicians. Were these the people you talked to in school? Told about your problems? Listened to for any reason than to get the answers for the quiz you want to take a make up for? It does not matter how brilliant you are if you are not able to form a enough of relationship with the patient before you, very quickly, so that the patient will talk to you candidly and be willing to listen to your assessment and advice.

I don't understand why some people lose their minds at the idea that someone might be discriminating in favor of anyone other than a white male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

No.

Pointing out the paradigm shift from assuming that white males rightly belong in all positions of power is not racist. Nor does including ( some) Asians make the assumption that whites and Asians are superior to everyone else make it less racist or less incorrect.

But thank you for demonstrating that (some) white men feel oppressed when they are no longer at the front of the line for all good things but are forced to sometimes make room for other people.

Make room, sure. The problem is that white males are being forced out in the name of correcting past injustice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently not as what I wrote did not demonstrate a prejudice against white men but an out and out embrace of a paradigm shift that no longer centers white male as the apex of all achievement and status.

But thank you for once again demonstrating so clearly how some white men (I am presuming you are) lose their shit at any suggestion that they are not the bestest smartest most deserving people out there, superior in every single way that counts.

It is indeed telling that you seem to believe that treating white men like everyone else is treating them like second class citizens. Actually, what I believe is that everyone should be treated with the expectations and deference that white men have enjoyed for many centuries now. In other words: you don't need to step to the back of the line but welcome individuals of all colors and complexions and genders as equals. It does not actually diminish white men to recognize that being white and male is not a mark of superiority but rather that all are created equal and all deserve a chance to succeed. Indeed, it seems like it would be empowering o recognize that white men can achieve even on an even playing field instead of having everything rigged in their favor. It seems like it would be a relief to realize that the weight of the entire world does not rest upon the shoulders of white men.

Once again, a faith-based problem. You are taking it on faith that the current system is discriminating in favor of white males despite this never holding up in a head-to-head competition. You are assuming white males are guilty even when that goes against the evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sorry that what I wrote was so confusing to you.

You are demonstrating over and over and over again that by pointing out that (some) white men seem to struggle with the idea that they are not automatically the best qualified (except for good minorities like some Asian men) but that in fact, Hispanic, Black, Native American and other non-white applicants might also be well qualified for the hallowed halls of medical school. That characteristic: struggling to recognize and acknowledge that white male is not necessarily the best but that other people who are not white are every bit as good as white men is not racism.

We aren't confused. We just don't follow your faith. You see everything through a filter that the white man is wrong and fail to comprehend anything to the contrary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

You have no evidence to support any of your inferences. I have personally heard some white men express their resentment of no longer being first in line. Hence, that subset of white men is not being judged - it is an accurate representation of their resentment. And an accurate representation of their view is not racist.

Just because some are guilty of what she's alleging doesn't mean all are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is very easy to see in this thread and in many of the other similar threads that the people who insist most loudly that the only proper way to choose which applicants should be accepted into medical schools is to use only GPA and MCAT scores, criteria that favors white and Asian applicants are typically white males who shift the conversation to the evil inflicted upon Asian applicants who are not admitted while applicants who are Hispanic, black or Native American are admitted. Of course implicit in this argument is the oh so not racist assumption that all of the highest scoring applicants are Asian or white and all of the lower scoring applicants are neither white nor Asian, an assumption that it simply is not possible to make unless you believe that black, Hispanic and Native American students cannot possibly outperform white or Asian students on the MCAT or through coursework. Because data published does NOT list the metrics of individual students alongside their demographic information. It absolutely is quite possible that the applicants with the highest scores are neither white nor Asian. That is a possibility that those protesting the admissions process seem unwilling to consider. Why not?

Why is it that I describe a general garment for a subset of white makes and you claim that it is made to your fit?

Nobody is saying that GPA and MCAT must be the only factors. Rather, we are saying they should be open about the factors and how students are judged. When, instead, they respond by hiding the data it is entirely reasonable to assume they are discriminating.

And you are once again treating people as groups rather than individuals. You're not going to reach correct conclusions so long as you make this fundamental error.

 

[bilby]

"Qualified" is not a binary.

er... Yes, it is. A person either is qualified, or they are not. That's what a qualification is. A binary (possibly even arbitrary) criterion that debars those who do not meet it.

cf. "Qualified to run for President". You can argue whether or not a given individual is or is not over 35, but if they are not, they are not qualified, and may not become President until such time as they are.

Nobody is giving out partial medical degrees to doctors who are "partly qualified" or "mostly qualified"; Each candidate either qualifies, or they do not. There's no third category.

 

[laughing dog]

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

You have no evidence to support any of your inferences. I have personally heard some white men express their resentment of no longer being first in line. Hence, that subset of white men is not being judged - it is an accurate representation of their resentment. And an accurate representation of their view is not racist.

Just because some are guilty of what she's alleging doesn't mean all are.

No one claimed otherwise.

 

[Toni]

Faith based thinking. It must be money because it's not possible that there might be any other factor.

Yet in the cases where it most certainly isn't money (Poland, China) the effect persists.

I was unaware of large numbers of Chinese and Polish students taking SATs.

Your faith in your personal opinion that Asians and white people are just smarter than other people is evident.

I said "Poland", not "Polish" and "China", not "Chinese".

I was referring to the countries, not the ethnicities. Both cases have been discussed on here before so I didn't spell them out.

Those are two countries that used a very heavy hand to equalize things. Poland had to rebuild it's educational system from scratch after WWII. Despite that there's still a considerable correlation between parental job level and the job level of their offspring. Despite money clearly not being relevant in either case.

Really? Job levels in Poland and China do not correspond to level of earning? Money? I don’t think that’s correct. Money in China and Poland dues not purchase extra tutors? Enrichment opportunities? Influence?

That dues not seem correct to me.

Because your faith is blinding you.

That's not what I said. What I said is that despite the systems doing everything they could to stamp out intergenerational effects they persist anyway. They obtained no benefit from the money their parents no longer had--yet still ended up in higher skill jobs than the offspring of parents who had been in low skill jobs.

Wow. It’s almost as though family connections count for nothing. Or that the aftermath of World Wars does not leave holes in job markets that allow people who might not previously been considered for being snapped up, especially if they have family connections.

 

[Toni]

Has anybody here ever asked their doctors what their undergraduate GPA was? Or their MCAT score? How do you judge the quality of your care?

I haven't! This is a sensitive subject to me. To me, the issue is how should we judge people's qualifications to get into institutions or schools. Should it be based on objective criteria (in which race dosn't matter); or should it based on subjective criteria? Personally, I want my kids to be judged on objective criteria in which they have a fair and transparent chance.

I don’t disagree. But seriously, people need to just quit acting like med schools go scrounging around community colleges looking for black, Hispanic and NA students and convince them to apply to medical school in order to screw over black, Hispanic and Native American communities by sending them stupid unqualified doctors so that white people and Asians can keep all the good, smart doctors.

Strawman.

Nobody is saying they do that. "Qualified" is not a binary. And the reality is that the medical care received in such underserved areas often leaves a lot to be desired.

It’s just out and out nonsense. Medical schools prize nothing more than their reputation for providing the very best doctors possible. Medical school admissions is a very arduous, rigorous process.

And how is that measured?

I do not understand why ( some) people lose their minds at the idea that the nerdiest people do not necessarily make the best physicians. Were these the people you talked to in school? Told about your problems? Listened to for any reason than to get the answers for the quiz you want to take a make up for? It does not matter how brilliant you are if you are not able to form a enough of relationship with the patient before you, very quickly, so that the patient will talk to you candidly and be willing to listen to your assessment and advice.

I don't understand why some people lose their minds at the idea that someone might be discriminating in favor of anyone other than a white male.

Well, yes: medical care in underserved areas does tend to leave a lot to be desired. Such as medical care being available. At all.

Lack of resources and lack of adequate access to regular, preventative and maintenance care does tend to lead to less optimal outcomes.

You know what does not? The difference of a few points on the MCAT.

 

[Toni]

I'm sorry that what I wrote was so confusing to you.

You are demonstrating over and over and over again that by pointing out that (some) white men seem to struggle with the idea that they are not automatically the best qualified (except for good minorities like some Asian men) but that in fact, Hispanic, Black, Native American and other non-white applicants might also be well qualified for the hallowed halls of medical school. That characteristic: struggling to recognize and acknowledge that white male is not necessarily the best but that other people who are not white are every bit as good as white men is not racism.

We aren't confused. We just don't follow your faith. You see everything through a filter that the white man is wrong and fail to comprehend anything to the contrary.

I’m not sure there actually is a ‘we,’ but thanks for demonstrating my point.