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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Family connections?! What is that supposed to mean? When the system got upended those connections didn't fare any better. I'm looking at China as that's the one I'm more aware of. The old connections were in just as bad a position as they were. After the cultural revolution the only connections that mattered were to the communists.

 

[Toni]

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.

Family connections?! What is that supposed to mean? When the system got upended those connections didn't fare any better. I'm looking at China as that's the one I'm more aware of. The old connections were in just as bad a position as they were. After the cultural revolution the only connections that mattered were to the communists.

People hire people with whom they share some kind of connection, which is why it is so valuable to get into certain clubs, colleges, neighborhoods, fraternities, sororities, etc. or to have the same family name as someone who is somehow connected to your family, etc. I understand the impulse to want to hire someone who is in someway familiar, the same way we develop brand loyalty. There are so many unknowns when you hire someone. If you know something about them, there’s that much less uncertainty. And if you know their family, it’s added incentive for them to do a good job to avoid embarrassing their parents, etc. There is a reason nepotism persists.

This is even more true during and after times of upheaval.

It is human nature to prefer the familiar, and to want to look out for family and friends.

 

[bilby]

And doing business based on interpersonal relationships is fundamental to the Chinese way of life. The old saw "It's not what you know, it's who you know" applies in spades for anything you want to do.

I had a customer in China, who asked me to delay a shipment. It turned out that one of his competitors had a friend in the customs office, and was planning to have the shipment held (indefinitely) for "customs inspection" at the border between Hong Kong SAR and China.

His solution was simple; My customer's daughter went to the same exclusive private girl's school as the daughter of a senior Army general. So he arranged, through this chain of family-and-friends contacts, to have the shipment brought across the border in Army trucks. No mere customs officer would dare challenge the People's Liberation Army.

That's how it works. And for the biggest players, it's a hugely robust network, that (like TCP/IP) routes around any damage.

Expecting this system to fail because of a mere revolution or bloodbath, is only possible if you don't understand just how pervasive and far-reaching it is.

 

[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.

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.

In the first place, those white men are not here to defend themselves. Can you quote what those white men said that you interpret as "express their resentment of no longer being first in line"? Or should we, your readers, judge your claim to know what was going on in those white men's minds by applying our experience with how accurately you typically reproduce the views of IIDB posters you disagree with, when you attempt to paraphrase our own arguments? But perhaps those white men's absence motivates you to more carefully fact-check the things you say about them than you fact-check when you imagine you're characterizing the views of, for example, me. And in the second place, ...

And an accurate representation of their view is not racist.

... Toni has not been presenting her characterizations as a representation of the views of the "some white men" that you personally heard, and personally interpreted as expressing resentment, and personally decided you could mind-read as to precisely what it was they resented. She has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of the views of other members of this forum, including Loren and me in particular. She has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of any white people who aren't on board with affirmative action. And she has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of white males at large:

I’ve had this discussion many times. For white males, the fact that they are no longer first in line for all good things feels like prejudice to them. It’s not. It just feels bad to them to be treated closer to how everyone else is treated.

That's a racist, sexist stereotype.

 

[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.

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.

In the first place, those white men are not here to defend themselves. Can you quote what those white men said that you interpret as "express their resentment of no longer being first in line"? Or should we, your readers, judge your claim to know what was going on in those white men's minds by applying our experience with how accurately you typically reproduce the views of IIDB posters you disagree with, when you attempt to paraphrase our own arguments? But perhaps those white men's absence motivates you to more carefully fact-check the things you say about them than you fact-check when you imagine you're characterizing the views of, for example, me. And in the second place, ...

And an accurate representation of their view is not racist.

... Toni has not been presenting her characterizations as a representation of the views of the "some white men" that you personally heard, and personally interpreted as expressing resentment, and personally decided you could mind-read as to precisely what it was they resented. She has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of the views of other members of this forum, including Loren and me in particular. She has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of any white people who aren't on board with affirmative action. And she has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of white males at large:

I’ve had this discussion many times. For white males, the fact that they are no longer first in line for all good things feels like prejudice to them. It’s not. It just feels bad to them to be treated closer to how everyone else is treated.

That's a racist, sexist stereotype.

Well, if anyone knows sexists and racists, it would be you.

I’m more than happy to be shown wrong. Why do you think so many ( obviously not all and not necessarily any members here) white men feel so much anger and resentment towards women and non-white people in general? Or just anger and resentment?

 

[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?

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.

But it wasn't confusing to me at all -- you were being perfectly clear. You reacted to being called out on your previous ad hominem by pretending you'd said something different that was innocuous. You baselessly insinuated that earlier posters had assumed whites and Asians are superior to everyone else. And you trumped up a false accusation against me of feeling oppressed when I'm "no longer at the front of the line for all good things". Why do you behave this way?

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, on the other hand, is confusing -- it appears to have been constructed by splicing together part of some make-believe about me with part of some claim about yourself.

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.

You haven't got a reason to think anyone in this thread is experiencing that struggle.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Why did you write that? It is an invention from your imagination. It is impossible to see any such thing in this thread, because it never happened. Who do you think you're talking about? Who are these so-called "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"? Nobody in this thread insisted anything of the sort, "most loudly" or otherwise. You made it up, Ms. "You are making a LOT of assumptions about my motivations and thought process".

What people in this thread have argued is that a member of an unfavored race typically needs higher GPA/MCAT scores than a member of a favored race needs in order to have an equal chance of getting admitted, and that this implies applicants of unfavored races are being racially discriminated against, unless there is some additional axis that each student's suitability is being measured along and applicants of unfavored races are typically inferior along that axis. You have been in any number of exchanges with some other member who said something to you along those lines and challenged you to prove Asians are inferior at whatever it is you think schools should also take into account, and your answer is inevitably to falsely accuse him of insisting that schools should only use grades and test scores. That is an illogical answer.

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.

"Of course", she says. Of course you are making a lot of assumptions about other posters' thought process and you are incorrect in your assumptions. Nobody here has made an argument that implicitly assumes all of the highest scoring applicants are Asian or white and all of the lower scoring applicants are neither white nor Asian. You cannot quote any such argument from anyone here. You made it up. Trumping up that false accusation against unbelievers in your faith is hate speech. It's no different from a Protestant Fundamentalist claiming Catholics worship Satan.

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?

You seem unwilling to stop beating your wife. 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?

Are you seriously going to sit there with a straight face and pretend you haven't been accusing me personally? You are the one who claimed your "general garment" is made to my personal fit, Ms. "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." Were you counting on your readers to forget you said that?

 

[Bomb#20]

I’ve had this discussion many times. For white males, the fact that they are no longer first in line for all good things feels like prejudice to them. It’s not. It just feels bad to them to be treated closer to how everyone else is treated.

That's a racist, sexist stereotype.

Well, if anyone knows sexists and racists, it would be you.

Yes, yes, we all know you have an unlimited capacity to accuse others of racism even though the one slurring a race is you.

I’m more than happy to be shown wrong. Why do you think so many ( obviously not all and not necessarily any members here) white men feel so much anger and resentment towards women and non-white people in general? Or just anger and resentment?

Probably the same reasons so many white women and non-white men and non-white women feel so much anger and resentment, some of it towards people of other sexes and/or ethnicities. We are all of us ruled by rulers who treat us like dirt; anger and resentment are normal reactions to that. Misdirecting the anger and resentment off of our rulers onto our fellow subjects is an all-too-human mental malfunction. Susceptibility to tribalism is wired into ape brains, probably because it was a survival trait in some of the environments our ancestors evolved in.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why did you write that? It is an invention from your imagination. It is impossible to see any such thing in this thread, because it never happened. Who do you think you're talking about? Who are these so-called "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"? Nobody in this thread insisted anything of the sort, "most loudly" or otherwise. You made it up, Ms. "You are making a LOT of assumptions about my motivations and thought process".

Really?

This subject is being discussed here and in other threads because people with slightly lower scores (minorities) are being chosen over people with slightly higher scores (whites and Asians) and they say that is reverse discrimination. How you haven't seen that baffles me.

What people in this thread have argued is that a member of an unfavored race typically needs higher GPA/MCAT scores than a member of a favored race needs in order to have an equal chance of getting admitted, and that this implies applicants of unfavored races are being racially discriminated against, unless there is some additional axis that each student's suitability is being measured along and applicants of unfavored races are typically inferior along that axis. You have been in any number of exchanges with some other member who said something to you along those lines and challenged you to prove Asians are inferior at whatever it is you think schools should also take into account, and your answer is inevitably to falsely accuse him of insisting that schools should only use grades and test scores. That is an illogical answer.

How is that different???

 

[Bomb#20]

Why did you write that? It is an invention from your imagination. It is impossible to see any such thing in this thread, because it never happened. Who do you think you're talking about? Who are these so-called "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"? Nobody in this thread insisted anything of the sort, "most loudly" or otherwise. You made it up, Ms. "You are making a LOT of assumptions about my motivations and thought process".

Really?

This subject is being discussed here and in other threads because people with slightly lower scores (minorities) are being chosen over people with slightly higher scores (whites and Asians) and they say that is reverse discrimination. How you haven't seen that baffles me.

Well, in the first place, no, they don't say it's reverse discrimination; they say it's discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" is a leftist term-of-art. I just "Advanced searched" the phrase over a couple of years of IIDB and everybody using it was a leftist. Those are words they put in the mouths of non-leftists for some leftist rhetorical purpose.

And in the second place, of course I've seen them call it discrimination but why would anyone think "It's discrimination." means the same thing as "Only GPA and MCAT scores are proper choice criteria."? What the heck is the logic in that? If you think those are interchangeable claims, show your work.

They say it's discrimination because they think that's the most plausible explanation for the observation of the scores it takes to get admitted. Of course there are other considerations besides GPA and MCAT that schools can and do measure applicants along. An obvious example is involvement in extracurricular activities. When somebody observes non-Asian minorities with slightly lower scores being chosen over whites and Asians with slightly higher scores and he says it's evidence of discrimination, that is not a claim that measuring extracurriculars is improper. It's a claim that measuring extracurriculars is not a plausible explanation for the observation.

"Inference to best explanation" is at the core of scientific reasoning. This is no different from when Copernicus claimed the Earth moving around the sun is a better explanation then Ptolemy's epicycles, for the observation that Mars and Jupiter and Saturn periodically go into reverse in their paths through the sky. Copernicus was not claiming it would be improper for God to design the universe with epicycles.

What people in this thread have argued is that a member of an unfavored race typically needs higher GPA/MCAT scores than a member of a favored race needs in order to have an equal chance of getting admitted, and that this implies applicants of unfavored races are being racially discriminated against, unless there is some additional axis that each student's suitability is being measured along and applicants of unfavored races are typically inferior along that axis. You have been in any number of exchanges with some other member who said something to you along those lines and challenged you to prove Asians are inferior at whatever it is you think schools should also take into account, and your answer is inevitably to falsely accuse him of insisting that schools should only use grades and test scores. That is an illogical answer.

How is that different???

It's different because it has an "unless there is some additional axis that each student's suitability is being measured along and applicants of unfavored races are typically inferior along that axis." part, and "the only proper way to choose is to use only GPA and MCAT scores" doesn't have that "unless" part.

If you think racial discrimination is not the most plausible explanation for the observed score discrepancy, what explanation do you think is more plausible? What is it that you think university admissions officers are measuring in the students, and why do you think they measure Asians to be less good at that than full-fledged BIPOCs?

 

[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.

In the first place, those white men are not here to defend themselves.

Do you operate under the delusion that posters can only discuss the views of people who can actively defend those views? Really, your point is absurd.

Can you quote what those white men said that you interpret as "express their resentment of no longer being first in line"?......

Yes, I can quote them. I will go one better and quote them. One of those white men (one of my brothers) who said "Why is it that us white guys are no longer considered first"? I have heard "I have to hope some minority or girl doesn't apply so I have a chance".

There is no mind-reading involved.

And an accurate representation of their view is not racist.

... Toni has not been presenting her characterizations as a representation of the views of the "some white men" that you personally heard, and personally interpreted as expressing resentment, and personally decided you could mind-read as to precisely what it was they resented. She has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of the views of other members of this forum, including Loren and me in particular. She has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of any white people who aren't on board with affirmative action. And she has been presenting her characterizations as a representation of white males at large:

Toni is presenting it as a representation of a portion of white males at large. But you keep being you with your malacious imputations.

I’ve had this discussion many times. For white males, the fact that they are no longer first in line for all good things feels like prejudice to them. It’s not. It just feels bad to them to be treated closer to how everyone else is treated.

That's a racist, sexist stereotype.

How is it racist? To any rational disinterested reader who is even moderately fluent in the language, it does not exhibit any trace that white men are inferior or that Toni dislikes them. I suppose it is sexist in the same manner as it is sexist to observe that men have adam's apples or penises.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, in the first place, no, they don't say it's reverse discrimination; they say it's discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" is a leftist term-of-art. I just "Advanced searched" the phrase over a couple of years of IIDB and everybody using it was a leftist. Those are words they put in the mouths of non-leftists for some leftist rhetorical purpose.

Another thing you're wrong about.

The term reverse discrimination arose in the seventies. It's what the right wing called affirmative action.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, in the first place, no, they don't say it's reverse discrimination; they say it's discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" is a leftist term-of-art. I just "Advanced searched" the phrase over a couple of years of IIDB and everybody using it was a leftist. Those are words they put in the mouths of non-leftists for some leftist rhetorical purpose.

Another thing you're wrong about.

The term reverse discrimination arose in the seventies. It's what the right wing called affirmative action.

No doubt. The seventies were when left-wingers were still calling their own opinions "politically correct". Don't you think "politically correct" has become a rightist term-of-art?

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, in the first place, no, they don't say it's reverse discrimination; they say it's discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" is a leftist term-of-art. I just "Advanced searched" the phrase over a couple of years of IIDB and everybody using it was a leftist. Those are words they put in the mouths of non-leftists for some leftist rhetorical purpose.

Another thing you're wrong about.

The term reverse discrimination arose in the seventies. It's what the right wing called affirmative action.

No doubt. The seventies were when left-wingers were still calling their own opinions "politically correct". Don't you think "politically correct" has become a rightist term-of-art?

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy | Moira Weigel

The long read: For 25 years, invoking this vague and ever-shifting nemesis has been a favourite tactic of the right – and Donald Trump’s victory is its greatest triumph

www.theguardian.com

 

[pood]

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?

It’s neither an argument, nor is it ad hom, nor is it racist.

 

[pood]

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.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. What is happening instead is that many white men feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of positive goods like DEi. They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.

 

[Jarhyn]

I suppose it is sexist in the same manner as it is sexist to observe that men have adam's apples or penises.

It is slightly essentialist to "observe" that, yes, since it's not true. It's commonplace for a man to have a penis, but not universal.

 

[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.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens.

Whaddya mean? Doncha know the the Democrats have only nominated one white man for the SCOTUS in the past 30 years? Never mind they've had 3 openings, and the GOP stonewalled the one man.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Family connections?! What is that supposed to mean? When the system got upended those connections didn't fare any better. I'm looking at China as that's the one I'm more aware of. The old connections were in just as bad a position as they were. After the cultural revolution the only connections that mattered were to the communists.

People hire people with whom they share some kind of connection, which is why it is so valuable to get into certain clubs, colleges, neighborhoods, fraternities, sororities, etc. or to have the same family name as someone who is somehow connected to your family, etc. I understand the impulse to want to hire someone who is in someway familiar, the same way we develop brand loyalty. There are so many unknowns when you hire someone. If you know something about them, there’s that much less uncertainty. And if you know their family, it’s added incentive for them to do a good job to avoid embarrassing their parents, etc. There is a reason nepotism persists.

This is even more true during and after times of upheaval.

It is human nature to prefer the familiar, and to want to look out for family and friends.

Once again you are blinded by your faith and fail to comprehend the situation. Those connection do you no good when they aren't in a position to hire.

Besides, I was talking about intergenerational effects.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And doing business based on interpersonal relationships is fundamental to the Chinese way of life. The old saw "It's not what you know, it's who you know" applies in spades for anything you want to do.

I had a customer in China, who asked me to delay a shipment. It turned out that one of his competitors had a friend in the customs office, and was planning to have the shipment held (indefinitely) for "customs inspection" at the border between Hong Kong SAR and China.

His solution was simple; My customer's daughter went to the same exclusive private girl's school as the daughter of a senior Army general. So he arranged, through this chain of family-and-friends contacts, to have the shipment brought across the border in Army trucks. No mere customs officer would dare challenge the People's Liberation Army.

That's how it works. And for the biggest players, it's a hugely robust network, that (like TCP/IP) routes around any damage.

Expecting this system to fail because of a mere revolution or bloodbath, is only possible if you don't understand just how pervasive and far-reaching it is.

Things have returned to normal in China. You are not describing the cultural revolution time!