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

[Toni]

Why would you so grossly mischaracterize their argument? Only one explanation makes sense: you are apparently falling prey to progressivism teaching its infectees to treat white and Asian people not as individuals, but as interchangeable parts, as mere representatives of their respective races. You are talking as though when a worker or student is denied an opportunity to prove himself worthy of high rank, he can't have been oppressed as long as some other worker or student of the same race will be there to represent him in the halls of high rank. Legislators, possibly. But CEOs, surgeons and physicians, not so much. Corner offices and operating theaters and doctors' offices are not a bloody legislature! No races can be over-represented or under-represented there, because nobody is represented there. It is not the job of CEOs or surgeons or physicians to represent anyone.

Exactly. Group averages mean nothing. What matters is how individuals are treated. Group averages are inherently incapable of either proving or disproving discrimination. It's a matter of faith that what's being modeled is a bell curve--but what we actually see is a double-humped curve. The people at the bottom are still at the bottom, those that were higher on the curve have been pushed to the right. Shoving them further right actually increases the disparity even though the "average" moves towards parity. And us white males have been watching our fellows tossed aside to make way for the group being unfairly elevated for at least 40 years. And there's no fairness being produced--the people at the bottom are still there, untouched.

I do not know how to fix the problem but our current approach is clearly counterproductive. We are doing evil in the name of doing good.

Which brings us back to your present post...

So, to sum up - a policy that directed 10% of spending to be spent on 11.5% of the population makes the other 88.5% of the population who is receiving 90% of the spending into “Approved Racial Discrimination Targets”

Your math is not mathing, and so your made up definition is ridiculous. Those poor, unfortunate, racially targeted recipients of 90% of the spending!!

Your reading comprehension is not comprehending and your characterization of your opponents is ridiculous. The people who are poor and unfortunate because they were racially targeted are not the recipients of 90% of the spending. They are the recipients of 0% of the spending. The mere circumstance that the actual recipients of 90% of the spending are the same color as they are has no mystical power to make them the recipients of anything. You can only believe your ridiculous misrepresentation is truthful by buying into tribalism -- a tribalism that gets off on telling itself how "progressive" it is. It isn't. It's regressive. People are not interchangeable parts.

Which is the heart of the leftist fallacy--their faith says that people are interchangeable parts wholly shaped by the powers that be.

What absolute nonsense you write. Is your faith in your own beliefs so rigid that you cannot possibly conceive of the fact that other people have powers of observation, powers of reading, access to news and studies and data and reach different conclusions than yours?

Do you really believe that your conclusions are the only possible conclusions? Talk about relying on faith….

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact that some women do extremely well in a sexist society or that some blacks do extremely well in a racist society does not mean the sexism in the former or racism in the latter is not a problem for most women or blacks. It does not make Ms. Winfrey a hypocrite for pointing out for what she sees as a problem.

She is the exact wrong person to be talking about this though. Oprah on stage talking about women not getting enough of a break in American society is like Trump getting on stage talking about morality and sexual purity.

I think there's a meaningful distinction here that you're missing.

Trump talking about morality and sexual purity would be indicative of his personal hypocrisy - he himself is observably neither of those things. Oprah talking about the impacts of inequality on the basis of sex is not indicative of hypocrisy on her party, it's recognition that she has experienced something exceptional relative to what the majority of women experience.

Do you expect that only poor women should be allowed to speak to sexism in the US? Do you expect that only black people should be allowed to speak to racism in the US, or that only poor people should be allowed to speak to poverty in the US?

 

[pood]

I grew up in white suburban Detroit, where everyone’s greatest fear was that black people would move in because, “there go the property values!”

I don’t know what everyone, including most members of my own family, were worried about. Didn’t they know about redlining?

Then there was the deal where whites began leaving Detroit proper because, you know, black people lived there. A lot of them moved in during the Great Depression and World War II to seek factory work. White flight began after the war and took most of the auto industry and the tax base with it, and because of, you know, REDLINING, black people were omitted form the suburbs. So inner city Detroit went economically downhill swiftly but blacks could not escape. The cherry on the top of this big fat white vanilla ice cream sundae of super duper racism was that blacks were then blamed for their own poor economic condition.

That’s how it works in the real world, but not Loren’s world I guess.

It's commonly called "white flight" but you see the same effect whenever inferior students show up in large numbers. Parents who care get out when the schools start to go downhill. And they will generally get out at the first sign because they know things are going to downhill and it's better to get out early before property values are depressed too much.

Inferior students show up in large numbers?

Who would those be? The black ones?

No, you get white flight when BLACKS show up. And historically blacks are kept in shitty ghettoes with shitty schools, with the tax base mostly gone and jobs scarce. And then they are blamed for their own conditions, and to boot they are slurred as inferior.

 

[Emily Lake]

They'll still be complaining about the "political correctness" of the Left when Trump's government is literally jailing all the "gender ideologists" as pedophiles.

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

 

[pood]

They'll still be complaining about the "political correctness" of the Left when Trump's government is literally jailing all the "gender ideologists" as pedophiles.

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

Perhaps you missed where this oaf actually said that little Johnny goes to school in the morning and returns home at night as little Jenny because the school gave him a sex-change operation? And how he is going to stop this nonexistent practice? I believe this evil, psychopathic old dotard is capable of at least trying to do practically anything, given that he already tried to overthrow the government and that the Supreme Court recently gave its blessing for him to do whatever the hell he wants provided that it is part of his “official duties.”

 

[Emily Lake]

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick

Let’s look that up

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.

So, to sum up - a policy that directed 10% of spending to be spent on 11.5% of the population makes the other 88.5% of the population who is receiving 90% of the spending into “Approved Racial Discrimination Targets”

Your math is not mathing, and so your made up definition is ridiculous. Those poor, unfortunate, racially targeted recipients of 90% of the spending!!

Let's math accurately.

10% of the funding is required to be spent preferentially on a specific set of people, let's call them A. The remaining 90% is not held specifically for people in the remainder, it's not held for Not-A. That remaining 90% is accessible to ALL people, both A and Not-A.

This means that A has access to 10% of the funds exclusively, as well as having an 11.5% chance of obtaining funds from the remaining 90%. That gives them access to 20.35% of the funding.

11.5% of the population is granted accessibility to 20% of the funds, with 10% of that earmarked specifically for them and made unavailable to anyone else. 88.5% of the population has access to 80% of the funds.

 

[Emily Lake]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

 

[pood]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

Then it should be “NOT laying …” instead of “not laying BACK…”

 

[laughing dog]

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

While I think that any Trump promise that does not directly benefit his wealth is worth nothing, it is the case that the federal gov't is huge, and it can act without the knowledge of the POTUS. It is not an unreasonable to worry about what the architects of Project 2025 might accomplish if they get access to power.

 

[Emily Lake]

He just wants to argue and he thinks I’m an easy target that he wants to strike back at because I hit too close to home.

This is unwarranted. Bomb#20 definitely enjoys debate, so one could say he likes to argue. But he doesn't select "easy targets" and quite frequently engages hard targets - and appears to enjoy skilled debate more than unskilled. To further imply that criticism of your position is due to some personal defensiveness over your deep insight is... well... not supported by his long posting history and style of engagement.

 

[pood]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

Then it should be “NOT laying …” instead of “not laying BACK…”

But now that I think about it, the gerund verb “laying,” in the sense of fornicating, is also, like “laying” — a gerund verb meaning to put something somewhere — transitive, and must take a direct object, viz. the person you are laying, in the first sense of the word. So it would still be wrong. English is a big mess.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem is that you see things only through the lens of those like yourself: a certain kind of white make who believes that parity is best achieved only if it does not disturb the comfortable spot you feel entitled to because ‘ you’ve done nothing wrong.’

Loren makes a lot of bad arguments, and holds several views that I strongly disagree with, but I think your assessment here is incorrect. I don't believe Loren feels "entitled" in any way, rather he is happy to share equal consideration without regard for sex or race. But that is based on the assumption of it actually being equal consideration, rather than preferential consideration for one group.

It seems entirely appropriate to me to question whether or not preferential consideration is actually happening, or whether it is merely assumed. For that we would look at the actual policies and practices being employed. If you want to take that approach, I'm all for it.

But turning it into an ad hominem isn't an effective approach.

 

[Emily Lake]

About the above, there isn’t much to respond to, because it’s so silly. I’ll just say that anyone who thinks huge numbers of Trump supporters aren’t motivated by racism is living in an imaginary alternative reality.

I think the assumption of racism as the driving factor is errant... and mostly it shows an unwillingness to consider your political opponent as a fully realized human with complex views and competing values. It most demonstrates that you view "the other" as a one-dimensional caricature.

In short, it's the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

 

[pood]

About the above, there isn’t much to respond to, because it’s so silly. I’ll just say that anyone who thinks huge numbers of Trump supporters aren’t motivated by racism is living in an imaginary alternative reality.

I think the assumption of racism as the driving factor is errant... and mostly it shows an unwillingness to consider your political opponent as a fully realized human with complex views and competing values. It most demonstrates that you view "the other" as a one-dimensional caricature.

In short, it's the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

I disagree, because as I say, tons of white people SAY THIS — it is not an assumption, it is an observation. See, for example, here. You think this idiot is some kind of rare outlier? But we have tons of other examples, observations and evidence of racism, so no, I am not failing to consider my political opponents as “fully realized humans.” I am observing what they say and do, and drawing the appropriate conclusions.

 

[Emily Lake]

They'll still be complaining about the "political correctness" of the Left when Trump's government is literally jailing all the "gender ideologists" as pedophiles.

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

Perhaps you missed where this oaf actually said that little Johnny goes to school in the morning and returns home at night as little Jenny because the school gave him a sex-change operation? And how he is going to stop this nonexistent practice? I believe this evil, psychopathic old dotard is capable of at least trying to do practically anything, given that he already tried to overthrow the government and that the Supreme Court recently gave its blessing for him to do whatever the hell he wants provided that it is part of his “official duties.”

There's a lot of biased inference involved in politics, pood.

No, schools aren't performing operations. But schools are, in some states and areas, complicit in supporting a child's opposite gender identity without informing the child's parents. This has included in a few cases providing children with chest binders, different clothing, make-up and similar external accountrements without their parent's knowledge or permission. Personally, I don't think that's something that should be within a school's scope to determine, despite how well-meaning it might seem.

But all of that is beside the point. The leap from opposing schools keeping secrets from parents with respect to their children's emotional and physical health to... jailing gender ideologists as pedophiles is a record-breaking distance. It's an absurdist exaggeration that serves no purpose other than to inflame emotions.

There are a whole lot of very legitimate things to lambast Trump about. There's no need to make up inanity in order to criticise him.

And before you ask, yes, I give this same lecture to people who make up ridiculous things about Harris as well. At this point, all politicians are shitty enough that we shouldn't need to invent fictitious transgressions in order to call them all dog shit.

 

[pood]

They'll still be complaining about the "political correctness" of the Left when Trump's government is literally jailing all the "gender ideologists" as pedophiles.

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

Perhaps you missed where this oaf actually said that little Johnny goes to school in the morning and returns home at night as little Jenny because the school gave him a sex-change operation? And how he is going to stop this nonexistent practice? I believe this evil, psychopathic old dotard is capable of at least trying to do practically anything, given that he already tried to overthrow the government and that the Supreme Court recently gave its blessing for him to do whatever the hell he wants provided that it is part of his “official duties.”

There's a lot of biased inference involved in politics, pood.

No, schools aren't performing operations. But schools are, in some states and areas, complicit in supporting a child's opposite gender identity without informing the child's parents. This has included in a few cases providing children with chest binders, different clothing, make-up and similar external accountrements without their parent's knowledge or permission. Personally, I don't think that's something that should be within a school's scope to determine, despite how well-meaning it might seem.

Do you have some cites for this?

But all of that is beside the point. The leap from opposing schools keeping secrets from parents with respect to their children's emotional and physical health to... jailing gender ideologists as pedophiles is a record-breaking distance. It's an absurdist exaggeration that serves no purpose other than to inflame emotions.

This is a guy that tried to overthrow the government, and incited those who wanted to hang his vice president for following the Constitution. Now, with the Supreme Court’s blessing, and far gone in his senile psychopathy, why would you think there are any limits to what he might at least try to do?

 

[Emily Lake]

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick

Let’s look that up

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.

So, to sum up - a policy that directed 10% of spending to be spent on 11.5% of the population makes the other 88.5% of the population who is receiving 90% of the spending into “Approved Racial Discrimination Targets”

Your math is not mathing, and so your made up definition is ridiculous. Those poor, unfortunate, racially targeted recipients of 90% of the spending!!

Let's math accurately.

10% of the funding is required to be spent preferentially on a specific set of people, let's call them A. The remaining 90% is not held specifically for people in the remainder, it's not held for Not-A. That remaining 90% is accessible to ALL people, both A and Not-A.

This means that A has access to 10% of the funds exclusively, as well as having an 11.5% chance of obtaining funds from the remaining 90%. That gives them access to 20.35% of the funding.

11.5% of the population is granted accessibility to 20% of the funds, with 10% of that earmarked specifically for them and made unavailable to anyone else. 88.5% of the population has access to 80% of the funds.

For funsies, let's flip this around, and see how it sits with you guys.

Let's say that group A comprises 90% of the population. Let's assume then that the government earmarks 90% of the funds to go exclusively to members of group A. The remaining 10% is available to everyone, irrespective of their group affiliation. That would mean that A has access to 90% of the funds exclusively, and also has equal access to the remaining 10% of funds. That would give group A access to 99% of the funds, leaving only 1% for the remaining 10% of the population.

I'm not a fan of exclusive funding without EXTREMELY good justification, and even then I want clear boundaries, and defined expiration criteria for those exclusive arrangements. That said, it would be far more reasonable to earmark that each group gets a proportional amount of funding than to specify a subset as exclusively available while also allowing the remainder to be accessible as well.

As much I find the entire approach unpalatable, I'd be more open to saying minorities comprise 11.5% of the population, and so they get exclusive access to 11.5% of the funding. The remaining 88.5% of the population has exclusive access to the other 88.5% of the funding. While I find that sort of approach to be divisive in nature, it's at least fair in application.

 

[Emily Lake]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

Then it should be “NOT laying …” instead of “not laying BACK…”

Perhaps she is NOT bottoming...

 

[Emily Lake]

Is this something Trump has scheduled within his first month of his speculative presidency? Is that supposed to happen before or after the blood sacrifice of all congresscritters, the burning of the constitution on the altar of the new empire, and the freshly erected gas chambers to cleanse the homeless and illegal immigrants? Also, I've lost the pamphlet - when do the public execution of registered democrats start?

While I think that any Trump promise that does not directly benefit his wealth is worth nothing, it is the case that the federal gov't is huge, and it can act without the knowledge of the POTUS. It is not an unreasonable to worry about what the architects of Project 2025 might accomplish if they get access to power.

It's also not unreasonable to worry about what the architects of any politically motivated manifesto published by an unelected group might accomplish if they get power.

None of which is a good justification for imagining atrocities into existence in an effort to scare the fuck out of voters in favor of one side or the other.

 

[pood]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

Are you sure? Perhaps she is NOT fornicating while daydreaming of the UK....

Then it should be “NOT laying …” instead of “not laying BACK…”

Perhaps she is NOT bottoming...

Then it should be “not LYING back.” If she is topping, it should be “not laying x (where x is the direct object of the transitive very “laying” in the sense of topping). As I say, English is a big mess. Especially when you start conjugating all these verbs.