Yet another shooting thread

[Loren Pechtel]

I did not write nor imply that white men are inferior to anybody.

I said that they could only maintain their near exclusive hold on wealth and power by writing the rules so that they favor maintaining wealth and control in the hands of white males, and limiting the abilities of women and non-whites so that they had less access to education, accumulation and control over wealth—or their own bodies, their own labor and the fruits of their labor for that matter.

At most, I implied that white men are selfish bullies.

I will further state that at least in some cases, as you so richly illustrate in your oddly but so predictably aggrieved post, white men seem to lack any awareness outside of their own personal experiences and their self-entitlement fueled insecurities.

The problem is that you seem to treat it as if since the whites had the wealth that it is permanent unless it's taken away.

No, intergenerational wealth transfer is a small portion of total wealth. And an even smaller portion of meaningful transfer as much of it occurs later in life when one's course has already been set.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes I am surprised that so many Christians have supported him

I don't want to hurt your feelings.

But I see Christian teachings as the destruction of the USA and democracy. It's not the only ideology based on human authority and subservient behavior. But it's the dominant one around here.
Tom

Sorry, but please show us one thing of Jesus Christ's teachings that Trump follows.

Jesus Christ's teachings have little to do with real world Christianity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you not understand the what the term "overwhelmingly" means? You are using very small samples to make your point - something you disparage when others use them to make a point that you disagree with.

Nobody is claiming that top positions are "overwhelmingly" occupied by non-whites and women. That part is gospel's straw man that I chose to ignore. But it is clear that DEI stacks the deck to the point that politicians like Biden and Goodhair can casually pledge to not consider people for top positions based on nothing more than their skin color and genitalia. And that is injustice, no matter how you try to justify it.

But there was no question that The Felon would pick a Christian, white male for VP. Just because he didn't state it didn't mean he wasn't applying a stricter criterion. You continue to attack Democrats over things in which the Republicans are worse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Curious, where are the statistics showing that Black people, Latinos, and women overwhelmingly occupy top positions due to preferential treatment?

What top positions do you have in mind? It is certainly not disputed that Biden only considered black women for SCOTUS seat vacated by Breyer. Nor is it disputed that Newsom only considered black women for the US Senate seat from California.
Biden also explicitly stated he would only consider a woman for running mate, and was then pressured to pick a black woman after George Floyd riots. Kamala proved unpopular but still ascended to become the nominee. We all saw the result 9 days ago.

People say and do a lot of things, but actions and claims aren’t automatically evidence of systemic trends. For instance, many people claim that minorities face significant inequality in opportunities, but you wouldn’t accept that without supporting data, right? Similarly, I’m not asking for anecdotal examples or isolated cases; I’m asking for comprehensive statistics that show Black people, Latinos, and women overwhelmingly occupy top positions—such as CEOs and other high-level executives—specifically due to preferential treatment.

Where is the data that backs this claim across the board? If such preferential treatment were so pervasive, surely there would be clear, consistent evidence of these groups disproportionately occupying these roles as a result. Until then, I remain curious to see the actual numbers, not assumptions or cherry-picked examples.

The preferential treatment hasn't continued for long enough to have that effect.

What we do see is that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1: Your so-called "evidence" for "complacency" only shows that different groups perform differently on standardized tests and GPA metrics. It doesn’t prove that these differences are caused by affirmative action or is the result of complacency. While it's plausible, your claim remains speculative without data linking these factors directly.

And obviously whites were superior as shown by the wealth and job distribution before the civil rights era!

You're dismissing some very damning data. If there was a valid reason for it don't you think it would have been presented by now? The fact that there have been no rebuttals, just misdirection makes it quite clear the data says what it appears to say.

2: You raise a valid point about higher victimization rates among Black individuals, but your assertion that focusing on white mass shooters over intraracial violence harms Black victims is purely your opinion. Also, while plausible and I agree to an anecdotal extent, without data showing that "blame whitey" influences policy or crime outcomes, that claim remains unsubstantiated.

This is one that's effectively impossible to measure so the lack of proof means nothing.

The reality is that people would prefer to blame an external source rather than admit to an internal failing. Blame whitey isn't about race, it's about not-our-fault.

I see intraracial violence in the Black community as a matter of cause and effect. Not long ago, the family structure among Black Americans was systematically dismantled, leaving painful experiences as the foundation for our identities. While some Americans may feel distant or disconnected from that history, the harm inflicted upon us has, tragically, become woven into our culture—a culture that is as much America’s as it is our own—resulting in a cycle where, all too often, we turn that harm inward.

The whole "racial" violence bit doesn't really mean much anyway. It's not race, it's socioeconomic status. Crime is highly concentrated in poor neighborhoods.

To elaborate, Black-on-Black violence is part of a broader pattern of intracommunity violence observed in many groups that have endured systemic hardships. Asian, white, and Latino communities have all experienced various forms of discrimination, economic challenges, and social pressures, and these hardships have also affected how individuals in these communities sometimes treat one another. The difference lies in the severity and duration of these hardships. Black Americans, whose history of systemic oppression—through slavery, segregation, and deliberate and comprehensive socioeconomic destruction—has had particularly deep and long-lasting impacts. This difference in severity is reflected in the more abundant and pronounced ways that violence and internal struggles manifest within the Black community.

By what external mechanism is that impact transmitted between generations?? None. Thus the problem must be internal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe the fact is that you are not actually against racial preferences, just racial preferences that do not rate white and male as #1 priority. Because that has been the preference in the US and most of the western world for the last several centuries.

What makes you think he wants white males to be #1?

What I see is someone who is afraid of mass immigration from those of a different culture. Not race.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't stack the deck in either direction, let it behave naturally.

I don’t like that. In full implementation it would amount to finsncisl libertarianism, or financial “might makes right”, Economic parity of opportunity would never be approached.
SOME restraint is needed, at least on guys like Fred Trump, Not deck stacking - it’s prevention of deck stacking by guys like that. Racist landlords racist employers seeking to take advantage of, or disadvantage minorities and even white immigrants. There are thousands of guys like Fred, and collectively their words and actions serve to suppress people and perpetuate inequity.

I'm not saying to tolerate abuse. I'm saying to not consider race or gender in most situations.

 

[Toni]

Because white men cannot compete if the odds are not stacked in their favor. They cannot stand against real competition unless they make all the rules and judgements in their favor.

That is an incredibly sexist and racist statement!
You are basically saying that white men are inferior to others. Furthermore, you support discrimination against white men and are pretending that there is no such discrimination. Much has been said about MAGA having alternative facts, but you are the proof that similar denialism exists on the Left as well.

I want people to be treated as individuals. No stacking odds in anybody's favor.

So, you believe that it came to be that white men are in charge …because they are just naturally superior? Smarter, stronger, harder working? More intelligent?

More blessed by God?

I think centuries of privilege have made people complacent. In this particular case: white males. Also insecure and less sharp. Look at how any non-white non-male person who gets any kind position that a white make wants is immediately decried as Affirmative Action hire—or to be more modern: DEA hire.


Trump is the result of thousands of years of affirmative action for white men.

You fail to understand.

Yes, the deck was unquestionably stacked in the past. That was exceedingly unfair.

The problem is that stacking the deck in the other direction is not the path of fairness. Don't stack the deck in either direction, let it behave naturally.

Loren, I’ve really had enough of your mansplanations. You simply refuse to believe that everything you have achieved was not solely through your own efforts. You have yours and you delude yourself that everyone else had the same opportunities and that racism never gave you a helping hand up. I absolutely believe that you have the aptitude to do well enough in your chosen field. It is not your fault that the history we were all taught ignored so completely the substantial contributions to math and science and computer science and coding that were made by women and people of color, those you state over and over simply lack aptitude or lack a culture that values education. But you are an adult and fully capable of doing reading of histories that document the contributions of nearly everybody other than white men—with an occasional exception to demonstrate that there is no bias in history.

You’re better than that, I think. Or could be if you were not so insecure that you cannot risk being proven mistaken in your very privileged view of the world and your own accomplishments.

 

[Toni]

Maybe the fact is that you are not actually against racial preferences, just racial preferences that do not rate white and male as #1 priority. Because that has been the preference in the US and most of the western world for the last several centuries.

What makes you think he wants white males to be #1?

What I see is someone who is afraid of mass immigration from those of a different culture. Not race.

Uh huh. I’m sure that’s what you tell yourself. Xenophobia and racism are not actually different animals.

 

[Gospel]

And obviously whites were superior as shown by the wealth and job distribution before the civil rights era!

You're dismissing some very damning data. If there was a valid reason for it don't you think it would have been presented by now? The fact that there have been no rebuttals, just misdirection makes it quite clear the data says what it appears to say.

Claiming there is no rebuttal is not a counter to the claim that data doesn't directly link these factors. It's just your opinion that the lack of a rebuttal somehow magically connects the data to complacency.

This is one that's effectively impossible to measure so the lack of proof means nothing.

The reality is that people would prefer to blame an external source rather than admit to an internal failing. Blame whitey isn't about race, it's about not-our-fault.

Another one of your opinions that lacks empirical support.

The whole "racial" violence bit doesn't really mean much anyway. It's not race, it's socioeconomic status. Crime is highly concentrated in poor neighborhoods.

While socioeconomic status is a significant factor, data suggests that predominantly Black poor neighborhoods often experience higher crime rates per capita compared to other poor neighborhoods. This indicates that additional factors, beyond just poverty, may be at play. Bigots might claim that Black people are inherently different or inferior—an idea ingrained in ignorance and prejudice. In contrast, I would argue that the challenges faced today stem from the deliberate destruction of family structures and self-worth during slavery, leaving deep and lasting scars. But thank you for sharing another opinion, which now seems to suggest that Black-on-Black crime is comparable to White-on-White crime or that of other racial groups.

By what external mechanism is that impact transmitted between generations?? None. Thus the problem must be internal.

So your opinion is that cause must remain present for its consequences to persist. Riiight.

 

[Gospel]

I'm not sure why you're interpreting this as 'blaming white people' Loren. Yes, historically, white systems and policies caused the issues I’m referring to, but this isn't about blaming individuals like you. My question now is why some people take offense and deflect, framing it as if Black people are making excuses rather than acknowledging the reality: we are a community still healing from systemic damage, working hard to address our challenges. We can't effectively confront these issues without discussing their root causes. And yet, every time the conversation shifts to those causes, someone who had nothing to do with them feels attacked and obstructs a necessary dialogue. The truth is essential for progress.

 

[Elixir]

Don't stack the deck in either direction, let it behave naturally.

I don’t like that. In full implementation it would amount to finsncisl libertarianism, or financial “might makes right”, Economic parity of opportunity would never be approached.
SOME restraint is needed, at least on guys like Fred Trump, Not deck stacking - it’s prevention of deck stacking by guys like that. Racist landlords racist employers seeking to take advantage of, or disadvantage minorities and even white immigrants. There are thousands of guys like Fred, and collectively their words and actions serve to suppress people and perpetuate inequity.

I'm not saying to tolerate abuse. I'm saying to not consider race or gender in most situations.

You can “consider” race/gender all day and all night. Without putting your finger on the inequity scale, “considering” it will do nothing to actually mitigate abuse.
Restraining abusers is NOT “stacking the deck”, but that’s what it is routinely called by white male abusers.

 

[Gospel]

Nobody is claiming that top positions are "overwhelmingly" occupied by non-whites and women. That part is gospel's straw man that I chose to ignore.

Your claim that it's a straw man is just your opinion, unsupported by evidence.

Jim Crow was many decades ago. Since there, there has been the opposite - racial preferences for blacks (and Latinos) as well as for women.

You claimed that racial preferences for minorities and women now act as the opposite of past systemic discrimination, and I responded directly within that context. Do you now see why my question was valid and not a straw man? Consider the widespread impact of Jim Crow laws, who benefited from them, how they did so, and the supporting evidence available. When you reverse those systemic advantages, as you suggested, it clearly highlights why the question 'where are the statistics showing that Black people, Latinos, and women overwhelmingly occupy top positions due to preferential treatment?' is directly relevant. You're free to ignore the point I made, but that doesn't mean I, or anyone else, won't notice.

 

[Gospel]

What we do see is that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male.

That’s an interesting perspective, and I’d like to understand it better. Could you provide data or sources to support the claim that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male? Specifically, it would be helpful to see:

• Studies or reports analyzing wage disparities across demographics with similar degrees and qualifications.
• Data comparing employment rates and earnings by race and gender for graduates in comparable fields.
• Research on employer preferences or hiring practices that might show a bias in favor of non-white, non-male candidates.

If you have examples of where to find this information (e.g., academic studies, labor statistics, industry reports), please share them. This could help clarify and substantiate your point. Thanks!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, I’ve really had enough of your mansplanations. You simply refuse to believe that everything you have achieved was not solely through your own efforts. You have yours and you delude yourself that everyone else had the same opportunities and that racism never gave you a helping hand up. I absolutely believe that you have the aptitude to do well enough in your chosen field. It is not your fault that the history we were all taught ignored so completely the substantial contributions to math and science and computer science and coding that were made by women and people of color, those you state over and over simply lack aptitude or lack a culture that values education. But you are an adult and fully capable of doing reading of histories that document the contributions of nearly everybody other than white men—with an occasional exception to demonstrate that there is no bias in history.

You’re better than that, I think. Or could be if you were not so insecure that you cannot risk being proven mistaken in your very privileged view of the world and your own accomplishments.

We see eternal repetition of bad data, treating disparate outcomes as "proof" of discrimination. When something is supported by a tide of bad data it's probably not correct.

Sure, race is sometimes relevant--but it's sometimes an advantage, also. We eternally see people lumped together on skin color in trying to prove discrimination even when that means combining very unlike groups.

I'm sure you recall the "redlining" "problem" that I brought up here some years ago. Supposedly they were discriminating against black borrowers. Yet race had zero impact on whether someone would be approved. Pretty hard to be discriminating when there's no difference. What they had found was that in certain mostly-black zip codes bankers were less likely to approve low-down mortgages. 80:20 was the same, though.

Thus we are left with explaining why they only discriminate against blacks who are after low-down mortgages in not very good parts of town. Sounds very much like p-hacking. The much simpler explanation is that bankers don't like writing low-down mortgages in areas without price appreciation. And when faced with two theories that fit take the one with the least complexity. The "evidence" consistently fails to consider if there are other reasonable explanations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe the fact is that you are not actually against racial preferences, just racial preferences that do not rate white and male as #1 priority. Because that has been the preference in the US and most of the western world for the last several centuries.

What makes you think he wants white males to be #1?

What I see is someone who is afraid of mass immigration from those of a different culture. Not race.

Uh huh. I’m sure that’s what you tell yourself. Xenophobia and racism are not actually different animals.

Anything to pretend that Islam is not a problem. In small numbers it isn't. But they don't keep out the radicals and there's a big problem with the next generation being easy to radicalize and plenty of money out there to radicalize them with. If Islam quit backing terror I think you would find a lot of us more welcoming of Muslims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And obviously whites were superior as shown by the wealth and job distribution before the civil rights era!

You're dismissing some very damning data. If there was a valid reason for it don't you think it would have been presented by now? The fact that there have been no rebuttals, just misdirection makes it quite clear the data says what it appears to say.

Claiming there is no rebuttal is not a counter to the claim that data doesn't directly link these factors. It's just your opinion that the lack of a rebuttal somehow magically connects the data to complacency.

There are a lot of people who want to say it's not discrimination. If it's not why haven't they shown why it's not? Why has the reaction been to hide the data?

The whole "racial" violence bit doesn't really mean much anyway. It's not race, it's socioeconomic status. Crime is highly concentrated in poor neighborhoods.

While socioeconomic status is a significant factor, data suggests that predominantly Black poor neighborhoods often experience higher crime rates per capita compared to other poor neighborhoods. This indicates that additional factors, beyond just poverty, may be at play. Bigots might claim that Black people are inherently different or inferior—an idea ingrained in ignorance and prejudice. In contrast, I would argue that the challenges faced today stem from the deliberate destruction of family structures and self-worth during slavery, leaving deep and lasting scars. But thank you for sharing another opinion, which now seems to suggest that Black-on-Black crime is comparable to White-on-White crime or that of other racial groups.

Yes, there's an additional factor at play: Family structure. There's a huge relationship between having two parents in their life and not going bad.

But how does anything that happened in slavery change the family structure now?? Nobody from back then is alive now, what holds the scars??

By what external mechanism is that impact transmitted between generations?? None. Thus the problem must be internal.

So your opinion is that cause must remain present for its consequences to persist. Riiight.

The proper rebuttal would be to show some external means of transmission.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure why you're interpreting this as 'blaming white people' Loren. Yes, historically, white systems and policies caused the issues I’m referring to, but this isn't about blaming individuals like you. My question now is why some people take offense and deflect, framing it as if Black people are making excuses rather than acknowledging the reality: we are a community still healing from systemic damage, working hard to address our challenges. We can't effectively confront these issues without discussing their root causes. And yet, every time the conversation shifts to those causes, someone who had nothing to do with them feels attacked and obstructs a necessary dialogue. The truth is essential for progress.

I was echoing the post I was replying to in saying blame whitey.

And I'm not saying it's anything specific to black people. People want it to be something external that can be blamed and preferably punished. Any color, any issue. It's like the incels blaming the women. And it gets worse when there are those who derive their power from preaching the problem.

But a community healing from damage--what exactly is damaged and how is it healing?? Finding the "root" cause isn't going to help you, you can't change the past. Look for solutions, not for blame. You hunt for root causes to avoid repetition, not to fix the current issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't stack the deck in either direction, let it behave naturally.

I don’t like that. In full implementation it would amount to finsncisl libertarianism, or financial “might makes right”, Economic parity of opportunity would never be approached.
SOME restraint is needed, at least on guys like Fred Trump, Not deck stacking - it’s prevention of deck stacking by guys like that. Racist landlords racist employers seeking to take advantage of, or disadvantage minorities and even white immigrants. There are thousands of guys like Fred, and collectively their words and actions serve to suppress people and perpetuate inequity.

I'm not saying to tolerate abuse. I'm saying to not consider race or gender in most situations.

You can “consider” race/gender all day and all night. Without putting your finger on the inequity scale, “considering” it will do nothing to actually mitigate abuse.
Restraining abusers is NOT “stacking the deck”, but that’s what it is routinely called by white male abusers.

I have no problem with restraining abusers. I have a big problem with assuming a random distribution is enough to make someone an abuser. You have an ace, you must be cheating at cards! Pay no attention to the fact that 1 in 13 cards is an ace, you clearly cheated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What we do see is that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male.

That’s an interesting perspective, and I’d like to understand it better. Could you provide data or sources to support the claim that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male? Specifically, it would be helpful to see:

• Studies or reports analyzing wage disparities across demographics with similar degrees and qualifications.
• Data comparing employment rates and earnings by race and gender for graduates in comparable fields.
• Research on employer preferences or hiring practices that might show a bias in favor of non-white, non-male candidates.

If you have examples of where to find this information (e.g., academic studies, labor statistics, industry reports), please share them. This could help clarify and substantiate your point. Thanks!

I don't have time for a detailed look and don't have convenient links but it was easy to find this:

A stunning chart shows the true cause of the gender wage gap

The gender wage gap is really a child care penalty

www.vox.com

It's not specifically about degrees but it shows what's actually going on with the "gender" pay gap.