More Leftist Racism.

@quackquack said
Prove discrimination in a court of law or shut your stupid mouth. The amount people make depend on a lot of things -- all schools aren't equal -- all people don't work the same amount -- some people trade off income for different kinds of job satisfaction etc. Assuming discrimination without proving it is as stupid as assuming certain racial groups are inferior or superior.

"Stupid" is ignoring the facts just because they clash with your outmoded ideology.

The evidence for systemic racism and economic discrimination in the US is overwhelming; the only question is whether we should do something effective to end it. Your answer is "no" mine is "yes".

This Earl is real "racism" not whining about an innocuous term used by a black woman or an idea to maintain needed diversity by a white one.

@no1marauder said
"Stupid" is ignoring the facts just because they clash with your outmoded ideology.

And by that definition you are stupid. Is it too much to ask that all hiring/ firing and admission decision be based 100% on credentials and never on things like gender and race?

@quackquack said
And by that definition you are stupid.

Your stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue style of argument isn't nearly as impressive as you think. You're supposed to support your points here with facts, not just blather out propaganda that rich folks like to hear.

@no1marauder said
Your stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue style of argument isn't nearly as impressive as you think. You're supposed to support your points here with facts, not just blather out propaganda that rich folks like to hear.

Is it too much to ask that all hiring/ firing and admission decision be based 100% on credentials and never on things like gender and race? Apparently it is for a racist like yourself.

@quackquack said
Is it too much to ask that all hiring/ firing and admission decision be based 100% on credentials and never on things like gender and race? Apparently it is for a racist like yourself.

There is no such thing; hiring and firing are made by individuals who retain their own biases whether conscious or not. We tried it your way and it invariably leads to system wide disadvantages for those in various minorities based on stereotypes embedded in the majority's psyche.

The facts are clear and your childish name calling doesn't change that.

@no1marauder said
There is no such thing; hiring and firing are made by individuals who retain their own biases whether conscious or not. We tried it your way and it invariably leads to system wide disadvantages for those in various minorities based on stereotypes embedded in the majority's psyche.

The facts are clear and your childish name calling doesn't change that.

You assume that there is discrimination and otherwise all groups would achieve equally. It simply isn't true.
If you want to eliminate discrimination prove specific instance and punish the perpetrators -- you can't prove it because it simply doesn't exist on nearly the level you believe it does. If you were honest you'd admit you were wrong instead of proposed racist preferences.

@quackquack said
Is it too much to ask that all hiring/ firing and admission decision be based 100% on credentials and never on things like gender and race? Apparently it is for a racist like yourself.

For the last few decades, there have been field studies done where resumes were sent to prospective employers that were virtually identical but had names typically ethnic in nature. The results have been in for a long time:

"This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire."

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114

The methods are discussed here:

"We chose field experiments as a sample because they are widely regarded as the most valid method to assess discrimination. They generally come in two major types: Résumé audits, done through the mail or online, submit fictitious résumés with equivalent qualifications and ethnically identifiable names. And in-person audits — done with trained pairs of testers, white and nonwhite — have participants apply for jobs. By examining the rates of callbacks, or invitations to job interviews, for white and nonwhite applicants with equivalent qualifications, these studies provide high-quality measures of rates of discrimination in hiring."

https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years

Only the most stubborn or ignorant would deny that such discrimination is endemic in the US. Taking no effective measures to remedy it will lead to economic disadvantages for these minorities. You don't care about that but have the nerve to call someone who does a "racist".

@quackquack said
You assume that there is discrimination and otherwise all groups would achieve equally. It simply isn't true.
If you want to eliminate discrimination prove specific instance and punish the perpetrators -- you can't prove it because it simply doesn't exist on nearly the level you believe it does. If you were honest you'd admit you were wrong instead of proposed racist preferences.

Actually the overwhelming consensus of research on this issue shows you are wrong.

@no1marauder said
Actually the overwhelming consensus of research on this issue shows you are wrong.

Apparently liberalism is 2020 is vehemently opposed treat all people regardless of race or gender. If you really believed in equality, as I do, then you would be more than satisfied with giving everyone an equal shot and wouldn't need to give preferences for colleges, jobs, VP candidates. Pick one or the other:
(1) either all groups are equal and laws should strive for all people to be treated equally (this is the correct answer) OR
(2) some groups are inferior and you can't stand treating them fairly because member of those groups are unqualified and couldn't possible be expected to compete on equal footing.

@quackquack said
Apparently liberalism is 2020 is vehemently opposed treat all people regardless of race or gender. If you really believed in equality, as I do, then you would be more than satisfied with giving everyone an equal shot and wouldn't need to give preferences for colleges, jobs, VP candidates. Pick one or the other:
(1) either all groups are equal and laws should strive for ...[text shortened]... ember of those groups are unqualified and couldn't possible be expected to compete on equal footing.

Actually it's:

3) Some groups are disadvantaged by systemic racism and discrimination and individuals in those groups aren't being given anything approaching a "fair shot" (by and large).

That you deny this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary just shows dishonesty and/or ideological rigidity. In either case, you propose absolutely nothing to address that problem which, in practice, means you favor invidious discrimination and oppose any effective measures to end it.

@no1marauder said
Actually it's:

3) Some groups are disadvantaged by systemic racism and discrimination and individuals in those groups aren't being given anything approaching a "fair shot" (by and large).

That you deny this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary just shows dishonesty and/or ideological rigidity. In either case, you propose absolutely nothing to address ...[text shortened]... , in practice, means you favor invidious discrimination and oppose any effective measures to end it.

We have all sorts of problems in our society but until now, no one has been foolish enough to ignore logical solutions.
Proving a wrong before punishing one group and bestowing a benefit on another group is fundamental to any reasonably society. Only a fool ignores the proof stage before implementing remedies.
Furthermore, any remedy should not be worse than the problem it prevent. Your comical solution of mandating explicit discrimination because you believe sometimes certain people might be the victims discrimination would be comical if it were so inherently unfair and flat out dumb.
Why is it so difficult to mandate equal treatment of all people regardless of the class they are in? Are you that afraid that certain groups can't succeed in a fair society?

@earl-of-trumps said
Kev, kev, kev. Two removed posts in less than 24 hours?

tsk tsk.

Not a problem earl, their wrong and I’m right but it’s their site so I’ll keep doing what I do and they can keep doing what they do.
It’s a price worth paying to keep the worst of the racist nonsense posts of the forum though but some feedback would be nice especially when you ask for it after auto mod removals.

@quackquack said
We have all sorts of problems in our society but until now, no one has been foolish enough to ignore logical solutions.
Proving a wrong before punishing one group and bestowing a benefit on another group is fundamental to any reasonably society. Only a fool ignores the proof stage before implementing remedies.
Furthermore, any remedy should not be worse than the prob ...[text shortened]... of the class they are in? Are you that afraid that certain groups can't succeed in a fair society?

Outside of using a lot of childish insulting language, this post says nothing.

I stand on my other posts and the research I have provided and will ignore future foot stamping posts from you that continue to fail to actually address the real problem of systemic racism and invidious discrimination by pretending they don't exist. The Civil Rights Laws have been in effect for more than 5 decades, but it is obvious they have not prevented widespread discrimination in housing, schooling and employment. Until you recognize those facts, you are wasting both our times with your tantrums.

@no1marauder said
No, you really don't know what "racist" or "racism" is.

This one note pity party which has its theme that whites are terribly disadvantaged by "discrimination" in the US is borderline crazy when one looks at economic and social reality in the US. But this type of race baiting argument seems the last hope that right wingers are clinging to as an electoral strategy - though there is always voter suppression as a fall back.

I hope you are not charging me a fee for that advice, lawyer. Jeeezus.

I could care LESS what slur the mayor of Chicago throws at some white woman.
I posted it to show the complete hypocrisy of the left.

And it is Soooo obvious you are dancing away to defend this miscreant, Mayor
Lori Lightfoot, because she is a flaming Democrat.

Two wrongs never make a right but let's face facts instead of playing the
artful dodger, she's WRONG. She's racist, and you know it.

Remember the judge that said he couldn't define obscenity but he knew it
when he saw it? Hellllooooooooo. One needs not be a brain surgeon or a
lawyer to know that this women used a SLUR to a person of a race that the
slur could only apply TO. That's mean spirited, that's racism.

You don't even get a "nice try" on that defense, lawyer.

@earl-of-trumps said
I hope you are not charging me a fee for that advice, lawyer. Jeeezus.

I could care LESS what slur the mayor of Chicago throws at some white woman.
I posted it to show the complete hypocrisy of the left.

And it is Soooo obvious you are dancing away to defend this miscreant, Mayor
Lori Lightfoot, because she is a flaming Democrat.

Two wrongs never make a rig ...[text shortened]... TO. That's mean spirited, that's racism.

You don't even get a "nice try" on that defense, lawyer.

Why does your argument include gratuitous references to a poster's occupation?

What do you do for a living? Are you a street sweeper? Do you sell used cars?

Does any of that have anything to do with the topics being discussed?