All things Racist...USA edition (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[RobF]

Nevertheless, that is your term and not mine.

It's the term for what you were claiming was the right approach. "In Cuba everybody is Cuban" = nationalism, "and people are not classified by skin colour" = race-blind.

I admit that Cubans can discern each other. However, the original plan by the socialist government was to call everybody Cuban and eliminate discrimination based on color. nevertheless, they acknowledged they had discrimination in a nation where there is heavy mixing of indigenous, black, and European groups. Nevertheless, racial animosity between groups is way less than in America or in nations that preach race ID politics.

So, first, your constant attempts to frame political approaches that recognise the current reality of race perception in the country as 'religious' aren't going to become any less feeble, no matter how often you refer to 'religion' and 'preaching'. If anything is more akin to preaching, it's race-blind nationalism - simply asserting that "everyone is treated the same here" and "there is no classification of skin colour", when the underlying reality is that they're not, and there is.

Second, you're constantly drawing a correlation - which you haven't actually substantiated, just asserted - and not establishing any causation whatsoever. And there's plenty of reasons to think that you have it backwards: countries with a higher level of racial animosity will inevitably see race-related issues as more pressing politically. It is clearly irrational to simply claim that that the recognition and attempts to engage with race-related issues that follows is a cause. On the face of it, it's akin to the ludicrous claims that increased levels of testing for Covid causes Covid.

Additionally, the USA has recognised race for a very long time - the census has enumerated people by race since 1790 - and you yourself have repeatedly stated that "racism has gone down markedly".

It's also been shown that taking a race-blind - or color-blind, or ethnicity-blind, or whatever term you want to use for it - does not address the underlying reality of race perception, and can actively hinder recognition of the impact of it, which inevitably hinders doing anything about it. Understanding something is how you address it. Turning a blind eye to it is not.

We already know where the problems are.

What an asinine response. The fact that something has been observed does not mean it does not need to continue to be observed; on the contrary, it's necessary to continue to observe in order to understand the continuing extent of the problem and the impact of changing circumstances and measures.

The physical attributes of a person are recognized. However, the stereotype of the group is not recognized. The person is judge as an individual and not as a member of any group. A great pianist is a great pianist even if he comes from a tribe where 99% of the people cannot play a single note. The physical features are recognized, but the stereotype is ignored.

Great. Then perceiving someone to be a member of a racial group, or recognising that they identify as such, without the application of the stereotype, is not the 'essence of racism' as you previously claimed. Glad that's been cleared up.

See above

I am exhausted regarding this topic.

Oh come on, it can't be that exhausting just ignoring large parts of responses entirely, like you just did again, and mostly repeating yourself. Are you sure you're not coming down with something?

It also shows that being at the bottom of the socioeconomic and education spectrum is not always about racism. It has a lot to do with poverty, lack of education compounded by poor schools, dysfunctional homes, alcoholism, etc. I was not surprised to see that educationally Asians are OK. And that British blacks are ahead of these white poor kids. BTW, something like that is already happening in the USA. The majority students in American universities are women; poor white men are lagging behind.

Like I said, there's a lot of factors and it would need another thread.

I do notice you don't appear to have picked up on the bit in your links above that mentions how "poor white boys are still less likely to be unemployed than black and Asian youngsters" though.

 

[Paul]

It's the term for what you were claiming was the right approach. "In Cuba everybody is Cuban" = nationalism, "and people are not classified by skin colour" = race-blind.

Nations need some unifying factors which you describe as nationalism. I like the idea they are all Cuban. What is wrong with that? The moment the citizens are catalogued as different from each other nationalism goes down. I am going to assume you think is not a good thing to have some nationalism However, I think it causes unity.

So, first, your constant attempts to frame political approaches that recognise the current reality of race perception in the country as 'religious' aren't going to become any less feeble, no matter how often you refer to 'religion' and 'preaching'. If anything is more akin to preaching, it's race-blind nationalism - simply asserting that "everyone is treated the same here" and "there is no classification of skin colour", when the underlying reality is that they're not, and there is.

Your approach is very much like that of a religious person. You agree with all the dogmatic points prescribed by the left anti-racist movement.

It's also been shown that taking a race-blind - or color-blind, or ethnicity-blind, or whatever term you want to use for it - does not address the underlying reality of race perception, and can actively hinder recognition of the impact of it, which inevitably hinders doing anything about it. Understanding something is how you address it. Turning a blind eye to it is not.

Doing something about it? All I see is analysis of results and applying a single variable. For example if 99% of CEOs are white then that means racism. If most people in prison are colored that means racism. It is not a very useful way to look at the problem because it fails to recognize many other negative factors. That is whiteb young poor whiteb kids are at the bottom, those other factors matter.

What an asinine response. The fact that something has been observed does not mean it does not need to continue to be observed; on the contrary, it's necessary to continue to observe in order to understand the continuing extent of the problem and the impact of changing circumstances and measures.

Measuring unequal outcomes is a rabbit home that never ends because there is no equality. Different outcomes are the norm.

Great. Then perceiving someone to be a member of a racial group, or recognising that they identify as such, without the application of the stereotype, is not the 'essence of racism' as you previously claimed. Glad that's been cleared up.

That is not what I said. I stated that officially classifying people according to racial looks was racist.

 

[RobF]

Nations need some unifying factors which you describe as nationalism. I like the idea they are all Cuban. What is wrong with that? The moment the citizens are catalogued as different from each other nationalism goes down. I am going to assume you think is not a good thing to have some nationalism However, I think it causes unity.

No. In this context, we're talking about race-blind nationalism, which is not the creation of unifying factors, but the denial of the existence of factors which are seen, by people like you, as 'divisive'. Which is both ignorant, by definition, and futile, as previously described, for example, in a large section of the post you just replied to, but completely ignored.

Your approach is very much like that of a religious person. You agree with all the dogmatic points prescribed by the left anti-racist movement.

Yet again, you can't simply misrepresent the approaches taken by people in a forum setting. Anyone can look back at the posts and see that the points I've been making have been provided with substance and reasoning.

A dogmatic approach to the discussion, lacking substance and reasoning, can be seen though, in your posts.

Doing something about it? All I see is analysis of results and applying a single variable. For example if 99% of CEOs are white then that means racism. If most people in prison are colored that means racism. It is not a very useful way to look at the problem because it fails to recognize many other negative factors. That is whiteb young poor whiteb kids are at the bottom, those other factors matter.

No. If that's all you see, then the problem is that you're not looking. Disproportionate outcomes are seen as potential indicators of problems; the research that follows very much accounts for multiple factors. That's the point of the approaches you decry as 'woke'; to fully understand the reasons behind the outcomes, in order to engage with and address them.

So "it's just 'applying a single variable' and 'failing to recognise many other negative factors'" would be, yet another, straw man.

Essentially, you're dismissing the complex, nuanced, approach out of hand, and advocating for the simplistic, "Just don't look," approach.

Additionally, none of these approaches involve not looking at the reasons behind poverty and that affect social mobility with regards to poor white families. The only approach that involves not looking at the problem from a particular angle is the one you're advocating.

Measuring unequal outcomes is a rabbit home that never ends because there is no equality. Different outcomes are the norm.

Firstly, that's also asinine. The outcomes are dynamic, not static, but they're not random. As I just said, continual observation allows the impact of changing circumstances and measures to be understood. You haven't refuted that at all here. Which figures, because you can't, it's a pretty fundamental point.

And secondly, you have repeatedly cited such measurements as a part of solutions, for example, asserting that groups that perform well should be examined so the factors that contribute to their doing so can attempt to be replicated in groups that perform less well.

That is not what I said. I stated that officially classifying people according to racial looks was racist.

Recording such data is perceiving someone's membership of a racial group, or recognising that they identify as such, which is what I said. What is the distinction you're trying to make here?

It seems like you're completely unable to engage with the points, so all you're doing is providing an endless series of straw men. Maybe it's building all those you find so exhausting? Do you think the only options available to you here are to either ignore the point entirely or attack a straw man instead? Has it occurred to you to either directly engage with the point or just acknowledge it? You might find that less tiring.

 

[Paul]

No. In this context, we're talking about race-blind nationalism, which is not the creation of unifying factors, but the denial of the existence of factors which are seen, by people like you, as 'divisive'. Which is both ignorant, by definition, and futile, as previously described, for example, in a large section of the post you just replied to, but completely ignored.

Yes, but the nationalism includes several ethnicities as well as mixed people over hundreds of years. This is not fascism and Cuba is a socialist nation. What Castro wanted was unity behind the revolution and at the same time reduce racism. I can see your aversion to nationalism as it has been used by fascists in Germany and Italy. It provides the scenario of the us versus them and aims to provide an explanation for the bad times.

Instead of nationalism the old fashion socialists used the worker versus business owner paradigm to promote the oppression and the us versus them mentality. These days most socialists favor the concept of white people oppressing all others, They have even come up with new terms such as POC which now includes Asians. I never thought of Asians as POC. In any event the goal is the same. Is the us versus them or the oppressed versus the oppressor.

It is the same tiring old bull dookie.

Yet again, you can't simply misrepresent the approaches taken by people in a forum setting. Anyone can look back at the posts and see that the points I've been making have been provided with substance and reasoning.

A dogmatic approach to the discussion, lacking substance and reasoning, can be seen though, in your posts.

Thanks once again for the condescending remarks. Let's summarize:

YOU
Racial ID politics.
POC need to be classified according to color.
All groups have equal talent.
Sees lack of performance as a single variable: racism.

ME
Treat each person as an individual.
Treat each person as an individual. Classifying people by skin color is racist.
Talent is variable from person to person. There is no such thing as equality.
Lack of performance is multifactorial.

 

[RobF]

Me: "It seems like you're completely unable to engage with the points, so all you're doing is providing an endless series of straw men."
Paul: *Ignores content of entire post, provides yet more straw men.*

Yes, but the nationalism includes several ethnicities as well as mixed people over hundreds of years. This is not fascism and Cuba is a socialist nation. What Castro wanted was unity behind the revolution and at the same time reduce racism. I can see your aversion to nationalism as it has been used by fascists in Germany and Italy. It provides the scenario of the us versus them and aims to provide an explanation for the bad times.

Instead of nationalism the old fashion socialists used the worker versus business owner paradigm to promote the oppression and the us versus them mentality. These days most socialists favor the concept of white people oppressing all others, They have even come up with new terms such as POC which now includes Asians. I never thought of Asians as POC. In any event the goal is the same. Is the us versus them or the oppressed versus the oppressor.

It is the same tiring old bull dookie.

Me: "In this context, we're talking about race-blind nationalism, which is not the creation of unifying factors, but the denial of the existence of factors which are seen, by people like you, as 'divisive'. Which is both ignorant, by definition, and futile, as previously described, for example, in a large section of the post you just replied to, but completely ignored."

Paul: *ignores the entire point about race-blind nationalism and writes two paragraphs waffling vaguely, and wrongly, about nationalism in general, fascism, and socialism*

At this point, I have to ask, what do you think you're doing? Is it a bit? Because repeatedly ignoring everything someone says to you and responding with non sequiturs, evasion, misrepresentation, straw men, and repetition, over and over again, is not a valid approach to discussion.

If you can't defend your points, just don't. If you want to talk about something else, just do that, without pretending it's a response. But trying to bury things you can't defend under an avalanche of falsehood and inanity is pointless. Especially on a forum, when everyone can see that you're ignoring things and misrepresenting what you're replying to. Like the names of the posters, it's right there.

Thanks once again for the condescending remarks. Let's summarize:

It's accurate, not condescending, to say you misrepresent peoples' posts, repeatedly make dogmatic assertions without reason or evidence, ignore anything you can't respond to, and waste your time constructing straw men to attack instead especially when you've literally just done it. Again.

YOU
Racial ID politics.
POC need to be classified according to color.
All groups have equal talent.
Sees lack of performance as a single variable: racism.

ME
Treat each person as an individual.
Treat each person as an individual. Classifying people by skin color is racist.
Talent is variable from person to person. There is no such thing as equality.
Lack of performance is multifactorial.

For starters, you already tried to do this, and I already stated what I'm saying. For one of many examples:

As I've said before - repeatedly - I'm finding fault with the premise of race-blind nationalism and the assertion that unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'talent', Paul.​

​

I'm not trying to pick a fight with a trite quote that wouldn't be out of place on a particularly cheesy motivational poster.​

​

So your 'summary' above is wrong right from the outset. Then, to take one example - and anyone can refer to even just the previous post to see the problems with the other ones as well - you've just claimed that I "Sees lack of performance as a single variable: racism."

Except I just addressed that false claim in the post you're replying to:

No. If that's all you see, then the problem is that you're not looking. Disproportionate outcomes are seen as potential indicators of problems; the research that follows very much accounts for multiple factors. That's the point of the approaches you decry as 'woke'; to fully understand the reasons behind the outcomes, in order to engage with and address them.​

​

So "it's just 'applying a single variable' and 'failing to recognise many other negative factors'" would be, yet another, straw man.​

​

Essentially, you're dismissing the complex, nuanced, approach out of hand, and advocating for the simplistic, "Just don't look," approach.​

​

Additionally, none of these approaches involve not looking at the reasons behind poverty and that affect social mobility with regards to poor white families. The only approach that involves not looking at the problem from a particular angle is the one you're advocating.​

​

It shouldn't have even needed refuting: even from a position of focusing on the impact of racism, it's patently impossible to solely consider 'racism' without also engaging with other factors like access to education, poverty, etc. 'Racism' is not an independent variable that is not affected by, and has no effect on, other variables.

And even in your own terms, by your own simplistic and misrepresentative summary, you're inconsistent. For example, you claim that I say, "All groups have equal talent," (which is clearly not an accurate representation of the point I've repeatedly made, which is that "claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent is racist", but even putting that aside), and you claim that, "Talent is variable from person to person. There is no such thing as equality."

Even by your summary, the one does not refute the other. And you've repeatedly attempted to do this.

The discussion is about inequality in outcomes between racial groups. You, yourself, have stated that "Unequal achievement between groups is observable, however it is NOT DUE to the spectrum of talent and competence. Unequal achievement is due to multiple (too numerous to count) positive and negative circumstances that have nothing to do with innate talent."

And yet here, when you're (mis)representing the claim that you're responding to as, "All groups have equal talent," you're not responding by essentially agreeing with it as your previous statement would logically suggest, or by now refuting it by saying, "All groups do not have equal talent." You're switching the scope from groups to individuals. But those aren't the same.

I mean, surely you can grasp the difference between, "Drew Brees was a better QB than Quincy Carter," and, "White men inherently make better QBs, due to their superior innate talent"?

I'm refuting claims like the latter. "Claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent is racist," is applicable to a racist statement like that.

But your, "Talent is variable from person to person," evades that point and doesn't directly address it at all. It's a refutation to the very, very, and I just cannot emphasis this enough because it's so very, crude straw man, "All QBs are individually equal and Drew Brees was exactly as talented as Quincy Carter." It is so very, very, obvious that no-one is saying anything like that it raises the glaring question of why you feel the need to repeatedly bring up this asinine straw man, over, and over, again.

Because in the context of the discussion being, even as misrepresented by you as "All groups have equal talent," the only way in which saying "Talent is variable from person to person," addresses that at all is very indirectly, with the (false as it happens, but you might not realise that) implication that if talent inherently varies significantly from person to person, so it must also inherently vary significantly from group to group. The very strong implication is that you want to say "All groups do not have equal talent," but you know that when it's applied to racial groups without evidence, it's literally racist, so you're trying to avoid saying it by constantly switching to talking about individuals differing in talent, and just trying to imply that then extends to racial groups without ever saying it.

Because if you weren't doing that, then why wouldn't you just talk about groups, which is the context of the discussion?

The only possible conclusion is that you're trying to be racist without being explicit about it, or that you're literally unable to comprehend the difference between things like, "Drew Brees was a better QB than Quincy Carter," and, "White men inherently make better QBs, due to their superior innate talent."

Neither reflects well on you.

 

[Paul]

Me: "It seems like you're completely unable to engage with the points, so all you're doing is providing an endless series of straw men."
Paul: *Ignores content of entire post, provides yet more straw men.*


Me: "In this context, we're talking about race-blind nationalism, which is not the creation of unifying factors, but the denial of the existence of factors which are seen, by people like you, as 'divisive'. Which is both ignorant, by definition, and futile, as previously described, for example, in a large section of the post you just replied to, but completely ignored."

Paul: *ignores the entire point about race-blind nationalism and writes two paragraphs waffling vaguely, and wrongly, about nationalism in general, fascism, and socialism*

At this point, I have to ask, what do you think you're doing? Is it a bit? Because repeatedly ignoring everything someone says to you and responding with non sequiturs, evasion, misrepresentation, straw men, and repetition, over and over again, is not a valid approach to discussion.

If you can't defend your points, just don't. If you want to talk about something else, just do that, without pretending it's a response. But trying to bury things you can't defend under an avalanche of falsehood and inanity is pointless. Especially on a forum, when everyone can see that you're ignoring things and misrepresenting what you're replying to. Like the names of the posters, it's right there.


It's accurate, not condescending, to say you misrepresent peoples' posts, repeatedly make dogmatic assertions without reason or evidence, ignore anything you can't respond to, and waste your time constructing straw men to attack instead especially when you've literally just done it. Again.


For starters, you already tried to do this, and I already stated what I'm saying. For one of many examples:

As I've said before - repeatedly - I'm finding fault with the premise of race-blind nationalism and the assertion that unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'talent', Paul.​

​

I'm not trying to pick a fight with a trite quote that wouldn't be out of place on a particularly cheesy motivational poster.​

​

So your 'summary' above is wrong right from the outset. Then, to take one example - and anyone can refer to even just the previous post to see the problems with the other ones as well - you've just claimed that I "Sees lack of performance as a single variable: racism."

Except I just addressed that false claim in the post you're replying to:

No. If that's all you see, then the problem is that you're not looking. Disproportionate outcomes are seen as potential indicators of problems; the research that follows very much accounts for multiple factors. That's the point of the approaches you decry as 'woke'; to fully understand the reasons behind the outcomes, in order to engage with and address them.​

​

So "it's just 'applying a single variable' and 'failing to recognise many other negative factors'" would be, yet another, straw man.​

​

Essentially, you're dismissing the complex, nuanced, approach out of hand, and advocating for the simplistic, "Just don't look," approach.​

​

Additionally, none of these approaches involve not looking at the reasons behind poverty and that affect social mobility with regards to poor white families. The only approach that involves not looking at the problem from a particular angle is the one you're advocating.​

​

It shouldn't have even needed refuting: even from a position of focusing on the impact of racism, it's patently impossible to solely consider 'racism' without also engaging with other factors like access to education, poverty, etc. 'Racism' is not an independent variable that is not affected by, and has no effect on, other variables.

And even in your own terms, by your own simplistic and misrepresentative summary, you're inconsistent. For example, you claim that I say, "All groups have equal talent," (which is clearly not an accurate representation of the point I've repeatedly made, which is that "claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent is racist", but even putting that aside), and you claim that, "Talent is variable from person to person. There is no such thing as equality."

Even by your summary, the one does not refute the other. And you've repeatedly attempted to do this.

The discussion is about inequality in outcomes between racial groups. You, yourself, have stated that "Unequal achievement between groups is observable, however it is NOT DUE to the spectrum of talent and competence. Unequal achievement is due to multiple (too numerous to count) positive and negative circumstances that have nothing to do with innate talent."

And yet here, when you're (mis)representing the claim that you're responding to as, "All groups have equal talent," you're not responding by essentially agreeing with it as your previous statement would logically suggest, or by now refuting it by saying, "All groups do not have equal talent." You're switching the scope from groups to individuals. But those aren't the same.

I mean, surely you can grasp the difference between, "Drew Brees was a better QB than Quincy Carter," and, "White men inherently make better QBs, due to their superior innate talent"?

I'm refuting claims like the latter. "Claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent is racist," is applicable to a racist statement like that.

But your, "Talent is variable from person to person," evades that point and doesn't directly address it at all. It's a refutation to the very, very, and I just cannot emphasis this enough because it's so very, crude straw man, "All QBs are individually equal and Drew Brees was exactly as talented as Quincy Carter." It is so very, very, obvious that no-one is saying anything like that it raises the glaring question of why you feel the need to repeatedly bring up this asinine straw man, over, and over, again.

Because in the context of the discussion being, even as misrepresented by you as "All groups have equal talent," the only way in which saying "Talent is variable from person to person," addresses that at all is very indirectly, with the (false as it happens, but you might not realise that) implication that if talent inherently varies significantly from person to person, so it must also inherently vary significantly from group to group. The very strong implication is that you want to say "All groups do not have equal talent," but you know that when it's applied to racial groups without evidence, it's literally racist, so you're trying to avoid saying it by constantly switching to talking about individuals differing in talent, and just trying to imply that then extends to racial groups without ever saying it.

Because if you weren't doing that, then why wouldn't you just talk about groups, which is the context of the discussion?

The only possible conclusion is that you're trying to be racist without being explicit about it, or that you're literally unable to comprehend the difference between things like, "Drew Brees was a better QB than Quincy Carter," and, "White men inherently make better QBs, due to their superior innate talent."

Neither reflects well on you.

WOW! I am a bit dizzy, but I read it all.

Can we simplify? We obviously have a different perspective or solutions.

1. Must people be classified according to skin color to find solutions? Is there another way.? I do not mind tracking statistics on racism, however I do not believe in classifying humans in that manner. I acknowledged your view but I prefer common themes to maintain national unity. Robert Sapolski talks about this all the time. The best way to achieve unity between two distinct groups is to form a 3rd group with common ground.

2. Do you agree lack of performance by some groups is multifactorial?
3. Do you understand group tendencies and the individual. The group trends do not always apply to the individual.
4. There is no equality, hence trying to achieve equality is futile.

That is basically my position and I accept your disagreement, no big deal

 

[RobF]

WOW! I am a bit dizzy, but I read it all.

Reading is the first step. And it's kind of a bold step to say you've read something, and then make a post that ignores most of it. It suggests that if you did read it, you either didn't understand it, or you're choosing to ignore it.

Can we simplify? We obviously have a different perspective or solutions.

1. Must people be classified according to skin color to find solutions? Is there another way.? I do not mind tracking statistics on racism, however I do not believe in classifying humans in that manner. I acknowledged your view but I prefer common themes to maintain national unity. Robert Sapolski talks about this all the time. The best way to achieve unity between two distinct groups is to form a 3rd group with common ground.

I suppose it is worth specifically asking you why you repeatedly choose the phrasing 'according to skin color', when it's more nuanced than that. As I mentioned earlier, the Census Bureau considers racial categories to "generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically." It's clearly not as simple as classifying people 'according to skin color', and if we did treat the matter so crudely, we would overlook aspects of racism. For one example, a person who passes for white but has a Hispanic surname, could still be subject to racial prejudice.

The second question would be if you're now saying you don't mind tracking statistics on racism, how do you propose this is done without recognising racial categories.

As for the 'common themes' thing, I'll just copy and paste this point again: In this context, we're talking about race-blind nationalism, which is not the creation of unifying factors, but the denial of the existence of factors which are seen, by people like you, as 'divisive'. Which is both ignorant, by definition, and futile, as previously described."

So here's a third question: is it your assertion that people with perceived differences cannot be unified, without denial and/or elimination of the differences?

2. Do you agree lack of performance by some groups is multifactorial?

Oh for... in the post you've just claimed to read, I stated, again, that the point is that claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent is racist.

Do you understand that is not a claim that there is only one factor in differing outcomes? Stating that claiming, without evidence, that something is a factor is wrong, is not at all equivalent to saying that there is only one factor. I've just addressed, thoroughly, your false assertion about seeing "lack of performance as a single variable: racism" in both the last two posts. And you claim to have read them. Did you not understand them?

So as with other things, this inane question makes no sense in this context... unless your thinking is that, if it's acknowledged to be multifactorial, that would imply that one of those factors could just be asserted to be, without evidence, innate talent, and no, that would still be a fallacy. And a racist one.

So why do you keep asking this question? What are you going for here?

3. Do you understand group tendencies and the individual. The group trends do not always apply to the individual.

Again, if you'd read the post you just said you did, you would have seen the example of how assertions about individuals and groups are inherently not the same.

As with the last question, asking this appears to either show no comprehension of the discussion, or seems to be an attempt to indirectly excuse racism, with the fallacy that it might not be racist to assert superiority or inferiority between groups if it's accompanied by a disclaimer that this doesn't "always apply to the individual." Which would be wrong, it'd still be racist.

So which is it? Do you not understand that the trite observation that everyone in a group is not identical is not relevant, and/or are you trying to excuse racism?

4. There is no equality, hence trying to achieve equality is futile.

So, again, the point is that claiming without evidence that there would remain differences in outcomes between racial groups in equal circumstances due to differing innate talent is racist. Note, here, 'claiming without evidence', 'in equal circumstances', 'due to differing innate talent'.

And that said, the assertion that 'trying to achieve equality is futile' both misses the point and is asinine.

Firstly, the aim is to ensure equal opportunity, and to address problems that, through unjustly limiting opportunities and imposing barriers to some, drives differences. It is not to arbitrarily force equality in all outcomes regardless of anything. That's not a thing.

Secondly to take just one specific example of unequal outcomes, maternal mortality rates in the USA. "In 2019, the maternal mortality rate for non-Hispanic black women was 44.0 deaths per 100,000 live births, 2.5 times the rate for non-Hispanic white women (17.9) and 3.5 times the rate for Hispanic women (12.6)" (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality-2021/maternal-mortality-2021.htm). You don't think that needs looking at? You don't think that the factors that drive those differences need to be understood, and if they can be addressed and equality achieved with the optimum outcomes for all, that should be done? Or do you think trying to do that is futile?

That is basically my position and I accept your disagreement, no big deal

That would be more convincing if you didn't keep ignoring the disagreement and repeating yourself.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I will no longer mention the Patience of Job. I will now refer to the Patience of RobF.

 

[Farb]

https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/glenn...auliffe-team-of-fake-white-supremacist-stunt/

Is this a reaction of the lefts constant 'search' for white supremacy, racism and nazis? This is about what I expected. I guess the Lincoln project took some time away from sexually assaulting male staff members and have them pose with the symbol of white power, the tiki torch. And this helped lead to Youngkin pulling ahead. LOL. Typical over reaction by the left....BOOH! Racism!!!

 

[coldseat]

https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/glenn...auliffe-team-of-fake-white-supremacist-stunt/

Is this a reaction of the lefts constant 'search' for white supremacy, racism and nazis? This is about what I expected. I guess the Lincoln project took some time away from sexually assaulting male staff members and have them pose with the symbol of white power, the tiki torch. And this helped lead to Youngkin pulling ahead. LOL. Typical over reaction by the left....BOOH! Racism!!!

The Lincoln Project isn't "the left".

 

[Farb]

The Lincoln Project isn't "the left".

By their name only. The are indeed left activists and to pretend they are not is just silly.

 

[SaintForLife]

You are not grasping what was being proposed. The lie told about election fraud would have provided the veneer of respectability so that actual Constitutional powers could be mis-used to overturn the will of the people. It’s still a coup, and the people there were willing dupes, not co-conspirators.

It’s not an elaborate conspiracy theory involving thousands, good grief. We have a document laying out what they would do. It was written by a Claremont lawyer. People aligned with Trump, both within and outside of the government were on board with this strong arm tactic to overthrow the election.

And so far, nothing has happened to these traitors. That needs to change, or we are lost as a representative democracy.

Which presidential elections this century that the Republicans won have the Democrats said were stolen or not legitimate? Oh yeah all of them.

Abrams and many other Democrats are still saying she really won the Georgia election.

 

[MT15]

This is so dishonest of you, SFL. When was the last time the loser of a presidential race didn’t concede and congratulate the winner? When is the only time in this country’s history that we didn’t have a peaceful transfer of power?

You really should be ashamed of trying to whitewash what Trump and his band of un-American goons tried to do.

 

[MT15]

By their name only. The are indeed left activists and to pretend they are not is just silly.

They aren’t left, not at all, unless you are so far right that you are elbow to elbow with Genghis Khan.

More precisely, they are conservative anti-Trump activists. They are former Republicans and so they use the tactics of Republicans against Trumpists. They don’t play nice, in other words.

I personally don’t care what they do; being former Republicans they don’t necessarily have clean hands or take the high road. I don’t care.

But to pretend to be outraged at dirty tricks by them, if you haven’t said crap about the Trumpists behavior, is pretty darn hypocritical, if you ask me.

 

[Farb]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-says-got-motherf-s-talking-white-people.html

Thoughts on this? She seemed to cover a lot we have discussed on here. CRT, Great Replacement, white people bad, all around good stuff.
I wonder if a white dude said this in reverse, would it be covered in the news?

 

[SaintForLife]

It's okay to display blatant racism as long as it goes along with the radical left wing orthodoxy.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SaintForLife]

It's a super charged version of Al Sharpton