|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2015 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 14:11 zlefin wrote:
Several people have also noted that you yourself GH, tend to engage quite poorly. So it's not surprising someone chooses to disengage with you.
I wish people would stop making me be a voice of reason, it's much more fun to be ranting at foolishness than trying to be reasonable about it and calm things down civilly. + Show Spoiler +I came to this forum really hot originally IIRC, then I got warned or whatever a few times and toned it down a bit, then a few particular posters drove me nuts. I'm generally pretty amiable and easy to converse with when it comes to people who haven't said some obnoxiously ignorant stuff or worn my patience long ago.
Sometimes I do let my tone carry onto replies towards people who are merely agreeing with something someone who I clearly disagree with (and is one of those who has already worn out my patience) and that's not really fair to them, so to them I apologize (that probably includes you at some point). But come on, you've had a job before right? Did you negotiate your pay with HR? + Show Spoiler +Normally I might agree with you, hell had he left earlier I might even agree with you, (I was mimicking his technique and it's infuriating on the other side [though now I understand better the enjoyment he may get from it]) but leaving without addressing a very simple aspect at the core of his original point is at best lazy and/or more likely the explanation I provided.
Think of how easy it would be to make me look like an ass by just describing the process in the way he seems to think it works and see if that matches reality.
You're changing what I argued. I didn't say all individual pay negotiations were with HR staff.
|
On May 14 2015 15:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 14 2015 14:11 zlefin wrote:
Several people have also noted that you yourself GH, tend to engage quite poorly. So it's not surprising someone chooses to disengage with you.
I wish people would stop making me be a voice of reason, it's much more fun to be ranting at foolishness than trying to be reasonable about it and calm things down civilly. + Show Spoiler +I came to this forum really hot originally IIRC, then I got warned or whatever a few times and toned it down a bit, then a few particular posters drove me nuts. I'm generally pretty amiable and easy to converse with when it comes to people who haven't said some obnoxiously ignorant stuff or worn my patience long ago.
Sometimes I do let my tone carry onto replies towards people who are merely agreeing with something someone who I clearly disagree with (and is one of those who has already worn out my patience) and that's not really fair to them, so to them I apologize (that probably includes you at some point). But come on, you've had a job before right? Did you negotiate your pay with HR? + Show Spoiler +Normally I might agree with you, hell had he left earlier I might even agree with you, (I was mimicking his technique and it's infuriating on the other side [though now I understand better the enjoyment he may get from it]) but leaving without addressing a very simple aspect at the core of his original point is at best lazy and/or more likely the explanation I provided.
Think of how easy it would be to make me look like an ass by just describing the process in the way he seems to think it works and see if that matches reality. You're changing what I argued. I didn't say all individual pay negotiations were with HR staff.
I honestly don't even know what you are talking about.
How do you think the typical (most) pay negotiations go? What role do you think HR plays? If you can answer those simple questions we might be able to agree on what we were even arguing in the first place.
EDIT: We're going to have to make sure we are clear on what you mean by "dominate" too.
|
The "what constitutes brigading" thing is very important in /r/lol, you can check out the Richard Lewis thread on Liquidlegends. The TLDR is that brigading means doing anything that attracts users to a post, if the mods of a sub decide to point that out.
|
On May 14 2015 12:23 oneofthem wrote:
there's a group of posters dedicated to proving that racism does not exist. it's pretty much useless to discuss things with this group.
I have not seen anyone arguing that racism does not exist. I have seen people counter the argumentation by you, GH, and others that racism is the root cause of all social issues with a more nuanced view - usually backed up by scientific sources that confirms the notion that the issues are more complex and often tied to socioeconomic level and educational level.
|
On May 14 2015 19:07 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 12:23 oneofthem wrote:
there's a group of posters dedicated to proving that racism does not exist. it's pretty much useless to discuss things with this group. I have not seen anyone arguing that racism does not exist. I have seen people counter the argumentation by you, GH, and others that racism is the root cause of all social issues with a more nuanced view - usually backed up by scientific sources that confirms the notion that the issues are more complex and often tied to socioeconomic level and educational level.
That was not what he argued. He said only caring about the socioeconomic and police conduct issues, neglects the existing disparity. The biggest possible problem is that making gains in police conduct overall might still disproportionally end up working for already well of (police interaction wise) parts of the public.
A policy change that makes issue X better for everyone but widens the existing gap is noticably different from an approach that not only lifts up, but also narrows the gap.
The same works for economics, the conservative posters argue that living standards are so high that huge disparities do not matter at all, because as soon as you have a fridge you are rich by 1200 a.d. standards. Ignoring the profund psychological effects of being the outcast lower class with no resources to compete for anything.
|
On May 14 2015 19:13 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 19:07 Ghostcom wrote:On May 14 2015 12:23 oneofthem wrote:
there's a group of posters dedicated to proving that racism does not exist. it's pretty much useless to discuss things with this group. I have not seen anyone arguing that racism does not exist. I have seen people counter the argumentation by you, GH, and others that racism is the root cause of all social issues with a more nuanced view - usually backed up by scientific sources that confirms the notion that the issues are more complex and often tied to socioeconomic level and educational level. That was not what he argued. He said only caring about the socioeconomic and police conduct issues, neglects the existing disparity. The biggest possible problem is that making gains in police conduct overall might still disproportionally end up working for already well of (police interaction wise) parts of the public. A policy change that makes issue X better for everyone but widens the existing gap is noticably different from an approach that not only lifts up, but also narrows the gap.The same works for economics, the conservative posters argue that living standards are so high that huge disparities do not matter at all, because as soon as you have a fridge you are rich by 1200 a.d. standards. Ignoring the profund psychological effects of being the outcast lower class with no resources to compete for anything.
Agreed entirely - that is why you need to focus on the socioeconomic issues and educational issues and not make everything about race. The thing is, injecting race into many of these issues is artificial. If you look at much more homogeneous countries you will see many of the same issues the US faces - and that surely can't be because they are racists. Being poor and uneducated runs in the family and breaking the social heritage is incredibly hard worldwide. That blacks are over-represented in the lower social classes has more to do with their average starting point has been lower than racism.
EDIT: If you make it a racial issue you are in fact discriminating against the poor whites/poor asians simply because they are unlucky enough to have the same skin-colour as those who are well off. Perhaps it was better to lift the entire bottom of society than only part of it and leave the other part in the dust because they happen to be part of an artificially created group based on skincolour.
|
I am not making "everything about race".
Policy discussions are not black and white, and never single issue, we can do more to help the poor and we should
We can do better to help disenfrenchised minorities, that have lost all hope and sense of belonging to the society, and make up their counter culture to cope, and we should. There is no compelling reason to not tackle all issues.
|
Poverty is rarely colorblind, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many poor people belonging to majority races. It isn't exactly difficult to understand that while socioeconomic class is probably the most prominent factor in a poverty analysis, it's worth looking at race and socio-geographical features as comorbid influences.
|
On May 14 2015 20:47 farvacola wrote:
Poverty is rarely colorblind, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many poor people belonging to majority races. It isn't exactly difficult to understand that while socioeconomic class is probably the most prominent factor in a poverty analysis, it's worth looking at race and socio-geographical features as comorbid influences.
I agree entirely, however when we have data that tells us that race is not associated with our outcome when controlling for socioeconomic class and geographical features why are people still insisting that the outcome is because of race? Because that is what has been happening.
|
On May 14 2015 20:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 20:47 farvacola wrote:
Poverty is rarely colorblind, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many poor people belonging to majority races. It isn't exactly difficult to understand that while socioeconomic class is probably the most prominent factor in a poverty analysis, it's worth looking at race and socio-geographical features as comorbid influences. I agree entirely, however when we have data that tells us that race is not associated with our outcome when controlling for socioeconomic class and geographical features why are people still insisting that the outcome is because of race? Because that is what has been happening.
Because we do not have this data, we have some that suggests it, but we also have conflicting data that some minority people are disproportionally approached and controlled by police even after accounting for economic factors and even crimes actually committed.
|
EDIT: I've had enough, I'm walking out here.
|
Let's be real here; the data is hardly incontrovertible either way, and to shove off in a huff because the opposition won't let you get away from an improper extrapolation isn't very mature. If it were a settled matter that race and ethnicity do not play a figurative role in the development of poverty in the United States, you'd be more justified.
Here's a shitty copy pasta from a wikipedia page on the issue; yes, the data can be argued against with competing sources, and if there are better, more recent sources to the contrary, I'm all ears. But, the mere fact that data like this exists and inarguably meets the baseline threshold for reliability suggests that this is hardly a settled matter.
By race/ethnicity and family status, based on data from 2007
Among married couple families: 5.8% lived in poverty.[36] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
5.4% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[38]
9.7% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[39] and
14.9% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[40] living in poverty.
Among single parent (male or female) families: 26.6% lived in poverty.[36] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
22.5% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[38]
44.0% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[39] and
33.4% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[40] living in poverty.
Among individuals living alone: 19.1% lived in poverty.[36] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
18% of white persons (which includes white Hispanics)[41]
28.9% of black persons (which includes black Hispanics)[40] and
27% of Hispanic persons (of any race)[42] living in poverty.
Poverty and race/ethnicity
The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:[43]
9.9% of all white persons
12.1% of all Asian persons
26.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)
28.4% of all black persons.
About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million in 2010),[43] but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic white children comprised 57% of all poor rural children.[44]
In FY 2009, black families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, non-Hispanic white families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were Hispanic.[45]
Poverty in the United States
|
I'm leaving because the goal posts are constantly being moved, we are arguing at very different levels (you are linking descriptive statistics to an argument concerning causality...), with very different willingness to change positions, and people are not actually reading what others post. Your own post is a prime example of this as on this very page, 6 posts above yours, I wrote that blacks were over-represented in the lower social classes and then you link data to back that up whilst claiming that it disproves what I'm saying...
|
Description is the basis of for an argument on causality, you need a baseline reference point and when that reference point shows a strong trend in one way or the other, in this case towards race and ethnicity playing figurative roles in the prevalence of poverty, you're going to need some pretty strong evidence to the contrary, none of which you've provided. You claim that injecting race into these discussions is artificial, but, let's be real, you have no basis for determining what is and isn't organic when it comes to a discussion of poverty and race. Sit it on a Toledo, Detroit, or Cleveland city council meeting and tell me that race isn't at play. It's laughable.
|
Something to consider, for the people arguing that disparate results in the criminal justice system are mostly caused by socioeconomic factors rather than race, is that it is REALLY hard to separate the effects of racism out from other factors. Controls sounds great, but it's possible to include so many controls that you control for whatever it is you are trying to study.
For example, let's say a study is looking at the different arrest rates for African Americans versus white people, so it controls for the neighborhood where the arrest takes place. Well, the neighborhood you live in may be the result of past or present racism. In Baltimore segregation was legislatively mandated, and many of today's black neighborhoods were created as a direct result. By controlling for neighborhood, this hypothetical study would therefore ignore some of the effects of racism.
Similarly, some posters have discounted the wage gap because if you control for things like having a child, or length of hours worked, it is drastically reduced (though not eliminated entirely). But are those things we should really be controlling for? What if women tend to work fewer hours because gender roles mandate that women be the primary homemakers/care takers of their children? By controlling for hours worked, a study would therefore eliminate some of the effects of sexism.
Anyway, back to the racial issue. While it is hard to separate the effects of racism out from other causes of disparate results in the justice system, it is very easy to show that people tend to be racist. Is it so hard to believe that people with power and authority will act on these tendencies to the detriment of certain groups? Even if you don't think that racism is the primary cause of disparate results in the justice system, isn't it still worth talking about as a significant cause?
All it takes is to acknowledge that racism persists today, even among people with the best intentions, and for everyone to be self-reflective enough to recognize their own racist tendencies and to adjust their behavior accordingly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this guy was pretty happy to inject some racial realism into other discussions.
|
On May 14 2015 22:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Anyway, back to the racial issue. While it is hard to separate the effects of racism out from other causes of disparate results in the justice system, it is very easy to show that people tend to be racist. Is it so hard to believe that people with power and authority will act on these tendencies to the detriment of certain groups? Even if you don't think that racism is the primary cause of disparate results in the justice system, isn't it still worth talking about as a significant cause?
It's only easy to show that there is a high incidence of racism if you use one of the ever-expanding definitions of "racism" that has been crapping up this thread for months.
And while I don't necessarily disagree with the proposition that racism should be discussed in the context of inequities of the criminal justice system, I do object to the level of prominence that people afford it. Quite frankly, I think that it is the height of either intellectual laziness or political cynicism, depending upon the proponent.
Lastly, I seem to recall creating a giant shitstorm when I dared suggest that the black community has particular internal, cultural problems that need to be sorted out if it ever wanted to climb out of its current demographic abyss. The most common response was that the problems weren't cultural so much as they were socioeconomic. So I ask again here: do black people have the problems that they're having because they're buried in racism or because they're buried so low on the socioeconomic totem pole? If y'all want to be honest with yourselves, you have to say the latter, meaning that addressing the socioeconomic issues is far more important than focusing on the red herring of racism. The only way that you can plausibly argue that racism is the issue is if you adopt stupidly expansive definition of racism for the purpose of arguing that racism today is perpetuating black poverty. Good luck with that.
|
Institutional racism, which is to say structural discrimination on the basis of skin color/origin, is not a red herring - it is a documented and well-researched fact. Observing this phenomenon and pointing out that it exists is not akin to saying that no other factors, such as one's socioeconomic situation and background, play a role in professional (and social) trajectories. Contrary to the stawman you and other conservative posters are trying to build, nobody is claiming that institutional racism is the sole factor explaining everything. Yet the fact that it doesn't explain everything doesn't take away from the fact that it does play a role, among other factors. Is this so hard to grasp?
|
On May 14 2015 23:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 22:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Anyway, back to the racial issue. While it is hard to separate the effects of racism out from other causes of disparate results in the justice system, it is very easy to show that people tend to be racist. Is it so hard to believe that people with power and authority will act on these tendencies to the detriment of certain groups? Even if you don't think that racism is the primary cause of disparate results in the justice system, isn't it still worth talking about as a significant cause? It's only easy to show that there is a high incidence of racism if you use one of the ever-expanding definitions of "racism" that has been crapping up this thread for months.
And while I don't necessarily disagree with the proposition that racism should be discussed in the context of inequities of the criminal justice system, I do object to the level of prominence that people afford it. Quite frankly, I think that it is the height of either intellectual laziness or political cynicism, depending upon the proponent. Lastly, I seem to recall creating a giant shitstorm when I dared suggest that the black community has particular internal, cultural problems that need to be sorted out if it ever wanted to climb out of its current demographic abyss. The most common response was that the problems weren't cultural so much as they were socioeconomic. So I ask again here: do black people have the problems that they're having because they're buried in racism or because they're buried so low on the socioeconomic totem pole? If y'all want to be honest with yourselves, you have to say the latter, meaning that addressing the socioeconomic issues is far more important than focusing on the red herring of racism. The only way that you can plausibly argue that racism is the issue is if you adopt stupidly expansive definition of racism for the purpose of arguing that racism today is perpetuating black poverty. Good luck with that.
Are you not aware of studies like these, or do you just think that they don't indicate the prevalence of racism?
Black boys as young as 10 may not be viewed in the same light of childhood innocence as their white peers, but are instead more likely to be mistaken as older, be perceived as guilty and face police violence if accused of a crime, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.
Source
Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. This would suggest either employer prejudice or employer perception that race signals lower productivity.
Source
We found that when considering requests from prospective students seeking mentoring in the future, faculty were significantly more responsive to Caucasian males than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions. Counterintuitively, the representation of women and minorities and discrimination were uncorrelated, a finding that suggests greater representation cannot be assumed to reduce discrimination.
Source
Edit: And to answer your question, many (but not all) of the disparate results black Americans face are a result of socioeconomic status, but socioeconomic status is partly a result of race. It's much easier to pull yourself up from your bootstraps if you aren't constantly being pulled over and assessed fines you can't afford, for example.
|
On May 14 2015 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 14:11 zlefin wrote:
Several people have also noted that you yourself GH, tend to engage quite poorly. So it's not surprising someone chooses to disengage with you.
I wish people would stop making me be a voice of reason, it's much more fun to be ranting at foolishness than trying to be reasonable about it and calm things down civilly. I came to this forum really hot originally IIRC, then I got warned or whatever a few times and toned it down a bit, then a few particular posters drove me nuts. I'm generally pretty amiable and easy to converse with when it comes to people who haven't said some obnoxiously ignorant stuff or worn my patience long ago. Sometimes I do let my tone carry onto replies towards people who are merely agreeing with something someone who I clearly disagree with (and is one of those who has already worn out my patience) and that's not really fair to them, so to them I apologize (that probably includes you at some point). But come on, you've had a job before right? Did you negotiate your pay with HR? Normally I might agree with you, hell had he left earlier I might even agree with you, (I was mimicking his technique and it's infuriating on the other side [though now I understand better the enjoyment he may get from it]) but leaving without addressing a very simple aspect at the core of his original point is at best lazy and/or more likely the explanation I provided. Think of how easy it would be to make me look like an ass by just describing the process in the way he seems to think it works and see if that matches reality.
To me, it feels like he's trying to make his points, he's doing research, and trying to be quite thorough. You don't seem to be adding links, or bringing much to the discussion other than trying to tear him down endlessly. What information and insights are you adding? And focusing too much on the things he says rather than on the actual underlying issues.
That's just my personal impression of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
