|
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 March 06 2016 10:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:29 Falling wrote:I doubt there's any chance of people d-escalating... this thread mirrors actual US politics to a depressing degree. But it would be helpful if people checked each others meaning a little more often... and also substantiate claims rather than just throw out a claim with nothing backing it up. I notice Zenith tends towards this: "Yeah institutional racism exists but not for black people" ...and the follow up post is a more literate version of 'u mad bro?' On the otherhand, it seems what we have a disagreement in terms, but we only came about it in a round about way. Six posts later, we find what he means is there are no law that specifically bar black peeps from anything.
Therefore no institutionalized racism. Whereas, that is not at all what GH, kwizach, et all mean when they say institutional racism. In that line, it was helpful for kwizach to link sources... to a degree. It turns out there is an accessibility problem, plus I rather dislike link war- styled debates, the counter-argument is to tell someone to read entire books or hours of videos before replying. Is it so hard to draw out a few examples and expand upon them? I think giving several examples would a) substantially increase the level of discussion and b) possibly increase the likelihood of someone desiring to dig into the sources linked. I don't believe Zenith's definition of institutional racism is adequate, and I find his posting method abrasive, but I don't think most people contradicting him have done themselves many favours. If one side is consistently thoughtful and substantiates their claims, it is far easier to remove someone who simply counters with 'you're just mad.' But when it's largely claim vs claim, it's just an unpleasant thread to read, and it's hard to determine fault because it's just a thread full of snippy people, posting dismissive, passive-aggressive pot-shots. Nobody argued that he should read entire books before replying. The point was that there was an ocean of research that he could turn to if he was genuinely open to thinking about the existence of institutional racism. He was also provided with the wikipedia page dealing with that very topic, and not only did he completely ignore it, but he actually plagiarized a sentence while deliberately leaving out the rest of the paragraph, which refuted his stance. The wikipedia article literally has seven examples of domains in which institutional racism can be observed. From the start, he was not interested in actually discussing the issue, only in claiming African Americans do not face institutional racism. It's the combination of his stance and his willful and systematic ignoring of contradictory evidence and arguments which I find despicable.
In academic debate and discussion when two sides do not agree on the definition of a term that is necessary for to continued the discussion, they see they are at an impasse and the discussion ends. Because they know there is no point arguing of the definition of the term. There is no point to discussing the the ethics of a specific action if the two sides can't come to a base agreement on what ethics are.
If people can't agree what institutionalized racism is, there is little point to arguing over it. No ones mind is going to be changed because someone posted a bunch of links to studies or articles. Accept your views differ an move on. The discussion of racism is worthless if we can't come to a consensus on what it is.
|
On March 06 2016 08:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:02 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 03:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 02:41 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:35 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Both the left and the right created current state of Trump.
Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources.
The right is too much of coward to go after Trump like the last Fox debate initially, now its too late. False equivalence. I refer you to the post to which you replied. It isn't making equivalence of anything. Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Yeah.. you're just mad because you have blood coming out of your whatever... User was warned for this post I just wanted to point out that even with the state of this thread, TL STILL holds it to a higher standard than the US political debate. Reflect on that while you discuss whether or not institutionalized racism exists in the US. Wait how is your warning related to the existence of institutional racism in the US? This isn't a TV news program competing for ratings, it's a discussion forum.
I never said it was. I just thought it ironic that with the terrible state the thread was in, reality was actually worse. Exactly as you say: a discussion forum about a computer game and the community around it has a higher moral standard for what should and should not be said than presidential candidates and their soapboxes...
|
The problem is that institutionalized racism is a stupid term. At best, it is ambiguous. At worst, it is a term that, if accepted, predetermines the outcome of the discussion.
|
On March 06 2016 11:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem is that institutionalized racism is a stupid term. At best, it is ambiguous. At worst, it is a term that, if accepted, predetermines the outcome of the discussion.
It is not ambiguous, and it does not determine the outcome of the discussion anymore than the term "racism" does (or any other kind of discrimination, for that matter). The social science research on the subject arrives to the conclusion that institutional racism is present in given areas by measuring its effects, not by postulating that it exists.
|
To be honest, I agree. Prefer systematic racism when talking about biases in a with a specific system, intentional or unconscious. Institutionalized racism makes it seem like there was intent, which is rarely the case with modern racism.
On March 06 2016 11:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 11:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem is that institutionalized racism is a stupid term. At best, it is ambiguous. At worst, it is a term that, if accepted, predetermines the outcome of the discussion. It is not ambiguous, and it does not determine the outcome of the discussion anymore than the term "racism" does (or any other kind of discrimination, for that matter). The social science research on the subject arrives to the conclusion that institutional racism is present in given areas by measuring its effects, not by postulating that it exists.
Nah, its a shitty term. Systematic racism is better and more accurate.
|
Any updates on the maine results? Stuck at 9% reporting the last couple hours for me.
|
On March 06 2016 11:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Any updates on the maine results? Stuck at 9% reporting the last couple hours for me.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eXwVtE7.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Yn0AlWo.png)
I got warned recently for making a picture-only post. So here's a token sentence: Not this time Souma
|
On March 06 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote:To be honest, I agree. Prefer systematic racism when talking about biases in a with a specific system, intentional or unconscious. Institutionalized racism makes it seem like there was intent, which is rarely the case with modern racism. Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 11:09 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 11:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem is that institutionalized racism is a stupid term. At best, it is ambiguous. At worst, it is a term that, if accepted, predetermines the outcome of the discussion. It is not ambiguous, and it does not determine the outcome of the discussion anymore than the term "racism" does (or any other kind of discrimination, for that matter). The social science research on the subject arrives to the conclusion that institutional racism is present in given areas by measuring its effects, not by postulating that it exists. Nah, its a shitty term. Systematic racism is better and more accurate.
It's not a shitty term. It is a largely sociological term which follows from the definition of institutions in the scientific literature. "Systemic" and "institutional" are not entirely synonymous, although they are close. I'm not too interested in opening another definitional front in that debate, though, so I'll leave it at that.
|
On March 06 2016 11:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote:To be honest, I agree. Prefer systematic racism when talking about biases in a with a specific system, intentional or unconscious. Institutionalized racism makes it seem like there was intent, which is rarely the case with modern racism. On March 06 2016 11:09 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 11:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem is that institutionalized racism is a stupid term. At best, it is ambiguous. At worst, it is a term that, if accepted, predetermines the outcome of the discussion. It is not ambiguous, and it does not determine the outcome of the discussion anymore than the term "racism" does (or any other kind of discrimination, for that matter). The social science research on the subject arrives to the conclusion that institutional racism is present in given areas by measuring its effects, not by postulating that it exists. Nah, its a shitty term. Systematic racism is better and more accurate. It's not a shitty term. It is a largely sociological term which follows from the definition of institutions in the scientific literature. "Systemic" and "institutional" are not entirely synonymous, although they are close. I'm not too interested in opening another definitional front in that debate, though, so I'll leave it at that.
With disagree. No further discussion in needed.
|
On March 06 2016 09:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:45 oneofthem wrote:
it's a live topic with some potential for good discussion imo. legal equality vs equality in reality.
Exactly. Arguing that facially neutral policies carrying disparate impacts upon groups aren't really that problematic in general is perfectly legitimate. Suggesting that persons making the argument should be moderated reeks of fascism.
Maybe it's fascist but I don't feel like talking to idiots and having to skim through 200 posts to find interesting discussion threads is annoying.
edit: NOT to mention that it kills interesting discussion threads because the last live post on that more interesting topic was 13 pages ago
|
United States22883 Posts
This picture is entirely misleading (although the description is correct) because Trump held up his hand like you'd normally would, bent at the elbow. I guess some of his followers wanted to make sure their hands were seen, so they held their arms straight out.
So the optics are misleading, and hilarious.
|
On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
"Following a book" is such an empty statement. All religions to that to some extent or another.
I do get what you're going, for, but let's be accurate; it's by no means true that sacred texts are the basis of every religion. Or that a religion is defined by its adherence to one particular sacred text. There are plenty of counterexamples, or examples of religion where tradition, jurisprudence, wisdom of elders etc. are of greater importance than texts. Sola scriptura is a minority viewpoint.
On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
Just as most Christians ignore Leviticus in the bible.
We don't ignore it; we think that it was a part of God's plan to bring truth to a humanity that wasn't ready for the big picture yet. The New Testament invalidates it as a continuing obligation on several occasions ("what defiles" "Council of Jerusalem," "the Law was until John" and the entire book of Galatians).
|
On March 06 2016 11:03 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:48 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 10:46 On_Slaught wrote:On March 06 2016 10:40 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states. I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in. does "I think Cruz is slightly more of a walkover than Trump in the general" count as a good point Cruz has? Exactly this. His predictability coupled with his lack of moderate\populist views makes him much easier to beat. His entire stance is that he is principled. He has no room to move to the middle. Yes, Ted Cruz would be the worst nominee for the future of the Republican party. You would think he nails all the Christian demo because he is the one who would genuinely fight hard for a lot of those social issues. I guess the fact he was branded as an assholes who is unlikeable got to him or that people don't care as much about social issues (which mostly don't affect them). There are a lot of very conservative people in my family: in 3 pastors but none of them liked Cruz. The most enthusiasm I heard was for Rand and a bit for Carson from 1 person. They all universally thought Trump was horrible though. That was a while back so I dunno if all the debates would change much (it definitely wouldn't the those who liked Paul). Either way they will vote and they will just vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination because they think Clinton is sleezy and sanders is crazy because socialism. I really wonder if any of them have warmed up to Trump. Personally I like the Ohio governor the most and I wouldn't mind voting for him but in this day and age being reasonable won't cut it when running...which only enables the candidateS moving to further extremes.
Trump and Kasich, for different reasons, I believe both have a wider appeal they can bring to the general election. And they can in general shift the focus and goals of the party. Cruz might be a strong candidate in terms of how he's doing, including among the Christian demographics, but that's not enough for the rest of the country.
On March 06 2016 11:00 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:50 oBlade wrote:The creation of this thought experiment shows a misunderstanding of the nihilism of ISIS... they want to restore a caliphate. There is no notion of surrender. Remember The Dark Knight? Some men just want to watch the world burn? That kind of psychopathy does exist in reality. Regarding the rest of your post, as far as I can tell you were responding tangentially to my points, and clarifying would take more time than I am willing to continue spending on this topic. However, as for the part I quoted. I believe that you are correct that there is no notion of surrender, but you are the one showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what a caliphate is. A caliphate is an Islamic state that exists in accordance with Sharia law. It is very explicitly neither nihilistic nor psychopathic. ISIS does not want to watch the world burn. They want to conquer it by converting everyone who lives in the world to Islam (at sword point if necessary) or killing them, after which I guess they think they will have some sort of utopia where everyone lives in harmony in accordance with their god's commandments. There's also a bunch of specific requirements like needing to have claimed territory, not maintaining a peace treaty with another nation for more than a year, needing to constantly expand its territory that a government must meet to actually qualify as a caliphate. So anyway, people fighting for ISIS are not all nihilistic psychopaths. They are also people who believe that they are making the world a better place by claiming it for their religion. Some of them might be psychopaths, though. Statistically, some ISIS fighters are psychopathic. Dismissing every single one of them as psychopaths who just want to watch the world burn is absurd, though.
I am not the one who has misunderstood what a caliphate is. Take it up with ISIS, the caliphate is their goal, not mine. Is Al-Baghdadi not called a caliph? And ISIS is decidedly nihilistic. An ideology that denounces music, literature, culture, philosophy, science, education, and adopts torture, rape, murder, and genocide as standard operating procedure - if this isn't nihilism, then pray tell, what would qualify...? It's like saying the Khmer Rouge was misunderstood, all they wanted to do was convert everyone in Cambodia to uneducated ignorance, by force if necessary, or by killing them (which they did - kill all the educated people, that is), and then have an agrarian utopia. Or Charles Manson just wanted to live in harmony with Helter-Skelter.
It's ISIS. It's not a revolutionary movement fighting for a better future. It's psychopathic nihilism. Have you been reading their tourist magazine or something? What point did you think you were going to convince me of by posting "Not All ISIS Fighters?" If you're trying to say that ISIS uses terror and force to compel obedience - to compel people to commit further terror - then yes. That's true. Not everyone who gets caught up in a terrible circumstance seeing no way out necessarily wants to perpetuate that circumstance. And Hemingway told us as much:
"I cannot say it easily. There are people who would make war. In this country there are many like that. There are other people who would not make war."
"But the first ones make them do it."
"Yes."
"And I help them."
"You are a foreigner. You are a patriot."
"And the ones who would not make war? Can they
stop it?"
"I do not know."
But the organism (it's not simply an intangible ideology, it's something that's very real) that is ISIS is fundamentally incompatible with civilization.
|
On March 06 2016 11:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2016 09:45 oneofthem wrote:
it's a live topic with some potential for good discussion imo. legal equality vs equality in reality.
Exactly. Arguing that facially neutral policies carrying disparate impacts upon groups aren't really that problematic in general is perfectly legitimate. Suggesting that persons making the argument should be moderated reeks of fascism. Maybe it's fascist but I don't feel like talking to idiots and having to skim through 200 posts to find interesting discussion threads is annoying. edit: NOT to mention that it kills interesting discussion threads because the last live post on that more interesting topic was 13 pages ago
Now, now... Let's not be so elitist! You in particular should have a more democratic attitude on such things. 😀
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is not being pedantic but important. this discussion about institutional racism is not a case of different definitions, both right. it's rather one guy is using lack of legal discrimination as substitute for institutional racism, which covers social institutions and deep seated dynamics.
one example of such a deep seated discrimination is the ongoing trend towards automation and algorithm in everything from credit evaluation in loans to job candidate evaluation. race turns up high on the list of impactful indicators of fitness. there is no regulation for this so far.
|
Man, a Cruz vs Trump battle for the nomination until August would be the Democrats' wet dream.
|
On March 06 2016 11:40 oneofthem wrote:
this is not being pedantic but important. this discussion about institutional racism is not a case of different definitions, both right. it's rather one guy is using lack of legal discrimination as substitute for institutional racism, which covers social institutions and deep seated dynamics.
one example of such a deep seated discrimination is the ongoing trend towards automation and algorithm in everything from credit evaluation in loans to job candidate evaluation. race turns up high on the list of impactful indicators of fitness. there is no regulation for this so far.
What, you really want to give loans to people who can't afford them or are otherwise unfit to incur such liabilities? Didn't we determine that that was a bad idea eight years ago? Objective indicators are objective indicators. Using them for legitimate purposes is not emblematic of any kind of racism, regardless of disparate impact.
|
Did the establishment really think that coming out against Trump would give Rubio a surge? I feel like ending up with Cruz is the worst case scenario for them. This is just...what. Rubio has 15% of the delegates so far...He's not even the go-to choice for moderates. Kasich still taking chunks out of Rubio. What a complete disaster.
|
On March 06 2016 11:40 oneofthem wrote:
one example of such a deep seated discrimination is the ongoing trend towards automation and algorithm in everything from credit evaluation in loans to job candidate evaluation. race turns up high on the list of impactful indicators of fitness. there is no regulation for this so far.
If my memory is correct, it's illegal at the federal level in the US to discriminate against prospective employees based on race, is that not true? I don't want to be operating under a misconception if it's false.
The first suggestion, that the formula was built with racial bias, is untrue. Building a score that’s both “fair” and predictive is certainly a priority for us at FICO. As part of this, FICO® Scores have never used race, gender, marital status or other legally prohibited bases as inputs.
http://www.fico.com/en/blogs/risk-compliance/do-credit-scores-have-a-disparate-impact-on-racial-minorities/
Could you clarify what you mean by race being an indicator in credit evaluation?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 06 2016 11:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 11:40 oneofthem wrote:
this is not being pedantic but important. this discussion about institutional racism is not a case of different definitions, both right. it's rather one guy is using lack of legal discrimination as substitute for institutional racism, which covers social institutions and deep seated dynamics.
one example of such a deep seated discrimination is the ongoing trend towards automation and algorithm in everything from credit evaluation in loans to job candidate evaluation. race turns up high on the list of impactful indicators of fitness. there is no regulation for this so far. What, you really want to give loans to people who can't afford them or are otherwise unfit to incur such liabilities? Didn't we determine that that was a bad idea eight years ago? Objective indicators are objective indicators. Using them for legitimate purposes is not emblematic of any kind of racism, regardless of disparate impact.
the implication is that race is being used as a selector if it is in a pool of potential selectors, due to superior performance.
this does not make race an objective selector, it rather biases the algorithm against some groups even holding other conditions the same. this is analogous to the 'black name on same resume' experiment.
further it reflects the reality that blacks are under-developed. it's like a different country within the u.s. with some need for developmental intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
