|
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. |
The US supreme court has thrown out a death sentence handed to a black man in Georgia because prosecutors improperly kept African Americans off the jury that convicted him of killing a white woman.
The justices ruled 7-1 on Monday in favor of death row inmate Timothy Tyrone Foster in underscoring the importance of rules they laid out in 1986 to prevent racial discrimination in the selection of juries.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that Georgia “prosecutors were motivated in substantial part by race” when they struck African Americans from the jury pool.
But the court did nothing to limit lawyers’ discretionary decisions to reject potential jurors, a practice that the late Thurgood Marshall once said would allow racial discrimination to persist in jury selection,
The outcome probably will enable Foster to win a new trial, 29 years after he was sentenced to death.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would have respected the decisions of state judges who sided with prosecutors and rejected Foster’s claims.
Source
|
United States3889 Posts
I love the anecdotal evidence that sexism doesn't exist I guess we don't need to worry.
|
On May 24 2016 01:48 BlueBird. wrote:
I love the anecdotal evidence that sexism doesn't exist I guess we don't need to worry.
the statement "every country is highly misogynistic" is false.
|
On May 24 2016 01:48 BlueBird. wrote:
I love the anecdotal evidence that sexism doesn't exist I guess we don't need to worry.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
On May 24 2016 01:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 01:48 BlueBird. wrote:
I love the anecdotal evidence that sexism doesn't exist I guess we don't need to worry. the statement "every country is highly misogynistic" is false.
The use of "highly" was unnecessary, that is true.
|
With "systemic" arguments, its best to at least identify a mechanism by which it would operate.
For instance our education (K-12) system as currently constructed is seemingly intentionally designed to not educate young males, because sitting at a desk for an hour at a time might as well be torture for a huge number of them. Historically, this is the case because the point of school isn't (or wasn't) educating men, it was "breaking" them (like a horse), it was social and behavioral conditioning, not for conveying knowledge (that you must later recite to get ahead in life). This is why you see men under-performing their SAT/ACT/IQ tests fairly consistently in K-12 grades.
Similarly, college admissions weigh those same grades fairly heavily, which has created the current state where many colleges are majority female, and some are "sneakily" (but not really if you inquire) using de-facto affirmative action to get in Men now, because having high female population % on campus leads to unhappiness, appears to have a bad impact on campus-rape statistics, etc.
But schools don't need to do that, they just need to ignore what high schools are telling them, because our K-12 system is not designed to teach people much, nor to give them the capacity to learn Undergraduate materials. Instead of looking for a decently made sword to sharpen, they can look for the best Iron ingots and forge them, and those stats will even out.
Which also leads you to employers, because colleges also aren't putting out apples-to-apples results for students. Why are first year dropout rates so high? Why given similar grades do female tenured professors seem to publish so much less? Why are inter-school, inter-department and (even inter-teacher) grades so inconsistent? If employers perceive "equivalent" resumes at this point as non-equivalent, are they even wrong?
|
On May 23 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +There's an entire body of literature on the subject. The short answer with respect to policy is: yes, most notably with regards to policies impacting specifically women, children and families. Having women in leadership positions also helps negate restrictive gender stereotypes about the roles of women in society. There's bullshit litterature on many subjects. You're telling me the core arguments for women in politics are contradictory : they negate "restrictive" (whatever that mean) gender stereotypes, but mainly play a role in what is traditionally considered to be women subjects (familly, children). A rich woman is rich before all, and it is this reality that define her political stances. Gender or race diversity is used as some kind of way to legitimate our ploutocratic democracy and the election of specific individuals that are, more often than not, originating from rich families. Hence the reason why the left and the right both love diversity. And yet it's the same theorical argument. Show nested quote +What matters is how it has changed over time. And it appears to have been growing in several fields over the last few decades. If it is abnormally low, and increase but still stays below the norm, it can be argued that its a specificity of the US more than anything. In France, women in stem related courses account for at least 20 % of student in 2000, up to 40 %, with 25 % on average and we're not particularly advanced.
I believe this is you looking at the world through your class warfare goggles. There's no reason a rich woman should be rich before all, and not woman before all, or bike rider before all if that happens to be her hobby. In fact, the whole "before all" is a red herring. She is rich, and a woman, and a bike rider, and a soccer mom, and makes decisions based on all these factors, as well as her ideology.
Oh, and dismissing an entire scientific field (woman studies) because it doesn't agree with your world view is extremely myopic.
|
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless.
|
It is interesting to see that Sanders is focusing his attention/attacks on the democratic party's leadership, rather than Clinton at this point. It seems like he is properly positioning his transition into supporting Clinton after the democratic makes changes to make it more inclusive and that sort of thing. I think the focus now is setting the stage for the democratic party to make largely symbolic concessions/gestures aimed at appeasing the Sanders crowd. They basically just need to make the transition seamless, where people are able to just stay on this anger train, but divert it to the party. And then once the party gives in to Sanders' demands and he's able to gloat about how he changed the party, all but the crazy Sanders supporters will rally to recover Clinton's chances against Trump.
It's actually all coming together pretty well. If Clinton was still 10%+ ahead of Trump, I would say it would be a bad thing because it would prevent a lot of people from standing up against Trump. The headline of Trump doing damn well in polls recently keeps young voters scared, which is essential. So long as sanders keeps focusing on the differences between him and party establishment, things are looking great. It sets the stage for him pretending he is seizing the party at the convention.
|
I do agree with Sanders on the DNC, that they have their head up their ass and have for over a decade. But I need to see and end game to all of this that isn't total garbage.
|
I'd largely agree with that assessment especially when taking into account the reports that he talked to senate folks after the Nevada kerfluffle. Sanders is a politician to the bone.
|
On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless.
Social sciences are not true science either.
|
On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either.
In what way.
|
On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way.
In the ways defined by STEM lords on the internet, it isn't based in enough empirical data and rational thought. Weirdly enough the venn diagram of people who claims social sciences are not real sciences and those deny sexism is a serious problem is super close to a circle. It gets real weird when you cross reference it with those who have anime avatars on twitter.
|
I did not ask you to give me a strawman, Plansix. You're just detracting from what I would like to accomplish here.
At the moment, I would like SolaR- (or anyone else who believes something to this effect) to define, as rigorously and accurately as possible, his view of what constitutes a "true" scientific field.
|
I have anime avatar on twitter... but I think I don't fall in either of those category.
|
On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless.
This absurdly hilarious to me.
|
On May 24 2016 03:15 ragz_gt wrote:
I have anime avatar on twitter... but I think I don't fall in either of those category.
Not all anime avatars produce sexist garbage, this is true. But there is a weird correlation between sexist garbage and anime avatars on twitter. Without the tools for further study, it can only be seen as an observed phenomena. Any insight drawn from it is pure speculation.
On May 24 2016 03:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. This absurdly hilarious to me.
I also found it to be comical and expected the standard follow up on “sociology isn’t really a science anyways.” And I got what I expected.
|
On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way.
Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative.
Here is a decent article on the subject:blogs.scientificamerican.com
|
On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way.
Here are a couple soundbytes that capture the gist of why social science is in a different class of rigor from the natural sciences:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 24 2016 03:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:15 ragz_gt wrote:
I have anime avatar on twitter... but I think I don't fall in either of those category. Not all anime avatars produce sexist garbage, this is true. But there is a weird correlation between sexist garbage and anime avatars on twitter. Without the tools for further study, it can only be seen as an observed phenomena. Any insight drawn from it is pure speculation.
My avatar is the drunk walrus from Alice in Wonderland. What doth this say about me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
