Do you think there is strength in diversity and something that should be sought

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Well everyone else calls that a diversity initiative, haha. I feel like people often oppose diversity initiatives that they don't understand.



I think it's pretty obvious the NFL has a sexism problem, yes. Are you really going to tell me that until 2015 there isn't a single qualified woman in the entire country to coach on an NFL team? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that.

As for the NFL players being comprised of mostly black men there's definitely some racism going on. For example look at the quarterback position, which is dominated by white people in a league dominated by black people. Basically the 'thinking' positions are dominated by white people while the 'brawn' positions are dominated by black people. If you think that's not the product of racial bias at some point I don't know what to tell you.



That is sexism, defined. You are refusing to hire a future female applicant purely on the basis of her sex, assuming that she will violate company policy by getting pregnant. (I assume that's a policy violation or then they REALLY have no leg to stand on).

While I'm sure there is racism/sexism in the NFL, I'm not sure it all falls on them. They generally base hiring on past performance. How many hs and college women coach men's sports and how many have black quarterbacks?

 

[Muse]

Variety is the spice of life.

You bet, and there's no question in my mind about the value of diversity and the detriment of the lack of it.

 

[pmv]

It has nothing to do with power.

It's often subjective which is why I put it in quotes. That said, having someone deciding the rules means people that want to live a life that does not conform would be compelled to conform. This though still concerns action and not ideas. So for your example about medicine, the person would have to decide on choosing between the two knowing the vast differences in outcome. Compelling people does not stop the idea, it just forces the action and helps foster the "bad" ideas. Those that choose non science based medicine are far more likely to suffer bad outcomes. Its why people started going to science based medicine long ago in the west.

But under what circumstances, what set of rules, does the person choose between the two? It seems to me you are just _presuming_ a libertarian free-market situation as the agreed ground-rules for these choices, but that's the very thing being contested. You are presuming everyone agrees with your terms before the argument even starts.

Also - to decide what the 'outcome' of which you speak even _is_ you need rules of procedure governing knowledge. How do you hold someone to account (in a court of law, say) unless there's some agreed procedure for that court to establish what is true? If you have no agreed rules of science for determining 'truth', how can any disputes be resolved? How can any contracts be enforced unless there's an agreement on epistimology so as to be able to decide whether someone has fulfilled a contract or not?

 

[Muse]

While I'm sure there is racism/sexism in the NFL, I'm not sure it all falls on them. They generally base hiring on past performance. How many hs and college women coach men's sports and how many have black quarterbacks?

The rate of black quarterbacks has increased phenomenally compared to what it was a few decades ago. It's very very common now, used to be almost unheard of.

 

[Atreus21]

I think it's pretty obvious the NFL has a sexism problem, yes. Are you really going to tell me that until 2015 there isn't a single qualified woman in the entire country to coach on an NFL team? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that.

Ah, so the only explanation can be sexism. Is sexism also to blame for the fact that men are overwhelmingly underrepresented in childcare professions? Or their underrepresentation in the nursing field? Or early childhood education?

Or is it more likely that women generally prefer these fields and men don't?

As for the NFL players being comprised of mostly black men there's definitely some racism going on. For example look at the quarterback position, which is dominated by white people in a league dominated by black people. Basically the 'thinking' positions are dominated by white people while the 'brawn' positions are dominated by black people. If you think that's not the product of racial bias at some point I don't know what to tell you.

If you think that it boils inevitably down to racial bias then I equally don't know what to tell you. It seems to me that you're saying any statistical disparity can only be attributed to racist motives. Are kickers also carefully selected according to racial criteria to keep black people out?

Or is it more likely that blacks tend to like playing running back more than quarterback? Is the fact that there are presently 5 black starting quarterbacks in the league evidence that some coaches are just progressive-minded, or is it more likely those coaches are putting the best people they can get in those positions, irrespective of their skin color?

Is the fact that blacks comprise the majority of football players evidence of a racial conspiracy against whites in football?

I don't understand this intractable preoccupation with looking for racism and finding it whether it exists or not. If you expect that employees should exactly reflect the racial composition of their community irrespective of the fact that different types of people have different interests, then, again, I don't know what to tell you.

That is sexism, defined. You are refusing to hire a future female applicant purely on the basis of her sex, assuming that she will violate company policy by getting pregnant. (I assume that's a policy violation or then they REALLY have no leg to stand on).

Of course it is. That's the point. Sometimes sexism makes sense. You don't throw a young attractive woman into a remote and isolated location populated entirely by men who've been away from civilization for several months and expect no disruptions.

 

[Muse]

Japan is a special case, I think. They are an island nation and densely populated. That combination has conspired to prevent ethnic diversity, not an abhorence of foreigners. China, OTOH, has for thousands of years had a culture of isolation to some extent, I have heard, a mistrust of foreigners. Perhaps that is changing, I think it must be. Modernization has certainly changed things there, but there are probably undercurrents from all those centuries of mistrust.

 

[mect]

Ah, so the only explanation can be sexism. Is sexism also to blame for the fact that men are overwhelmingly underrepresented in childcare professions? Or their underrepresentation in the nursing field? Or early childhood education?

Or is it more likely that women generally prefer these fields and men don't?



If you think that it boils inevitably down to racial bias then I equally don't know what to tell you. It seems to me that you're saying any statistical disparity can only be attributed to racist motives. Are kickers also carefully selected according to racial criteria to keep black people out?

Or is it more likely that blacks tend to like playing running back more than quarterback? Is the fact that there are presently 5 black starting quarterbacks in the league evidence that some coaches are just progressive-minded, or is it more likely those coaches are putting the best people they can get in those positions?

I don't understand this intractable preoccupation with looking for racism and finding it whether it exists or not.



Of course it is. That's the point. Sometimes sexism makes sense. You don't throw a young attractive woman into a remote and isolated location populated entirely by men who've been away from civilization for several months and expect no disruptions.

Absolutely sexism is responsible for men being underrepresented in early childhood education, nursing, and other female dominated fields.

 

[fskimospy]

While I'm sure there is racism/sexism in the NFL, I'm not sure it all falls on them. They generally base hiring on past performance. How many hs and college women coach men's sports and how many have black quarterbacks?

I don't think it all falls on them either, but let's not pretend there isn't some racial bias going on somewhere in the process.

Racism shows up all over the NFL, especially that 'thinking' vs. 'brawn' divide. That's why they instituted the 'Rooney Rule': teams were almost exclusively hiring white coaches despite the few black coaches that had been hired having a higher winning percentage in general. Is the idea that they just couldn't find any qualified black people? Of course not, it was racism. Unconscious racism perhaps, but still racism.

 

[jackstar7]

You will find that by your very hypothetical that the markets "fail" because of those with power in the government. They have literally broken the market and more "government" will do nothing.

BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Oh man. Thanks for this one.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, so the only explanation can be sexism. Is sexism also to blame for the fact that men are overwhelmingly underrepresented in childcare professions? Or their underrepresentation in the nursing field? Or early childhood education?

Or is it more likely that women generally prefer these fields and men don't?

Yes, sexism is likely to blame for quite a bit of that. There are gender roles that people are steered towards in society regardless of their actual aptitude and this is WELL established by the empirical research. I mean do you really think women are massively overrepresented as secretaries because they like taking notes and typing?

If you think that it boils inevitably down to racial bias then I equally don't know what to tell you. It seems to me that you're saying any statistical disparity can only be attributed to racist motives. Are kickers also carefully selected according to racial criteria to keep black people out?

Or is it more likely that blacks tend to like playing running back more than quarterback? Is the fact that there are presently 5 black starting quarterbacks in the league evidence that some coaches are just progressive-minded, or is it more likely those coaches are putting the best people they can get in those positions, irrespective of their skin color?

Is the fact that blacks comprise the majority of football players evidence of a racial conspiracy against whites in football?

It's baffling that you would be so blind. I mean you are honestly trying to argue that there were almost no black quarterbacks at all in the NFL until recently because black people just didn't like playing the most prestigious and highest paid position. That's /facepalm worthy. You can't actually believe that sort of ridiculous nonsense. As for why black people significantly outnumber whites in football, they do so in most sports. This is likely primarily due to the incentives offered to them throughout life and yes, racism is a likely component.

I don't understand this intractable preoccupation with looking for racism and finding it whether it exists or not. If you expect that employees should exactly reflect the racial composition of their community irrespective of the fact that different types of people have different interests, then, again, I don't know what to tell you.

This is an obvious straw man. No one has ever argued they should be exactly the same. (how would they be with such a small sample, anyway?) The fact that they were nowhere close for decades and decades, segregated between positions and for reasons that closely lined up with racial stereotypes would tell any rational person that racism was likely a significant cause. I mean come the fuck on. I don't understand the default conservative position which always seems to be 'I don't doubt that racism exists, it just doesn't exist in any specific situation you will ever bring up.'

Of course it is. That's the point. Sometimes sexism makes sense. You don't throw a young attractive woman into a remote and isolated location populated entirely by men who've been away from civilization for several months and expect no disruptions.

Well then I guess you have no problem with diversity initiatives then because sometimes increasing diversity for its own sake makes sense?

 

[fskimospy]

I would love for a conservative to point to one problem in society that negatively affects minorities and say 'yes, this is caused by racism'.

 

[vi edit]

I would love for a conservative to point to one problem in society that negatively affects minorities and say 'yes, this is caused by racism'.

Did you mean negatively affects majorities?

 

[Jaskalas]

As for why black people significantly outnumber whites in football, they do so in most sports. This is likely primarily due to the incentives offered to them throughout life and yes, racism is a likely component.

It couldn't be because males with more testosterone are taller, heavier, and stronger? Don't be blind to plain differences between people. It's not racism to acknowledge that we are not identical twins.

 

[fskimospy]

It couldn't be because males with more testosterone are taller, heavier, and stronger? Don't be blind to plain differences between people. It's not racism to acknowledge that we are not identical twins.

I've never said anything about people being identical twins but I find it highly unlikely that the extreme disparities found in sports are entirely due to natural physiological differences. I mean there's a reason why almost all the best swimmers in the US are white and it's not because they are more streamlined or whatever.

 

[realibrad]

Again, you are making a circular argument, by just calling whatever element has sufficient power to disrupt the 'market' a 'government'. The point is there are lots of groups, they disagree about the rules under which a "market of ideas" should operate. That you call one of those groups - the most powerful one, perhaps - a 'government' is just semantics, it doesn't change the problem.

No, I'm not. Ill try and explain this further.

Government is a 3rd party that is influencing the transactions they are not directly involved in. Your premise was this...

"How well do markets work in countries that are in chaos or run by fascist or communist regimes?"

So, your definition was a government that is in chaos, fascist, or communist. There is no reason a market would fail given your premise other than the government influence. Markets work all the time outside of regulation by a government. That is not to say that markets work without regulation, because, the whole point of markets is self regulation. Its just that the regulation is emergent and not done by a government. There are many 1st and 2nd parties that can have enough power to disrupt a market and they would not be government.

All said though, the very premise you presented was one where outside actors could influence markets. There is no need for regulation in that case except to prevent others influencing. So, going back to the context of all this, I still see no reason to place rules on ideas and to simply let an unregulated market form.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would love for a conservative to point to one problem in society that negatively affects minorities and say 'yes, this is caused by racism'.

Major city poverty, gangs, and violence?
It's tough to only blame racism, because while it's present there are additional aspects. Social and cultural differences. Segregation where specific neighborhoods are minority mean they might grow up in America, but are raised in another culture separate from the rich white kids. They have different experiences to say the least, and this cultural divide stirs up class warfare, tribal warfare. All sorts of negative "us vs them" that have nothing to do with something as shallow as the color of their skin.

It might have started off as racism, but it grows into a problem that is much more complex and will involve many more antagonists than just racists.

 

[fskimospy]

Major city poverty, gangs, and violence?
It's tough to only blame racism, because while it's present there are additional aspects. Social and cultural differences. Segregation where specific neighborhoods are minority mean they might grow up in America, but are raised in another culture separate from the rich white kids They have different experiences to say the least, and this cultural divide stirs up class warfare, tribal warfare. All sorts of negative "us vs them" that have nothing to do with something as shallow as the color of their skin.

It might have started off a racism, but it grows into a problem that is much more complex and will involve many more antagonists than just racists.

I think you are admirably open minded and I appreciate that you are able to acknowledge that racism exists in those areas. I also agree with you that racism is not the sole cause in any way and I definitely didn't mean to give that impression. You're right that these are complex issues that need to be addressed from many different angles but I do think racism is one of them and it's hard to address if people won't even accept that it exists.

 

[realibrad]

But under what circumstances, what set of rules, does the person choose between the two? It seems to me you are just _presuming_ a libertarian free-market situation as the agreed ground-rules for these choices, but that's the very thing being contested. You are presuming everyone agrees with your terms before the argument even starts.

Would you ask these same questions about biology? Long ago nature started using emergent rules to evolve. To have a market function, you literally do not need any rules to start it. The system will establish rules and work them out as time goes on.

So in this case, if people have desired outcomes and their beliefs drive them to go against it, they will be less successful in achieving their goal. Those with the beliefs that are more successful will be more likely to achieve their goal. Those around seeing the more and less successful will copy those that they wish to mirror and the market of ideas goes on.

Also - to decide what the 'outcome' of which you speak even _is_ you need rules of procedure governing knowledge. How do you hold someone to account (in a court of law, say) unless there's some agreed procedure for that court to establish what is true? If you have no agreed rules of science for determining 'truth', how can any disputes be resolved? How can any contracts be enforced unless there's an agreement on epistimology so as to be able to decide whether someone has fulfilled a contract or not?

You are now getting existential and its really getting away from the issue. If we now need to define what outcome is, and what truth is, we are going way outside of what the original context of this thread was, and further what my addition was.

If someone wants to lose weight, and they over eat and are not active, they will be less likely to achieve their outcome.

 

[desy]

Diversity for a society is good it may not be for an individual, by that I mean if you breed a pitbull with a poodle and you need to be a pitbull to survive then its counter productive. You can breed out disease or breed in long life genetics etc.

 

[realibrad]

BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Oh man. Thanks for this one.

I know this must be hard for you, as even simple things are beyond you, but Ill try and explain what just happened.

The person I responded to gave a hypothetical in which the government was the one influencing the market(s). I never made a claim that the only thing that can influence a market is government and that the only thing that could break a market is the government.

"You will find that by your very hypothetical that the markets "fail" because of those with power in the government. They have literally broken the market and more "government" will do nothing."

I made some words bold for you and hope that your eyes and brain can understand them.

 

[jackstar7]

I know this must be hard for you, as even simple things are beyond you, but Ill try and explain what just happened.

The person I responded to gave a hypothetical in which the government was the one influencing the market(s). I never made a claim that the only thing that can influence a market is government and that the only thing that could break a market is the government.

"You will find that by your very hypothetical that the markets "fail" because of those with power in the government. They have literally broken the market and more "government" will do nothing."

I made some words bold for you and hope that your eyes and brain can understand them.

It's cool man. I know what you said earlier in the thread. I just enjoy taking things out of context. You know what that's about, right?

 

[realibrad]

I would love for a conservative to point to one problem in society that negatively affects minorities and say 'yes, this is caused by racism'.

Does getting called a conservative qualify me as one? If so I can think of some

 

[piasabird]

Diversity has no real benefit. However, if you are excluding people based on some factor like Race or Religion or political views then that is unconstitutional. However, if you exclude people because they have a drug or police record that is their problem.

 

[realibrad]

It's cool man. I know what you said earlier in the thread. I just enjoy taking things out of context. You know what that's about, right?

Careful, your gear may not be able to handle that back backpedal.

 

[fskimospy]

Does getting called a conservative qualify me as one? If so I can think of some

Haha, I think of you as fairly conservative and I have no doubt that you could provide some as well as I also think you are admirably open minded. There are quite a lot of people here though who, as I said, seem to acknowledge racism in the abstract but never in the particular no matter how glaring the examples. That is unless it is racism against white people. They have no problem detecting that, haha.