You’re the one making the claim, not me. It could be a combination of a zillion different things. No shifting the burden of proof.
Your claim is that the civil rights movement and the removal of legal and de facto legal barriers to black employment did not increase employment opportunities for black people in a tangibly unique way?
No, you claimed increased job opportunities for
women. That's not specific to a black demographic. Increased job opportunities for black men
is certainly a thing, but that could only conceivably strengthen atomic families, not diminish them.
You also need to stop making that claim because you don't actually understand the concept of burden of proof. If you do in the future, at the very least show where it's the case. See how I didn't just say "non sequitur" but actually showed where you erred? Follow that example!
I did, you just didn’t like what you heard.
No you didn't, and you know you didn't. "Jews in America had it better" is not a valid explanation for "Why didn't far greater historical injustice hold down Jews?" The question was never specific to American Jews. And
that is a prime example of what a straw man actually looks like.
Like I said, you’re inventing positions for me to hold so you can attack my character instead of defending your own weak argument. You’re flailing.
Once again, if I'm inventing a strawman demonstrate it. Don't just shout out "strawman" or "burden of proof" without any substantive basis. Show me where what you say is different from how I convey your argument. Then I can concede if I misunderstood you. Or you can walk back or reword your statements. That's how you have an intellectually honest conversation.
Spend five seconds with Google and then address how this shoots holes in your model minority myth.
Full of magical thinking. Looks like Maxima got it right this time. And no, I'm not going to say more than that because just linking to random thing is extremely lazy. It's asking someone to debate another person who isn't yourself as some kind of stand in. If you have a point to make, make it yourself.
No it isn’t, I was just pointing out that you haven’t accounted for it in any real way other than some vague hand waving where you declared it didn’t affect your thesis despite presenting no evidence.
I'm hand wavy? For serious? And no, I didn't say your example had no effect. It could theoretically. It could also theoretically mean nothing at all. When markers have multiple possible causes, you need to demonstrate why the cause you're arguing for is the correct one. But when I point this out to you you go on and, rather ironically, claim that I'm trying to shift the burden of proof. It's the exact opposite.
And you have provided exactly zero evidence to support your argument while I have provided you with multiple pieces of evidence as to why your argument is poorly supported.
Again, that's the exact opposite of what has occurred here.
You’re attempting to equate attempts to alleviate racism with racism again. Sorry, not going to fly.
Discriminating on the basis of race
is racist. Definitively. It doesn't matter what you call it. One could call just about anything an attempt to alleviate racism, and that wouldn't change a damn thing.
If you think that then you really didn’t understand that metaphor.
You're saying that it's OK to punish people who are guilty. In order for random white guy to be guilty... You guessed it, sins of the father.
Oh look, the Nazis. This is childish bullshit and there’s no point in addressing it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Genetic fallacy. You assume that any comparison with Nazis is automatically tainted. But you share common philosophical beliefs with Nazis, communists, and other totalitarians. Not just incidental beliefs, but ones directly attributable to some of the most heinous crimes that the world has ever seen. The comparison is both apt and relevant. You can't escape the ugly truth by feigning outrage.
In a purely descriptive manner? What?? Hahaha.
Like that Netflix executive. Fired because he said the N-word when discussing which words to censor, and then saying the N-word in a discussion with HR only to describe his previous use of the word. Madness.
As for the effectiveness of various interventions you need to contrast them with a control group.
You're dodging again, and no, you don't, because in society a control group is almost impossible. You don't need to go back into an alternate timeline and observe what happens if the Nazis didn't come to power to know that Nazis are bad. That isn't to say that you can't have
relatively decent controls, such as North and South Korea. That's the exception though.
I don’t think you understand what regression to the mean is because regressions don’t provide proof positive, they establish relationships.
OK, so here you say something, I say why you're wrong, you accuse me of fabricating a strawman, I say, "No, this is actually what you said. Here, let me demonstrate." And then you attack that version of what I said you said as if I said it. And you accuse me of hand waving and being obtuse? All that you needed to do,
at any time, is say. "I didn't say that. I actually said this," as I have charitably done for you many, many times, and we could have carried on our way. Every time you choose beat around the bush rather than furthering a discussion.
I can’t believe you’re even trying to make this sort of stupid, semantic argument.
What? The two things are fundamentally different. You want me to accept that apples are oranges?
And yet before South Korea’s rapid development they were desperately poor and you could have blamed their culture for their poverty. Same with Japan, China, etc. What an amazing coincidence that they all had such successful 180s in culture
Almost as if they assimilated giant gobs of western and/or Japanese culture, right? And the alternative is, what, they were able to dig themselves out of poverty because no one was being racist against them in non-institutional ways? Or are they just that genetically superior? What exactly do you think was the root cause of all these Asian countries going from rags to riches?
This is so tiresome and juvenile. I’ve tried to show you the holes in your thinking and I’ve given you resources to learn more. In response I’ve gotten accusations of nazism, straw man arguments, and irrational demands that I disprove your position instead of you proving it yourself.
I've come very close to saying that you have racist ideas, I haven't called you a nazi, just that you share common philosophical viewpoints with them and other totalitarians, which you do, and you haven't been able to provide an argument against besides your sheer moral outrage. Every time you accuse me of a straw man argument or misusing burden of proof you've failed to substantiate that accusation, while you yourself have been engaging in fallacious arguments with reckless abandon which, unlike yourself, I have substantiated each time. Every time that I explicitly show one of your straw man arguments, you fail to address my real argument, claiming that you've already answered me when you've only ever answered straw man. And any attempt to get to you to engage in an intellectually honest way is like hitting a brick wall.
Believe me, if one of us has the right to complain that they're tired of this, it certainly isn't you.