Rosenstein Suggested He Secretly Recorded Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Thousands? Quite hyperbolic, and the entire sins of the father thing is pre-enlightenment thinking. Let's not bring that back.

This badly misunderstands the point. The purpose of policies intended to counteract systemic racism are not to punish people for their parents' sins, it is to re-level a playing field that is currently badly skewed against black and hispanic Americans today. Yes it's largely the result of that prior injustice but the reason for action is not vengeance, it's simple recognition of reality.

I think social engineers have already overcompensated in a number of ways, and we're already at the early phase of that positive feedback scenario. It's part of the reason for the growing political divide, and manifested in events like Trump and Brexit exactly the way one would expect -- pollsters can't accurately measure a demographic that has under-the-skin resentment of society.

I want to end racism as much as the next guy, but the solution is to put everyone on an equal footing under law and we'll get there given enough time. Overcompensating is only going to breed more racism.

This is a pretty common conservative argument and I'm unaware of even a single shred of evidence that says it's true. The idea that if we simply stopped compensating for systemic racism that it would somehow go away is hopelessly naive. You are right that steps to counteract racism can engender more racial resentment but that's because people are angry about losing their place ABOVE others in society. Your plan for 'do nothing and let it sort itself out' would simply be met with those individuals saying 'thanks!' and then never changing anything.

Also, the polls for the 2016 election were quite accurate overall - more accurate than in 2012 in fact. Doesn't that kind of poke a hole in your theory?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Thousands? Quite hyperbolic, and the entire sins of the father thing is pre-enlightenment thinking. Let's not bring that back.
Tell me if you please, what are the real ways you see white people being punished through current attempts to correct for generations of racism?
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
Also, the polls for the 2016 election were quite accurate overall - more accurate than in 2012 in fact. Doesn't that kind of poke a hole in your theory

Fair enough. Poke a hole? I don't think I'd go that far. It certainly removes that specific evidence for though. Thanks for the correction.

This badly misunderstands the point... ...The idea that if we simply stopped compensating for systemic racism that it would somehow go away is hopelessly naive... ...The purpose of policies intended to counteract systemic racism are not to punish people for their parents' sins, it is to re-level a playing field that is currently badly skewed against black and hispanic Americans today. Yes it's largely the result of that prior injustice but the reason for action is not vengeance, it's simple recognition of reality.

Is it largely the result of prior injustice? That the black single motherhood rate skyrocketed lockstep with the civil rights movement detracts from that assertion, although confounding variables add a bit of noise there. What isn't so noisy is all the countervailing evidence. Chinese and Asian Americans ,who suffered enormous historical injustices, are now so far up the socioeconomic ladder that they're being discriminated against by social engineers. And no one has suffered more historical discrimination than the Jews, which evidently hasn't stopped them from doing well for themselves as a group.

Obviously historical injustice plays some role. But it doesn't appear to be a particularly significant one given the evidence. Rather, what seems to be the largest factor bar-none is culture. In terms of a social experiment with fairly good controls, North and South Korea started from the same destitute origin, but only one went on to become a global economic force.

You are right that steps to counteract racism can engender more racial resentment but that's because people are angry about losing their place ABOVE others in society. Your plan for 'do nothing and let it sort itself out' would simply be met with those individuals saying 'thanks!' and then never changing anything.

If you're giving special privileges to one group and not another you are placing people above others in society, by definition. Of course this is going to breed resentment. You're trying to fight racial discrimination/inequality in one area with an inverse racial discrimination/inequality in another. And if the point of privileging one group is that society rather than the law is still treating them unfairly in some way, then those actions are self obviously defeating.

It's not to say that some amount of normalisation isn't necessary between the rich and the poor, it certainty is with our current economic system, but as much as possible we should try and avoid doing this kind of stuff across racial lines. Affirmative action is a perfect example of a system that would make a lot of sense if only it were based on economic criteria.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Fair enough. Poke a hole? I don't think I'd go that far. It certainly removes that specific evidence for though. Thanks for the correction.

Is it largely the result of prior injustice? That the black single motherhood rate skyrocketed lockstep with the civil rights movement detracts from that assertion, although confounding variables add a bit of noise there.

The white single motherhood rate skyrocketed too. Doesn’t that create a problem for your theory?

What isn't so noisy is all the countervailing evidence. Chinese and Asian Americans ,who suffered enormous historical injustices, are now so far up the socioeconomic ladder that they're being discriminated against by social engineers. And no one has suffered more historical discrimination than the Jews, which evidently hasn't stopped them from doing well for themselves as a group.

In America black people have suffered more historical discrimination than the Jews by several orders of magnitude. To equate the racism experienced by Asian Americans and black Americans is extremely problematic.

Obviously historical injustice plays some role. But it doesn't appear to be a particularly significant one given the evidence. Rather, what seems to be the largest factor bar-none is culture. In terms of a social experiment with fairly good controls, North and South Korea started from the same destitute origin, but only one went on to become a global economic force.

Blaming black culture has been clearly wrong for quite some time now but what’s most interesting is the natural experiment we are seeing in the US these days. As entrenched poverty starts to afflict more white communities they are manifesting almost all the same problems people claimed were a result of black culture. (Single parent families, drug addiction, poor educational outcomes, etc)

If you're giving special privileges to one group and not another you are placing above others in society, by definition. Of course this is going to breed resentment.

No, you aren’t. 0+1-1=0. Otherwise you’re just trying to claim that only some types of superior social status matter, which doesn’t fly.

You're trying to fight racial discrimination/inequality in one area with an inverse racial discrimination/inequality in another. And if the point of privileging one group is that society rather than the law is still treating them unfairly in some way, then those actions are self obviously defeating.

Hard to see how they are self defeating. This relies on your idea that combatting racism leads to more racism which is dubious at best. The most racist times in American history were the ones with fewest protections for minorities, after all.

It's not to say that some amount of normalisation isn't necessary between the rich and the poor, it certainty is with our current economic system, but as much as possible we should try and avoid doing this kind of stuff across racial lines. Affirmative action is a perfect example of a system that would make perfect sense to pursue based on economic criteria.

That’s not what makes sense though, as the empirical research shows systemic bias extends FAR beyond what could be explained by economic factors. Doing it based on income requires us ignoring decades of quality research in order to indulge a fantasy that it isn’t about race. It is.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
The white single motherhood rate skyrocketed too. Doesn’t that create a problem for your theory?

It creates a problem for you, since there are many factors besides the big bad white guy. For instance, why do Jewish and Asian families do so much better than baseline white? Maybe parenting of Asian tiger moms, and tight-knit communities of Jewish people? See, there could be differences in areas like that which don't involve some mean white guy saying the N word to a black person in high school or some racist cop blasting all the young black men to death.

In America black people have suffered more historical discrimination than the Jews by several orders of magnitude. To equate the racism experienced by Asian Americans and black Americans is extremely problematic.

So why are you including Hispanics? Even more amusing since people routinely say some Hispanic peoples pass as white. So only the really colored matter? And what do we make of places like CA where "minority" pops aren't really "minority" anymore. So persecuted!

Blaming black culture has been clearly wrong for quite some time now but what’s most interesting is the natural experiment we are seeing in the US these days. As entrenched poverty starts to afflict more white communities they are manifesting almost all the same problems people claimed were a result of black culture. (Single parent families, drug addiction, poor educational outcomes, etc)

So it wasn't racism.

That’s not what makes sense though, as the empirical research shows systemic bias extends FAR beyond what could be explained by economic factors. Doing it based on income requires us ignoring decades of quality research in order to indulge a fantasy that it isn’t about race. It is.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html

What's the sort of "racist" things explain it?
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
This badly misunderstands the point. The purpose of policies intended to counteract systemic racism are not to punish people for their parents' sins, it is to re-level a playing field that is currently badly skewed against black and hispanic Americans today. Yes it's largely the result of that prior injustice but the reason for action is not vengeance, it's simple recognition of reality.

You are right that steps to counteract racism can engender more racial resentment but that's because people are angry about losing their place ABOVE others in society.

What have white people been receiving that made us ABOVE the rest? Obviously you need to quantify what we were unfairly getting to even have an argument. Using your argument, we're all getting "screwed" by the Jews who have higher median incomes and get Nobel prizes far out of proportion. 'Course, I don't believe that, and I have no reason to think black-white gap is different.

Of course people are going to resent others advocating for "correcting" racism via preferences for jobs or compensation for things that they never experienced. Some of these proposals are completely absurd, and if done "right", would be regressive anyways. For instance, if we were to compensate the blacks for past transgressions, why wouldn't it be largely allocated towards already well-to-do black families if we assume low economic ability over generations (likely even less than white pop mobility)? My parents weren't particularly poor, but I'll likely receive essentially zero inheritance, and I'd wager that the median white family is indeed quite low.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
The white single motherhood rate skyrocketed too. Doesn’t that create a problem for your theory?

Not at all, I even stated that there's some noise, in this case the sexual revolution. The rate increased far more for blacks than other groups though, when, if anything, we would expect a lower increase assuming that the gap prior to the civil rights movement was primarily driven by historical discrimination.

In America black people have suffered more historical discrimination than the Jews by several orders of magnitude.

In just America, sure, but that's irrelevant. Throughout their history the Jews have faced a kind of persecution, discrimination, and downright dehumanisation that is uniquely extraordinary. If Jews as a group were generally destitute as opposed to ascendant, no doubt you'd point to those historical injustices to explain the situation. But since that isn't the case, you just disregard any evidence that is inconvenient. Just as you disregarded my other examples because you thought they were harder to argue against.

To equate the racism experienced by Asian Americans and black Americans is extremely problematic.

I didn't.

As entrenched poverty starts to afflict more white communities they are manifesting almost all the same problems people claimed were a result of black culture. (Single parent families, drug addiction, poor educational outcomes, etc)

There's some amount of causation between poverty and other indicators? Obviously there is. There are almost always multiple factors in play in for these things, so either make an argument that it's an absolute or an argument regarding the strength of the causation.

I don't deny that historical injustice isn't a factor, only that it isn't nearly as large as you think it is. It's also worth noting that culture in the bible belt can be significantly different than, say, culture in Manhattan. Or in Sweden, France, etc. Same is true for black people of course, although being a smaller community that is more geographically bounded, and socially allowed to identify as a group, probably not to the same extent... at least in America.

No, you aren’t. 0+1-1=0. Otherwise you’re just trying to claim that only some types of superior social status matter, which doesn’t fly.

You can't subtract an apple from an orange to get zero. Neither am I saying that some forms of social worth are more important than others, just that artificially adding or subtracting in one dimension to compensate for another is self defeating here.

Hard to see how they are self defeating. This relies on your idea that combatting racism leads to more racism which is dubious at best. The most racist times in American history were the ones with fewest protections for minorities, after all.

No, no, no. My idea isn't that combating racism leads to more racism. It's that instituting racism leads to more racism. Getting rid or institutional racism is good. After reaching parity, instituting racism in the other direction is bad.

That’s not what makes sense though, as the empirical research shows systemic bias extends FAR beyond what could be explained by economic factors. Doing it based on income requires us ignoring decades of quality research in order to indulge a fantasy that it isn’t about race. It is.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html

One issue here is that you look at the end result and then throw everything that doesn't result in complete equity into the societal racism (a much better and more accurate term than systematic) basket. That's intellectually lazy. Like anything else, there are probably a host of factors. Some amount of societal racism is probably in play, absolutely. But there's still plenty of room for things like culture, extended familial support structures, or the fact by lowering the bar affirmative action inevitably casts doubt on the aptitude of black graduates.

But how much this is a marker for societal racism isn't really relevant. What's relevant is if your proscribed cure (more institutionalised racism) is a viable solution. So far it doesn't seem to have worked that well. There's also the question of morality. Even if it does work, you need to make the case that the evil means justify the desired ends.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Not at all, I even stated that there's some noise, in this case the sexual revolution. The rate increased far more for blacks than other groups though, when, if anything, we would expect a lower increase assuming that the gap prior to the civil rights movement was primarily driven by historical discrimination.

This was your example, not mine and you haven’t even established that single parenthood was the result of historical discrimination.

Furthermore there’s no particular reason to think that civil rights would cause a lower rise. For example, the increased availability of job opportunities for women could raise the rate, not lower it. It’s a nonsense example you didn’t think through.

In just America, sure, but that's irrelevant.

Lol, no it is not. Since we are discussing US policy it is by far the most relevant thing. I didn’t make you try and make that bad comparison, that was your choice.

Throughout their history the Jews have faced a kind of persecution, discrimination, and downright dehumanisation that is uniquely extraordinary. If Jews as a group were generally destitute as opposed to ascendant, no doubt you'd point to those historical injustices to explain the situation. But since that isn't the case, you just disregard any evidence that is inconvenient.

This is the sign of a bad and flailing argument. You’ve now decided to start attacking my motivations because I’ve pointed out your arguments are weak.

Don’t worry about what I would do in some hypothetical world, worry about supporting your own arguments.

Just as you disregarded my other examples because you thought they were harder to argue against.

I didn't.

Of course I didn’t ignore them, and they aren’t harder to argue against. The idea that some unique attribute of Asian-Americans allowed them to transcend racism is a convenient political myth that conservatives have latched on to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason-americans-stopped-spitting-on-asian-americans-and-started-praising-them/

There's some amount of causation between poverty and other indicators? Obviously there is. There are almost always multiple factors in play in for these things, so either make an argument that it's an absolute or an argument regarding the strength of the causation.

There’s no need, I’m just poking more holes in your argument. You’re the one that is making an affirmative statement so it’s your responsibility to deal with the confounds.

No shifting the burden of proof.

I don't deny that historical injustice isn't a factor, only that it isn't nearly as large as you think it is. It's also worth noting that culture in the bible belt can be significantly different than, say, culture in Manhattan. Or in Sweden, France, etc. Same is true for black people of course, although being a smaller community that is more geographically bounded, and socially allowed to identify as a group, probably not to the same extent... at least in America.

What is your basis for evaluating its magnitude and what empirical methods have you used to arrive at it?

You can't subtract an apple from an orange to get zero. Neither am I saying that some forms of social worth are more important than others, just that artificially adding or subtracting in one dimension to compensate for another is self defeating here.

No, no, no. My idea isn't that combating racism leads to more racism. It's that instituting racism leads to more racism. Getting rid or institutional racism is good. After reaching parity, instituting racism in the other direction is bad.

This is the tired trope that compensating the victims of racism is just as bad as the original racism. This is nonsense. When the police come and shoot a guy who is shooting other people are they just as bad because they both shot someone?

Compensating for an injustice by righting it is perfectly fine. You’re just elevating passive discrimination over active measures to correct it. That’s not logically supportable.

One issue here is that you look at the end result and then throw everything that doesn't result in complete equity into the societal racism (a much better and more accurate term than systematic) basket. That's intellectually lazy.

Speaking of intellectually lazy this is a straw man and can’t be remotely justified by anything I said.

Also I said systemic, not systematic, and systemic is perfectly accurate.

Like anything else, there are probably a host of factors. Some amount of societal racism is probably in play, absolutely. But there's still plenty of room for things like culture, extended familial support structures, or the fact by lowering the bar affirmative action inevitably casts doubt on the aptitude of black graduates.

Yeah because if we know one thing didn’t exist before affirmative action it was a perception that black people were intellectually inferior.

What is your basis for black culture being a significant driver of the inequalities we see? How are you operationalizing this?

But how much this is a marker for societal racism isn't really relevant. What's relevant is if your proscribed cure (more institutionalised racism) is a viable solution. So far it doesn't seem to have worked that well.

What’s your basis for that?

There's also the question of morality. Even if it does work, you need to make the case that the evil means justify the desired ends.

No I don’t, as I don’t consider it evil.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
What have white people been receiving that made us ABOVE the rest? Obviously you need to quantify what we were unfairly getting to even have an argument. Using your argument, we're all getting "screwed" by the Jews who have higher median incomes and get Nobel prizes far out of proportion. 'Course, I don't believe that, and I have no reason to think black-white gap is different.

Of course people are going to resent others advocating for "correcting" racism via preferences for jobs or compensation for things that they never experienced. Some of these proposals are completely absurd, and if done "right", would be regressive anyways. For instance, if we were to compensate the blacks for past transgressions, why wouldn't it be largely allocated towards already well-to-do black families if we assume low economic ability over generations (likely even less than white pop mobility)? My parents weren't particularly poor, but I'll likely receive essentially zero inheritance, and I'd wager that the median white family is indeed quite low.

You ignore the fact that white people don't have to get anything out of it to feel good about it. The perpetuation of racism in this country is an exercise in divide & conquer. With looting, of course. Lyndon Johnson said it as well as anybody 50 years ago-

If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/

None of which has anything to do with the waves of propaganda emanating from the White House about Rosenstein, of course.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
This was your example, not mine and you haven’t even established that single parenthood was the result of historical discrimination.

OK, so if you don't consider the gap between black and white single motherhood rates prior to the civil rights movement as primarily a result of discrimination, what do you attribute it to? Culture? Genetics?

If you think it's culture, you lose. If you think it's discrimination, then that's contraindicated by the trends in single motherhood post-civil rights unless you can come up with another reason for that. If you think it's genetics, then you're a "race realist." Which one is it?

Furthermore there’s no particular reason to think that civil rights would cause a lower rise. For example, the increased availability of job opportunities for women could raise the rate, not lower it.

That's a common variable for every demographic. You need to find a variable that affects the black community in a tangibly unique way.

Lol, no it is not. Since we are discussing US policy it is by far the most relevant thing. I didn’t make you try and make that bad comparison, that was your choice.

This is the sign of a bad and flailing argument. You’ve now decided to start attacking my motivations because I’ve pointed out your arguments are weak.

We're discussing the strength of correlation between historical discrimination and later socio-economic status. Talk about US domestic policy is derived from that, not the other way around. My argument is that you failed to address my prior argument, so please do so. That you would certainly use the same explanation for Jews if they were relatively destitute in the present day is simply an observation, one that you may wish to examine if you're interested in combating your biases.

Paywall.

There’s no need, I’m just poking more holes in your argument. You’re the one that is making an affirmative statement so it’s your responsibility to deal with the confounds.

No shifting the burden of proof.

Not at all. It's you that made the claim that increased poverty in the white population affects several indicators that are more associated with the black population as a means to provide evidence against a cultural factor. But these are markers that one would expect to be driven by poverty to some extent, which I pointed out. The burden is on you to show that the magnitude of the change can be explained by socio-economic factors to a large enough extent that cultural considerations lose relevance.

What is your basis for evaluating its magnitude and what empirical methods have you used to arrive at it?

My argument is that historical discrimination fails to account for other cases, cases which you continually refuse to address, in such a massive way as to put a fairly low upper bound on the effects of historical discrimination on present socio-economic realities.

This is the tired trope that compensating the victims of racism is just as bad as the original racism.

No, it's not. The original racism was much, much worse, absolutely. No one denies that. But that doesn't make present day institutional racism virtuous or excuse it.

When the police come and shoot a guy who is shooting other people are they just as bad because they both shot someone?

That metaphor only makes sense when you invoke a barbaric "sins of the father" type of justice.

Compensating for an injustice by righting it is perfectly fine.

Ditto.

You’re just elevating passive discrimination over active measures to correct it. That’s not logically supportable/What’s your basis for that?

You're damn right I prefer passive discrimination to active discrimination. Active discrimination is unarguably evil. You know who else agrees with you? Nazis. Actual Nazis. They needed to actively discriminate against those darned wealthy Jews to make things fair for the Germans.

And what makes you think this active discrimination and social engineering even works? With all of our affirmative action, and diversity initiatives, and firing of people who use the N-word even in a purely descriptive manner, are those racial tensions healing or are the rifts actively growing?

Speaking of intellectually lazy this is a straw man and can’t be remotely justified by anything I said.

No, not a straw man from my perspective. You invoked regression to the mean as proof positive of societal discrimination, sweeping aside other explanations. Also, if you think someone is straw-maning you, then state what you actually said versus what they claim you said.

Also I said systemic, not systematic, and systemic is perfectly accurate.

Fair enough. I'll continue to use societal as it's more specific and salient though.

Yeah because if we know one thing didn’t exist before affirmative action it was a perception that black people were intellectually inferior.

Not relevant. Two seperate things can drive the same factor at different places or points of time. That said, the perception that blacks are intellectually inferior is not synonymous with the fear that an applicant is less qualified because he's received artificial assistance.

What is your basis for black culture being a significant driver of the inequalities we see? How are you operationalizing this?

See Korea. You can argue that culture is only one factor there, and that's correct, but it's as close to a scientifically controlled situation as you can get. That said, my degree of certainty in "it's mostly culture" is less than my degree of certainty for "it's not mostly historical injustice," since the former only has noisy evidence, while the later is contraindicated by real world examples. If it's not mostly culture or injustice, then the mind immediately leaps to genetics, but I don't think we necessarily need to tread down that path. It may just be that in the law of averages some groups will thrive in terrible conditions and vice versa. Or the factors may be so multi-faceted and interconnected that they're hard to decipher and we're just oversimplifying everything.

No I don’t, as I don’t consider it evil.

Fair enough. Neither did the Nazis or the communists. To each his own.
 
Last edited:

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Anyone who says paywall in this day and age... how do you even get online?

I get that maybe you don't want to give money to these terrible liberal rags, but you do understand there are very basic elements to browsers that allow you to avoid paywalls, right?
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
This was your example, not mine and you haven’t even established that single parenthood was the result of historical discrimination.

Yes, and we could go through all the other shortcomings of black people, and you'll find that racial discrimination is a poor fit for an explanation.


Lol, no it is not. Since we are discussing US policy it is by far the most relevant thing. I didn’t make you try and make that bad comparison, that was your choice.

Even if he conceded this, why did you say black and Hispanic? Hispanics aren't on the same magnitude either (technically, I would argue today's blacks are too far removed from the past to blame it on this). Shee-it look at WWII Germany or Japan vs. now. It's a joke that blacks are somehow perpetually screwed over shit that happened many generations ago.

This is the sign of a bad and flailing argument. You’ve now decided to start attacking my motivations because I’ve pointed out your arguments are weak.

Don’t worry about what I would do in some hypothetical world, worry about supporting your own arguments.

Weak, my ass. He is right to suggest that had it been the opposite, you would be arguing differently. Look at you using US Hispanics as if they're so persecuted. It's a joke.

Of course I didn’t ignore them, and they aren’t harder to argue against. The idea that some unique attribute of Asian-Americans allowed them to transcend racism is a convenient political myth that conservatives have latched on to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason-americans-stopped-spitting-on-asian-americans-and-started-praising-them/

Haha. This is moronic. Yeah, I'm sure blacks are doing so poorly in IQ tests and doing tons of crime simply because white America hasn't done what the authors suggest they've done with Asians i.e. stop calling Asians chinks and praising them as having good families.

What is your basis for evaluating its magnitude and what empirical methods have you used to arrive at it?

What are some of the "racist" things you think blacks contend with that hurt their trajectory so much?

Compensating for an injustice by righting it is perfectly fine. You’re just elevating passive discrimination over active measures to correct it. That’s not logically supportable.

How much compensation is a black person owed? Will it depend on the generation?

Yeah because if we know one thing didn’t exist before affirmative action it was a perception that black people were intellectually inferior.

No one disputes that there's a significant IQ gap, so it's obvious people will perceive them as less intelligent. That doesn't necessarily mean they believe it's genetic, however.

What is your basis for black culture being a significant driver of the inequalities we see? How are you operationalizing this?

What’s your basis for that?

There are already programs in place to help those with no or little skills. They still have trouble getting ahead, and of course, that just means "racism" to you. I bet you can give them all a $100k and it would get all squandered without them making much improvement.

And again, can you give us some examples of the "racist" things society does that keeps them down? I mean, we have all high schools purposely going through books like Huckleberry Finn so everyone in unison can say "Racism is bad. Slavery is bad." But it's gotta be institutional racism!
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
OK, so if you don't consider the gap between black and white single motherhood rates prior to the civil rights movement as primarily a result of discrimination, what do you attribute it to? Culture? Genetics?

If you think it's culture, you lose. If you think it's discrimination, then that's contraindicated by the trends in single motherhood post-civil rights unless you can come up with another reason for that. If you think it's genetics, then you're a "race realist." Which one is it?

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.

That's a common variable for every demographic. You need to find a variable that affects the black community in a tangibly unique way.

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?

Wut.

We're discussing the strength of correlation between historical discrimination and later socio-economic status. Talk about US domestic policy is derived from that, not the other way around. My argument is that you failed to address my prior argument, so please do so.

I did, you just didn’t like what you heard.

That you would certainly use the same explanation for Jews if they were relatively destitute in the present day is simply an observation, one that you may wish to examine if you're interested in combating your biases.

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.


If you can’t figure out how to defeat the Washington Post’s paywall I am embarrassed for you. Spend five seconds with Google and then address how this shoots holes in your model minority myth.

Not at all. It's you that made the claim that increased poverty in the white population affects several indicators that are more associated with the black population as a means to provide evidence against a cultural factor. But these are markers that one would expect to be driven by poverty to some extent, which I pointed out. The burden is on you to show that the magnitude of the change can be explained by socio-economic factors to a large enough extent that cultural considerations lose relevance.

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.

No shifting the burden of proof. Everything here is 100% up to you to prove.

My argument is that historical discrimination fails to account for other cases, cases which you continually refuse to address, in such a massive way as to put a fairly low upper bound on the effects of historical discrimination on present socio-economic realities.

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.

No, it's not. The original racism was much, much worse, absolutely. No one denies that. But that doesn't make present day institutional racism virtuous or excuse it.

You’re attempting to equate attempts to alleviate racism with racism again. Sorry, not going to fly.

That metaphor only makes sense when you invoke a barbaric "sins of the father" type of justice.

If you think that then you really didn’t understand that metaphor.

Ditto.

You're damn right I prefer passive discrimination to active discrimination. Active discrimination is unarguably evil. You know who else agrees with you? Nazis. Actual Nazis. They needed to actively discriminate against those darned wealthy Jews to make things fair for the Germans.

Oh look, the Nazis. This is childish bullshit and there’s no point in addressing it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And what makes you think this active discrimination and social engineering even works? With all of our affirmative action, and diversity initiatives, and firing of people who use the N-word even in a purely descriptive manner, are those racial tensions healing or are the rifts actively growing?

In a purely descriptive manner? What?? Hahaha.

As for the effectiveness of various interventions you need to contrast them with a control group.

No, not a straw man from my perspective. You invoked regression to the mean as proof positive of societal discrimination, sweeping aside other explanations. Also, if you think someone is straw-maning you, then state what you actually said versus what they claim you said.

I don’t think you understand what regression to the mean is because regressions don’t provide proof positive, they establish relationships.

I’ve been very clear on my position from the beginning, and it’s that your argument is poorly supported and amateurish. I suspect you got a lot of it from YouTube.

Fair enough. I'll continue to use societal as it's more specific and salient though.

Not relevant. Two seperate things can drive the same factor at different places or points of time. That said, the perception that blacks are intellectually inferior is not synonymous with the fear that an applicant is less qualified because he's received artificial assistance.

I can’t believe you’re even trying to make this sort of stupid, semantic argument.

See Korea. You can argue that culture is only one factor there, and that's correct, but it's as close to a scientifically controlled situation as you can get. That said, my degree of certainty in "it's mostly culture" is less than my degree of certainty for "it's not mostly historical injustice," since the former only has noisy evidence, while the later is contraindicated by real world examples. If it's not mostly culture or injustice, then the mind immediately leaps to genetics, but I don't think we necessarily need to tread down that path. It may just be that in the law of averages some groups will thrive in terrible conditions and vice versa. Or the factors may be so multi-faceted and interconnected that they're hard to decipher and we're just oversimplifying everything.

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!

Fair enough. Neither did the Nazis or the communists. To each his own.

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 have little interest in continuing this discussion with you because we both know there’s no way you’re changing your mind no matter the evidence.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146

That article -- PMSL! Maybe it's actually people like you turning it into something dirty/self-fulfilling where blacks can hang their head, and go "Woe is me. Society is so oppressive against us".

You say there's nothing supportive, yet your theory fails on some significant predictions. You can't explain why racial discrimination has dropped off significantly (akin to dramatic rise in support for gay marriage), yet black-white IQ gap has remained relatively stable. You can't explain why staunchly liberal strongholds like Berkeley have some of the largest gaps between blacks/whites.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
196kar.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
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.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
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!



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.



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.



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.



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.



Again, that's the exact opposite of what has occurred here.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



What? The two things are fundamentally different. You want me to accept that apples are oranges?



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?



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.

So basically another giant pile of evidence-free hand waving, straw men, accusations of racism, and comparisons to Nazis. I won’t even get into how you apparently don’t know what a straw man is, haha.

Like I said, you’re not amenable to evidence because you aren’t interested in evidence as shown by you constantly ignoring any attempts to get you to quantify or operationalize your arguments in an empirically sound way. (This is why I said your arguments appear to come from YouTube, although maybe Ben Shapiro or some other clown like him?)

So like I said, I’m tired of this because it’s going nowhere. Feel free to have the last word.