The soft left summed up in under four minutes.

[J.Wilkins]

Ol' Starbuck is just doing his job. He's got a bubble to protect.

I don't blame the bull for charging either.

I like the man. He's shown to have a mind that can be inquisitive and he can learn things that he then applies in an argument.

I do not consider him one of the Trumpists at all, those type of people are imossible to reason with.

Hence my question, what has he learned from it?

 

[J.Wilkins]

The whole notion of privilege is not empirical, its a matter of perspective.

You lost track of the discussion, go back and read it and answer in a manner that is at least coherent.

 

[J.Wilkins]

That seems rather cliche

Yeah, so does Nazis hating Jews... Clichés are true statements repeated often, nothing else.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You lost track of the discussion, go back and read it and answer in a manner that is at least coherent.

I was agreeing with @SlowSpyder that the life experiences of enough blue collar middle class Americans contradicts the empirical evidence or notion of privilege. What discussion are you having?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah, so does Nazis hating Jews... Clichés are true statements repeated often, nothing else.

Careful, that sounds dangerously like the rationalization for profiling.

 

[fskimospy]

I was agreeing with @SlowSpyder that the life experiences of enough blue collar middle class Americans contradicts the empirical evidence or notion of privilege. What discussion are you having?

Why would a bunch of anecdotes matter when compared to actual empirical research? The whole point of research like that is to remove the bias of selective memories and experiences.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I like the man. He's shown to have a mind that can be inquisitive and he can learn things that he then applies in an argument.

I do not consider him one of the Trumpists at all, those type of people are imossible to reason with.

Hence my question, what has he learned from it?

I've learned that the liberals I know in real life are far more rational than the ones I encounter here, but the liberals I encounter here are more fun to argue with.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why would a bunch of anecdotes matter when compared to actual empirical research? The whole point of research like that is to remove the bias of selective memories and experiences.

When enough anecdotes aggregate to cause a political movement or sway an election, does it not become empirical?

 

[SlowSpyder]

So then how do you address the empirical research that shows your view is incorrect and many groups have it worse than white males?

Again, we both know you're going to ignore the research because it tells you things you don't want to hear, I just want to see the specific lies you tell yourself to avoid these uncomfortable facts.

I don't think the empirical evidence says what you think it says. There are many variables at play here. But I do not believe it is harder for a minority to get a job than a white male today, quite the opposite. I have literally had to make a spreadsheet with positions that report to me and their sex and race to give execs warm and fuzzy feelings about diversity. If I had all white males, I guarantee I'd have meetings about diversity and pushing for future hires to be minorities. If I had all minorities and zero white males it'd be celebrated. You can live in stats and other people's studies, I live in the real world. Today the white male is the only demographic that institutionalized racism is allowed and pushed for.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I was agreeing with @SlowSpyder that the life experiences of enough blue collar middle class Americans contradicts the empirical evidence or notion of privilege. What discussion are you having?

It happens in with white collar jobs as well. I've quite literally been denied a job for being a white male in IT. And it wasn't hidden racism, it was out in the open institutionalized racism that is celebrated.

 

[umbrella39]

A lot of zombie lefties fit perfectly into the description of exactly what Mr. Shapiro says here. Victimhood... You can't fix a problem until you admit there is a problem. Today it seems the left is so ready to be outraged (often on the behalf of others... Pocahontas), always looking for a reason to be triggered. Your life is your own, you have the steering wheel. Stop blaming everyone else for your shitty decisions.

You went from zero to full retarded sock puppet too fast. This is again neither politics or news. Just a Russian troll mad that he isn't getting any respect. Stop asking to be paid in young boy underwear soaked in vodka if you want respect.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I've learned that the liberals I know in real life are far more rational than the ones I encounter here, but the liberals I encounter here are more fun to argue with.

I wish you would stop using that word, very few of the "liberals" are actually liberals. YOU are either a liberal or a fascist (authoritarians fit the fascist perspective so I'm simplifying this), a progressive or a conservative and never was there any liberal that was against any form of human rights.

 

[J.Wilkins]

When enough anecdotes aggregate to cause a political movement or sway an election, does it not become empirical?

Wait... no, absolutely NOT, empirical means without any evidence to the contrary and with sufficient evidence to show truth.

For example, empirical evidence might be DNA data or geological foundations, it is not opinions or beliefs, EVER, no matter to what degree those are held.

 

[zinfamous]

Come now, address what I said and asked.

An objective party trying to decide on subjective issues will not be able to come to an objective conclusion as by definition it would be impossible.

But then you are arguing that objectivity is inherently impossible. Every individual's perspective of the world is perceived through a purely subjective reality. How then, in any situation, is it ever possible to reach an objective opinion?

One would say that it is the group-wide opinion of multiple subjective perspectives as the only way to reach an objective opinion, no?

 

[SlowSpyder]

You went from zero to full retarded sock puppet too fast. This is again neither politics or news. Just a Russian troll mad that he isn't getting any respect. Stop asking to be paid in young boy underwear soaked in vodka if you want respect.

Why is the left so soft today? What happened? I'm no Russian troll. This is what today's left does, create an alt-reality, a bubble to live in when you don't like something.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think the empirical evidence says what you think it says. There are many variables at play here. But I do not believe it is harder for a minority to get a job than a white male today, quite the opposite. I have literally had to make a spreadsheet with positions that report to me and their sex and race to give execs warm and fuzzy feelings about diversity. If I had all white males, I guarantee I'd have meetings about diversity and pushing for future hires to be minorities. If I had all minorities and zero white males it'd be celebrated. You can live in stats and other people's studies, I live in the real world. Today the white male is the only demographic that institutionalized racism is allowed and pushed for.

If you don't think the empirical evidence says what I think it says then by all means quote from it and explain why my interpretation is wrong. (good luck, haha)

As for the rest of it, it's hilarious that you just used the 'you have your fancy numbers, I live in the real world' line. The research is very clear that minorities face a much more difficult time getting jobs than white candidates do and the fact that you think your spreadsheet somehow trumps research involving tens of thousands of applicants is ridiculous. Once again, just as I predicted, you basically just declared that actual scientific evidence that you're wrong doesn't count. Amazing how this 'realist' and 'pragmatist' sure hates reality when it tells him things he doesn't want to hear.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Wait... no, absolutely NOT, empirical means without any evidence to the contrary and with sufficient evidence to show truth.

For example, empirical evidence might be DNA data or geological foundations, it is not opinions or beliefs, EVER, no matter to what degree those are held.

Beliefs, resentment, anger, frustration. These things are all born from some nugget of truth.

There is ample empirical evidence that the American middle class is shrinking, and that upward mobility is at a standstill. This dynamic is true for all Americans, regardless of race.

Enough Americans attributed that empirical truth to globalization and inmigration to the extent that Trump exploited it for political gain.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I wish you would stop using that word, very few of the "liberals" are actually liberals. YOU are either a liberal or a fascist (authoritarians fit the fascist perspective so I'm simplifying this), a progressive or a conservative and never was there any liberal that was against any form of human rights.

Libertarians, anarchists, capitalists, Marxists, Maoists, oligarchs, populists and theocrats among others might disagree.

 

[cfenton]

Similarly, if I experience something as true, it is true. Changing the sample population or frame of reference does not make it any less true.

That's not how truth works. Something is true if it accurately reflects the state of the world. The statement 'that table has four legs' is true in virtue of the table's four leggedness. Just because you think a statement is true, doesn't mean it is, even if you have good reasons for thinking it's true. What you're talking about are beliefs. Consensus doesn't always lead to truth. Lot's of people believed in a geocentric universe for thousands of years. They were wrong. Just because a lot of people believe white males are discriminated against, doesn't make it true. To make a broad claim like 'white males are discriminated against', we'd need a large sample and lots of research. Unless the only point you're trying to make is that you (or some white males) are discriminated against, anecdotes don't do anything.

When enough anecdotes aggregate to cause a political movement or sway an election, does it not become empirical?

No, not unless someone measures it. We'd need to know exactly why these people voted the way they did and evaluate their claims. They might believe they are being discriminated against, but that doesn't mean their belief is true. Again, lots of people can be wrong.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Beliefs, resentment, anger, frustration. These things are all born from some nugget of truth.

There is ample empirical evidence that the American middle class is shrinking, and that upward mobility is at a standstill. This dynamic is true for all Americans, regardless of race.

Enough Americans attributed that empirical truth to globalization and inmigration to the extent that Trump exploited it for political gain.

Reality in itself is not empirical evidence, empirical evidence is that that evidences reality itself. I know that you are not a scientist so this difference might not be obvious to you but it is to me.

I REALLY do not think of you as an idiot though, don't get me wrong, I'm simply aware that you might not be aware of the way we evaluate things when it comes to empirical evidences and thus rush to proclaim "truth" where truth is the subjective opinions of some.

The American middle class is gone in a decade or so, not because of policies that made welfare recipients rich but because all policies are made to made the rich very much richer at the cost of the poor and since you cannot wring water out of dry cloth, the middle class.

An economy consists of a set amount of absolute funds, how those funds are divided is determined by the wealth of each segment, the poor haven't gotten any richer so it's not that they have been robbing you but the rich have quintupled their wealth and that came from somewhere.

Your beef is not with the poor, it's with the people that own more than you and your entire city put together but you cannot for the world of you bring yourself to realize that in a community, you take care of your people, be it a church, a club, a union, a city, a state or a country... You take care of your people and you don't fucking discriminate based on anything, you just fucking do it.

When everyone is OK you can start to discuss why trillionaire John who made all of his wealth BECAUSE of what you and your ancestors contributed to society to make it a place where he has the ability to make that kind of money and what he should pay back for his usage of that infrastructure and society.

He REALLY did not build that. Obama was right on that. Put that twat in a jungle where nothing is built and watch him die...

 

[obidamnkenobi]

I don't think the empirical evidence says what you think it says. There are many variables at play here. But I do not believe it is harder for a minority to get a job than a white male today, quite the opposite. I have literally had to make a spreadsheet with positions that report to me and their sex and race to give execs warm and fuzzy feelings about diversity. If I had all white males, I guarantee I'd have meetings about diversity and pushing for future hires to be minorities. If I had all minorities and zero white males it'd be celebrated. You can live in stats and other people's studies, I live in the real world. Today the white male is the only demographic that institutionalized racism is allowed and pushed for.

So you have to keep a spreadsheet that shows that the well-documented discrimination against minorities/women doesn't happen in your organization. And this fact that white men aren't given undue priority, as they have historically and to this day, is discrimination against them? Attempting to prevent racism (against minorities) is racism (against whites)? Wow. This is really just the classic zero-sum rights that so many subscribe to when they oppose more rights for others.

I also like your hypotheticals with no basis in reality: "If I had all white males, I guarantee..", "If I had all minorities and zero white males it'd be celebrated."
What is this based on? Has this actually happened? Or it this just pulled out of your ass?

 

[J.Wilkins]

Libertarians, anarchists, capitalists, Marxists, Maoists, oligarchs, populists and theocrats among others might disagree.

I don't give a fuck... do YOU care? I'm talking to YOU, not everyone else.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So you have to keep a spreadsheet that shows that the well-documented discrimination against minorities/women doesn't happen in your organization. And this fact that white men aren't given undue priority, as they have historically and to this day, is discrimination against them? Attempting to prevent racism (against minorities) is racism (against whites)? Wow. This is really just the classic zero-sum rights that so many subscribe to when they oppose more rights for others.

I also like your hypotheticals with no basis in reality: "If I had all white males, I guarantee..", "If I had all minorities and zero white males it'd be celebrated."
What is this based on? Has this actually happened? Or it this just pulled out of your ass?

these anecdotes he claims are based on real world experiences are one of the reasons I know he's nothing more than a troll. And then to say that white males have to jump through the most hurdles to obtain a job is just laughable, and really points out what his subtext message is.
THEN he links to milo as someone we should listen to and pay attention.
No, just no. Troll is troll.

 

[bshole]

Same as it's always been: consolidated power and wealth in the hands of the few. If those hands can all be white that makes them feel much more calm about it, too.

ROFLMAO! He really didn't know did he? A fact so blindingly obvious to those paying any kind of attention is just too damn obscure for him to suss out.

Wonder what he will do this "new" information.....

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's not how truth works. Something is true if it accurately reflects the state of the world. The statement 'that table has four legs' is true in virtue of the table's four leggedness. Just because you think a statement is true, doesn't mean it is, even if you have good reasons for thinking it's true. What you're talking about are beliefs. Consensus doesn't always lead to truth. Lot's of people believed in a geocentric universe for thousands of years. They were wrong. Just because a lot of people believe white males are discriminated against, doesn't make it true. To make a broad claim like 'white males are discriminated against', we'd need a large sample and lots of research. Unless the only point you're trying to make is that you (or some white males) are discriminated against, anecdotes don't do anything.



No, not unless someone measures it. We'd need to know exactly why these people voted the way they did and evaluate their claims. They might believe they are being discriminated against, but that doesn't mean their belief is true. Again, lots of people can be wrong.

Yes a table has four legs. We are not talking about that. We are talking about political parties aligning themselves along the fault lines over who has the best table.