Bernie Sanders is a White Supremacist

[Gulo Blue]

no one is saying don't keep working on it - literally everyone wants a fair and just society. It's not the rear view mirror that makes policies like affirmative action look bad - there's been opposition from the beginning (and not because of racism). If people reject racist policies as a way to atone for past discrimination, that doesn't mean they don't want what you want, it just means they disagree with the way to achieve it.

So you're not saying it's not a problem?

 

[zyxt9]

... It may even be more likely to go to those kids than to a kid raised by a single mom in a poor neighborhood with shitty schools. Then those kids aren't prepared to compete with the higher caliber, more qualified students. It's just setting a lot of them up for failure. Racism to solve/cure racism doesn't work, it just makes the people who support it feel better about themselves.

Lack of individuality also prevents grouping students by learning style. For example, kids who are Visual Learners might get how to do something the moment something is shown on the board. Meanwhile the Auditory Learners are struggling because they need it explained slightly differently. Other students are even more lost after the teacher explains it in a way that the Auditory Learners process the info.

The expectations are that every student is able to process info the same as all the other students. Schools never even check whether students CAN process information correctly before forcing them into a classroom and tossing a bunch of info at them that their brains are not capable of processing. There are estimates that at least 50% of students have Visual, Auditory, or Sensory Processing Disorders today. Why? Well based on yesterday's news, probably because of all the heavy metals found in baby food. Regardless, these kids cannot properly process the info.

The saddest part is if we tested these kids, identified their processing disorder, there are THERAPIES...NOT MEDICATIONS...that are able to get their brains properly processing info, after which they can THEN receive all of the info in the classroom and learn it. How many inner city youths are likely to have these Processing Disorders due to heavy metals in their environment getting into their bodies? These parents are not able to afford organic food or testing of their kids or paying for these therapies. The worst part is the drugs that doctors are prescribing only mask the problems, and these kids are on them for life, costing far more money than the therapies would have if properly diagnosed and treated when young in a way that actually fixes their challenges.

Yes, the initial cost to do that is greater, but the long term savings covers that cost in the end and more. Within 10 years we would see those savings realized. The problem? Big Pharma and Pediatricians - especially "specialists" in areas like ADD - stand to lose too much money currently flowing toward them.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not saying what's bad about such policies isn't known beforehand. I'm saying there's a lack of expedient fixes so we do the best we can with what we've got knowing it's not perfect. There's limited resources distributed unfairly. We don't have a way to fix it that isn't unfair to somebody. But we try to lessen the unfairness.

 

[zyxt9]

I'm not saying what's bad about such policies isn't known beforehand. I'm saying there's a lack of expedient fixes so we do the best we can with what we've got knowing it's not perfect. There's limited resources distributed unfairly. We don't have a way to fix it that isn't unfair to somebody. But we try to lessen the unfairness.

"Well who says Life is fair? Where is that written?"

"Life is pain, Highness...anyone who says different is selling something."

 

[tinselwolverine]

You're losing me with the edit.

I shouldn?t be.

My edit doesn?t make the fictitious applicants who were ?discriminated against? any less fictitious.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I shouldn’t be.

My edit doesn’t make the fictitious applicants who were “discriminated against” any less fictitious.

I thought you were kidding, then after the edit, I didn't see how it would be funny.

 

[Spartanmack]

So you're not saying it's not a problem?

What's funny about this is you actually think it's some big gotcha - don't worry I'm sure MC will be along soon enough to confirm it for you.

Bias is a problem, like I've said along - just like systemic, institutionalized racism isn't. I'm not sure how you fix bias - but I do know you don't fix it with racist policies like affirmative action.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not saying what's bad about such policies isn't known beforehand. I'm saying there's a lack of expedient fixes so we do the best we can with what we've got knowing it's not perfect. There's limited resources distributed unfairly. We don't have a way to fix it that isn't unfair to somebody. But we try to lessen the unfairness.

but policies that distribute resources based on immutable characteristics like race or gender don't lessen the unfairness, they just shift the unfairness to someone else.

 

[Gulo Blue]

What's funny about this is you actually think it's some big gotcha - don't worry I'm sure MC will be along soon enough to confirm it for you.

Bias is a problem, like I've said along - just like systemic, institutionalized racism isn't. I'm not sure how you fix bias - but I do know you don't fix it with racist policies like affirmative action.

Nope. Just asking the same thing from different angles because I think you answer with intentional incompleteness sometimes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

but policies that distribute resources based on immutable characteristics like race or gender don't lessen the unfairness, they just shift the unfairness to someone else.

Are there any policies that are based only on race? Because I reject that this idea is true in the lesser case of race being a factor (of several) - which is different from what you said and better reflects reality.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If people reject racist policies as a way to atone for past discrimination, that doesn't mean they don't want what you want, it just means they disagree with the way to achieve it.

...and I don't treat people that disagree with me this way. Look at my replies to zyxt9.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I thought you were kidding, then after the edit, I didn't see how it would be funny.

You don’t think that it’s significant that in the study not one single actual human being who exists was a victim of “white privilege?”

Also, what is a “black name” is arbitrary – common names such as Smith, Jones, Johnson, Williams and Brown - the five most common surnames in the country – are not only the most common surnames amongst white people but they are also the most common surnames amongst black people.

My last name is one of those names. My first name is also pretty common, among both black and white people. If a person knows nothing about me except my name, that person has no idea as to whether I am white or black as tar.

It would seem to me in fact that if a person is striving to achieve equity based on the names of applicants, the best way to achieve that would be to go with common names – you’re going to come up with an equitable number of white people and Black people.

I would say that studies based on fictitious and in my opinion manipulated data are invalid.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You don?t think that it?s significant that in the study not one single actual human being who exists was a victim of ?white privilege??

Also, what is a ?black name? is arbitrary ? common names such as Smith, Jones, Johnson, Williams and Brown - the five most common surnames in the country ? are not only the most common surnames amongst white people but they are also the most common surnames amongst black people.

My last name is one of those names. My first name is also pretty common, among both black and white people. If a person knows nothing about me except my name, that person has no idea as to whether I am white or black as tar.

It would seem to me in fact that if a person is striving to achieve equity based on the names of applicants, the best way to achieve that would be to go with common names ? you?re going to come up with an equitable number of white people and Black people.

I would say that studies based on fictitious and in my opinion manipulated data are invalid.

I don't. A complaint about what is meant by a black sounding name seems 'over-woke' - it pre-denies the existence of part of the thing being tested (that people recognize some names in a way that would bias them). I don't know the name selection methodology used in "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.", but a 50% difference in callbacks means something was different about the names (which had to be fictitious so they could send resumes identical in everything but name). If the whole point was hanging on one story, maaaaaybe you could want to dig more into name selection methodology, but next to paper after paper showing the same thing in all sorts of different environments? It's surprising to me if someone could conclude anything else.

 

[Spartanmack]

Are there any policies that are based only on race? Because I reject that this idea is true in the lesser case of race being a factor (of several) - which is different from what you said and better reflects reality.

It's true. Why does it only have to be based only on race?

You can only reject the idea if you think in terms of group identity and conclude that fairness is determined by outcomes. The view of fairness has to be based on a racial groups representation in the allocation of a particular resource (college admissions, government contracts, etc) being proportional to their representation in society at large. That's a pretty racist view of fairness. It's clearly shifting the "unfairness" from one group to another, particularly with merit based issues like college admissions and preference based issues like careers - whether to have one and in what field.

For college admissions, in order to fit the above definition of fairness, you necessarily have to lower the standards for certain races and raise the standard for members of other races. That's shifting unfairness. You can reject it all you want but it doesn't make it untrue - it just means you're more concerned about equality of outcomes than opportunity when determining what's fair. I reject that idea.

 

[Spartanmack]

...and I don't treat people that disagree with me this way. Look at my replies to zyxt9.

zyxt9 and I obviously aren't members of the same group when it comes to how you treat people who disagree with you or your little pet.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don't. A complaint about what is meant by a black sounding name seems 'over-woke' - it pre-denies the existence of part of the thing being tested (that people recognize some names in a way that would bias them). I don't know the name selection methodology used in "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.", but a 50% difference in callbacks means something was different about the names (which had to be fictitious so they could send resumes identical in everything but name). If the whole point was hanging on one story, maaaaaybe you could want to dig more into name selection methodology, but next to paper after paper showing the same thing in all sorts of different environments? It's surprising to me if someone could conclude anything else.

If Emily and Craig and Lakisha and Jamall are all fictitious people, then they are all equally employable.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If Emily and Craig and Lakisha and Jamall are all fictitious people, then they are all equally employable.

As far as the interviewers knew. Names were the only difference on the resumes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

zyxt9 and I obviously aren't members of the same group when it comes to how you treat people who disagree with you or your little pet.

Not because of any ideas that differ from mine. My reasons are more ad hominem.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's true. Why does it only have to be based only on race?

You can only reject the idea if you think in terms of group identity and conclude that fairness is determined by outcomes. The view of fairness has to be based on a racial groups representation in the allocation of a particular resource (college admissions, government contracts, etc) being proportional to their representation in society at large. That's a pretty racist view of fairness. It's clearly shifting the "unfairness" from one group to another, particularly with merit based issues like college admissions and preference based issues like careers - whether to have one and in what field.

For college admissions, in order to fit the above definition of fairness, you necessarily have to lower the standards for certain races and raise the standard for members of other races. That's shifting unfairness. You can reject it all you want but it doesn't make it untrue - it just means you're more concerned about equality of outcomes than opportunity when determining what's fair. I reject that idea.

Those aren't my views. Got a big thread about it already.

 

[byco42]

From the same organization that published the resume study that is now 17 years old, there is this from this week.