My best lesson on racism

You're not capable of a rational debate. In order to have a somewhat productive conversation i'd have to walk through every single premises you've stated and explain to you while you're unfathomably wrong on every single front.

To me it speaks to a lot of underlying thought processes in the way your mind works is fundamentally compromised. I honestly don't think you'd have the ability to walk through pretty much any position you have and ground it within some morale frame work that's coherent or consistent. I think if i was to use analogies, and hypothetical arguments to deconstruct your arguments, you wouldn't understand how or why those tools are used. How you can eliminate variables through those tools and test for consistency.

I'd asked you earlier a scenario where a person had all of their clothes stolen, and the only thing they could do to get clothes was to go to a clothing store naked to get them, at which point they would be arrested for indecency. I then asked you to explain to me who was the person at fault in this scenario.

You not only refused to engage with the question, but completely missed and ignored the context for it and how such a scenario would be comparable to black peoples position in society starting from a lower position socially and economically.
You where either too stupid to engage with it interpreting it as some unrelated question, or you where extremely dishonest and refused to engage with it because you didn't want to do anything that could empower my argument, by engaging with a clearly flawed premise that you had.

Something i've have had to accept recently is that some people are lost and won't change their mind regardless of any evidence or arguments that are presented to sway you or point out a flaw in your position. It's simply not worth my time, hence why i asked if you'd like to make a wager on it for charity, to at least get something out of talking to a brick wall.

I think if a really charismatic person put a video on youtube talking about how flat earth is real, you'd buy into some stupid conspiracy. You're lost, you're not as intelligent as you think you are and it would literally be a complete waste of my time talking to you because i would get literally nothing out of it.

 

It’s strange. It’s almost like empowering/elevating someone based on their race is the same as devaluating/discriminating based on their race. Same thought process in reverse. Just like two sides of the same coin.

 

It's strange, it's almost like asking people to run 150m's while the other people run 100m's leads to predictable outcomes and the people that have to run further and work harder more then likely won't win.

Weird.

 

Starting two runners at different distances would be discrimination and unequal treatment. Starting them both at 150 meters and then telling one that they will win the race because they are *insert race* and one that they will loose the race because they are *insert race* is a flawed thought process.

 

Just take a look around. Women are already in control. There are more and more women in government at every election. I also think that they do a very good job at keeping their counterparts in check. I think it would be great if the majority of government was female led. The truth is that we as men really don't have much say about how we live life anyway. Our wives pretty much dictate what we do and when we do it locked or not we are all in chastity! It isn't our desison when where or how we have sex or if at all, it is truly up to them. This would be why we do what we do for them so maybe we can have some feel good.

Just saying

 

Would you say people starting in different social economic conditions would effect their outcomes in life?

 

The analogy is describing different socioeconomic issues.

Do you think one person has to travel further growing up in a broken home, in a poor neighbourhood with a poor education in order to get the university, then the person who grew up in a nuclear family, in a rich neighbourhood and had a great education?

 

Is this person in your scenario of a specific race? You think that equaling socioeconomic status will eliminate ignorance, bigotry, and discrimination? Rewatch the clip and in the original post. Money, education, and neighborhoods are not mentioned.

 

Do you understand what the purpose of this analogy is?

You seem to have trouble drawing the connection between these two things and why i'm using it to illustrate an example. Could play devils advocate for me here so i can see we're on the same page?

 

It can also be that while we can understand the analogy, we might disagree with it on a factual basis and consider it pointless...

 

So contest the analogy. Engage the question.

Do you think one person has to travel further growing up in a broken home, in a poor neighbourhood with a poor education in order to get the university, then the person who grew up in a nuclear family, in a rich neighbourhood and had a great education?

 

We're going in circles here. Poverty is not a racial trait.

US has thousands of young African Americans from well-off families who have received preferential treatment at universities, and it has thousands of young whites from poor drug-stricken damaged families who have never finished high school.

The system should be set up to help people who face troubles through no fault of their own, not to people whose skin is green, or whatever color is the fad of the moment.

 

Nice dodge. Answer the question please.

A person in those circumstances has in effect a longer race to run to get to university then someone who does not have those challenges. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

Okay, the case you''re presenting means the person from a broken home has a longer way to go.

And your own description here is *entirely devoid of race*! You're talking class and culture there, not race!

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but poverty, or marriage rates, or many other things that matter here, are NOT racial traits. There's NO moral reason why the black kid of a rich black lawyer should get preferential treatment at a university over a poor white kid or a kid of poor Vietnamese immigrants.

I stand by my proposal that the system should be race-blind and help people in need regardless of their skin color. Anything else is racism, and even your implicit assuptions about black communities indicate benevolent racism.

 

1 premise at a time. So we know that people from a disadvantaged background have a harder time succeeding, we agree on that. So it logically follows that a person with the same score on a test, that comes from that kind of background, rather then a richer background would actually be a better student due to their homelife circumstances. They achieved the same result, in a harder environment. If you don't contest that, lets continue.

Now premise two.
Which sociology-economic background is a person MOST likely to have that kind of upbringing?

 

No.

Assuming the test isn't faulty, the same result indicates the same level of competence at the time the test was undertaken and deserving equal chances to get even better. Punishing people for not having been born into poverty, or a certain race or whatever, is both unjust and illogical. Past obstacles are no guarantee of future performance. You could just as easily say the person from a richer background has proven they're willing to put in the hard work even though they didn't have to. Adding/subtracting points from a test score based on criteria not relevant to the test as such makes the final result biased and ideology-driven. I've *lived* under a system where those from "problematic" backgrounds were punished in regards to university admissions, and I've been one of those with a "correct" background who could have benefitted from my status, and I *know* the system was both unjust and inefficient.

How's growing up poor or Latino going to make one a better programmer, or a better astronomer?

As for premise two, you'd be commiting the same racist error over and over again. You'd be pre-judging/grouping people together based on their race, instead of judging them individually.

 

In the analogy i'm drawing for you both people get the exact same mark, say 95% on an exam.

Only one of them comes from a disadvantaged background. They need to work to subsidize their education so they can't be a full time student the same way someone from a rich background could.

Do you weigh the fact that they both got 95% on the test equally?

Now bear in mind your disagreement with this analogy is that all outside factors are irrelevant. It doesn't matter where they live, where they work, what their bank balance is, the only thing that matters is the fact they both got 95% on the test, therefore the university has to flip a coin as to who supports.

Why in your opinion should it be a coin flip between these two people? I don't think you'd find a person who will say that the person who had to do things like raise a family, live out of their car, work another full time job while studying has as hard a path to that 95% as a person who could study fulltime without a care in the world for expenses because they come from a rich background.

Why do you feel people that come to that conclusion are wrong?

 

The factors you mention are both impossible to quantify with a reasonable degree of accuracy and irrelevant.

Is growing up in a strict Christian family positive or negative points? Is growing up gay in LA the same points as growing up gay in Backwwoods, Utah? Is not having a father the same points as having an alcoholic father? Do you have any idea how many factors influence a person's score on the tests we're talking about? Can you imagine the huuuge amount of data about millions of people that would be required to create anything even vaguely resembling a just system? Can you guess the inevitable and justified concerns about privacy and security this would lead to?

And why should the system be allowed to assign weights to all kinds of cultural, racial, economic and other issues? Who gets to decide what hardships justify what amount of points? AFAIK there are no known objective criteria that could evaluate a person's supposedly increased suitability for university studies based on such subjective factors as them having lived in a car, so what you're asking for is for some inevitably biased people to assign arbitrary point values to a limited subset of hardships people face in life.

And where's the moral justification for punishing people who have "advantageous" backgrounds they had no influence over? How are someone's dreams and aspirations and talents and life less important because they've been born into a nuclear family? Don't you see the injustice you'd be creating by punishing people whose only "sin" would be not belonging into any "disadvantaged" group?

I've never denied some people have harder paths to walk than others. I'm just saying that unless the tests are faulty, the same score indicates (roughly) the same preparedeness and aptitude for the field in question. And the system should judge people on exactly that, because if you add extra points to some people for irrelevant suffering, the school accepts people who are less apt and less prepared, and then *everyone* ends up with worse doctors, worse engineers, worse managers... Would you like to have someone having 4% higher chances of dying in surgery because the university rejected someone with a 95% score in favor of someone with (91% + 5% for a hard life)=96%?

One last thing. You're asking, asking, asking... But I don't see you answering much. Maybe you could try answering some questions too? Let's begin with something simple, for example, how's growing up poor or Latino going to make one a better programmer, or a better astronomer?

 

We can't quantify a lot of things to the degree of accuracy you're talking about, yet we don't stop trying to measure things as a result.

Now bear in mind, this is an analogy to test the consistency of one single idea, in a vacuum and then apply it to your position to test for consistency. Your question as to exactly how things should be weighted is you answering a question i didn't ask and obfuscating what my true question was.

Can a person's environment have a positive, or a negative effect on their ability to perform?

It's a pretty simply yes or no question.

I find it extremely telling that you can't say that a person who had a much harder life, had more hurdles to get into university then someone who didn't.

 

You're becoming pointless to talk to again.

One, you're still avoiding providing any answers yourself.

Two, I *did* admit some people have more difficult lives and it is more difficult for them to get into an uni, so you're flat out lying there.

Maybe try again?

 

You're contesting a question i haven't stated because you want to ramble off on some generic shit.

The reason we can't even get to the question of "How do you measure it?" Is because you haven't even agree'd that it exists. State that you agree it exists, then we can move onto the next premise.

I can't skip ahead or assume we're on the same position on any question or premise or argument at all, which means trying to arguing at a deeper more nuanced level is a complete waste of time.

Here's an example of what it's like talking to you that might make it clearer what you're doing. You're trying to talk to me about how an emissions trading scheme and carbon credits isn't a good and accurate way to curb CO2 emmisions in the western world..... Yet you refuse to admit to me that you even believe climate change is real?

Why the fuck would we dwelve into the specifics of a topic you don't believe is real.

If you tried to have an argument with me about what colour Jesus's hair was, it would be a complete waste of time because i don't think Jesus ever existed.

See the problem here?

 

OK, so you've agreed now that background can have an effect on scores.

Now for the hypothetical. You have 2 students, who had the exact same results. By pure luck their tests are literally identical. Now if you took into account the environment that they achieved the results in (one a low socioeconomic background, the other a high socioeconomic background), would you attribute one of those students as someone who worked harder?

Same result, different backgrounds. Did one have to work harder?

You have to pick 1 student to recommend for a Job, same results, same personalities, everything exactly the same except one achieved it in a worse environment. Logically to me i'd pick the poorer student in that situation.

 

You're *again* lying about what I said, or you're not even bothering to read what I wrote:

Now stop trying to be the lecturing higher authority here, lead an effing *debate* instead of providing us with a monologue, and answer a simple question yourself: how's growing up poor or Latino going to make one a better programmer, or a better astronomer?

*You* want the system to be racist. *You* have to provide justification for why.

 

Once again you've dodged a very simple question to go off on your monologue about the logistics about affirmative action, without ever addressing my premise.

This is the shit you're doing over and over again. We need to lay the foundations for what our argument is built on and to do that we have to be on the same page for premises.

Let me give you an example.
Did you know that Pro-labor political affiliations overwhelmingly like to see a decrease in immigration levels to afford local workers more bargaining power to push for better conditions and training?
Did you also know that White Nationalists overwhelmingly like to see a decrease in immigration levels as well?

Do you think these people can talk about the logistics and policy about how to do it? (This is rhetorical.)
They will never come to an agreement on any of this because one's premise is supply and demand as a means for leverage in the workforce, and the other's premises is they're the superior, gods chosen race! How the fuck could they ever engage into the specifics of how to lower immigration and legislation surrounding it.

I can't have an actual, honest and deep discussion with you if it's built on sand. Engage the premise, challenge it and i will respond in kind, and we do that until we're on the same page as to what we're arguing about.

1 thing at a time.

 

i gave you dozens of answers to your questions. You're refusing to answer even a single one.

Where's the debate?