What About DEI is Racist?

Bogan

How convenient.

just_sayin

Bogan said:

How convenient.

Bogie, how are you any different than racist DEI supporters, if you make judgements about how good or bad a worker will be by only knowing their race?  

MichaelElpers

@Bogan

The issue you are having is even if people would agree there can be racial differences, you are over applying a collective group statistic where 1. There isnt what i would consider a significant disparity and 2. Doesnt need to be applied when looking at hiring/merit decisions of an individual.

If you are a businessman that believes IQ is the most important factor determining success just have each individual take the test. Seems dumb to base it on racial averages when you could just look at individual scores. You could be eliminating very high score candidates based on averages.

Steph Curry is very short for an NBA player. By average you would pass him up. Look at him as an individual though and youll watch him make 100 shots in a row making him one of thr best basketball players.

Overall point is why look averages/medians of the important variables by race when you can just analyze those actual variables for the individual?

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I don't know.  My uncle never mentioned their race.

How dare you not ask your uncle such an important question? Now we will never know the race of these two people... The magnitude of the loss is almost equivalent to that of the Library of Alexandria.

Bogan

@just_sayin ;       

Just-sayin quote         Bogie, how are you any different than racist DEI supporters, if you make judgements about how good or bad a worker will be by only knowing their race? 

 

Easy peasy, Just-sayin.       You, yourself is making a prejudgment of people according to their race.    According to your religious scriptures, you must “not show favouritism” which you interpret as meaning that all races are equal.     It does not matter if your prejudgment of a race is positive or negative, it is still a prejudgment.   

 Next, everybody, including liberals, make positive or negative prejudgments about entire groups of people.     Dreamer and Openminded think that all MAGA supporters are bigots and brain deads.     Everybody does it.    When everybody does something, it stands to reason that there is nothing wrong with doing it.   Judging people by their demographic identity is a tool which advertisers and insurance companies use every day.     Here in Australia, insurance actuaries create insurance policies according to suburbs.     It is rightfully assumed that people who live in rich suburbs drive much more responsibly than those who live in poor suburbs, and much less likely to engage in insurance fraud.      So too, insurance premiums are mindful of the age and sex of drivers, with younger male drivers being the least responsible.      They probably factor in race also, but they keep quiet about that. 

 The Reverend Jesse Jackson once famously quipped that, ”When walking through the streets of Washington DC at night, I feel much safer knowing that there is a white man behind me, than a black.”   Here is a leading light of the NAACP openly admitting that black men are a crime problem.   

 Everybody prejudges, everybody stereotypes, and everybody labels.        I always find it hugely amusing when some liberal claims that these common practices are wrong.       Because sooner or later, I always catch them doing it themselves.       And then I cut and paste their quote and fling it back in their face if they try it again.  

Bogan

@MichaelElpers

 MichaelElpers quote   The issue you are having is even if people would agree there can be racial differences, you are over applying a collective group statistic where 1. There isn’t what I would consider a significant disparity and 2. Doesn’t need to be applied when looking at hiring/merit decisions of an individual.

 First point.  Everybody judges people by their group affiliations.        It is a form of stereotyping, and everybody stereotypes.      A stereotype does not need to be 100% accurate, only accurate enough to form an opinion.        I was at a party one night and I was introduced to an insurance assessor.      When I mentioned that one of my friends was making an insurance claim about a lower back injury, the assessor said “I bet he is either Lebanese, Greek, or a Yugoslav?”     Obviously, insurance companies are very leery of lower back compensation claims by people of these three ethnicities.     They obviously did not acquire such an opinion for no reason.      It is reasonable to assume that insurance companies know through long experience that people from these three ethnicities are the ones most likely to engage in medical insurance fraud. 

 As for your second point, I would say this.    What you wrote is easy to say.   But if you owned a struggling factory where hiring the wrong people could send you broke, and you knew that certain ethnicities were very prone to pilfering, insurance fraud, and absenteeism, while another ethnicities group reputation  was on the whole trustworthy, hard working, and loyal, I will bet that you would not hesitate to select people to hire people based upon their ethnic reputations? 

 

MichaelElpers quote         If you are a businessman that believes IQ is the most important factor determining success just have each individual take the test. Seems dumb to base it on racial averages when you could just look at individual scores. You could be eliminating very high score candidates based on averages.       Overall point is why look averages/medians of the important variables by race when you can just analyze those actual variables for the individual?

 I would answer that with this

 

 

 MichaelElpers quote  Steph Curry is very short for an NBA player. By average you would pass him up. Look at him as an individual though and youll watch him make 100 shots in a row making him one of the best basketball players.

Everybody stereotypes.    But intelligent people know that some people can be atypical, and they can make allowances for that if it is practical.        Outliers do not define well known group behaviour or abilities, regardless of whether they are positive or negative.      However, for the most part, prejudging people based upon the known characteristics of the groups that they are affiliated with, is an everyday occurrence.       If your daughter brought home a Hells Angel and introduced him as her new boyfriend, I doubt if you would be pleased?

MichaelElpers

@Bogan

I dont make collectivist judgements when there more relevant factors available and more relevant factors are almost always availabke.
For example lets say 1 of every 10 blue bridges fail while 1 out of every 20 yellow bridges fail.  Well if you only allow me to look at color id cross the yellow bridge.  Knowing however color may have little to do with the bridge failing if you allow me to know material, age, construction I examine any of those over color.

"Certain ethnicities are very prone to theft etc"
Please contextualize what is "very prone."  Even if one group does it at a higher clip doesnt mean they are "very prone"
As a businessman if I could interview a person ask what they value, examine school history, experience.  That would provide much higher relevance to me than knowing anyones race.

If you were to ask me what details would you want to know in order to make a determination about who I would hire or who could my friend, Race wouldnt even come close to a relevant factor on my list of distinguishment.

Hells angels is a gang, by affiliation, someone is choosing a certain set of beliefs.  Race is not chosen and wouldnt tell me anything relevant about an individuals values, work ethic, ect.

Dreamer

I saw an interesting article on this topic:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/america-under-attack-inside-anti-160704538.html

"Yet even as they or their allies publicly advocated more academic freedom, some of those involved privately expressed their hope of purging liberal ideas, professors and programming wherever they could."

I recommend Jason Stanley's book in how liberalism is the best defense against fascism. This anti-woke intellectual diversity movement is just a dog whistle to promote fascism and get rid of liberalism.

Bogan

@MichaelElpers

MichaelElpers quote   I dont make collectivist judgements when there more relevant factors available and more relevant factors are almost always available.

Yeah?     Well, you see, Michael, everybody does it, including you.      You are advocating for a moral position which is so impossibly high that nobody can conform to it.      Everybody makes “collectivist judgements” of entire groups of people based upon their known group behavioural reputations.   As a matter of fact, the racist joke is universal, and it usually makes fun of some supposedly well known collective attribute of the target ethnicity.    I have been down this track so many times with so many other doe eyed liberals like your good self, that I know for a fact that it is only a matter of time before you put your foot in your mouth.       So, what I am going to do Michael, is to cut and paste your quote into your “clangers” file, and when you eventually do a bit of collective judging yourself, I am going to wave it in your face.  

MichaelElpers quote          For example, lets say 1 of every 10 blue bridges fail while 1 out of every 20 yellow bridges fail.  Well if you only allow me to look at color id cross the yellow bridge.  Knowing however color may have little to do with the bridge failing if you allow me to know material, age, construction I examine any of those over color.

 We are not prejudging coloured bridges, Michael, we are prejudging people.     We stereotype groups of people because our brains are wired to stereotype in order to think.     A stereotype is a form of generalisation, and humans usually think in generalities, not specifics.   We can think in specifics, but we only do so when it is absolutely necessary.   Thinking in generalities is a lot easier and it saves a lot of brain time.         Our language is chock a block full of general nouns.    Fleet, flock, herd, many, near, far, tribe, group, lots, numerous, flotilla, crew, etc. etc.     

MichaelElpers quote   Please contextualize what is "very prone."  Even if one group does it at a higher clip doesnt mean they are "very prone"

If African descended people commit serious criminal behaviour, to the extent that in every western country their incarceration rate is roughly four times greater than the average incarceration rate for most other ethnicities, then that makes them “very prone” to committing serious criminal behaviour. 

 

Michaelelprs quote       As a businessman if I could interview a person ask what they value, examine school history, experience.  That would provide much higher relevance to me than knowing anyones race.

That would be a fair individual assessment, as examination results and personal references from people you trust may be more relevant.    But even you would have to admit that some ethnicities make better employees than others?     And where references and examination results can not be verified, and are not "always available" that would have to be relevant? 

 

MichaelElpers quote       If you were to ask me what details would you want to know in order to make a determination about who I would hire or who could my friend, Race wouldnt even come close to a relevant factor on my list of distinguishment.

But if certain ethnicities are consistently dysfunctional as migrants, then you would have to be a fool to not consider race when selecting migrants.       As an immigration officer, your primary loyalty is to the peace and stability of your own community, not to virtue signal and ignore the fact that the same ethnic groups are always a problem in every western society they immigrate to.     

MichaelElpers quote   Hells angels is a gang, by affiliation, someone is choosing a certain set of beliefs. 

The principle is exactly the same no matter how you categorise a group of people.      If you can not know an individual personally, then the only yardstick that you have to judge them by is on their group identity, and the reputation, good or bad, of that group identity.      A lawyer from Harvard Law school would be considered better candidate for recruitment into a law firm, than one from Bumferk, Idaho.  

 

MichaelElpers quote         Race is not chosen and wouldnt tell me anything relevant about an individuals values, work ethic, ect.

 But it would tell you that the individual is part of a group of people who are notoriously dysfunctional.     If you did not take that fact into account when hiring, then you would exhibit exemplary virtue, and be extremely naïve.        The principle that everyone is equal, and that African people in particular should be hired on the basis of racial quotes, seems to be taking a hit, lately.        Fanni Willis,  Claudine Gay, and  Karine Jon Pierre, are “diversity hires” who were picked entirely for their race, sexual orientation, and gender.       And what a mess they have made of things.  

Factfinder

In your view what's the difference between fascism and liberalism which itself is socialism? @Dreamer ;

Bogan

You are asking Dreamer to think, Factfinder, and that is a very big ask.       Dreamer just "debates" by submitting links, he can't think for himself.       I had a look at his link and it is so silly that I hardly know where to start refuting it.     What i would like Dreamer to do, is summarise it in his own words, and then I can start to deprogram him.     But he will never do that.   He is just too scared of being proven wrong.       

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Bogan ;She was dumb, because after he kidnapped and strapped her to his bed for 2 weeks, she escaped and within days went back to see him again.  

I don't think she was dum because your got to be a bit more sensitive about these cases nower days. Sure may be the guy had a massive schlong and she kept on coming back because she was addicted to it. But thats the thing really because it is a problem that these chicks have no where else to go and they dont give up hope that there exes dont beet the crap out of them again.

MichaelElpers

@Bogan

First off Im not a liberal and next I never said its possible to never make collectivist judgements.  My position is when you have the time to meet someone collectivist judgements should be thrown out the window. For example hiring someone. Next when making making a judgement based on superficial visual observation there are more informative factors than race.

4 times greater still doesnt mean very prone. For example .0000004 is 4 times more than .0000001 but I wouldnt say either is "very prone".

"But even you would have to admit that some ethnicities make better employees than others?     And where references and examination results can not be verified, and are not "always available" that would have to be relevant?"

There are certain ethnicities that statistically make up higher education positions.  When making a hiring decision, I think there arr so many more important references and examinations that are relevant to an individual than a race generalization is mute.

"You can not know an individual personally, then the only yardstick that you have to judge them by is on their group identity, and the reputation, good or bad, of that group identity"

But there is a fundamental difference in group identities like religions, gangs, schools that have chosen idealogies or display merit and then there are group identities that a person cannot choose.  For example you may be able to draw small differences between people with freckles, nose or ear sizes, etc however you cannot gain any idealogical information based on these characteristics. Harvard has high standards of acceptance so you know a harvard student has met those standards.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Bogan ;I don't know.  My uncle never mentioned their race.

Well you just better find out because it makes a real big difference to someone who only uses only half a brian and judge people by there race.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

I saw an interesting article on this topic:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/america-under-attack-inside-anti-160704538.html

"Yet even as they or their allies publicly advocated more academic freedom, some of those involved privately expressed their hope of purging liberal ideas, professors and programming wherever they could."

I recommend Jason Stanley's book in how liberalism is the best defense against fascism. This anti-woke intellectual diversity movement is just a dog whistle to promote fascism and get rid of liberalism.

Liberal universities are shutting down any one who disagrees with their racist view points.  That's why conservatives feel less safe expressing their opinions on campus.  If a leftist doesn't like the message of say a Ben Shapiro, they will try to get him cancelled or try to interrupt his talk.  This doesn't seem to happen with the same frequency the other way.  You don't see conservatives shutting down socialist/Marist speakers.  

Bogan

  MichaelElpers quote     First off Im not a liberal and next I never said its possible to never make collectivist judgements.

 That’s good, because you just made a collectivist judgement.   Your statement implies that “liberals” have different values, attitudes, and beliefs to non liberals, like you.         Haha.  Told ya!   Told ya!       Everybody does it.  

 

MichaelElpers quote       My position is when you have the time to meet someone collectivist judgements should be thrown out the window. For example hiring someone. Next when making a judgement based on superficial visual observation there are more informative factors than race.

 You did not “throw out the window” your collectivist judgement about liberals.      Everybody does it, Michael.      Everybody makes positive and negative judgements about entire demographic groups of people based solely upon the known group characteristics, good or bad, of that particular group.       It may not be fair to individuals within that group.   But without reliable information on an individual (which may be impossible to obtain), group generalisations are all that a person can use to form a judgement of that individual.     And we need to form judgements about people, all of the time.  It can be an everyday occurrence.  

 While I agree that a person’s race does not always denote their behaviour, the undeniable fact is, that it usually does.       At one time in US history it was illegal for African people to own firearms.        The reason for that was, because European people realised that most African descended people had very low IQ’s, and they were very susceptible to violent behaviour.     Allowing African males in particular to own firearms would be akin to giving a gun to a violent child.       And so it has transpired.    Our new western ideology, that all races are equal, is definitely not working out.         The US homicide rate is 10 per 100,000.  (Australia’s is 1.8 per 100,000).     But the homicide rate for inner city black youths in Washington DC is 227 per 100,000.   You can argue all you like about civil rights, but even you would have to admit that banning the ownership of firearms for African descended people would very significantly lower the USA’s appalling homicide rate.      Think of it as DEI.    Since the selection of people based upon their skin colour was justified by “helping the marginalised”, why can’t the same thinking be applied to preventing young black males from slaughtering each other? 

    

 MichaelElpers quote          4 times greater still doesnt mean very prone. For example .0000004 is 4 times more than .0000001 but I wouldnt say either is "very prone".

 If the overall US homicide rate is 10 per 100,000, and the homicide rate of inner city black youths in Washington DC is 227 per 100,000, then it is fair to say that black youths are “very prone” to violent criminal behaviour.  

MichaelElpers quote  There are certain ethnicities that statistically make up higher education positions.  When making a hiring decision, I think there are so many more important references and examinations that are relevant to an individual than a race generalization is mute.

Spoken like a person who’s hiring practices are not crucial to the continued prosperity or bankruptcy of his business.   

 

MichaelElpers quote      But there is a fundamental difference in group identities like religions, gangs, schools that have chosen idealogies or display merit and then there are group identities that a person cannot choose.  For example you may be able to draw small differences between people with freckles, nose or ear sizes, etc however you cannot gain any idealogical information based on these characteristics. Harvard has high standards of acceptance so you know a harvard student has met those standards.  

 That some individuals from within particular demographic groups do not conform to the usually well known group behaviour, does not automatically make group judgements invalid.    Everybody does it.    You are in the peculiar position of demanding that people must conform to a moral ideal which is so high that you can not conform to it yourself.     Everybody stereotypes, everybody prejudges, and everybody labels.    That is the way that people think.

MichaelElpers

@Bogan

You are being unfair with what you determine to be a collectivist judgement.
First off collectivist just means giving a group aasociation priority over the individual.  It doesnt mean there is no such thing as group identities.

Next you seem to still have a problem identifying the difference between grouping people based on physical characteristics they have no control over and groups with intellectual idealogies people choose to be a part of.
Christianity is a group identity, i am not making an assumption if i believe individuals in it believe in Jesus.

Just so the democrat platform or "liberals" have a certain beliefs associated with them.  I am not making a collectivist judgement by saying i dont agree with the associated belief system.

"Spoken like a person who’s hiring practices are not crucial to the continued prosperity or bankruptcy of his business.  "

So you think race identity provides a more valuable insight than: experience, education, absence of a criminal record, iq score, respectful behavior, etc?

Lets say you are interviewing 2 people.  You get their resume and an hour long interview you dont get to know their race.
After, you are slightly more impressed with person A.  Are you really saying you hire person B over Person A when you learn person A is black and person B is white?
That would be ludicrous.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers gets it. Statistical differences allow one to make statistical inference in the absence of other information, but as new information emerges, the differences between large populations become increasingly irrelevant.

Here is a fun mental experiment. Suppose we have two groups: humans and orcs. 0.1% of humans are murderers, and 10% of orcs are murderers. However, 1% of humans and 0.1% of orcs have PhDs, and among those with PhDs, regardless of race, only 0.01% are murderers.
Suppose a murder was committed and two persons were found at the crime scene, a human and an orc. Both are known to have a PhD.
Which is more likely the murderer: the human, or the orc? The answer is neither, despite an orc being 100 times as likely to be a murderer as a human and 10 times less likely to have a PhD in the general population.

In the US, a Black person on average is significantly poorer and more likely to be living in poverty than a White person. However, a Nigerian (Black) on average is wealthier and less likely to be living in poverty than a White person. Knowing that someone is Black is somewhat informative, but learning that they are from Nigeria instantly changes the assessment.

That is Bayesian statistics in a nutshell: as you accumulate more information, your ability to make a strong statistical conclusion improves - and sometimes just one extra piece of information may completely overwrite your prior assumption. I am not aware of any employer who would solely hire people based on their race, and just a few pieces of information that every employer gets (education level, set of skills, interview performance, etc.) completely erase racial differences.

There is a running joke about Russians in the US that is kind of accurate: that there are two types of Russians - extremely rude and extremely polite. The former group is much more prevalent, so should you meet a Russian who has not said a single word, you might be inclined to think of him as rude... As soon as he says a few words, however, your initial guess becomes completely irrelevant, and you know with 100% certainty which type of a Russian you are dealing with.

Factfinder

Argument Topic: On Point!

You hit the nail on the head there @MayCaesar.

In the US, a Black person on average is significantly poorer and more likely to be living in poverty than a White person. However, a Nigerian (Black) on average is wealthier and less likely to be living in poverty than a White person. Knowing that someone is Black is somewhat informative, but learning that they are from Nigeria instantly changes the assessment.

I would say we need to put more emphasis on brains, smarts and ability than skin color for sure.  

Bogan

@MichaelElpers

MichaelElpers quote   You are being unfair with what you determine to be a collectivist judgement.     First off, collectivist just means giving a group asociation priority over the individual.  It doesnt mean there is no such thing as group identities.

 Michael, everybody judges individuals by their group associations.       And everybody makes prejudgements about entire demographic groups, some which they may like, and others, which they may dislike.    Everybody does it.  There is nothing wrong with it, provided that it is accurate enough to form a reasonably accurate concept.   You can argue that a collective judgement of an entire demographic group is not accurate enough to be useful, but you can not say that judging people collectively as a group is intrinsically wrong.        Dreamer and Openminded despise “MAGA supporters”, and they are a pair of liberals who think like you on this subject.           Now, you made a collectivist assessment of a group of people that you call “liberals”, by saying that you were not one of them.     That means that you had a stereotypical idea of what a “liberal” is, and what a stereotypical “liberal” believes in.     That is a collective judgement.         It may not be entirely accurate when it comes to individual liberals, but it is a useful generalisation that helps you communicate.

 

MichaelElpers quote        Next you seem to still have a problem identifying the difference between grouping people based on physical characteristics they have no control over and groups with intellectual ideologies people choose to be a part of.

 Lions and Tigers have no control over what they are, but there is nothing wrong with judging them to be dangerous animals.    Human beings categorise everything.      Scientists look at every category of rock, volcano, star, soil, reptile, flower, mammal, fish, tree, fruit, and everything else as well.      They then examine the characteristics of each specimen and then give each of them different names, so that they can make predictions about their properties.     And they do it with humans too.     Scientists have examined the characteristics of every race and sub species of race to find out if there are differences between races.      Guess what?  There are.     Simply saying that “people with dark skin are better evolved to live in hot climates than whites or Asians” means that you are making an accurate assessment of entire racial groups.     

 Political and social scientists do exactly the same with social groups.   They examine various demographic social, religious, and cultural groups, and they name them as Communists, Fascists, Greenies, Hells Angels, Ku Klux Klansmen, mothers, Liberals, Catholics, Rappers, and Conservatives.    They then try to determine the common values, behaviours, and beliefs which define every human demographic group.     People from social groups usually have no trouble at all in telling everybody what the values of a “true” person from their groups should be.     But rarely is their absolute obedience to the beliefs of any particular social, religious, or cultural group.      Heretics and deviants have always existed in every social group.     But that does not alter the fact that most people can be defined by their allegiance to a particular demographic, and their general behaviour predicted.     Especially since race, religion, and culture are usually very strongly linked.

 

MichaelElpers quote     Christianity is a group identity, i am not making an assumption if i believe individuals in it believe in Jesus.   

 Correct.    In order to be a Christian, it is obligatory to believe that the man Jacob bar Joseph was the son of your God.      Therefore, it is reasonable to predict that every Christian believes the same thing.     If they do not believe it, then I can predict that you and your fellow Christians would not consider the person to be a Christian at all.  

 

MichaelElpers quote         Just so the democrat platform or "liberals" have a certain beliefs associated with them.  I am not making a collectivist judgement by saying i dont agree with the associated belief system.

 Yes, you are.     You have a stereotypical idea of what the values, attitudes, and beliefs of the average “liberal” is, and you see yourself as not being a liberal yourself, because most of your own values, attitudes, and beliefs are usually diametrically opposed to what your collective idea of what a “liberal” is.    

MichaelElpers quote        So you think race identity provides a more valuable insight than: experience, education, absence of a criminal record, iq score, respectful behavior, etc?       

 Not necessarily.     Good people exist in every race and culture, and that at least should be a consideration.           But the problem is, that some ethnicities are notorious for very bad behaviour.    So, unless you have information to the contrary, racial profiling works quite well.      Ask any police officer in private if they racially profile.       

 

MichaelElpers quote           Lets say you are interviewing 2 people.  You get their resume and an hour long interview you dont get to know their race.
After, you are slightly more impressed with person A.  Are you really saying you hire person B over Person A when you learn person A is black and person B is white?

My prediction is, that the white would probably have better credentials and references than the black.        So, just like it used to be, major institutions were primarily full of whites and Asians.     This is why DEI was invented.     Most black people simply can not compete on a level playing field with whites, Indians, Asians, and Jews, because most of them are just not smart enough.      And since some ethnicities are obviously much more prone to violent criminal behaviour than others, then these same people are much more likely to have criminal records.     I seem to remember a statistic which claimed that one half of the African/American male population between 18 and 45 was either in jail or on parole. 

just_sayin

Today the Supreme Court refused to take up the case of Asian students discriminated against by the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology school in Fairfax county VA.  Alito and Thomas had 'fiery' responses to the claim that a little bit of racism is OK in admissions.  Alito said:

What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction….

Leftists truly believe that their racism is good racism and as long as people will not stand up to their injustice, they will continue to discriminate against people solely on the basis of their race.  

Bogan

The most interesting aspect of the fight against racism in the USA, is that it is no longer whites who are taking up the cause, it is US Asians.     White European people may have been cowed into thinking that racial quotas are okay, but this means that it is Asians who are now the victims of racial discrimination.     The fight against DEI was not led by whites, it was done Asians who pointed out that they were the ones being discredited against by an African endorsing left wing establishment.       

just_sayin

Bogan said:

The most interesting aspect of the fight against racism in the USA, is that it is no longer whites who are taking up the cause, it is US Asians.     White European people may have been cowed into thinking that racial quotas are okay, but this means that it is Asians who are now the victims of racial discrimination.     The fight against DEI was not led by whites, it was done Asians who pointed out that they were the ones being discredited against by an African endorsing left wing establishment.       

I think you see Asians speaking up because whites are immediately silenced.  The leftists will go 'well, look at the CAUdacity of that uppity white boy!  Doesn't he know his role and to shut his mouth.  Why he needs to learn to appreciate whatever we decide to give him.  We will destroy him and label him a racist for drawing attention to our racism!!!'  

MayCaesar

Something I can say about my experience teaching a multitude of mathematics and physics classes is this: whenever I see an Asian name on my list of students, I know to expect him/her to be one of the top students in the class - and this simple assumption has proven to be wrong very few times. Asian cultures have this incredible diligence, where they will chip away at something for as long as it takes, sacrificing sleep and even nutrition in the process, to get it done.

It would be nice if people learned something from this incredible cultural pattern: "Hey, what can I do to become as stubborn as them at achieving my goal of perfection?" Instead of essentially saying, "Hmm, if they are so hard-working and outperform everyone, then we need to curb their numbers so our less hard-working students do not feel uncomfortable". 

All this "equalization" stuff always tends to the lowest common denominator. It is never, "Hey, let us make everyone as good as the cream of the group!", but always, "Hey, let us bring everyone down to the level of the worst one in the group". This is why it is always about taking from the rich rather than empowering the poor, pulling achievers down rather than pulling underachievers up, hating the successful rather than supporting the unsuccessful... The end goal is to make the laziest, the most incompetent, the most unintelligent and immature people comfortable, rather than letting the eager-est, the most competent, the most intelligent and mature people fulfill their potential.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Something I can say about my experience teaching a multitude of mathematics and physics classes is this: whenever I see an Asian name on my list of students, I know to expect him/her to be one of the top students in the class - and this simple assumption has proven to be wrong very few times. Asian cultures have this incredible diligence, where they will chip away at something for as long as it takes, sacrificing sleep and even nutrition in the process, to get it done.

It would be nice if people learned something from this incredible cultural pattern: "Hey, what can I do to become as stubborn as them at achieving my goal of perfection?" Instead of essentially saying, "Hmm, if they are so hard-working and outperform everyone, then we need to curb their numbers so our less hard-working students do not feel uncomfortable". 

All this "equalization" stuff always tends to the lowest common denominator. It is never, "Hey, let us make everyone as good as the cream of the group!", but always, "Hey, let us bring everyone down to the level of the worst one in the group". This is why it is always about taking from the rich rather than empowering the poor, pulling achievers down rather than pulling underachievers up, hating the successful rather than supporting the unsuccessful... The end goal is to make the laziest, the most incompetent, the most unintelligent and immature people comfortable, rather than letting the eager-est, the most competent, the most intelligent and mature people fulfill their potential.

Statistics show why, in general Asian students do better, in TEST SCORE GAPS AND TIME USE*

White high school students spend almost 6 hours per week doing homework and studying. Asian high school students spend an astounding 13.4 hours on homework, 7.5 hours more per week than white students. Black students spend only 3.2 hours per week on homework and Hispanic students spend 5.25 hours per week. 

Asian students spent more than twice the amount of time studying than white students, and almost 4 times the amount of Black students.

When someone says that a policy is just to Asians because it reduces the percentage of Asians from 74 percent to 55 percent (like in the Thomas Jefferson School case), it makes the mistake of dehumanizing the Asian student, and instead of looking at them as an individual, it only sees them as a member of their racial group.  True justice is about rewarding or punishing individuals for their actions, not punishing people for being part of a group as leftists believe.  

If 100% of the top students were Asian, then 100% of the slots should go to Asian students.  This is just.  It does not raise the test scores of other students for penalizing better academic students because of their race.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@just_sayin ; Diversity-Equity-Inclusion is discrimination against those who have studied and persevered; those with specific talents; those with special qualifications; as DEI places emphasis on immutable characteristics such as skin color, ethnicity, race, and seeks to place them in positions of authority and strategic positions requiring excellence in skills and talents when these individuals are NOT the most qualified, not the most talented, not the most skilled; therefore, DEI negates meritocracy and emphasizes race quotas for hiring and promotions...it is therefore unconstitutional, bigoted, racist, destructive, dangerous, liberal insanity. In the same vein of liberal insanity and doo-gooder idiocy, Affirmative Action mandates are also racists and bigoted and unfair and tyrannical.    

just_sayin

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@just_sayin ; Diversity-Equity-Inclusion is discrimination against those who have studied and persevered; those with specific talents; those with special qualifications; as DEI places emphasis on immutable characteristics such as skin color, ethnicity, race, and seeks to place them in positions of authority and strategic positions requiring excellence in skills and talents when these individuals are NOT the most qualified, not the most talented, not the most skilled; therefore, DEI negates meritocracy and emphasizes race quotas for hiring and promotions...it is therefore unconstitutional, bigoted, racist, destructive, dangerous, liberal insanity. In the same vein of liberal insanity and doo-gooder idiocy, Affirmative Action mandates are also racists and bigoted and unfair and tyrannical.    

Many DEI policies are based upon racist premises.  It is a perversion of justice that denies justice for for each individual, and dehumanizes the individual and reduces her to just an automaton of her racial group.  Social justice is really injustice as it is a perversion of biblical justice. True justice is not about what racial group you belong to, but about rewarding or punishing each individual for their own actions and conduct.

Whereas the new racists say it is OK to discriminate against an individual of one racial group if it helps another racial group, the Bible says 'My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism...If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers." James 2:1,8-9

The new racists believe that someone should be judged based on their race, and given less of a sentence if they come from certain racial groups, but the Bible says 'For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.' -  Colossians 3:25. 

The new racists want to treat people differently if they are richer or poorer.  The Bible says 'the Lord our God wants people to be fair. He wants all people to be treated the same, and he doesn’t want decisions influenced by money.' - 2 Chronicles 19:7 and 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.' Leviticus 19:15.

No wonder so many who support Critical Race Theory, hate the Bible and people who dare speak of it.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

The Biblical justice seems to be centered around the idea of following the moral code allegedly provided by the deity. To the extent to which this code is followed, one is being just. I do not see how different it from any other centralized top-down system of justice, such as social justice, communist justice, fascist justice and so on. The Biblical justice shone for centuries in Europe, with people slaughtering both each other, and the Muslims (who had their own religious justice, the Islamic one), over religious disagreements.

Joan of Arc was just as flammable as Andrei Sakharov. You reject the ruling totalitarian regime - you get to enjoy the consequences. Whether the ministers of the regime wear Party badges or crosses, does not make much difference.

Bogan

@just_sayin ;     Many DEI policies are based upon racist premises. 

Not necessarily.    It is based upon the reasonable assumption, that if all races are equal, then the very unequal life outcomes with different races can only be explained by racism and discrimination.   And the only way to combat that is through racial quotas.      There is nothing wrong with that logic, which is quite reasonable.   So reasonable, that for a long time, even white people accepted it.    What is wrong with it, is that it's underlying logic which supports it is wrong.    Races are not equal.   You are in the invidious position of claiming that DEI is wrong, while at the same time agreeing with the very basic premise which justifies it.     

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin ;     Many DEI policies are based upon racist premises. 

Not necessarily.    It is based upon the reasonable assumption, that if all races are equal, then the very unequal life outcomes with different races can only be explained by racism and discrimination.   And the only way to combat that is through racial quotas.      There is nothing wrong with that logic, which is quite reasonable.   So reasonable, that for a long time, even white people accepted it.    What is wrong with it, is that it's underlying logic which supports it is wrong.    Races are not equal.   You are in the invidious position of claiming that DEI is wrong, while at the same time agreeing with the very basic premise which justifies it.     

Bogie, it seems like you make this claim every month, and I have to explain to you every month why it is a wrong conclusion.

1) DEI policies that justify discrimination are morally wrong because they are only concerned about justice for groups, and not for individuals.  This is a perversion of justice because it dehumanizes the individual discriminated against and treats her only as an automaton of her racial group rather than an individual.  True justice is based on rewarding or punishing EACH INDIVIDUAL for his/her behavior/merit.  DEI ignores the individual and rewards or punishes based on group affiliation.  Just being part of the wrong racial group is sufficient to punish someone under this immoral view.

2) Critical Race Theory wrongly concludes all disparities are the result of racism.  This view chooses to ignore the reality that personal choices, chance, and chromosomes can also create disparities.  For example, identical twins will often have very different outcomes in life, with one being wealthier than the other.  They share the same racial group and even the same DNA.  They shared the same home life, yet had very different outcomes.  Choices and chance are the only logical reasons for this.  Someone who has a disability will not be able to do things that someone without that disability can do - like see or walk.  This is not the result of racism but may be the result of chromosomes or an accident.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that Asian students study 13.4 hours a week on average.  Yet whites study less than half that amount.  Should we expect educational outcomes to be different when their behaviors are different?  Yes, we should.  And yes, that's what we see.

An insidious situation arises when the new racists claim all disparities are because of racism.  It rationalizes racism in their eyes, and it also harms the very people they claim they are helping.  Telling a poor Black child that she is the victim of racism and that her personal choices and decisions make no difference in her outcomes sentences her to a lifetime of failure.   

Bogan

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote   1) DEI policies that justify discrimination are morally wrong because they are only concerned about justice for groups, and not for individuals. 

“Morality” is simply the generally agreed upon principles by a social group of people, as to what constitutes right or wrong behaviour within the group.     It is primarily concerned with the degree to which a person should sublimate their natural desire to be entirely selfish, in order to benefit the group as a whole.   So, for you to claim that “morality” must not be “concerned about the justice of groups” is illogical.     While in democratic societies we may have a concept of individual rights which supersede the rights of the group, the basis of morality is to sublimate individual behaviour for the benefit of everybody. 

 

.Just-sayin quote     This is a perversion of justice because it dehumanizes the individual discriminated against and treats her only as an automaton of her racial group rather than an individual. 

 What is a perversion of justice, and what is not a perversion of justice, is decided upon by the general consensus of the group.

 

Just-sayin quote       True justice is based on rewarding or punishing EACH INDIVIDUAL for his/her behavior/merit.       

 In the case of morality, justice does not even come into it.    In my own country, Australia, because of man with very low intelligence was able to illegally purchase an AR-15 rifle and use it to kill 35 people, it was decided that all shooters in Australia had to sell back their semi automatic rifles to the government.     Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of shooters would never even dream of use their weapons to commit mass murder, it was considered by the government, and supported by most people, that all privately owned semi automatic firearms should be banned.     The safety of the entire community was considered by the majority to be more important than individual “justice” towards firearm owners.       All sporting shooters were all therefore judged to be potential mass murderers.

 

Just-sayin quote    DEI ignores the individual and rewards or punishes based on group affiliation.  Just being part of the wrong racial group is sufficient to punish someone under this immoral view.

 DEI is perfectly logical and reasonable, provided that you accept the concept that races are equal.    Therefore, if this is not reflected in outcomes, then it is the system which must be wrong.     Therefore, the system needs to be fixed.    All morality is based upon some sort of logic.       If you oppose a moral principle, then you need to explain why that logic is wrong.       Your own logic is based upon you accepting that all races are equal, and then claiming that individual right should supersede group rights.      That does not wash.     Unless you can think up a more convincing reason, most morality works the other way.   

 

Just-sayin quote       2) Critical Race Theory wrongly concludes all disparities are the result of racism. 

A view which is very easily “proven” to be correct if you think that all races are equal.      If all races are equal, then within any multiracial society, the life outcomes of every race would be equal.    If it is not, then the system is at fault and it needs to be fixed.  

      

Just-sayin quote        This view chooses to ignore the reality that personal choices, chance, and chromosomes can also create disparities. 

As stated previously by me, if it is chromosomes, then it is genetic.    And it can not be “chance” if the same ethnicities are always dysfunctional regardless of which society or country they inhabit.     As for “choice”, smart people usually make smart choices, and du-mb people usually make du-mb choices.

  

Just-sayin quote  For example, identical twins will often have very different outcomes in life, with one being wealthier than the other.  They share the same racial group and even the same DNA.  They shared the same home life, yet had very different outcomes.  Choices and chance are the only logical reasons for this.  Someone who has a disability will not be able to do things that someone without that disability can do - like see or walk.  This is not the result of racism but may be the result of chromosomes or an accident.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.     My reading of genetics and criminology tend to claim the exact opposite.   Unfortunately, I just do not know enough about this topic to make an informed comment.  

  

Just-sayin quote  In an earlier post, I mentioned that Asian students study 13.4 hours a week on average.  Yet whites study less than half that amount.  Should we expect educational outcomes to be different when their behaviors are different?  Yes, we should.  And yes, that's what we see.

 Which can also be explained by understanding that smart people make smart choices.     Asians are slightly more intelligent than whites.    That small difference seems to have a large consequences.    Smart people create smart cultures.   Disregarding the pleasures of a lively social life and instead studying hard to get ahead is smart.       Smart people think ahead.   Smart people are less concerned with immediate pleasures than they are in future outcomes.  

 

Just-sayin quote         An insidious situation arises when the new racists claim all disparities are because of racism. 

And their claim is very easy to prove, because people like your good self claim that all races are equal.    Once that erroneous “fact” is accepted, then it is easy for those who claim to be anti racist to present a logical case as to why their opinion is correct.

 

Just-sayin quote       It rationalizes racism in their eyes, and it also harms the very people they claim they are helping. 

That is one way of looking at it.   But they would then claim quite reasonably that they are fighting against racism, using racial quotes in order to overcome the “provable” bias in western society, in order to equalize outcomes.     That “proof” is dependent upon a wrong assumption.  That all races are equal.

 

Just-sayin quote      Telling a poor Black child that she is the victim of racism and that her personal choices and decisions make no difference in her outcomes sentences her to a lifetime of failure. 

 Telling  a poor black child that the reason why most of their race are failures, is all the fault of white people, results in too many black children thinking that white people are evil.      It also causes attitudes conducive to justifying criminal behaviour.    Black criminal behaviour can therefore can be justified, at least in the eyes of low IQ blacks, to be simply hitting back at their white oppressors.          Which, I would surmise, is why so many black kids and young adults today are right out of control.