Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stack the deck in your favor as much as you can to avoid a AA situation
Its just a hurdle to overcome to beat the "competition" (other individuals)

1. White people have it better than black people in America. Period. Sure, you could find plenty of white people who are worse off in life than the average black person. But white people still have it better in America than black people.

2. I'd personally replace all mention of "privilege white people enjoy" to "discrimination black people face." This cuts down on the blame on one hand, and the defensiveness on the other hand.

3. This gak is messy, and has no "good" answers. The kind of wrong done in America's past doesn't wash out clean, quick, or easy. People, both black and white, are going to suffer for things they didn't do because of gakky ancestors.

4. AA policies in my general experience have existed as quotas, which I don't personally agree with. I believe other forms of AA are defensible in the current climate.

 Scrabb wrote:
4. AA policies in my general experience have existed as quotas, which I don't personally agree with. I believe other forms of AA are defensible in the current climate.

Quotas were found to be discrimination and aren't constitutional, so it's a good thing we don't actually use quotas anymore.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
4. AA policies in my general experience have existed as quotas, which I don't personally agree with. I believe other forms of AA are defensible in the current climate.

Quotas were found to be discrimination and aren't constitutional, so it's a good thing we don't actually use quotas anymore.

Except we do. They're just hidden behind the veil of AA. "Oh we don't have enough X, so lets take more X even if they aren't as qualified as Y" or "This thing here is only for X people. Even if there is a Y individual who is more qualified in every way."

Hence some Asian American groups taking Berkley to court because of it

Kind of like how it's already illegal to discriminate against someone based on their race.

That never happens........

 Scrabb wrote:
Kind of like how it's already illegal to discriminate against someone based on their race.

That never happens........

Its supposedly illegal, yet whites and asians can legally be discriminated against.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
Kind of like how it's already illegal to discriminate against someone based on their race.

That never happens........

Its supposedly illegal, yet whites and asians can legally be discriminated against.

So true

Edit

Also I have done it myself

I was alluding to how the wrong name consistently gets rejected in favor of a 'normal' name.

Maybe the applicants actual name should not be given to the person who ends up making the hiring decisions? IDK.

Like I said, there is no easy fix to tens of millions of people treating one race different than another.

 Scrabb wrote:
I was alluding to how the wrong name consistently gets rejected in favor of a 'normal' name.

Maybe the applicants actual name should not be given to the person who ends up making the hiring decisions? IDK.

Maybe it should. But I think this is such a minor issue that its not worth implementing a racist policy.

Its just another "feel good" band-aid that doesn't actually accomplish what is trying to be fixed, and has the bad side effect of actually propagating what is supposedly being controlled for. Its like saying "I got a paper cut on my thumb, I'll make another paper cut on my other thumb so they match!"

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!

Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .

A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .

In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.

We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.

Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.


MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

The only "evidence" ever posted was simply anecdotal. Yet I can post links to any number of scholarships I am ineligible for because I am a white male. I can also post links to AA policies which actively discriminate against whites in favor of lesser qualified individuals of other races.

 Frazzled wrote:
WHites are no longer the majority in California (nearly so in Texas as well). Do they get AA now?

When it is shown that they statistically are disadvantaged for being a minority, yes.

But that hasn't happened.

You seem to think that Affirmative Action exists to deal with solely one thing, or that simply being a minority is all it takes to require it.

Cultural Myopia.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The only "evidence" ever posted was simply anecdotal. Yet I can post links to any number of scholarships I am ineligible for because I am a white male. I can also post links to AA policies which actively discriminate against whites in favor of lesser qualified individuals of other races.

Then you missed the six studies I posted, and the four experiments posted between myself and another poster which showed that such advantages exist.

The only "Anecdotes" that were posted dealt with one issue on scholarships, where all that is required is one counterexample to falsify a universal claim.

MB

Spoiler: Popper's big bag of poo



Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.

Cultural Myopia.

being that I am legally blind under certain criteria I would have appreciated a trigger warning before your professed antimyopic bigotry. All you sight privileged haters have no idea of the constant micro aggressions you throw off like bad dandruff.

@Grey Templar,

I used to feel very similarly to yourself on this issue as I was raised in a home that did not make an issue of race. They taught me to treat everyone as I wanted to be treated.

I didn't see a need for programs or ideas to help people get away from racial discrimination because gee, sure there were racist people out there somewhere, but there were also communists and plain old jerkfaces and people who thought their hands weren't real out there too. What exactly was the problem?

It wasn't until one of my Hispanic friends told me about the first time he remembered someone hating him for his race that it really sunk home in my mind that this was a real problem.

When President Obama won his first election one of my friends cried, and actually posted on facebook how encouraging it was for her I paid attention. This is real gak for real people. Stop pretending that the only/worst injustice is suffered at the hands of white people. You are wrong.

But that doesn't mean you're a bad guy. Okay? It can be difficult (speaking from personal experience) to have a realistic view of race relations in America as a white person without getting either defensive or guilty about it.

It's not your fault that white people have it better than black people. But it the truth.

 Frazzled wrote:
Spoiler: Popper's big bag of poo

Spoiler:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!

Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .

A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .

In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.

We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.

Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.


MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.

ZOOOM!

What was that???

Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.

MB

You posted studies and Grey is stating facts about scholarship. There are Scholarships that some race cannot get. Just pointing that out

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Spoiler: Popper's big bag of poo

Spoiler:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!

Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .

A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .

In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.

We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.

Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.


MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.

ZOOOM!

What was that???

Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.

MB

Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?

If a fascist starts trying to incite violence you laugh him away, or beat his face in AFTER he starts the violence. Or call the cops if you feel threatened. Or leave.

Violently repressing him only gives him fuel for his ideology.

 Jihadin wrote:
You posted studies and Grey is stating facts about scholarship. There are Scholarships that some race cannot get. Just pointing that out

Yes, but there are reasons that some of the races can get them and not others i.e. underrepresentation.

The case of Asian Americans is an interesting one here. Whilst they face discrimination in most other walks of life in white countries, certain ethnicities are very well/over-represented in higher education (at least in my country - I imagine America is the same). Though, as you observed earlier, 'asian-americans' is a catch all term. What this tends to mean is that some Asian ethnicities such as Vietnamese and Thai are under-represented but invisible in shallow statistical analyses.

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Spoiler: Popper's big bag of poo

Spoiler:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!

Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .

A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .

In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.

We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.

Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.


MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.

ZOOOM!

What was that???

Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.

MB

Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?

So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?

MB

 Grey Templar wrote:

Thug is also not a racist term despite how people may want it to be so they can play the race card.

If we're being technical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee



Also somebody please send help, I'm commenting in the OT forum and need to get back to lurking in 40k.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Spoiler: Popper's big bag of poo

Spoiler:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!

Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .

A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .

In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.

We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.

Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.


MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.

ZOOOM!

What was that???

Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.

MB

Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?

So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?

MB

What a fethed up argument. We did not use violence to stop him/suppress his views until AFTER he initiated violent acts and started a war. Popper is advocating preemptive violence to shut down speech he deems bad.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Spoiler: Popper's big bag of poo

Spoiler:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!

Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .

A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .

In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.

We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.

Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.


MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.

ZOOOM!

What was that???

Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.

MB

Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?

So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?

MB

A couple of problems with that statement.
1. WE stopped the Nazis due to their acts, not what they said. We didn't drop Long Tom on Franco or the Argentinians.
2. Hitler was German, not a US citizen so that guy.

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

He did not say that intolerance is sometimes acceptable, he said that there isn't always a need to supress them by law.

 Grey Templar wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
It is not likely that the people who oppose Affirmative Action are EVER going to understand the concept of Structural Advantages (what is sometimes called "Privilege" even though that is a TERRIBLE word for the concept and reality) in a society (or the US Society).

So no amount of analogies, no matter how clear and concise are going to help.

Still waiting for my privilege to kick in. And yes, the way people prattle on about how white people are advantaged they are claiming they are all privileged, even though it should be pointed out there are more poor white people than any other race. How are all those people advantaged?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Here are some links to why AA is racism.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448

http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/09/25/affirmative-action-institutional-discrimination

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/affirmative-action-in-university-admissions-research-roundup

Two of these are "Opinion" pieces, and thus not "Evidence."

The third concern a girl in Texas who is doing nothing more than alleging "Reverse Racism."

Not exactly the best examples of "Evidence" when stacked against Empirical Research and Experimentation showing structural advantages for controlling for ethnicity.

Opinions are NOT FACTS

MB

Sure, but those are some pretty important opinions. And really this is a field where opinion is just as important too.

AA is racism, full stop. Nothing can stop this fact, and it is fact. Racism is bad, yet we allow it to continue via AA.

Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Spoiler: Popper's big bag of poo

Spoiler:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!

Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .

A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .

In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.

We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.

Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"

I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).

The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).

Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.

MB

It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.

Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.

It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.

MB

Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.

ZOOOM!

What was that???

Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.

MB

Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?

So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?

MB

BEEEEP!

 Scrabb wrote:
If a fascist starts trying to incite violence you laugh him away, or beat his face in AFTER he starts the violence. Or call the cops if you feel threatened. Or leave.

Violently repressing him only gives him fuel for his ideology.

Basically,

Repression and ignoring a problem only worsens it.

What's a shame, is that far too often, its these things that perpetuate racial animosity rather than heal it.

What we should be saying is that we're all Americans.

Full. Stop.

IMO, So Raven has the right idea.

I'm so Raven got skewered by black America for those comments.