(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Once again, straw man.

(01-13-2023 06:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Heck, the term "Asian" itself is routinely used in a stereotypical fashion. Turks and Israelis (just to cite a couple of examples) are Asians, but I bet they were not what you had in mind (or what you expected others to have in mind) when you used the term just now.

I used it quoting a dude who would use it that way.

(01-13-2023 06:41 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Once again, straw man.

I don’t think so. It is the same thing as you are applying general tendencies of an overall population to specific people.

(01-13-2023 08:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 06:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Heck, the term "Asian" itself is routinely used in a stereotypical fashion. Turks and Israelis (just to cite a couple of examples) are Asians, but I bet they were not what you had in mind (or what you expected others to have in mind) when you used the term just now.

I used it quoting a dude who would use it that way.

Touche’!

(01-13-2023 09:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 08:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 06:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Heck, the term "Asian" itself is routinely used in a stereotypical fashion. Turks and Israelis (just to cite a couple of examples) are Asians, but I bet they were not what you had in mind (or what you expected others to have in mind) when you used the term just now.

I used it quoting a dude who would use it that way.

Touche’!

How do you quote an imaginary person? That is quite the feat when you think of it.....

(01-13-2023 08:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 06:41 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Once again, straw man.

I don’t think so. It is the same thing as you are applying general tendencies of an overall population to specific people.

Which specific people? A specific Asian dude vs. an anonymous group of chat posters is apples to bowling balls.

(01-14-2023 03:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 08:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 06:41 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Once again, straw man.

I don’t think so. It is the same thing as you are applying general tendencies of an overall population to specific people.

Which specific people? A specific Asian dude vs. an anonymous group of chat posters is apples to bowling balls.

Not a "specific Asian dude". An anonymous Asian dude who will never be seen/heard from again vs. an anonymous group of black people who commented on this tweet.

So now we are assigning literal quotes "" to random, unknown, imaginary groups of people?

This sounds like a game I could get diggy with!!!!

(01-15-2023 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So now we are assigning literal quotes "" to random, unknown, imaginary groups of people?

This sounds like a game I could get diggy with!!!!

Just brining up a theoretical example. Not sure why this is so surprising?

Apparently you didn’t have any imaginary friends growing up.

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 10:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If 90% of Hill Country white middle aged dudes voted for Trump, you might have a point. They don't.

OK... pick a Texas county where 90% of the 55-75 y/o white dudes voted for Trump and pretend that Tanq lives there.

Didn't I just do that??

Quote:

Quote:Said better/differently.... Black people making 'bad' comments about her and her husband aren't likely to support many of their other positions.... so we're not talking about the minority population in general... but instead about a subset that is against them on some significant level. I don't know how big the population of black people that are conservative, or supportive of conservative black conservatives, but against black men with white women.... but I'd guess that's somewhere around the 'unicorn' percentage.

My suggestion was that these commenters on their black/white marriage might be completely ambivalent about politics or they may wean either way politically... I don't think the marriage thing mirrors political beliefs in any way.

Your entire premise is that she doesn't know the people she's speaking about... essentially claiming that she can't assign 'most of these come from the left'... assuming that the ONLY thing they said to her/about her had something to do with her race and not from anything else.

You have absolutely no basis for this belief (that I can see anyway... I don't think you follow her) ... other than your preconception.

We're talking about people who comment on her social media... which isn't 'random' people but instead people who have CHOSEN to connect with her for some reason. That would likely be either that they like and support her, or that they want to cast stones. Those who follow her and like and support her on social media are unlikely to somehow be 'against' her personal relationship. That just seems to make sense to me.

(01-12-2023 06:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:TIL that a lady who is married to a prominent black Republican can safely assume that the black people responding to her tweet are Democrats because they are, after all, black.

I don't think one of us said that. All we said was... the stats certainly STRONGLY lean that way.

I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Except that isn't at all what happened.

She was speaking of specific individuals.... based on their specific actions and comments. YOU challenged her based on (it seems) expecting that she knows nothing about these people other than that they are 'haters'. That seems poorly founded, but we can't speak to the individuals like she can, so we speak of the stats... WE (and Biden) are speaking of stats... not specific individuals.

So let's go back and see what she said. What she said was that the most racist comments she gets come from the left. She didn't say anything about 'blacks', at least in the quoted text. I can't see the tweets, so maybe she said differently there. YOU said (and I accept that the other posts must have said this) that the comments came from a few black people... who are unnamed as far as I know. Of course they are specific people making comments, but we know absolutely nothing about them. Statistically, if you picked 10 black people at random, 9 of them would be 'left'.

So... the OP said 'the left' and even Good's attack was on 'the left'... we then sort of moved to 'black people' and thus we got into percentages, which even you in your comment about Tanq seem to acknowledge. Amusingly, Tanq spends a lot of time in an area that leans hard right, but mostly lives, works and votes in an area that leans equally hard left.

ANY time you are speaking about tendencies/odds etc, you are by definition downplaying or dismissing to some degree the exception that exists in every rule... but I don't think that at around 10%, black non-leftists are 'fertile ground' for taking such offense to a stereotype. MANY stereotypes exist for pluralities, not even close to majorities, and not even in the ballpark of 90%.... and since we're talking about political persuasion, we're not talking about something 'innate' in anyone... but instead about a choice.

Sort of like assuming that black adults are legal voters isn't an insult to them and is absolutely true (on the whole)... even though there certainly are a percentage of them who are not... as there are for every race.

(01-14-2023 03:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 08:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 06:41 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 02:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I know... but you don't see the problem with assigning beliefs to specific individuals in light of generalized data? "Hey Asian dude... I'm sure you're good at math. Can you help me with this?"

Once again, straw man.

I don’t think so. It is the same thing as you are applying general tendencies of an overall population to specific people.

Which specific people? A specific Asian dude vs. an anonymous group of chat posters is apples to bowling balls.

I resent being called a bowling ball but I defend your right to say it!

talk about a self-own...

Quote:What happens when a long-standing race activist and member of the black power movement finds out she’s descended from white people and the cameras are rolling? Must-see television happens.

Angela Davis, a self-proclaimed Marxist and person who has profited off sowing racial division for decades appeared on the PBS series “Finding Your Roots.” But while she was expecting to find out that she descended solely from the evils of the slave trade, it turns out that one of her earliest ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

According to PBS’ findings, Davis descended from William Brewster, who was white and one of the original signers of the Mayflower Compact.

Here’s the clip of how it went down.

“Do you know what you’re looking at? That is a list of the passengers on the Mayflower.”

Our researchers discovered #AngelaDavis’s ancestors traveled to the US on the Mayflower and here is her reaction. #FindingYourRoots pic.twitter.com/G2HhA9BSrT

— Henry Louis Gates Jr (@HenryLouisGates) February 22, 2023

At first, Davis clearly thinks Gates, the host of the PBS show, is joking. She confidently proclaims, “No, my ancestors did not come here on the Mayflower.” Her laughter and dismissiveness quickly diminished, though, as the reality of the situation settled in with Gates repeating the results of the genealogy test. Davis responds, “Oof. That’s a little bit too much to deal with right now.”

The Daily Wire reviewed the episode and laid out a bit more of what was found, including the fact that her ancestors owned slaves!!

According to the episode, Davis’s father, Frank Davis, was legally the son of Mollie Spencer and Edward Davis. But Edward Davis was not his biological father; Spencer and Davis separated before he was born. Instead, Frank Davis was the son of Mollie Spencer and another white man named Murphy Jones. Experts were able to map Davis’s family line through Jones all the way back to William Brewster, an original signer of the Mayflower Compact and a leader of the Plymouth Colony.

Also in the episode, Davis’s maternal grandfather was a white Alabama lawyer and state legislator named John Austin Darden. Through Darden, she is the descendant of a man named Stephen Darden, a drummer born in Virginia who served in the Revolutionary War. Darden then moved to Georgia, where he owned a farm and at least 6 slaves.

“I always imagined my ancestors as the people who were enslaved,” Davis said. “My mind and my heart are swirling with all of these contradictory emotions.”

While this all makes for good television given how wrapped up Davis’ identity has been in false assumptions about her lineage, the cardinal issue remains. Why does this matter? Clearly, Davis has some black ancestry as well, and in a world where people like Davis didn’t push racial division for profit, none of this would matter.

Davis is one of the original figures behind the reparations movement. So how exactly does that work? Does the white, slave-owning part of her write a check to the black part of her? In a world where we force people to pay for the sins of their forefathers, that ceases to be a joke and becomes a valid question.

The point here is not to deny that Davis has faced racial discrimination in her life, though, I think joining the black power movement and becoming a terrorist (after the Civil Rights Act) was the wrong way to handle it. Rather, the point is to show that when you start trying to assign collective guilt to present generations based on the actions of past generations, things get complicated very fast, and those types of complications are repeated in the ancestry of millions upon millions of Americans.

In other words, those who are reparations-mongering show that it is complete Bulls#it.

I have asked similar questions about my own ancestry. Would my Anglo ancestors (my mother's side) 150 years ago been racist toward my Hispanic ancestors (my father's side)? probably so.

Now that I know that I have 5% native American ancestry also, the question becomes more complicated. How did those genes enter my gene pool? Love/marriage, or slavery/rape? Plus, does it make a difference reparations wise if those NA ancestors were from a currently Mexican tribe?

I know at least one ancestor was biased against Jews, but I also know I have 3% jewish ancestry.

In this day, when so many americans are of mixed race/ethnicity, reparations for actions taken by distant ancestors makes little sense.

(02-23-2023 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Now that I know that I have 5% native American ancestry

why...you could Run for Presidont'!!
1/1024 < 5%
0.0009765625 < 0.05
Uh, oh, Math is racisss...

https://twitter.com/TheOfficerTatum/stat...vLnYwuAAAA

https://twitter.com/TheOfficerTatum/stat...bf_oYuAAAA

unbelievable:

Quote: "Disrespectful, entitled, unappreciative"

Controversy has erupted around a video by the owner of Rustic Mountain Living, a Jamaican cottage rental business. The woman says she will no longer allow short-term rentals for black Americans. pic.twitter.com/YqKbATMiAZ

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) May 24, 2023

She followed up with a post saying she is receiving harsh criticism but would post her video one hundred more times if she could and is not going to apologize “I’m not sorry.” She said she has the right to free speech and will not be bullied. She said those complaining are the clientele she hopes to weed out, “My peace is more important than your frickin’ opinion.”

A relatively simple concept to understand using basic logic...problem is, too many have been prevented from learning logical reasoning in publik skewls.

Quote: Starbucks paid Eric Holder, who charges up to $2,295 an hour for such work, to teach them how to be less racist. He told them to give racial preferences to minorities. They're now getting sued for anti-white discrimination. https://t.co/ZcbKIalIki pic.twitter.com/bZqAwtCQ85
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) July 27, 2023

Starbucks Hired Eric Holder To Conduct a ‘Civil Rights Audit.’ The Policies He Blessed Got the Coffee Maker Sued

Companies have asked top law firms to review their diversity policies. Some firms are telling them to violate civil rights law.

Quote: Holder—who has charged as much as $2,295 an hour for such work—issued a final report in 2021 that outlined the steps Starbucks had taken to promote "equity." They included tying executive pay to diversity targets, setting spending goals for "diverse suppliers," and launching a mentorship program for "BIPOC" employees, which Holder pressed the company to expand. Each initiative, he wrote, demonstrated the coffee maker’s "commitment to civil rights and equal treatment."

But one year later, Starbucks was fending off a civil rights lawsuit over precisely the programs Holder had blessed. The lawsuit, which is still ongoing and was filed last August by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative nonprofit that is also a Starbucks shareholder, argued that the programs violate non-discrimination laws as well as the company’s fiduciary duties. Such claims may have come as a surprise to Starbucks executives: At no point did Holder’s report address the legality of the policies at issue.

Quote:But critics say the assessments have exposed clients to the very risks they’re meant to alleviate. Covington’s audits alone endorse a plethora of programs many lawyers, including current and former government officials, say are illegal, from a minorities-only scholarship at BlackRock to a bonus scheme linking executive pay to diversity targets at Verizon.

These programs "are lawsuits waiting to happen," said Noah Peters, the former solicitor of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, who has represented numerous government employees in discrimination lawsuits.

Some conservative groups are working to ensure the wait won’t be long. In April the law firm America First Legal filed a complaint against BlackRock with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an agency that enforces workplace discrimination laws, alleging that its race-based scholarship violated the Civil Rights Act.

At least one of that agency’s five commissioners seems to agree: Andrea Lucas, who was appointed in 2020 by former president Donald Trump, said that while she could only speak hypothetically, the kinds of programs Covington blessed are on thin legal ice.

Race-restricted internships, fellowships, and mentorship programs are "generally unlawful," she said, "including programs where participants receive offers for a company’s general internship program (open to all applicants) but also receive a unique benefit like an expedited interview process" or "additional compensation beyond what other interns receive." Those criteria describe almost verbatim the BlackRock Founders Scholarship—established before Covington’s audit and praised therein—which offers "diverse" internship applicants an "accelerated interview process" and an award of $20,000.

But critics say the assessments have exposed clients to the very risks they’re meant to alleviate. Covington’s audits alone endorse a plethora of programs many lawyers, including current and former government officials, say are illegal, from a minorities-only scholarship at BlackRock to a bonus scheme linking executive pay to diversity targets at Verizon.

These programs "are lawsuits waiting to happen," said Noah Peters, the former solicitor of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, who has represented numerous government employees in discrimination lawsuits.

Some conservative groups are working to ensure the wait won’t be long. In April the law firm America First Legal filed a complaint against BlackRock with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an agency that enforces workplace discrimination laws, alleging that its race-based scholarship violated the Civil Rights Act.

At least one of that agency’s five commissioners seems to agree: Andrea Lucas, who was appointed in 2020 by former president Donald Trump, said that while she could only speak hypothetically, the kinds of programs Covington blessed are on thin legal ice.

Race-restricted internships, fellowships, and mentorship programs are "generally unlawful," she said, "including programs where participants receive offers for a company’s general internship program (open to all applicants) but also receive a unique benefit like an expedited interview process" or "additional compensation beyond what other interns receive." Those criteria describe almost verbatim the BlackRock Founders Scholarship—established before Covington’s audit and praised therein—which offers "diverse" internship applicants an "accelerated interview process" and an award of $20,000.

There are nonetheless signs that the audits won’t be long for the post-affirmative action world. Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) warned 51 law firms this month that Congress could investigate them for blessing illegal diversity programs, a threat that followed demands by 13 Republican attorneys general for Fortune 100 companies to scrap their race-based hiring practices.

"If you choose not to do so," the officials wrote in letters to companies, "know that you will be held accountable."

Covington itself read clients the riot act in the wake of the High Court’s decision, issuing a client alert that was far less sanguine about racial preferences than its audits have been. Quoting an article by Lucas—the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner who warned against the sort of policies Holder blessed—the firm encouraged employers to "take a hard look" at their diversity programs.

"‘[R]ace-restricted internships, race-restricted mentoring, [and] race-focused promotion decisions,’" Covington said, "may already be ‘violating the law.’"

DIE is actual racism in action. DIE was created and brought to you by the same Democratic Party that gave you the KKK, lynching, segregation, increased poverty, et cetera....

This uest editorial seems to get more valid every day...

Quote:

Don’t like America? Feel free to leave
Jul 19, 2019

Dear Editor,

Since when did the Flag of the thirteen colonies become a symbol of racism?

To people who express hatred and disrespect for our country and our flag, I say, then leave!

I am saying that as a black American.

How is that racist? It is not, and neither is the President. I am sure that when President Trump said to the four women of the Democrat apocalypse, “go back where you came from,” he was referring to Ilhan Omar who was given asylum by our country from a violent, chaotic Somalia. She has never expressed an ounce of gratitude. She has said she was lied to about the ability to prosper here. She was made to feel “otherness” here.

To her, I join the President in saying, “then go back where you came from if you think America is racist.” She even implied at a fundraiser that we want children to die at the border because they don’t “look like us.”

Our country would be a better place if she and those who think like her had never come here, and it would be better for us all if she left and took with her everybody who shares her hatred and disrespect of our country.

As for the other three - Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley - they were born here. The President lumped them all together and that was a rhetorical error, but the sentiment is still valid. The mainstream media is quibbling over the technicalities. These leftists who hate this country and want us to be Marxist, Socialist, communist - all of them, regardless of ethnicity - need to find someplace else to live. They can go to Cuba, China, Vietnam or any other collectivist country that suits their fancy.

America is a nation of freedom - free markets, individual liberty and personal responsibility for one’s own life and family. We are a nation of individualists, not collectivists. These four radical Democrat women may represent the future of the Democrat Party, but they portend the demise of our country unless they are totally discredited.

This is not about skin color. There are many leftists with a different complexion to whom I offer the same invitation - leave! That includes Bernie Sanders and any political candidate or activist who wants to subvert our Constitution and replace it with some sort of communist compact. They can go practice totalitarianism somewhere else.

If Colin Kaepernick is offended by the Colonial flag of Betsy Ross, go live in some other country. To make the decision permanent, he should renounce his American citizenship and leave behind the millions of dollars he has made in this terribly unjust country. Nike can go with him.

The Flag of the thirteen colonies represents the beginning of our country. We will not be controlled by the racists who exploit it or the anti-American idiots who denigrate it.

Hating America is a disease that has infected many of our citizens. Even the US Women’s Soccer Team has contracted it. Recruited and paid to represent our country, they stained a great victory by treating the American Flag and our National Anthem as symbols of oppression. They’re playing for the United States! Olympic teams are supposed to represent American pride and unity.

Instead the Women’s Soccer Team led by a radical lesbian {surprise!} used the opportunity to embarrass our country in a world of dictatorial and oppressive regimes. These spoiled American players have no clue what real oppression is.

They disagree with President Trump? So what! I didn’t agree with President Obama, but that did not change my love and respect for our country.

The left has politicized every aspect of our lives - sports, entertainment, journalism and education. They have tried to make patriotism represent racism. {It does not.}

It amazes me that some of the most privileged of our citizens are hell bent on dividing us and destroying the very freedom that gave them such outstanding personal success!

If they don’t appreciate or want to preserve that liberty, they should leave. But they won’t leave. They are evil, not stupid.

We must fight evil with good, and be more determined to save our country than they are to destroy and remake it into another socialist basket case.

Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr.

Chesapeake, Virginia

Amen, Bish!