Real, True Headlines
Apr. 24th, 2014 08:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking"Study of Pot Smokers' Brains Shows That MRIs Cause Bad Science Reporting"
(Warning, crank site, full of bad logic and counterrational leaps. And they also make one of the very same mistakes they are complaining about: How do they know the MRIs *cause* bad science reporting, instead of just being correlated with bad science reporting in at least one case? But still, very funny.)
(Warning, crank site, full of bad logic and counterrational leaps. And they also make one of the very same mistakes they are complaining about: How do they know the MRIs *cause* bad science reporting, instead of just being correlated with bad science reporting in at least one case? But still, very funny.)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-25 07:34 pm (UTC)The premise of Affirmative Action is that a difference in racial profile between a group of employees and the general public is always the result of bigotry in hiring.
In real life it is primarily the result of black students being denied an equal education because their teachers are obliged to maintain a "racial balance" in grade promotion-- so they ignore any trouble a black kid has and pass him, but actually pay some attention to white or Oriental kids. (I use the word "Oriental" because it is precise; the majority of people born in Asia are not Oriental. Mohandas Gandhi. Moshe Dayan. Me.)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-25 08:33 pm (UTC)The hilarious thing is that your arguments are supported by people making exactly those arguments and in a position to suppress any contradiction.
What does that even mean? You're claiming that you can't argue with me, because any counterarguments you might make are suppressed by some conspiratorial cabal?
You want to try that again? Because I really can't figure out what you mean there.
The premise of Affirmative Action is that a difference in racial profile between a group of employees and the general public is always the result of bigotry in hiring.
Given a diverse pool of qualified applicants, a hiring process that only results in non-diverse hires is inherently biased, yes. Unless you're about to argue that no black applicants could ever be qualified.....
In real life it is primarily the result of black students being denied an equal education because their teachers are obliged to maintain a "racial balance" in grade promotion-- so they ignore any trouble a black kid has and pass him, but actually pay some attention to white or Oriental kids.
... oh wait. You were just about to make EXACTLY that argument. You really *are* arguing that whites-only hiring outcomes happen because black people can't do the work and that the only way a black person could get a job in by making the market unfair.
Earlier, you said "your racism is apparent" but declined to point out what you thought I'd said that was racist, or why you thought it was a racist thing to say. I'm going to turn that around: YOUR RACISM IS EXTREMELY APPARENT. And I've even done you the favour of pointing out what racist thing you've said and why it's racist.
But let's go back to your core point, and I'm going to gleefully point out that either your time machine is malfunctioning or my earlier description of you as "Dunning-Kruger posterchild, aggressively ignorant of history" is getting a few more data points in favour, because you don't appear to have noticed the contradiction in your statements.
You've JUST FINISHED claiming that black students are uneducated and unemployable because they're preferentially advanced while white students have to work, because of integrated school policies, and that's why real-world whites-only hiring outcomes are not racist at all - black people, in your opinion, are just not capable of doing the work in a fair market because the integrated education system has damaged them.[1]
But that doesn't explain why, *before* school integration ruined all those black students by allowing them to progress uneducated in comparison to their white brethren, whites-only hiring outcomes still existed.
"Affirmative Action" (the name the USA uses for an Employment Equity program) was enacted in the early to mid 1960s, tasked to correct the biased outcomes of hiring processes. Widespread enforced school integration, which you have JUST FINISHED claiming is what's actually responsible for those biased hiring outcomes, started, well, let's just use your words: "I recall when busing started. I was in junior high.".
Junior high. That would make you...12-14 years old? So, 1972-74ish?
So.... the widespread school integration that you claim CAUSES biased hiring processes by turning out unqualified applicants on racial lines, started a decade AFTER the biased hiring processes were deemed so large a problem that laws were made to correct them?
[1/2]
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-25 08:33 pm (UTC)I mean, even if I accept your bizarre notion that racial minorities were discriminated against on the basis of merit, you've got a glaring continuity error in your explanation of WHY they lack merit.
(And we haven't even asked why you think male-only hiring was widespread before Employment Equity programs made it illegal to discriminate against women. Do we want to go down that road? I think we do! Tell me, are women ALSO uneducated and unemployable because they are being denied an equal education because their teachers are obliged to maintain a 'gender balance' in grade promotion-- so they ignore any trouble a female kid has and pass her, but actually pay some attention to male kids? Or do you have a different explanation?)
Bonus: Earlier, you said you LIKED school desegregation as a policy, unlike workplace desegregation. Now you're claiming it makes black students uneducated and unemployable. How odd - do you like it *because* you think it makes black students uneducated and unemployable, or *in spite* of the fact that you think it makes black students uneducated and unemployable? Or do you actually not like it after all?
Extra bonus: Before you start screaming "STRAW MAN" and tearing off away from your own words in a desperate attempt to duck a point rather than defend or clarify? Don't.
[1]: And oh man isn't THAT a fun sentiment to unpack.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-25 09:22 pm (UTC)I see where you get your ID from.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-25 09:45 pm (UTC)We're back to "do you read your own posts?" and "are you drunk?" as the questions of the hour. What the hell are you responding to?
What did I say that makes you think I've "identified" myself as something, what do you assert I've "identified" myself AS, and "responsible" for what?
Dude, if you *say specific things* and *put your answers in context* and *make sense*, things are much easier for those playing along in the home game.
it is hardly surprising that you have a pat answer prepared.
I had a great many answers, tailored to the specifics of your weird theory and its bizarre anachronisms. My answers were hardly "pat", although I note with amusement that you've chosen not to respond to even one of them.
Oh, and: despite your dismissal of them as "pat" and thus presumably trivial for you to refute, the only thing you *have* chosen to respond to is so incoherent that I really can't tell what point you think you're making!
I see where you get your ID from.
Oh man, I've never heard THAT one before. You're not even the first (or second) published Baen author to use that here[1], not even counting the just plain old kooks.
Are you going to flounce next? Because I'm sure *that* will be what causes me to change my tune and stop pointing out that your argument is inconsitent, incoherent, and awfully racist, you betcha. It's worked every time before!
[1]: without even counting Tommy The Ego Googler's sockpuppets. Add those and the number goes up further.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-25 10:17 pm (UTC)Awwww. Does that mean you're going to flounce without ever explaining what the fuck you were talking about? Without even a proper "geez, I'm OUTTA here" post?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-26 01:14 am (UTC)"Flounce"?
This from the bigot who was threatening to censor me from the moment I caught him at it. So you didn't even get the ego trip of doing that, BFH. Maybe you can beat up some Jews to make yourself feel better. Crippled Jews, of course, or they'll be able to fight back.
Maybe you'd better limit it to just one.
And I would be fascinated to find out which Baen author you are lying about that you imagine I would not be able to check with.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-26 01:40 am (UTC)Once again, you're saying unclear things. For example, what's the "it" that you imagine you "caught" me at?
And while we're at it, what did I say that makes you think I've "identified" myself as something, what do you assert I've "identified" myself AS, and "responsible" for what?
Dude, if you *say specific things* and *put your answers in context* and *make sense*, things are much easier.
So you didn't even get the ego trip of doing that, BFH.
I notice you're still incoherent. And not answering. And *still posting*.
Maybe you can beat up some Jews to make yourself feel better. Crippled Jews, of course, or they'll be able to fight back.
The mind boggles that you feel you are helping your case.
And I would be fascinated to find out which Baen author you are lying about that you imagine I would not be able to check with.
Hey, they're all public posts, man. Check all you want! Hint, one of them was Tommy The Ego Googler, who shows up when his name is mentioned, has a well-known history of creating sockpuppets when banned (and did so here!), and shares with you a rather.... CREATIVE sense of historical dates, times, and events. To the point where there's entire books worth of posts on some sites where history buffs point out what he's wrong about. rpg.net has a ton!
Once you find the post where he did that, finding the others should be easy.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-26 01:45 am (UTC)I should have known.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-26 01:59 am (UTC)Put two and two together, for *once* in this thread.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-26 02:02 am (UTC)So let's try this one more time:
What's the "it" that you imagine you "caught" me at?
And while we're at it, what did I say that makes you think I've "identified" myself as something, what do you assert I've "identified" myself AS, and "responsible" for what?
But seriously. Go home, Matthew Joseph Harrington, you are drunk.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-27 03:49 am (UTC)Also: you're not being censored if Mr. Weasel were to ban you. Just so you know.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-27 09:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-27 09:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-26 02:04 am (UTC)If (for example!) you assumed that white kids inherently had trouble with classes, you would reasonably say "they ignore any trouble a white kid has and pass him, but actually pay some attention to black or Oriental kids". Because you'd believe that quota stuff, right? Whitey gets his pass FOR THE QUOTA AND NO OTHER REASON, while the (non-white) kids who could actually learn something get a for-reals education.
The fact that you are asserting "they ignore any trouble a black kid has and pass him, but actually pay some attention to white or Oriental kids" strongly indicates that you are assuming that black kids inherently have trouble with the classes that white and Oriental kids don't.