Real, True Headlines

[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.)

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

... do you listen to yourself?

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]