deepestblue Show full post »
beebee
davidgmills wrote:
I am done talking about this shit bee.  Your comments are so fucking insulting.


I think what you fail to realize, David is just how offensive your comments are also to some and how indefensible. 

As you said to boxcarjoe the other day, “whatever you are trying to sell, I’m not buying.”
Sorry, but neither am I.

🐝
We will not win fighting what we hate but by saving what we love.

Keep Calm and Carry On 👍


Quote 0 0
PaganWoman
davidgmills wrote:
Mine was a commentary on identity politics.  That we must have all the colors of the rainbow in all the right numbers.

White men do not feel threatened.  That is not what white men feel.  White men feel frustrated.  America has become obsessed with the idea of equality.  It is an ideal that just does not exist.  There really is no such thing as equal opportunity,  Geography alone makes that impossible.  There is no equality in ability whether the ability is physical or mental.  Thus there will not be income equality.  Why are white men frustrated?  It is because they feel they are being held back by this demand for equality when equality does not exist.


Frustrated about striving for equality.  That is interesting.  
Love Wins...it takes time and seems as if it will never truly win ....believe it will ~PaganWoman
Quote 1 0
Fire With Fire
There is an old show business saying -- satire is what closes out of town.  It means of course that most people don't get it.  So it is kinda fitting that this clearly labeled satirical thread would turn into discord as long time members of the community argue past each other.

I have crossed swords with David before, and I have to say that in my opinion, he is very quick to display contempt.  In turn, when people snark back, he tends to take it very personally. 

Even so, I find his point of view interesting and his ideas worth discussing, especially when I disagree with him, and I hope that we can all get past the emotional aspect of these very emotional topics and try to understand each other without snark.  I am as guilty as anybody on this quite civil board  when it comes to reaching for snark.

So, David, let me suggest one point for you to consider for now: You overstate your case.


Quote:
White men do not feel threatened.  That is not what white men feel.  White men feel frustrated.  America has become obsessed with the idea of equality.  It is an ideal that just does not exist.  There really is no such thing as equal opportunity,


You do not get to speak for "white men."  I am a white man and I don't feel frustrated or any other variety of disapproval over white men having to stand in line behind women or people of color for jobs and promotions.  I know that when I got out of law school in 1977 that my gender and ethnicity gave me decisive preference to get my career started.  So now the jackboot in on the other foot, to a really tiny extent.  I am a union representative and I deal with employment law on a daily basis and I have never even heard of a case where a white guy got fired for the purpose of making a slot available to somebody other than a white guy.

Quote:
There is no equality in ability whether the ability is physical or mental.  Thus there will not be income equality.  Why are white men frustrated?  It is because they feel they are being held back by this demand for equality when equality does not exist.


Just as you seem to believe that intelligence is a thing that can be measured on a linear scale, you assert without blushing that physical and mental ability are measurable.  Of course there is no "equality" in ability, whether physical or mental.  That is because ability is an abstract noun, not a thing, and cannot be quantified.   A person "scoring" 110 on a test designed to measure, in your words, "problem solving" is supposedly smarter that a person scoring 109 on the same test.  The linear scale also ignores the various kinds of intelligence and gloms them all together. The vehemence with which you maintain that this is "science" and not nonsense makes it very difficult to discuss this with you.

The same applies to your assertions about ability, whether physical or mental.  Those are subjective evaluations relative to tens of millions of different jobs, and to contend that some are just more qualified than others at jobs is just silly -- not false, just irrelevant to the reality of economic life in the modern world. For most hourly paid jobs, everybody is qualified and to suggest that there is a meaningful difference in "ability" to run a leaf blower is absurd.  To be sure, the higher you go up the economic food chain, the percentage of people who don't have a clue grows, but it does not follow that there are meaningful gradations of "ability" at selling cars or writing legal briefs or modeling stock market behavior.

Two of our board members read you as just assuming that White Guys are more qualified, but I don't agree with them on that point.  Your text does not express any racism on your part, and I understand why it bothers you when that is suggested.  My criticism is on other grounds -- I think you overgeneralize in comments like "white men don't feel threatened" or "equality does not exist."  

Finally, the gist of your complaint is against Affirmative Action -- the intentional putting a thumb on the scale when "evaluating" the "ability" of job applicants.  I agree with you that there are a lot of problems with Affirmative Action.  But that is a tiny sliver of modern Identity Politics, and I agree with you that virtually the entire movement is a bunch of crap, -- not because I am "frustrated" about what it might do to me as a white guy.  On the contrary, I think it is a Fifth Column attack on progressive politics, replacing it with the idea being satirized in this thread -- that truth is what ever helps Democrats win elections, and that lies are anything that hurt their chances. Your conflating this lighthearted exercise with yet another bashing of the zero sum game of Affirmative Action has led to discord that I hope we can get past.

You have criticized some of my posts and persuaded me that some of my thoughts were just wrong.  I did not enjoy being educated, but I went back and edited at least two of my posts specifically because you were right and I was wrong.  OTOH, I am pretty sure we will have to agree to disagree about IQ and probably a zillion other things.  

This board would be way too boring if we all agreed all the time.



Quote 1 0
bernintheusa
deepestblue wrote:

Hi Bern, I don't think we have time to consider the consequences.  The alternative is too costly; that alternative being that people will post, receive and potentially (God help us all) agree with information that does not originate with the largest media companies.  Now is the time for site wide censorship ahead of the elections, let's get it cleaned up now before the Russians infiltrate our brains any longer.  😜


Good point, Blue. Better safe than sorry, eh ?
[3e37b5472dfc1614b78ba3d6c20243e2]
Quote 1 0
bernintheusa
Quote:
This board would be way too boring if we all agreed all the time.


Oh so true...  And sometimes we won’t even agree to disagree. And that’s OK too.

Fire With Fire, your response to David is very thought provoking and heartfelt. Thank you for posting.
[3e37b5472dfc1614b78ba3d6c20243e2]
Quote 0 0
deepestblue


Good point, Blue. Better safe than sorry, eh ?

I think so, Bern.  For instance there are some more Epstein posts today.  It must be due to the influence of PUTINNN and THE RUSSIANS!!
Quote 0 0