Reply to Re: Let's talk terrorism
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
You seem to be saying that because women/other races hold fewer positions of power than white men, all those groups are being discriminated against.
Compared to their number in society, yes. Without more information, I expect 50% women in every job, and 13% blacks, for example. Because I have no reason to believe that there is a structural bias in ability or preference to do certain things.
But that doesn't mean it isn't there. I agree that especially something like nursing may well be a thing that more women want to do (but that may not be true either; it may just be a cultural thing and not a genetic thing). But in many other fields, including science and politics (and leadership in general), I don't believe this to be the case.
And I have proof. Neil Degrasse Tyson, a famous black scientist explained that he faced an enormous amount of obstacles that white people did not. As he puts it at the end: Before we start talking about genetic differences, you've got to come up with a system where there's equal opportunity; then we can have that conversation.
the educational level of the parents is the single biggest indicator of what level of education the child will achieve
My guess is that one of the biggest reasons for this correlation is that their education is correlated to their income, and their income determines if they can afford to pay for the education of their kids. Before you say "they can get a loan", remember that poor families know what it means to be in debt, either from personal experience or from people around them, and many of them will want to avoid that even at high cost. The investment in education seems wise to rich people, but they won't take the risk. In other words, the way education is financed mostly benefits the rich, and that means that the great majority of blacks are at a disadvantage, because they're poor.
I think the best way to fix this is not positive discrimination (although that may also be useful at times), but by removing the obstacles for poor people. Bernie's plan to make public colleges tuition free would hugely benefit the poor, and would therefore help to lessen the race gap in society. Because while there is a lot of real racism in this country, there are also a lot of ways in which blacks (and other minorities) are disadvantaged just because they (or their parents) are poor.
50% of women will never be garbage truck drivers
For nursing, I can believe that women may be genetically more likely to want that job. But garbage truck drivers? Why would men want that job, but not women? I don't see any reason for that.
The women that do choose to go into politics seem to have as much of a chance as men do
They don't. There are numerous reports of sexism and sexual harassment for those who do become politicians; I'm sure that deters others from trying. Trump, being the bully that he is, has just been explicitly insulting women in general, but specifically Fiorina (another republican candidate at the time), because as a woman all her value supposedly comes from her looks, and they weren't good enough for him. I'm sure women in politics face a similar path as Tyson, and are discouraged every step of the way.
Hillary is not being attacked for her gender, only because explicitly doing that would be the end of a (democratic) campaign, indeed. And also because Bernie Sanders would have to be the one doing it, and he seems to be the most liberal politician in the country, so I'm sure he's not "holding back", he really doesn't feel that is a valid attack. But I also note that much of the Clinton's (both of them) endorsements come from extortion. What it really means is that Hillary has a lot of power, much more than most women. From her position, it is possible to be a successful politician. Most others cannot, because the system gives them much less power.
I think women and racial minorities have advantages over regular white guys, because we want more of them in positions of power, and incentivize them to go down that path.
That happens, but it is similar to the "negative power" I talked about before. The system is rigged against them. Those incentives are an attempt to give them equal opportunity. They help, but it's nowhere near enough. Until the numbers start to be balanced (or there is compelling science showing that there are good reasons blacks don't want to go to college, for example), the sum of the system plus the incentives is still to their disadvantage. It would have been worse without the incentives, but that doesn't mean it's good now. And nobody proposes to keep the incentives in place once the system is balanced. The goal is not supremacy of the minority, it's equal opportunities.
[perhaps] blacks really are genetically less suited for education. I'm not counting this possibility out, since there doesn't appear to be any credible research on the subject
It is certainly possible, but I go back to Tyson on this: fix the system first. Until then, there is no place in the discussion for genetic differences.
Discriminating against whites by establishing quotas or showing preferential treatment to minorities out of fear of appearing racist isn't the way to go
Not out of fear of appearing racist, no. But in an attempt to change the balance, yes. If more blacks are educated, their kids will have educated parents, which means they have more opportunities.
Does it hurt whites that blacks "take their places"? Yes, it does. Is it fair? Yes, totally. The system is rigged in favor of whites. Of course it hurts them when it is fixed. That doesn't mean it's unfair.
Compared to their number in society, yes. Without more information, I expect 50% women in every job, and 13% blacks, for example. Because I have no reason to believe that there is a structural bias in ability or preference to do certain things.
But that doesn't mean it isn't there. I agree that especially something like nursing may well be a thing that more women want to do (but that may not be true either; it may just be a cultural thing and not a genetic thing). But in many other fields, including science and politics (and leadership in general), I don't believe this to be the case.
And I have proof. Neil Degrasse Tyson, a famous black scientist explained that he faced an enormous amount of obstacles that white people did not. As he puts it at the end: Before we start talking about genetic differences, you've got to come up with a system where there's equal opportunity; then we can have that conversation.
the educational level of the parents is the single biggest indicator of what level of education the child will achieve
My guess is that one of the biggest reasons for this correlation is that their education is correlated to their income, and their income determines if they can afford to pay for the education of their kids. Before you say "they can get a loan", remember that poor families know what it means to be in debt, either from personal experience or from people around them, and many of them will want to avoid that even at high cost. The investment in education seems wise to rich people, but they won't take the risk. In other words, the way education is financed mostly benefits the rich, and that means that the great majority of blacks are at a disadvantage, because they're poor.
I think the best way to fix this is not positive discrimination (although that may also be useful at times), but by removing the obstacles for poor people. Bernie's plan to make public colleges tuition free would hugely benefit the poor, and would therefore help to lessen the race gap in society. Because while there is a lot of real racism in this country, there are also a lot of ways in which blacks (and other minorities) are disadvantaged just because they (or their parents) are poor.
50% of women will never be garbage truck drivers
For nursing, I can believe that women may be genetically more likely to want that job. But garbage truck drivers? Why would men want that job, but not women? I don't see any reason for that.
The women that do choose to go into politics seem to have as much of a chance as men do
They don't. There are numerous reports of sexism and sexual harassment for those who do become politicians; I'm sure that deters others from trying. Trump, being the bully that he is, has just been explicitly insulting women in general, but specifically Fiorina (another republican candidate at the time), because as a woman all her value supposedly comes from her looks, and they weren't good enough for him. I'm sure women in politics face a similar path as Tyson, and are discouraged every step of the way.
Hillary is not being attacked for her gender, only because explicitly doing that would be the end of a (democratic) campaign, indeed. And also because Bernie Sanders would have to be the one doing it, and he seems to be the most liberal politician in the country, so I'm sure he's not "holding back", he really doesn't feel that is a valid attack. But I also note that much of the Clinton's (both of them) endorsements come from extortion. What it really means is that Hillary has a lot of power, much more than most women. From her position, it is possible to be a successful politician. Most others cannot, because the system gives them much less power.
I think women and racial minorities have advantages over regular white guys, because we want more of them in positions of power, and incentivize them to go down that path.
That happens, but it is similar to the "negative power" I talked about before. The system is rigged against them. Those incentives are an attempt to give them equal opportunity. They help, but it's nowhere near enough. Until the numbers start to be balanced (or there is compelling science showing that there are good reasons blacks don't want to go to college, for example), the sum of the system plus the incentives is still to their disadvantage. It would have been worse without the incentives, but that doesn't mean it's good now. And nobody proposes to keep the incentives in place once the system is balanced. The goal is not supremacy of the minority, it's equal opportunities.
[perhaps] blacks really are genetically less suited for education. I'm not counting this possibility out, since there doesn't appear to be any credible research on the subject
It is certainly possible, but I go back to Tyson on this: fix the system first. Until then, there is no place in the discussion for genetic differences.
Discriminating against whites by establishing quotas or showing preferential treatment to minorities out of fear of appearing racist isn't the way to go
Not out of fear of appearing racist, no. But in an attempt to change the balance, yes. If more blacks are educated, their kids will have educated parents, which means they have more opportunities.
Does it hurt whites that blacks "take their places"? Yes, it does. Is it fair? Yes, totally. The system is rigged in favor of whites. Of course it hurts them when it is fixed. That doesn't mean it's unfair.
