Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

[Deleted member 848]

Here's a quote your post I was replying to:


The next post:


So the context you were replying in, and of the discussion, was politics as mentioned by you explicitly. If you wanted to make a broader statement that did not apply to just politics, it's up to you to expand the context just as explicitly, not on us to read your mind.

I'm glad you pulled the quotes out-- everybody can decide for themselves whether I was referring to "a study that looked at the discrimination of black politicians vs. female ones." Hilarious that you think that these excerpts work in your favour-- power to you.

I acknowledged a major confounding variable,

After I brought it up.

but there is a similar confounding variable in the Senate. Neither of us can quantify how much "more divorced" it is, that's a baseless claim on your part.

For you to obscure, and attempt to equivocate elected representatives from regions where black people are the majority and select a black person to send to congress, vs the Senate where each state (none of which possess a numerical black majority) sends 2 people to represent them is.......Goebbelsian. If this is the standard of intellectual honesty that I'm working with, I see no point in discussing this with you further.

I would agree you should drop this discussion. Your primary example is not arguing about differing levels of discrimination faced, and on whom it has a worse effect. It's saying that the hiring of white women in academia has the effect of exacerbating racism, and points out how some of the most racist people in the country are less sexist than racist (I certainly don't disagree here).

It puts out percentages in hiring compared to the general faculty, but does not compare them to the percentages in applications, and does not make the claim that blacks face more discrimination in hiring, just that they are hired less. For example, in 1995 the University of Oregon had 36.3% female hires and 8.4% non-white hires (shorthand of 36.3/8.4). Is that based on an application rate of 36.3/8.4, or 30/15, or 45/6? By 2003, the composition of both had risen to above the 1995 hire rate (42/9).

There a lot of unpacking to do, but none of it compares whether the effect of racism is larger or smaller than the effect of sexism. I don't know why you misrepresented the contents of this paper, but that misrepresentation means I have even less confidence in your claim than before.

I listed it as a manifestation, which it is. It isn't a paper on the mechanism in which discrimination differently impacts black people from white women.

I have read paper on the intersection of race and gender. They are about the effects can multiply instead of add, making the oppressive experiences of a black woman typically more severe that those of a black man + white woman. I don't recall any that decide to pull out a comparative measuring stick. I haven't heard of any serious researchers who are into those sorts of comparisons.

Try pulling out another paper with whatever process you use. Maybe you'll get lucky.

Yes, but when things multiply, are they multiplying as constant numerals? Or are the numbers that are multiplying different from factor to factor? Congrats on engaging with a context at the narrowest ****ing level.


*waves bye bye*

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is definitely not the image that I responded to and which you said you agreed with. That image said F this, F that, F the other, and F compromise.

ah yes. my bad.

 

[Siro]

Dalamon and One Brow don't get along?

I love both of those guys.

 

[Archie Moses]

Rich republican's kids tears about socialism are the best tears.

I personally think Venezuelan kid's tears are a lil better.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Dalamon and One Brow don't get along?

I love both of those guys.

i think i started with the heavier-handed tone in this exchange before he did. maybe it's cuz i keep being mad at myself for logging onto jazzfanz when i should be finishing up my research writing smh

 

[Deleted member 848]

I personally think Venezuelan kid's tears are a lil better.

Archie, do you realize we can all list a dozen democratically socialist countries who all exhibit much better quality of life in every metric you could conjure than the united states. if you're gonna respond with "BUT THEY'RE SMALL COUNTRIES", ask yourself if you've ever considered the population of Venezuela, and why the answer is no, and what impact those you've read have had on the myopia that one then develops.

Afterwards, read Edward Said. I'm logging out for the day.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Archie, do you realize we can all list a dozen democratically socialist countries who all exhibit much better quality of life in every metric you could conjure than the united states. if you're gonna respond with "BUT THEY'RE SMALL COUNTRIES", ask yourself if you've ever considered the population of Venezuela, and why the answer is no, and what impact those you've read have had on the myopia that one then develops.

Afterwards, read Edward Said. I'm logging out for the day.

And maybe when you, or @Saint Cy of JFC can finally figure out a way that the US specifically pays for all of it, people will listen. I’ve asked, multiple times, and you always avoid it. “Same way other countries do.” Bah. Lazy, non-answer. And you know it.

Before I’m going to let the government run all of these programs, I’d first like to see them run their current ones well. Or should we just imagine they’ll do better with more? I’d like to see it happen first.

“The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.”

 

[RandyForRubio]

Some people don’t have to hardly pay taxes, don’t have to deal with government regulation, so it’s no wonder they want more “free”.

A little perspective would be good for some, on all sides.

The top 1% paid a higher share of the FIT than the bottom 90% did. The top 50% paid for 97.3% of all individual income tax. But the rich need to pay their fair share!!

I get people out here to work that last a day or two, and say it’s not worth working that hard because they’d rather just be on welfare. “If I make too much I lose my free healthcare.” Meanwhile I get to bust my *** to try to make a lot of money and pay for those wastes of life. Because somebody has to pay for them, do y’all understand that?

 

[Siro]

Some people don’t have to hardly pay taxes, don’t have to deal with government regulation, so it’s no wonder they want more “free”.

Man, every ****ing year I owe considerable amount of taxes. For once I'd like to get money back instead of forking it over to the government. It's like we're already democratic socialists!

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And maybe when you, or @Saint Cy of JFC can finally figure out a way that the US specifically pays for all of it, people will listen. I’ve asked, multiple times, and you always avoid it. “Same way other countries do.” Bah. Lazy, non-answer. And you know it.

Before I’m going to let the government run all of these programs, I’d first like to see them run their current ones well. Or should we just imagine they’ll do better with more? I’d like to see it happen first.

“The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.”

How does the government find the money to pay for unlimited military spending?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I get people out here to work that last a day or two, and say it’s not worth working that hard because they’d rather just be on welfare. “If I make too much I lose my free healthcare.” Meanwhile I get to bust my *** to try to make a lot of money and pay for those wastes of life. Because somebody has to pay for them, do y’all understand that?

There will always be free-loaders. You cant eliminate them all under any system.

 

[fishonjazz]

Nice to see @Saint Cy of JFC killing it in general discussion thread.

 

[One Brow]

This whole thing is a tough nut to crack.

I completely agree. The problem is that oppression and injustice starts out when people are young, preventing them from getting qualifications that allow for advancement, and that it's uneven in application, so some people are hurt worse than others. You won't ever address inequality in management without addressing it in housing, childhood nutrition, safety, education, etc.

 

[One Brow]

I'm glad you pulled the quotes out-- everybody can decide for themselves whether I was referring to "a study that looked at the discrimination of black politicians vs. female ones." Hilarious that you think that these excerpts work in your favour-- power to you.

Everyone can also decide whether you were speaking to "... to academic literature in the specific context of female vs black politicians", since you were speaking about politicians and the academic literature in consecutive clauses in the same sentence.

After I brought it up.

That was implied by the use of "acknowledged". Were you not aware of that, or did you feel the need to crow a little more?

For you to obscure, and attempt to equivocate elected representatives from regions where black people are the majority and select a black person to send to congress, vs the Senate where each state (none of which possess a numerical black majority) sends 2 people to represent them is.......Goebbelsian. If this is the standard of intellectual honesty that I'm working with, I see no point in discussing this with you further.

I am not aware of how stating that neither of us has the calculation for a confounding factor, when we both acknowledge the existence of it, is anything other than straight-forward.

I listed it as a manifestation, which it is. It isn't a paper on the mechanism in which discrimination differently impacts black people from white women.

I see. You could not find a paper directly supporting your claim, you listed a paper not making that claim, and said it was an obvious manifestation.

Yes, but when things multiply, are they multiplying as constant numerals? Or are the numbers that are multiplying different from factor to factor? Congrats on engaging with a context at the narrowest ****ing level.

I know a narrower one. The level where you think there is some sort of research on which disadvantaged groups suffer more from their specific group identity than other disadvantaged groups, and claim that this knowledge is so commonly understood in the academic community that asking for evidence is equivalent to denying climate change.

See you round the water cooler.

 

[One Brow]

Dalamon and One Brow don't get along?

I love both of those guys.

If you can't fight with family, why practice on strangers?

 

[One Brow]

The top 1% paid a higher share of the FIT than the bottom 90% did. The top 50% paid for 97.3% of all individual income tax. But the rich need to pay their fair share!!

The top 50% has 80% of the income. After you allow for a minimum amount, say $10,000, not taxed by anyone, that rises to over 85%. Considering that they get the most indirect benefits from taxation (social stability, compliant workforce, etc.), 97% of the burden seems pretty fair.

 

[One Brow]

I get people out here to work that last a day or two, and say it’s not worth working that hard because they’d rather just be on welfare. “If I make too much I lose my free healthcare.” Meanwhile I get to bust my *** to try to make a lot of money and pay for those wastes of life. Because somebody has to pay for them, do y’all understand that?

Just think: if they got free healthcare, they would be more likely to stay and work for the extra money.

 

[One Brow]

Before I’m going to let the government run all of these programs, I’d first like to see them run their current ones well. Or should we just imagine they’ll do better with more? I’d like to see it happen first.

As well as what? Any Fortune 500 will have similar amounts of waste. It doesn't become news because only the stockholders are on the hook, and corporate executives go out of their way to hide from them.

 

[Archie Moses]

How does the government find the money to pay for unlimited military spending?

By borrowing it.

AmIwight?

 

[RJF]

The top 50% has 80% of the income. After you allow for a minimum amount, say $10,000, not taxed by anyone, that rises to over 85%. Considering that they get the most indirect benefits from taxation (social stability, compliant workforce, etc.), 97% of the burden seems pretty fair.

You obviously missed the point. As it stands now they’re paying 97.3% but they need to pay their “fair share”. Do you not see the irony??