Media Bias

[JimC]

He can't explain something he does not understand, other than in terms of mindless propaganda...

[Hermit]

I tried, pErv. Didn't get anywhere.

No you didn't. You just criticised others for perceived support of 'equity'.

Be fair. Our member from Yellowknife mentioned the "Pareto distribution" in conjunction with "equity" on more than one occasion. OK, so he did not bother to tell us in what sense the two connect, but it's quite brave to be a king of the non-sequitur already and still up the ante requires a considerable amount of courage.

Alternatively, "Only...

Wait. No. I won't quote the other possibility, as expressed in a line of Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Criticism". It is probably wrong anyway. Most opinions of our member from Yellowknife are rightfully criticised - even laughed at - but he is certainly not a fool. A more likely explanation of many his posts is alluded to by one of the most often quoted lines of the greatest bard in the English-speaking world: "Doo bie or not doo bie, that is..."

[Brian Peacock]

Cunt seems to have assimilated the well-beaten strawman that 'equity' means 'we want everybody to be and have exactly the same'. The Right love this framing because from there it's only a short hop, skip, and jump to charges of totalitarianism, communism, or fascism (depending on which way the wind is blowing that day). However, the standard definition of 'equity' simply means 'just and fair' or 'freedom from bias or favouritism', usually couched in legal terms of in terms of rights.

He also claims that there's a conflict between equity and equality, but if that's based on the simple-minded strawman definition above then such claims are, shall we just say for brevity, bogus and incoherent.

Equity Theory on the other hand is political philosophy which holds that the expression of fairness in law, what we call justice (as in the 'justice system'), should be distributed evenly across society. Where Equity Theory is applied to, and considered in terms of outcomes and consequences it is often referred to as distributive justice.

The basic assumptions of distributive justice are rooted in certain social, economic, and political ideas which maintain that the operation of society, through things like it's laws, systems of government, political policy, provision of social goods etc, tend to lead to different distributions of rights, privileges, protections, duties and obligations for different groups and individuals. The nature of these distributions are significant because they are the kind of things which directly impact on the lives of real people.

As I mentioned a few days ago, when the Right crow about the perils of moves towards greater equality being essentially inequitable they are engaging in arguments about the proper--just and fair--distribution of rights, privileges and protections in society - chiefly, it seems, on the basis that they should have the larger share and that other people should have the smaller.

[Hermit]

Cunt seems to have assimilated the well-beaten strawman that 'equity' means 'we want everybody to be and have exactly the same'.

That and (devil's advocacy) my guess is that our member from Yellowknife equates equity with affirmative action, known by conservatives as reverse discrimination. Such policies give blacks, women or other demographic strata opportunities in the job market and elsewhere purely on the grounds that they have been historically discriminated against in those areas. The result is, to pick just a couple of concrete examples, that a woman gets a promotion in a company even though there are males who are better qualified for the position, and a black person gets a scholarship even though one or more white people have performed better academically. The objections are that a) this is not fair to the individuals who miss out, and b) it decreases efficiency in society.

[Joe]

I tried, pErv. Didn't get anywhere.

No you didn't. You just criticised others for perceived support of 'equity'.

Plus, he brought the subject up. It's pretty common for him to raise a topic in a provocative way, like calling a black scholar racist, and then refuse to answer clarifying questions.

[Cunt]

Why not go find someone who wants to talk about race and statistics with you? I mean, instead of constantly trolling around after some Cunt who already declined to participate...

[Hermit]

Why not go find someone who wants to talk about race and statistics with you? I mean, instead of constantly trolling around after some Cunt who already declined to participate...

For someone who does not want to participate talking about race you have contributed an awesome lot of posts on the topic. There's a word for saying one thing and doing the opposite.

[Cunt]

So you can't find anyone?

Maybe try different platforms?

There are lots of people willing to mince statistics with you on several of the platforms out there. Surely you can find one.

[Hermit]

So you can't find anyone?

Maybe try different platforms?

There are lots of people willing to mince statistics with you on several of the platforms out there. Surely you can find one.

There is no shortage of people that discuss racism. Looking at your posts, you are one of them. Problem with you is that you refuse to reply to questions concerning racism when the only reply open to you is to admit that I am not mincing statistics. If I were, you would have pointed out by now where those statistics are wrong by providing the right ones.

We could put it to the test right now. Where is the mince in the ones I cited this year? Start with the most recent set:

• 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
  41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes
• $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
  $41,692 was the average family income of Black people
• $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
  $17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people
• Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
• Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment

[Cunt]

Getting back to media bias, @ericspracklen (via twitter lol) tweeted:

BANNED ON TWITTER:
@JamesOKeefeIII
@Project_Veritas
@PVeritas_Action

NOT BANNED:
The actual Taliban

I enjoy Telegram for now, since it seems to be more of a free speech platform.

Found a funny new Crowder mixtape on it. Probably good lefties representing themselves.
https://rumble.com/vlgxnf-change-my-min ... -blm-.html

It's always great to see how the pro-diversity crowd practices tolerance of diverse opinions. And then being edited for entertainment.

Hermit, you can troll all you want, but your pet subject will have to find other opposition. I suggest a more open platform, where more opinions are available.

[Svartalf]

See, the Netherlands would indeed make a good gated community here...

Given the double Dutch that they speak, I thought they d be good amish stock.

[Hermit]

Hermit, you can troll all you want, but your pet subject will have to find other opposition.

Citing statistics and asking you to say what you think of them is not a form of trolling.

I suggest a more open platform, where more opinions are available.

Suggesting rationalia is a less open forum is a form of trolling.

[Cunt]

Hermit, you can troll all you want, but your pet subject will have to find other opposition.

Citing statistics and asking you to say what you think of them is not a form of trolling.

If that was what you did, you would be saying something relevant.

If, alternately, you won't take 'no' for an answer, and follow me around with others, begging for answers, it looks a bit different than you describe.

I suggest a more open platform, where more opinions are available.

Suggesting rationalia is a less open forum is a form of trolling.

Bullshit, Hermit.

Every time you bring it up again, you show how focused you are of far-away racism, and why others don't agree with you. Funny how your racism rants seldom touch on your own backyard. Or mine.

Just enjoy your statistics, and what they mean to you day-to-day.

[Hermit]

Hermit, you can troll all you want, but your pet subject will have to find other opposition.

Citing statistics and asking you to say what you think of them is not a form of trolling.

If that was what you did, you would be saying something relevant.

If, alternately, you won't take 'no' for an answer, and follow me around with others, begging for answers, it looks a bit different than you describe.

We have been discussing racism in the US for a few months now. I quoted statistics relevant to racism in the US. On other occasions I have cited statistics relevant to Australia, such as the number of Aboriginal deaths in custody, Aboriginal unemployment rates, life expectancy and more. We could discuss racism in Australia some more, if you like, or in Canada, the PRC, Timbuctoo or anywhere else. Go for your life.

Begging for answers does not make anything look different than I describe. Your refusal to answer reveals you to be at a loss for one.

I suggest a more open platform, where more opinions are available.

Suggesting rationalia is a less open forum is a form of trolling.

Bullshit, Hermit.

Every time you bring it up again, you show how focused you are of far-away racism, and why others don't agree with you. Funny how your racism rants seldom touch on your own backyard. Or mine.

How is that evidence that rationalia is less of an open forum? Has anyone been suspended for voicing an opinion?

And again, I am ready to resume discussing racism in other parts of the world, near or far, just as I have done in the past.

Just enjoy your statistics, and what they mean to you day-to-day.

The meaning of the statistics I cited does not depend on me. The statistics stand on their own. If you disagree, feel free to show how they don't.

[Seabass]

Why not go find someone who wants to talk about race and statistics with you? I mean, instead of constantly trolling around after some Cunt who already declined to participate...