Paging Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger.
Makes it easy to vote with my browser then. But since they can evidently put me on ignore… Because call them on bullshit and watch them clam the fuck up! :rolleyes:
I have to admit, that IS one area I do agree. I think it’s more that human beings are simply just a bunch of assholes.
Alessan is from Israel, so imagine his perspective is a wee bit different.
[quote]
Guin, we’re not going to say eye-to-eye here. And that’s OK. What I will say is that if you have a significant other, hold them tight. Because if you lose them, you’ll never find another person again. You carry so much baggage that you’re buried beneath it. Good luck.
[quote]
Well, I’m happy to have your approval then.
Well, that just makes it all fine and dandy, I suppose. How about a cite that autism is caused by inbreeding, period, regardless of race? :dubious: We all know that incest can cause some serious fuck-ups, I’ve never heard of incest being one of them.
They wouldn’t have performed the actions in the first place, regardless of their frustration, if they didn’t think they could get away with it. You can’t separate the one from the other. Yes, you can argue their racism was born of poverty and frustration, but only power lets it manifest.
I think they’re not able to do that the automated way, either. So it’d just be the traditional “look the other way” for mods.
While there’s some statistical evidence suggesting Somali immigrants “have a high rate of autism”, it’s not a universally accepted finding.
“The (University of Minnesota) study found no significant statistical differences in (autism) prevalence rates between Somali and non-Somali children”
Somalis (notably in the Twin Cities area) have been exploited by antivaxers claiming their kids’ problems are due to vaccination, leading to lowered immunization rates and outbreaks of disease.
Those little white jabs are part of the point. I look at them and I say, “Well it’s a fair cop”. Guess what? Liberals, generally speaking, have had a policy of benign/malign neglect of the the African American community for the past 30 years or so. Sure they supported all the right policies, sort of, but they didn’t exactly make race relations a priority. Personally I figured that if we got the macro policy right, a robust economy would handle the racism problem fine. I could point to declining teen African American unemployment during the boom of the 1990s.
Then cell phone cameras recorded multiple examples of paint-peeling racism. Worse, half the country seem to think it was no big deal or make excuses for the minority of white perpetrators, often in police uniform. Then Trump got elected on a platform with foghorning racial appeals to whites.
So yeah, I’m willing to give Huey a listen. Part of the reason I do is that he has self awareness: specifically he stays in the pit.
Oh but why can’t Huey just be polite? Doesn’t honey attract flies I mean supporters more effectively?
We tried that. An African American biologist was driven from the boards due to herr derr bullshit from those with little interest in fighting ignorance. If I had interacted with him more, I would have instructed him on the importance of rhetoric and ridicule as a tool against -what’s the term?- racially unenlightened white folk. Ibn had similar problems here, but eventually he got the hang of things.
Anyway Huey stays in the pit and mostly doesn’t pull punches. If he spoke in academic terms, he’d be dismissed as a purveyor of gobbilty gook. If he spoke in scientific terms, he would be herr-derred by our knuckle draggers. If he was a terrific writer, he could thread the needle. But he isn’t a terrific writer.
Nor am I.
Ok, you still don’t buy it. Here’s another argument. This board is pretty damn ignorant with regards to race relations. Here’s an example: Racism = Prejudice + Power. We have a word for personal bigoted feelings. We call it “Prejudice”. There’s a need for a term encompassing both concepts. We could call it “Institutional Racism”, but methinks “Racism” is just fine. The above is Racism 101. Now you may not find that argument convincing. But I don’t think it’s something that should be dismissed out of hand, largely because it’s mainstream racism theory. It’s not wrong after all: it can’t be. Because it’s a simple definition. Axioms can’t be wrong either.
And yet Guin seems to think it can be dismissed out of hand. I’m not picking on Guin here. I’m saying that this white-centric board has a big hole in it which Huey is doing his part to fill.
Again, you can disagree with indented portion above. But to paint it as something that is beyond the pale strikes me as ignorant.
In other words, you couldn’t. Thanks for the confirmation.
Except Institutional Racism is not the same as Racism. It carries all manner of requirements and factors that make it a more serious problem, so conflating one to mean the other is, I have to argue, far from fine.
Have a look at how using the two terms as equivalent has played out in this thread. If the original quote had been “Huey can’t be institutionally racist” I doubt there’d have been a fraction of the disagreement seen. Huey can certainly be racist (see his previous statements about white people being autistic due to inbreeding) but I doubt anyone would really argue that his particular prejudices can be seen as systemic or institutional.
The problem is that you are conflating two different definitions of racism, and claiming that they are the same.
You have the racism of personal prejudice. Huey probably has that.
Then you have the racism of the majority in power oppressing a minority. Huey can’t have that.
The first racism is a personal issue, and causes much less harm to society when held by a minority. If anything, it tends to raise awareness of the institutional racism that may cuase a minority to resent the majority.
The second racism is a social issue, and causes immense harm, mostly to the minorities it is used to oppress, but also among the majority that compromises its moral standing in that oppression.
Your arguments are that they are the same, and should be treated the same, because in common usage, they share a common word, even though they are two different situations entirely, and as such, are referred to with different terms among those who are actually trying to discuss the social and individual effects of the relations between different demographic groups.
You keep trying to say that we shouldn’t be allowed to have different well defined terms for two different concepts, and that we should instead use the usage that you are most familiar with, even though it leads to the conflating of those two different concepts.
For the purposes of a serious discussion, racism does equal institutional racism, and prejudice is on the individual level.
When I read this, I see someone is not ready to engage in a discussion on race. It also makes me think this country has a long, long, long way to go. And, after Trump, we probably wont get there. Don’t really have the time to delve into racism, prejudice, and bias. Maybe another poster will help you. But please let me make this clear. First, I do not believe myself superior to white folks, I believe myself to be your equals. Second, I do not believe white people are autistic due to inbreeding, I think white people have a higher prevalence of autism due, in part, to inbreeding. I also provided supporting, peer-reviewed evidence for it. You and others haven’t. Finally, I think the cries of “Huey is racist against whites” and “Huey believes white people are autistic due to inbreeding” are ways to shift the discussion from the white supremacy and white guilt. Diamond and Bricks did the same thing.
Fun little fact. The embodiment of white supremacy himself - Chief Justice John Roberts - referred to the mathematical formula involved in calculating the efficiency of gerrymandered districts as “gobbledygook”. The Chief Justice has no formal training mathematics or statistics. And the Chief Justice - as the white folks tell us - is one of the “smart ones”. It tells you white folks do not believe in expert opinion, they believe in their own non-expert judgement. This is white supremacy. If people of color behaved this way, white folks (because projection is a helluva drug) would label us as Luddites, as stupid, not wanting an education, as lazy (and much worse).
People can be very smart in some areas and not so great in others.
No, it tells you that the specific individual named John Roberts doesn’t believe in expert opinion. You are taking an example of one person and using it to make broad generalizations about white folk.
Maybe. Or it could just be intellectual laziness. Or rank partisanship. I’m not telepathic, so I can’t read John Roberts mind. But there are multiple alternative explanations for his attitude on gerrymandering that don’t have anything to do with race.
You adopt the definition of racism used by most white Americans. Huey adopts the definition used by most black Americans. Hey, no worries.
I’m saying that the one used by most black Americans isn’t obviously wrong. In fact it can’t be: it’s a definition. You don’t have to use that definition if you don’t want: knock yourself out. But I’m arguing that dismissing it out of hand suggests the sort of deep ignorance that this board was established to fight.
Oh bullshit, plenty of white liberals trashed Justice Roberts for that remark. In fact I’m outraged that…
…and this is totally a fair cop and puts the previous remarks in a different light. The initial broad brush characterization of white Americans was off mark, wrong even, when taken in isolation. But if a black judge said something that was both anti-intellectual and left of center, how many effective white defenders would have stepped up? Conservatives would have gang-pressed the guy while liberals would have tut-tutted. A large part of this is due to the hack gap between conservatives and liberals. But I say a smaller but very real aspect involves creeping white supremacist ideology within the liberal camp, with less subtle aspects among conservatives.
The most obvious manifestation of this is that Justice Roberts has sufficient credibility to make such an ignorant and expert-averse comment, while American black folk, even in high office, don’t have similar privileges. They can be intellectual, they can be populist. They can’t do both.
If people take you to task for comments such as “white people have a higher prevalence of autism due, in part, to inbreeding”, you conveniently label them as not being ready to engage on the subject of race. You also conveniently forgot that people responded with multiple peer reviewed cites that kicked your premise deep into touch*.
Worse, the cites given actually demonstrate systematic racial inequality of the worst sort. Late diagnosis of health issues, mental or otherwise, because black people have worse access to healthcare is clearly a fundamental issue that must be dealt with. It proves your point, without making a throwaway dig about whites suffering from mental health issues due to inbreeding.
So if you really want to engage in a discussion on race, how about we skip the trolling, and focus on unarguable facts?
*Selection of some of the cites you’ve been referred to in the past.
“African Americans tend to suffer disproportionate rates of disability and disease when compared to other racial and ethnic groups due to access to preventative and curative care. However, evidence demonstrates that although rates of diagnosis for autism occur at the same rates in all racial groups, diagnosis in African American children occurs later than in White children”
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...omes-to-autism
"ASD affects people of all races and ethnicities, but research shows that African-American and Latino children with autism are diagnosed at older ages than white children, giving them less of an opportunity for proper intervention and treatment…
…A recent study from Georgia State University found that African-American parents reported fewer concerns about behaviors like delayed speech and repetitive behaviors, even though their children showed a greater severity with these symptoms, overall"
https://www.livescience.com/62415-au...ate-rises.html
"what’s behind the increase? Perhaps, rather than more kids having autism, just more of them are being diagnosed with it. Communities are doing a better job of diagnosing autism among minority populations, said Alison Singer, president and co-founder of the Autism Science Foundation, who was not involved in the new report.
Historically, autism prevalence has been much higher among white children compared with black and Hispanic children, according to the CDC. But in the most recent report, minority populations had similar percentages of kids with autism as found in white children, Singer said. (For example, in earlier years, autism rates were about 30 percent higher in white children than in black children; but in the latest report, the autism rate was only 7 percent higher among white children than in black children, the CDC said.)
This is a positive step, but the new report also revealed room for improvement in autism diagnoses, Singer said. For example, in 85 percent of the autism cases, there were notations in the children’s health or educational records expressing concern about their development by the time they were 3 years old, but only 42 percent of the children received a developmental evaluation to diagnose autism by that age."
So a mental property has a correlation to so-called race? I’m surprised Dibble isn’t in here calling you an evil racist!!1! But intellectual consistency has never been his forte.
Nope. Not at all. You haven’t made a substantial response to a single point I made because you have very obvious limitations of understanding.
I’m not allowed to say who I block, so I won’t.
I’m not sure which is more pathetic. The disingenuous “I can’t say that I’m going to do this, but I’m going to hint at it”, or the idea you think being blocked by you is of any consequence.
It’s the pit, feel free.
And, of course that is likely wrong, there is support of a genetic component to autism; but autism takes place among all the so-called races and it it also likely that minorities, like black people, are being grossly under diagnosed; meaning that a conclusion that it is mostly a white people’s disease to be in error.
https://psmag.com/news/autisms-race-problem
In my opinion, it is under-diagnosed thanks to institutional racism (in this case in health care), that many insist on denying, what is the issue.
See, I was gonna say something, but then you had to open your damn fool mouth and now I just can’t give you the satisfaction…
Woo, look at the 25 cent words from Mr Dictionary, here…so articulate.