That’s absolutely true, but it also means that while women may have mean or median test scores that are higher than men’s (last I checked, this is true nowadays in this so-called “End of Men” era), the far tail ends of the curve contain far more men than women. And when analyzing the dearth of high-level female math and science professors (as Larry Summers got in hot water for doing) or the dearth of engineers at a company that tends to hire only the top grads from the top schools (as the Google Memo guy did), this is a key point.
It’s not stubborn inflexibility to dismiss official FBI statistics as fake news? Or cling to some pretzel logic that insists that special ed funding can’t be counted as part of overall funding for educating black kids? :dubious: You guys proceed from your convictions and shout down anything that threatens to question the soundness of your paradigm. And you take comfort in a belief that finding a mob of others willing to do the same somehow means you are correct. Pathetic.
I know you well enough to suspect that you have some weird creepy racist rationale for supporting reparations.
How close would I be if I guessed that your rationale was: by giving black people a small one-time payment, creepy little shitbags like you would have an excuse to avoid addressing the thousands of ways our society currently fails black people? “Here’s $40, now stop complaining when our police officers roll up on your innocent child and fucking murder him.”
And those are certainly accurate representations of arguments you’ve had on this board. No doubt at all on that account.
Didn’t I show mathematically that you were wrong about that? That black children receive less funding than white children even taking into account special ed spending?
Oh right, your fragile little “intellect” can’t handle acknowledging error, so you’re incapable of learning.
Also, I like how you call other people pathetic. You must not have any mirrors in your house.
P.s. For anyone who cares, here’s the post where I showed SlackerInc he was wrong:
Hmmm, you would need to provide specific cites for my having made any such claims rather than just expecting me to trust your cite-free allegations. If you do provide such cites, though, I’ll gladly examine your allegations in light of them.
In any case, I am perfectly happy to cop to the charge of stubborn inflexibility on the issue of the absolute necessity of unambiguously corroborative and rigorously tested scientific evidence as a prerequisite for considering any scientific hypothesis to have a high likelihood of being true.
That requirement is absolutely non-negotiable as far as I’m concerned. No matter how much you try to bolster up your arguments for the hypothesis with appeals to personal experience, cherry-picked data that could actually support any one of multiple different hypotheses, made-up analogies, unsupported speculations, or any other shoddy substitutes for solid evidentiary support, you will not reduce my skepticism about the hypothesis one iota.
And in that case, sulking about my alleged “stubbornness” in refusing to compromise won’t get you anywhere either. Unambiguously corroborative and rigorously tested scientific evidence or GTFO.
So what type of racist do you consider yourself to be?
Sheesh, these massively distorted old talking points get trotted out so often that I’ve had to make what’s basically a sticky to deal with them.
A paternalistic racist. Sadly, that’s not a joke.
In case anyone is interested in what Larry Summers actually said in his infamous speech, as opposed to Kimstu’s characterization of it:
https://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php
And a key point to highlight that has significant bearing on most of our tendentious arguments:
:dubious: I notice that your extended quote from that transcript of Summers’ speech did not include the particular statement that I paraphrased in my description of it, and which bears out the point I was making:
Summers’ speech is chock-full of such instances of the speculative, under-supported, podcasty-type blather characteristic of the self-important pronouncements of people who think of themselves as very smart men (and who often are in fact very smart men in their own fields), when they are pondering subjects in which they have no particular expertise:
This is not a serious analysis of sociological research on the underlying causes of academic employment differentials between men and women. This is not even a popularization for a lay audience of serious analyses of such sociological research. This is just deliberately “provocative” spitballing by an administrator whose own academic expertise is in an entirely different field, doing exactly the sort of half-assed jumping to conclusions that I complained about in my previously quoted post.
Hey, cool: you pointed me to another cite for my consistently referencing the same top three presidents. Google couldn’t find that one for some reason.
The more you cite it, the funnier it gets.
Wait. Is there still uncertainty that she tweeted #cancelwhitepeople?
I thought this had been cited a dozen times in this thread. Now it is up to others to put that inherently racist tweet into context. So far the efforts seem to be “some white guys were mean to her at some point in the past so in THAT context her racist tweet isn’t racist”
This thread is replete with examples of jeong being racist.
And STILL no evidence of the tweets being taken out of context. I am not sure what sort of context would make #cancelwhitepeople less racist.
Then you must have grown up in a very white neighborhood. It was a rare but not uncommon sentiment in 1980’s NYC. Farrakhan might have had something to do with it.
That may be because the media chooses not to expose you to it:
I don’t think it justifies panic either. Whites are still 75% of the country and they have all the guns. But anti-white bigotry is alive and well.
Said every person who doesn’t like the results of tests.
Test scores are not good a measure of genetic potential. But if made correctly, it’s a good measure of where they are at the time of the test.
So according to Dibble, I’m willing to forthrightly state controversial, even taboo, positions on highly charged topics—but I’ve spent years falsely declaring that I consider Obama the best president in American history to conceal the fact that I actually hate him? Ask yourself how this makes any sense whatsoever.
Ha! This is rich. The irony is strong with this one. But hey, you’re back to being entertaining at least!
Sigh. Now you’re forcing me to go into the weeds of that whole back-and-forth in that thread, thanks to your out-of-context bullshit.
So here’s what actually happened, in as condensed a form as I can manage for a debate that played out over many posts:
Next, EE quoted something without linking to the source or even naming it, one of his favorite tricks (this becomes relevant later in the exchange):
Then EE started getting all weaselly with goalpost-moving, and Kimstu followed suit (that was what I referenced upthread):
(Suddenly “equivalent” is in there, despite my never having referenced anything like this. Just all black students’ per capita funding vs. that for white students in the same district.)
I was never able to get Kimstu (or EE for that matter) to see how beside the point this argument is—since I never claimed “low IQ black students get more funding than low IQ white students”, only that black students got more funding than white students, mainly because so many more of the former have IQs low enough to qualify for special education funding.
Then later, after all of this (I left out quite a few posts, but this provides the gist), EE posted the numbers in that post he quoted here as his supposedly “proving me wrong”. I noted that once again he was putting up unsourced data, and the last time he did that I was able to track it down and find that there were a ridiculous number of caveats he hadn’t disclosed. So I declared I wasn’t even going to address his new numbers unless he provided a cite for them. As far as I can tell, he never did, and that was the end of the debate—until he had the chutzpah in this thread to claim that his never-sourced post was his coup de grace! Pfffft.
I say we take off and nuke the entire thread from orbit.
$334 less spending per black student? Do you have a cite for that because pretty much every source shows higher spending for black students than white students. is this the result of special ed? And we’re ignoring the higher levels of special ed spending for black students? Are we applying some sort of cost of living adjustment to discount the spending in cities like DC but applying a premium to spending in places like Montgomery County and Fairfax? Or Loudon County? That seems like bad methodology to me.
But lets say that your statement is a fair portrayal of education spending in America. So the average spending on students is about $10,000/year. $334 is about 3% of that. You are claiming that a 3% gap in spending is resulting in a standard deviation’s worth of difference in results? By high school graduation, that equates to more than 2 years of education difference by the time you graduate high school.
Wait, you consider Obama the best president in American history? I’m going to need a cite for that. :dubious:
I’m pretty sure he’s called you a racist (and I’ve called you a white supremacist), but neither of those descriptors require hatred. However, liking or even loving Obama doesn’t preclude hatred. I’ve known plenty of hateful bigots who liked certain individual members of their hated groups.
You’ve shown over and over again that you have very little understanding of racism and white supremacism and an incredibly inflated sense of yourself (and, not coincidentally, an incredibly inflated sense of your own ethnic group at the expense of others).