New York Times hires unapologetic racist writer

The BBQ Pit
781

Kimstu, increasing resources and boosting self esteem was right there. Are you pleading poor comprehension on your part? Skimmed it too quickly?

This is pretty stupid, even for you. Yeah, “here’s reparations, now return to slavery.” :rolleyes: And their leaving the country would kill the Democratic Party.

So in return? Nothing. No strings. (Though obviously I would hope they would continue to vote overwhelmingly Democratic.)

And this squares with my fondness for Obama how, exactly? :dubious:

Izzat so? :dubious:

Funny, where have I heard this before? Let’s see…maybe in this now-closed thread?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854188

5-11-18, 11:05 a.m.:

Same thread, one minute later in response to CarnalK gently trying to point out that I was actually right in my calculations:

Two minutes after that, responding to my umpteenth attempt to show his error:

So at 11:09, I threw back my own mild version of trash talk:

But EE wasn’t done—he indeed kept digging. At 11:12, he lashed out at CarnalK again:

At 11:52 the truth finally dawned on EE:

Yes. Yes it is. But that lesson didn’t stick, did it? :dubious:

Did I think we’d never argue again? No. But I actually thought you might hesitate before giving in to the impulse to say something like “If I had made any errors you wouldn’t be capable of spotting them.” I mean…just, wow.

You’re bad at math, EE, but you think you are good at it. A “horrible combination”, to be sure. You should face up to this fact and stop trying to win hopeless arguments with people who are good at math, or at least are not as innumerate as you are.

IOW: “STAY DOWN!”

Oh, GIGO. :smack:

That link doesn’t go anywhere near post 1401. (You do know you can link to individual posts?) And when I found my way to that post, it was a nothingburger. You had earned a bit of leeway recently by posting something useful. But you’ve burned through that goodwill by returning to your usual ways. Not going to waste time trying to parse your ranting gibberish in the future.

782

Meh, like if you want to tell others that it was not a link to a page in the thread, not to a single post.

Anyone, except you, can see that I also corrected that in a subsequent post, but thanks for showing all that you are the one that does not pay attention. Not strange then that you ignore that we even cite professors that tell you how wrong you are.

And… I still prefer to have troubles with grammar rather than appearing as a wilful ignorant of the evidence.

783

Yes, I know: I read it and quoted it.

Nope. It just seemed to me (and still does) that your expressed concern about constantly giving black students “tests that are too hard for them” (i.e., white students’ tests) was a more salient point in trying to figure out exactly what “mode” you were advocating “going back to” than your accompanying boilerplate compassionate rhetoric about caring for their self-esteem and providing more resources for them.

If that was a misinterpretation on my part, I’m happy to apologize for it. In my defense, though, it is not at all unusual to have to try to figure out what your posts really mean through the mist of your frequently vague and inconsistent rhetoric. And it was certainly not a feature of the progressive pre-NCLB education advocacy movement to worry that white students’ tests were innately “too hard” for black students. So on balance, “pre-Civil Rights” looked like the most likely candidate for the period whose “mode” you were advocating a return to, and the self-contradictory bits were just written off as typical Slackerspeak. [shrug]

784

Yeah, what I said is accurate; you’re not smart enough to catch any errors I might make. The one error I did make, you needed someone else to point it out to you (though that hasn’t stopped you from taking credit, I see).

I’m not going to post links to the hilariously stupid shit you’ve posted (because you do enough of it in this thread that it would be redundant). But remember that one time you had trouble understanding basic logic (the kind of stuff you might find on an IQ test), and you ran to **Kimstu **for help, and she explained it to you in small words using an analogy with cows, and you had a hysteric breakdown because you thought she was calling people cows? No fucking way you have an IQ over 85.

785

It was me pointing out some hilariously stupid shit you posted, along with a detailed explanation of why it was stupid. Basically, an argument that you believed passionately in was so stupid a child could have seen through it (but you didn’t).

786

Damn, I wish Obama was my one Black friend…

787

Again, this is why I doubt you are actually an economist. You are really bad at logic and concepts like averages. And you are really fucking confident and condescending for someone who is so wrong so often. That is liberal arrogance, I suspect you are very young.

All you need is more black special ed kids than white special ed kids, you don’t need black special ed kids to get more funding than white special ed kids.

My example was trying to point out why you were wrong about your previous statement and you follow up with yet another wrong statement. Is your user name supposed to be ironic?

788

ROFLMAO. You haven’t made any errors? ROFLMAO.

Noone even takes you seriously anymore.

789

I suspect that after you think about it a little you’re going to be really embarrassed by this post.

790

That seems optimistic.

791

Well, others can see that it was a rhetorical statement from Evil Economist referring to this and the thread about Murray and Harris. In the other thread that the slacker linked, Evil Economist actually acknowledged that he made an error. What I see here is that you gullibly fell for the implication from the slacker that EE made a mistake here or in the Murray thread regarding the issue about the funding for minorities in American schools.

Bottom line, in the Murray thread: (and funding for minority students remains a different subject from the genetic issue) It was a misleading half truth from the Slacker to claim that minority students had almost the same funding. As pointed, that is close to the truth when just comparing the same district, but a very misleading statement that ignored the big picture. It was clear that the Slacker wanted to claim that minorities or the poor were getting basically the same funding. He was wrong. Wrong also by insisting that because we were missing the Federal funding from the studies cited and in the arguments we were making that therefore we were wrong. That the missing federal funding was enough to support his overall point. It was not.

As it turns out, federal funding by its nature is less discriminatory when supporting students. But it is not the main funding source for the education of students in the USA, again: it is from state and local funding where the lion’s share comes from.

So he was indeed wrong, what others like me told him is the whole truth. In the USA there are many districts that are short-changing large percentages of low-income and minority students.

792

Strength of numbers does not make a good argument. I doubt you even bothered to see if EE’s post made any sense, you just saw an opportunity to score a point and made yourself look stupid in the process.

793

Why don’t you try explaining it to me so that I can be embarrassed?

Is your username an obvious attempt at irony that I did not pick up on?

794

Gullible? I pointed out the error he made. He is bad at logic and makes these errors with some degree of regularity.

Error 1 In post 754, EE said:

“Do you not realize that, mathematically speaking, this must mean that non-special-ed black schoolchildren must receive less per capita funding than non-special-ed white schoolchildren? And that special ed black schoolchildren must receive less per capita funding than special ed white schoolchildren?”

This is clearly an error as I explain in post 758.

Not content to be wrong once, he decides to try to compound his error by saying this in post 869:

“This requires a 4th claim that no one has made; that black special education schoolchildren receive more funding on a per capita basis than white special education schoolchildren.”

This is also an error as I point out in post 787. Its not even particularly difficult logic. He just doesn’t grok it. That’s why I think he can’t be an economist.

From the dept of education.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97917.asp

There may be individual instances of shortchanging but that goes both ways. In the aggregate, minorities do not appear short changed. At least not by large margins.

795

Anyways, back to the notion that we can say racist shit about white people and not be considered a racist.

796

Yeah, it’s a cool notion, right? I racially disparage white people all the time. It’s pretty fun! When I, as a white person, get disparaged because of the color of my skin, I say “Damn, that’s pretty funny!”

Then I go on not being worried about being followed around in a store or getting shot by the police. I also reminisce about all the times I was treated better because I’m white.

797

Lighten up, Francis.

798

All that you posted only to appear as gullible as noted.

What you cited was a study from 20 years ago. The studies I cited on the thread I referred to were more recent.

799

Since it’s so clearly an error, could you give a simple example?

800

Can you cross cite it here? Or should I look through 35 pages to find it? I didn’t see anything popup on google but maybe my google fu isn’t up to the task