Org Mobile Site
Thread: What Lives Matter?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Who needs studies, studies are often conclusions on demand when things get political.
Who needs people? People often get political and then fight to oppress one another.Who needs studies, studies are often conclusions on demand when things get political.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Who needs people? People often get political and then fight to oppress one another.
And some just love the idea of being oppressed because there is no introspection needed as long as it can never be just your own failing. It can of course never be your own failing completily because of course there are things wrong. But if things would be better they will just look for something else, they simply need percieved racism. In the Netherlands it goes as far as trying to ruin kids-party's, I wonder how Americans would react if leftist activists (mostly white upper-class bored rich kids and their black pets who are stupid enougn to think they are invited to any birthdays party's, one will do) would go around telling to tell kids Santa-Claus is a lie and that he doesn't exist, probably just as amazed as us. That is the same for all activists, it doesn't matter, it will never be good enough. What else should keep them busy?Who needs people? People often get political and then fight to oppress one another.
_
For all who furiously scream bigotry, untill you can rightfully claim that you shared a bed with a gay muslim bankrobber on parole on a gypsie camping in a rundown trailer, do I really have to listen. I did. I even managed to have a jihadi drink wine.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Who needs studies, studies are often conclusions on demand when things get political.
A properly done study adds to knowledge. Decry studies that are unethical, poorly designed, or which alter/distort methodology to generate a "desired" result all you wish. Research has lifted us up a long way -- I wouldn't be quite so sweeping in your condemnation.Who needs studies, studies are often conclusions on demand when things get political.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
A properly done study adds to knowledge. Decry studies that are unethical, poorly designed, or which alter/distort methodology to generate a "desired" result all you wish. Research has lifted us up a long way -- I wouldn't be quite so sweeping in your condemnation.
Of course there are meaninful studies but I wouldn't take the integrity of the academic world for granted.A properly done study adds to knowledge. Decry studies that are unethical, poorly designed, or which alter/distort methodology to generate a "desired" result all you wish. Research has lifted us up a long way -- I wouldn't be quite so sweeping in your condemnation.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Yes, because making the validity of an argument dependant on the comparative sizes of protest signs is getting so ridiculous that I don't want to waste any more time discussing this.
Realizing the futility of your position is a sign of wisdom, trying to portray the issue as ridiculous to make your retreat seem less cowardly is not. Yes, because making the validity of an argument dependant on the comparative sizes of protest signs is getting so ridiculous that I don't want to waste any more time discussing this.
It is not the difference in signs it is the difference in damage they have inspired. One has driven people to start riots, burn cars, loot shops and commit murder in a outburst of anger, the other hasnt.
That it is the death of criminals and not children that causes the greater reaction is a damning condemnation for the priorities of the majority of the community.
To think the amount of times I hesitated to open this thread for fear that you would actually present something irrefutable and prove me wrong, I am extremely dissapointed.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
To think the amount of times I hesitated to open this thread for fear that you would actually present something irrefutable and prove me wrong, I am extremely dissapointed.
The irrefutable proof you are looking for does not really exist, it's like we're standing in the middle of a forest and you look at a map and tell me that the correlation between a few trees and the green area on the map does not prove the existence of forests and blame me for being unable to provide chemical proof that the trees are indeed made out of wood in the first place.To think the amount of times I hesitated to open this thread for fear that you would actually present something irrefutable and prove me wrong, I am extremely dissapointed.
I'm just saying that IMO you're just moving the goalposts around until it becomes impossible for me to prove this without joining the social sciences myself and conducting a myriad of studies. And even then you'd claim that I was biased the whole time anyway and wasted the last ten years of my life. I have just learned to see when an argument with you becomes pointless and I can go and find better ways to spend my time.
What you make of it or how many victories you claim is your problem as long as I don't have to chase and read studies for 50 hours only to have you proclaim that they don't convince you for some reason anyway.
Oh yeah, if you want me to show you the studies on the subject instead of newspapers citing them, here you go:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5.1996.9714029
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...73039508720824
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1....1975.11413782
http://www.jstor.org/stable/797509?s...n_tab_contents
Notice anything about your goalposts yet or do I need to go on?
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ort/63/4/536/
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1999-11644-001
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&...0study&f=false
http://esj.sagepub.com/content/1/1/83.short
There you have your primary sources, have fun reading them.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
It is not the difference in signs it is the difference in damage they have inspired. One has driven people to start riots, burn cars, loot shops and commit murder in a outburst of anger, the other hasnt.
That it is the death of criminals and not children that causes the greater reaction is a damning condemnation for the priorities of the majority of the community.
.
BullshitIt is not the difference in signs it is the difference in damage they have inspired. One has driven people to start riots, burn cars, loot shops and commit murder in a outburst of anger, the other hasnt.
That it is the death of criminals and not children that causes the greater reaction is a damning condemnation for the priorities of the majority of the community.
.
Oh no, dont stop there, I mean if it is so clear you dont feel the need to explain it initially it should be easy to explain to the audience why it is bullshit.
I mean I could see the argument that it isnt the majority of the community, there does seem to be a dirth of anyone above the age of 30 when I see pictures of the rioters and I've allready exhibited that there are members of the community that see the riots for the counterproductive overreactions they are.
Yes I believe I should be more discerning and not blame the entire community for the actions of the loud minority, a very good point, wish it was you making it instead of wasting my time giving pithy dismissals.
Edit: my this is a promising read, the author starts out with a quote from herself.
Christ looking at the reviews on amazon for her books gives the same vibe I got reading through the people espousing Benjamin Freedman's speeches while researching for the immigration thread.
I mean I could see the argument that it isnt the majority of the community, there does seem to be a dirth of anyone above the age of 30 when I see pictures of the rioters and I've allready exhibited that there are members of the community that see the riots for the counterproductive overreactions they are.
Yes I believe I should be more discerning and not blame the entire community for the actions of the loud minority, a very good point, wish it was you making it instead of wasting my time giving pithy dismissals.
Originally Posted by Husar:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5.1996.9714029
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...73039508720824
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1....1975.11413782
http://www.jstor.org/stable/797509?s...n_tab_contents
Notice anything about your goalposts yet or do I need to go on?
Yes, I cant access those, hell of a goalpost shift. Did you pay £24 for access or did you just grab the first 4 studies on google without actually even checking they were viewable?http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5.1996.9714029
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...73039508720824
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1....1975.11413782
http://www.jstor.org/stable/797509?s...n_tab_contents
Notice anything about your goalposts yet or do I need to go on?
Originally Posted by :
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ort/63/4/536/
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1999-11644-001
Cant read those either.http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ort/63/4/536/
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1999-11644-001
Originally Posted by :
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&...0study&f=false
Hmm 2 stars, I wonder why the people who read it gave that.https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&...0study&f=false
Originally Posted by review 1:
Racism is a poison. There can be no doubt about that. Shirley Better gives us all the ammunition to battle this but doesn't give the right bullets to load the weapon. Thus, what started as a noble cause to strike a blow for racial equality, will backfire. Fighting racism is not knew. Blacks have been attempting to do this since the inception and implementation of slavery. I fail to see the relevance of that chapter. Overall, the book is more about a society that Ms. Better wishes to change than a society that wishes to change itself.
Racism is a poison. There can be no doubt about that. Shirley Better gives us all the ammunition to battle this but doesn't give the right bullets to load the weapon. Thus, what started as a noble cause to strike a blow for racial equality, will backfire. Fighting racism is not knew. Blacks have been attempting to do this since the inception and implementation of slavery. I fail to see the relevance of that chapter. Overall, the book is more about a society that Ms. Better wishes to change than a society that wishes to change itself.
Originally Posted by review 2:
This is purported to be a text book of some sort. It is a strange one written in the first person and full of silly errors. In one passage, the author is aghast that a CEO might make "400 percent" of the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company. Assuming the lowest paid worker makes minimum wage, her CEO would be making less than a bus driver in NYC. I assume she meant "400 times" the salary.
I was looking for sources for a sociology paper. My professor would fail me if I used this book.
Ouch.This is purported to be a text book of some sort. It is a strange one written in the first person and full of silly errors. In one passage, the author is aghast that a CEO might make "400 percent" of the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company. Assuming the lowest paid worker makes minimum wage, her CEO would be making less than a bus driver in NYC. I assume she meant "400 times" the salary.
I was looking for sources for a sociology paper. My professor would fail me if I used this book.
Edit: my this is a promising read, the author starts out with a quote from herself.
Christ looking at the reviews on amazon for her books gives the same vibe I got reading through the people espousing Benjamin Freedman's speeches while researching for the immigration thread.
Originally Posted by :
http://esj.sagepub.com/content/1/1/83.short
Another purchase required.http://esj.sagepub.com/content/1/1/83.short
Originally Posted by :
There you have your primary sources, have fun reading them.
Your primary resources are either inaccessable or obscure books that you likely havent read anyway. I'm getting the feeling the opinion you espouse is harder to actually prove than you expected.There you have your primary sources, have fun reading them.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Yes, I cant access those, hell of a goalpost shift. Did you pay £24 for access or did you just grab the first 4 studies on google without actually even checking they were viewable?
Cant read those either.
Yes, I cant access those, hell of a goalpost shift. Did you pay £24 for access or did you just grab the first 4 studies on google without actually even checking they were viewable?
Cant read those either.
So you don't care about the truth if it costs you anything?
And in the same sentence you blame me for not investing enough time...
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Your primary resources are either inaccessable or obscure books that you likely havent read anyway. I'm getting the feeling the opinion you espouse is harder to actually prove than you expected.
Your primary resources are either inaccessable or obscure books that you likely havent read anyway. I'm getting the feeling the opinion you espouse is harder to actually prove than you expected.
I might put more effort into it but everything on the internet is a machine per default, until you can prove beyond any doubt that you're a human, why bother?
Originally Posted by Husar:
So you don't care about the truth if it costs you anything?
I dont care about a "truth" that a believer cannot prove without making the person they are trying to persuade pay a fee. So you don't care about the truth if it costs you anything?
Scientology should sue institutional racism for copying thier business plans.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Oh no, dont stop there, I mean if it is so clear you dont feel the need to explain it initially it should be easy to explain to the audience why it is bullshit.
I mean I could see the argument that it isnt the majority of the community, there does seem to be a dirth of anyone above the age of 30 when I see pictures of the rioters and I've allready exhibited that there are members of the community that see the riots for the counterproductive overreactions they are.
Yes I believe I should be more discerning and not blame the entire community for the actions of the loud minority, a very good point, wish it was you making it instead of wasting my time giving pithy dismissals.
See, "Bullshit" was entirely sufficient to do the job.Oh no, dont stop there, I mean if it is so clear you dont feel the need to explain it initially it should be easy to explain to the audience why it is bullshit.
I mean I could see the argument that it isnt the majority of the community, there does seem to be a dirth of anyone above the age of 30 when I see pictures of the rioters and I've allready exhibited that there are members of the community that see the riots for the counterproductive overreactions they are.
Yes I believe I should be more discerning and not blame the entire community for the actions of the loud minority, a very good point, wish it was you making it instead of wasting my time giving pithy dismissals.
Now perhaps you can apply the same process to your other postings and the huge generalisations you make which you then try to morph into a coherent point.
Originally Posted by Legs:
See, "Bullshit" was entirely sufficient to do the job.
Now perhaps you can apply the same process to your other postings and the huge generalisations you make which you then try to morph into a coherent point.
You can't me what I'm notSee, "Bullshit" was entirely sufficient to do the job.
Now perhaps you can apply the same process to your other postings and the huge generalisations you make which you then try to morph into a coherent point.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I dont care about a "truth" that a believer cannot prove without making the person they are trying to persuade pay a fee.
Again, your problem, it's not like you could show anything that could convince me that I'm wrong. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and let the people riot as much as they want to then. It's too bad, for a moment here I thought by convincing you I could save the world, but it was not meant to be. I dont care about a "truth" that a believer cannot prove without making the person they are trying to persuade pay a fee.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Again, your problem, it's not like you could show anything that could convince me that I'm wrong. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and let the people riot as much as they want to then. It's too bad, for a moment here I thought by convincing you I could save the world, but it was not meant to be.
How do you manage to not assume this isn't a race iisue?Again, your problem, it's not like you could show anything that could convince me that I'm wrong. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and let the people riot as much as they want to then. It's too bad, for a moment here I thought by convincing you I could save the world, but it was not meant to be.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
How do you manage to not assume this isn't a race iisue?
How can you manage to assume that I manage to assume this isn't a race iisue?How do you manage to not assume this isn't a race iisue?
Originally Posted by Husar:
Again, your problem, it's not like you could show anything that could convince me that I'm wrong. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and let the people riot as much as they want to then. It's too bad, for a moment here I thought by convincing you I could save the world, but it was not meant to be.
How can you expect him to read your links when he doesn't even read the studies in his own links?Again, your problem, it's not like you could show anything that could convince me that I'm wrong. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree and let the people riot as much as they want to then. It's too bad, for a moment here I thought by convincing you I could save the world, but it was not meant to be.
[QUOTE=Husar;2053710639]How can you manage to assume that I manage to assume this isn't a race iisue?r
I can''f, but what do you tbinj yourself. Someome is after trouble, this BLM is not that harmless, n srudiies but when I can see and hear them.
I can''f, but what do you tbinj yourself. Someome is after trouble, this BLM is not that harmless, n srudiies but when I can see and hear them.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I can''f, but what do you tbinj yourself. Someome is after trouble, this BLM is not that harmless, n srudiies but when I can see and hear them.
I honestly don't know what "srudiies" are or how they fit into the context, but Black Lives Matter does have a point, that the movement was partially used by people who are looking for trouble is hardly surprising. A more dangerous idea is the one that every social justice movement is a fake because social issues can never be proven 100% until we can read peoples' brains and that there is somehow a social marxist conspiracy every time someone demands empathy or justice...I can''f, but what do you tbinj yourself. Someome is after trouble, this BLM is not that harmless, n srudiies but when I can see and hear them.
Originally Posted by Husar:
I honestly don't know what "srudiies" are or how they fit into the context, but Black Lives Matter does have a point, that the movement was partially used by people who are looking for trouble is hardly surprising. A more dangerous idea is the one that every social justice movement is a fake because social issues can never be proven 100% until we can read peoples' brains and that there is somehow a social marxist conspiracy every time someone demands empathy or justice...
I am not going to use words like social marxism for obvious reasons. let turn things around, can you explain to me how multiculturalism was a good ideaI honestly don't know what "srudiies" are or how they fit into the context, but Black Lives Matter does have a point, that the movement was partially used by people who are looking for trouble is hardly surprising. A more dangerous idea is the one that every social justice movement is a fake because social issues can never be proven 100% until we can read peoples' brains and that there is somehow a social marxist conspiracy every time someone demands empathy or justice...
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I am not going to use words like social marxism for obvious reasons. let turn things around, can you explain to me how multiculturalism was a good idea
I'm not sure if it was.I am not going to use words like social marxism for obvious reasons. let turn things around, can you explain to me how multiculturalism was a good idea
The thing is that the way I always understood it from the media, it was mostly about being a melting pot, respecting eachother and having multicultural art exhibits where the Africans would present the art people like you like to buy and the Dutch would present their Gouda and both would bask at the glory of the other culture's achievements and be happy to know eachother. THAT sounds like a good idea to me, what Wikipedia describes sounds more like a potential for ghettoization, although the mutual respect is apparently a core tenet and should be the basis of any community no matter how you want to call the model.
As for myself, you may notice that I don't really give much about certain models of community or the definition of multiculturalism, what I care about is basic respect and to keep in mind that people are individuals and shouldn't be locked in "communities" unless they choose to. As such I think it's just as wrong to try and stifle cultural assimilation through multiculturalism or to interprete that in a way that would give too much leeway to harmful cultural practices as it is to claim that other cultures are incompatible and should be kept out. There are a lot of things that can go wrong, after a while it may often seem like a hen and egg problem where you can endlessly talk about who made a mistake first. I tend to side with the underdog because the underdog usually has far more existential fears than the established majority that can usually afford to take a small risk.
Nothing wrong with respecting other cultures and people from other cultures, what is wrong though is a top-down aproach where multiculturalism becomes a cause. That people from other cultures live here should just be taken as a given there is no need to anyone to assimilate. Multiculturists are like the Borg collective, it's stupid and dangerous. The islam is obviously the elephant in the room, I wonder if there would be any (homegrown) extremism in the west if we had just leave them be instead of trying to merge everything.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Nothing wrong with respecting other cultures and people from other cultures, what is wrong though is a top-down aproach where multiculturalism becomes a cause. That people from other cultures live here should just be taken as a given there is no need to anyone to assimilate. Multiculturists are like the Borg collective, it's stupid and dangerous. The islam is obviously the elephant in the room, I wonder if there would be any (homegrown) extremism in the west if we had just leave them be instead of trying to merge everything.
Thumbs up for an intelligent post, and double thumbs up for the Star Trek reference.Nothing wrong with respecting other cultures and people from other cultures, what is wrong though is a top-down aproach where multiculturalism becomes a cause. That people from other cultures live here should just be taken as a given there is no need to anyone to assimilate. Multiculturists are like the Borg collective, it's stupid and dangerous. The islam is obviously the elephant in the room, I wonder if there would be any (homegrown) extremism in the west if we had just leave them be instead of trying to merge everything.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Nothing wrong with respecting other cultures and people from other cultures, what is wrong though is a top-down aproach where multiculturalism becomes a cause. That people from other cultures live here should just be taken as a given there is no need to anyone to assimilate. Multiculturists are like the Borg collective, it's stupid and dangerous. The islam is obviously the elephant in the room, I wonder if there would be any (homegrown) extremism in the west if we had just leave them be instead of trying to merge everything.
Wait, what?Nothing wrong with respecting other cultures and people from other cultures, what is wrong though is a top-down aproach where multiculturalism becomes a cause. That people from other cultures live here should just be taken as a given there is no need to anyone to assimilate. Multiculturists are like the Borg collective, it's stupid and dangerous. The islam is obviously the elephant in the room, I wonder if there would be any (homegrown) extremism in the west if we had just leave them be instead of trying to merge everything.
That is like the post of a multiculturalist from what I read up on wikipedia.
Multiculturalism is the idea of letting the cultures alone in peaceful coexistence without forcing anyone to merge.
So what you just said is exactly what multiculturalists say.
I must be one then. Let's make it multicultists.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO