How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[amadeus]

You can’t see how paying an African American less than a white person (or literally nothing) for the same work is inherently profitable?

As a greedy capitalist, wouldn’t it make more sense then for me to hire more black employees and fewer white ones?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As a greedy capitalist, wouldn’t it make more sense then for me to hire more black employees and fewer white ones?

If the reality worked according to that model, yes. We'd then also expect more white unemployment since they're pricing themselves out of jobs. That's not what we actually see though, so it's a questionable model.

 

[amadeus]

If the reality worked according to that model, yes. We'd then also expect more white unemployment since they're pricing themselves out of jobs. That's not what we actually see though, so it's a questionable model.

That was the point of what I was saying, that so far as I am concerned there is not a demonstrable racially-based bias against blacks that ought to result in both lower wages and higher unemployment.

 

[Crezth]

That was the point of what I was saying, that so far as I am concerned there is not a demonstrable racially-based bias against blacks that ought to result in both lower wages and higher unemployment.

It’s pretty simple if you think about it for five seconds. By and large they don’t go for the same jobs. You see lots of Black people being hired into the lowest jobs, which are also the most disposable jobs and the first to go when the economy goes bad. In the cases where Black folks can compete for better jobs, they have less leverage than their white counterparts, partially due to the established practice of getting away with underpaying. On top of this there aren’t actually enough Black professionals for the market to pivot around exploiting their lower prices, even though you do see some instance of this interaction nevertheless when white professionals complain about being passed up for jobs.

All of this is pretty simple to understand from an economic perspective, but maybe not with an Econ 101 perspective.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Slavery ended over a century ago in the US, and correlation is not causation.

A century isn't that long ago. Slavery ended approximately 150 years ago, that means there are people with grandparents and great grandparents who were enslaved. And there hasn't been a real effort to address the consequences of slavery for African Americans, to rectify this injustice. Quite the opposite in fact, the United States got things like Jim Crow instead.

This is something that comes up quite often in conversations I have with you - you fundamentally don't seem to understand how history effects the present day. You can't divorce the contemporary experiences of a demographic from the historical experiences of that demographic, yet in our conversations you constantly try to. This is why you are having a hard time properly engaging with our arguments.

People who are short get paid less on average too, is that also correlation at least as relevant? Per above logic it must be, but almost nobody talks about it here for some reason. Defaulting to race/sex constantly instead.

I would be interested in a nuanced look at the data, given people have spouted the "women are paid less for the same work" falsehood for years and still do so. Consider me dubious after years of that.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. Either both the gender and height pay gap exist or they both don't exist. Which is it?

Gender, race and height pay gaps function in very similar ways. They are created (in part) by bias (both conscious and unconscious) that favours men, white people and tall people when it comes to hiring, proposition and access to education. Like you seem to understand this when it applies to short people, why can't you understand it when applied to women or racial minorities?

(Sidenote: Obviously the oppression short white men is not comparable to the oppression of racial minorities and women. I am merely pointing out the bizarre doublethink in TMIT's logic).

And even after all of THAT, there's still the hurdle of actually demonstrating profitability. No worker in the US can compete against inexpensive, awful-condition foreign labor in terms of profitability, for example.

Its completely impractical to outsource every single job required for US corporations to keep functioning profitably overseas. US corporations will always require a locally based workforce, short of massive breakthroughs in technology.

If you delete the foreign markets to ignore that caveat, you are then left with the question of why the entire work force isn't black Americans, if they're willing to take less pay than white Americans.

Because racism isn't just about profitability. Refer to Crezth's answer to this question.

When you claim that racism is inherently profitable, you are necessarily claiming there are properties inherent to race that make some races more monetarily valuable than others on average, completely independent of circumstance. I reject that as a racist notion itself.

Strawman fallacy.

What I am actually saying is that Capitalists exploit (both consciously and unconsciously) already existing biases in our society to maximise profit. This includes racism. Capitalism helps perpetuate systemic racism (although it doesn't do it completely independently, as I said before racism didn't emerge out of the ether nor did Capitalists dream it up as some way to make lots of money). I don't believe that truly destroying White Supremacy is possible under Capitalism as the system will fight tooth and nail to maintain it because it is so damned profitable.

 

[Synobun]

A century isn't that long ago. Slavery ended approximately 150 years ago, that means there are people with grandparents and great grandparents who were enslaved. And there hasn't been a real effort to address the consequences of slavery for African Americans, to rectify this injustice. Quite the opposite in fact, the United States got things like Jim Crow instead.

Ruby Bridges, the young black girl who needed a federal marshal escort to a formerly only-whites school, is alive and well at 65 years old.

 

[Angst]

OK so I haven't read the thread, but general note here, because I know it's relevant (and my point has probably been raised before, but I actually have pedigree in this field). Free speech entails organized voicing and sometimes protest, which can sometimes lead to outings, firings and outright jailings if something sufficiently illegal shows up and is brought to attention. Cancel culture, as a thing, must be possibilty in the system for free speech to work. As the OP points out, this is by no means reserved to (segments of) the left. I've actually studied transgressive art, and the weight of toxic exclusion based on moratily is historically very much reserved to the right. This does not mean that cancel culture isn't a problem, it's just a general note to anyone that would believe this is somehow reserved to the snowflakes of today or whatever. Indeed, voicing discontent against free-speech based attempts of exclusion is also part of free speech. It's called criticism, and what we see as firings or cancellations of today is often market based activities trying to appease their consumers. Like they did for the right in the past.

Cancel culture, however, is very much a term (not an activity, a term) that's reserved to leftist activism, and talking about it ignores the very real silencing attempts from segments of the right today - movements that haven't been identified in common English speech. This is because we have many internalized exclusions we see as normal, where segments of the left have called attention to perceived problems in areas we felt were already settled. However, whether there's an equivalency or not between the two today, or whether the left is just or not, is not my purpose with this post. I really don't want to engage with that specific discussion. I just wanted to raise the fact that it's not reserved to the left, and historically has been very much a conservative movement (and historically has lead to much more dire results). The word "cancel culture" is reserved for a segment of the left today. There's no equivalent commonly used English concept for what the right is doing, and always has been doing.

And again, fourteen pages in. Point has probably been raised a bunch of times. I just wanted to show up and say "hey I study this", and in case anyone has been posting it before, now you have a stamp on it.

EDIT: Eh fudgit, I'll throw in the note.

I don't like cancel culture.

But it's not new under the sun. And it's not even unique under the sun today.

EDITEDIT: I read back 3 pages before leaving for coffee and:

Another angle worth thinking about: How about 'cancel culture' that come from the right side of the spectrum? Are movements to deny gays the right to marry not also part of 'cancel culture'? Why is it that they have the right to express their beliefs without people jumping up and down about 'cancel culture'?

Is the whole notion of 'cancel culture' really a defensive reaction by the right wing?

Yep, bingo.
Stamp'd

 

[Modder_Mode]

Gender, race and height pay gaps function in very similar ways. They are created (in part) by bias (both conscious and unconscious) that favours men, white people and tall people when it comes to hiring, proposition and access to education. Like you seem to understand this when it applies to short people, why can't you understand it when applied to women or racial minorities?

Research suggests that class status more than race determines hiring when it comes to resume first names and last names:

Hiring bias study: Resumes with black, white, Hispanic names treated the same

New research on hiring bias found resumes bearing names traditionally held by blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to lead to callbacks and job interviews as those bearing white-sounding names.

The findings, announced last week by the University of Missouri, diverge from the results of a famous study from more than a decade ago that found Lakishas and Jamals were far less likely to get job interviews than Emilys and Gregs.

Full source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html

 

[NinjaCow64]

Research suggests that class status more than race determines hiring when it comes to resume first names and last names:

Hiring bias study: Resumes with black, white, Hispanic names treated the same

New research on hiring bias found resumes bearing names traditionally held by blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to lead to callbacks and job interviews as those bearing white-sounding names.

The findings, announced last week by the University of Missouri, diverge from the results of a famous study from more than a decade ago that found Lakishas and Jamals were far less likely to get job interviews than Emilys and Gregs.

Full source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html

Some interesting quotes from that article:

But [second] study co-author Cory Koedel, an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Missouri, cautions that it would "be crazy" to interpret the results to suggest hiring discrimination is a problem of the past.

"People should not overreact to this study, but I think it is a data point to be considered when thinking about discrimination in the labor market today," Koedel said.

Literally three paragraphs in and the study's author contradicts you.

One of the criticisms of [the old] study was that Lakisha and Jamal can denote socioeconomic status, and that employers may have made assumptions about education and income rather than race.

Wow, its almost like African-Americans are automatically assumed to have lower socioeconomic status than white people due to racism. Its almost like that was the entire point about the original survey.

The [second] study, which only measured the very first step in the hiring process, could suggest that racial discrimination is less prevalent than it was a dozen years ago, the researchers say in a policy paper.

But it also could indicate that last names are a weak signal of race

Though 90 percent of people with the last name Washington are black and 75 percent of those named Jefferson are black, "there is the fair criticism that maybe no one knows that," Koedel said.

"If I got a resume in the mail for Chloe Washington or Ryan Jefferson it would be hard for me to imagine that I would have interpreted that differently from Megan Anderson or Bryan Thompson," said Northwestern University professor David Figlio, director of the school's Institute for Policy Research, who was not involved in the study.

Doing a search on a database he has of 2 million names of kids born in Florida between 1994 and 2002, Figlio found that 90 percent of Ryans and 89 percent of Chloes are white.

"This new study is interesting and worthwhile but I don't think it changes my view in how important race is in subconscious decision-making," Figlio said. He points to a 2010 study by Stanford University researchers, titled "The Visible Hand," that showed racial bias without the complications of names and other indicators that could influence people's decisions.

You should read articles more thoroughly to make sure that they don't directly contradict your narrative before you post them.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Some interesting quotes from that article:

Literally three paragraphs in and the study's author contradicts you.

It doesn't contradict it, the author is putting the disclaimer in that this doesn't necessarily mean that discrimination doesn't happen when it comes to hiring, but their findings might suggest otherwise, that's why in the second paragraph he says "I think it is a data point to be considered when thinking about discrimination..."

You should read articles more thoroughly to make sure that they don't directly contradict your narrative before you post them.

I think you probably should re-read it a bit more thoroughly to understand the articles point.

 

[amadeus]

By and large they don’t go for the same jobs. You see lots of Black people being hired into the lowest jobs, which are also the most disposable jobs and the first to go when the economy goes bad. In the cases where Black folks can compete for better jobs, they have less leverage than their white counterparts, partially due to the established practice of getting away with underpaying. On top of this there aren’t actually enough Black professionals for the market to pivot around exploiting their lower prices, even though you do see some instance of this interaction nevertheless when white professionals complain about being passed up for jobs.

I don't dispute that there is a difference in outcomes based on different measurements, I dispute the concept that there is some inherent racial bias in wages and that capitalism is at fault. The outcomes that you're measuring don't demonstrate this suggestion.

If there is an anti-black bias in wages, is there also a pro-Asian bias in wages? By the same measurements I'm sure you can find, Asians tend to have higher incomes than whites, blacks, or Hispanics.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can't eat your cake and have it too. Either both the gender and height pay gap exist or they both don't exist. Which is it?

We have correlation for both. And in both cases competent analysis should reject using correlation alone to infer causation.

Gender, race and height pay gaps function in very similar ways. They are created (in part) by bias (both conscious and unconscious) that favours men, white people and tall people when it comes to hiring, proposition and access to education. Like you seem to understand this when it applies to short people, why can't you understand it when applied to women or racial minorities?

I said correlation does not imply causation in my previous post though.

(Sidenote: Obviously the oppression short white men is not comparable to the oppression of racial minorities and women. I am merely pointing out the bizarre doublethink in TMIT's logic).

This quote denotes some blatant hypocrisy.

Because racism isn't just about profitability. Refer to Crezth's answer to this question.

I took out the trash a while back and can't see those kinds of posts.

A century isn't that long ago. Slavery ended approximately 150 years ago, that means there are people with grandparents and great grandparents who were enslaved. And there hasn't been a real effort to address the consequences of slavery for African Americans, to rectify this injustice. Quite the opposite in fact, the United States got things like Jim Crow instead.

This is something that comes up quite often in conversations I have with you - you fundamentally don't seem to understand how history effects the present day.

None of this had to do with black people being "inherently" willing to take less money though.

As for history, there are several metrics (including important predictors of success) that were better in the black community during or just after Jim Crow than they are now. That includes crime rate, access to education (relative to quality available to peers), and two parent households. By the logic you're using regarding wages above, we should infer that Jim Crow was beneficial to black Americans. Using sensible logic, we should not infer that.

Ruby Bridges, the young black girl who needed a federal marshal escort to a formerly only-whites school, is alive and well at 65 years old.

Not relevant to Ninjacow's assertion of racism being inherently profitable.

~~~

Also, this is important so I would like to see it addressed:

If you delete the foreign markets to ignore that caveat, you are then left with the question of why the entire work force isn't black Americans, if they're willing to take less pay than white Americans.

Also

Capitalism helps perpetuate systemic racism

lol

I don't believe that truly destroying White Supremacy is possible under Capitalism as the system will fight tooth and nail to maintain it because it is so damned profitable.

What evidence would support your model, specifically? What evidence, specifically, would reject it?

 

[Crezth]

I don't dispute that there is a difference in outcomes based on different measurements, I dispute the concept that there is some inherent racial bias in wages and that capitalism is at fault. The outcomes that you're measuring don't demonstrate this suggestion.

If there is an anti-black bias in wages, is there also a pro-Asian bias in wages? By the same measurements I'm sure you can find, Asians tend to have higher incomes than whites, blacks, or Hispanics.

It’s a matter of what’s been built up. Capitalism in the world today, particularly where it has laid its oldest roots i.e. in Europe and America, was built on the foundation of some very serious and intentional exploitation of colonized people. The same relationship that bore out between the British colonial masters and their subjects also bore out between white and Black Americans. And capitalism has paid handsomely for this exploitation: the entire imperialist venture can be described as a mission to subjugate distant working class populations, so that their benefits in collective bargaining and political representation are as marginalized as possible, so as to exploit them all the better.

In America this process occurred at home, in the Jim Crow era and beyond, through the formation of Black America: where there is limited access to every social benefit including education, and where people are relegated by the virtue of their “status” and poor education to the lowest jobs with the weakest bargaining. This is the structure people refer to as institutionalized racism, and it is defended by the passive approval of the white working class population, which are turned on their Black working peers by any reinforcement of policy that can divide them.

Now something you and TMIT mentioned was that you’d expect to see whites priced out of their work in aggregate, even taking into consideration the higher quality of jobs that tend to be available to the white population. As a matter of fact this is exactly what happens. Broadly speaking this occurs at a global basis and compares workers across national borders, comparing colonized workers and non-colonized workers. In the colonial era, white officers and native officers were a constant source of friction with one another, as there weren’t enough jobs for both and whites were more expensive and bad for local politics, but the colonial administrators (and commentators at home) had a wariness about promoting natives too high. Still, the native officers knew what they were worth, and it was hard to argue with the results. Interestingly, despite a surplus of native professionals, the system was never able to hire them all despite the apparent benefits to doing so, and the bargaining position of those officers was weak until the political situation got worse. Maybe you don’t consider this a capitalist example, but the flaw here is not being bad capitalists so much as building a capitalist enterprise on the foundation of racial division. It is profitable for as long as you can exploit safely, but you always need to give out a little education to get the workers you need, and even a little can be too much. There are many parallels to be drawn from here to the atrocious nature of education served to the American Black population.

Or take a more modern example. The US has sold a good portion of its manufacturing jobs abroad as part of the financialization strategy, what they call the transition to a “service sector” economy. Ask anyone who has to work in the service sector, they have traded good steady factory work for a chaotic jungle of difficult, poorly compensated labor that is problematic to organize due to high turnover rates and a surplus of labor in general. What you now have is a large population of Americans working these jobs, and an economic allergy to “reintroducing“ manufacturing because the cost of labor is just too damn high compared to the labor available in the developing world. Effectively, in the views of the owners, the white working class has priced itself out of manufacturing jobs; and sure enough, Chinese wages have soared and American wages have stayed flat.

So take Black professionals in America. For all we know white professionals are already being priced out of their jobs: let’s say you really were a greedy capitalist, you may acknowledge hiring a woman or a Black person may let you get just as much work for less pay. And you can get away with this due to the weak leverage of those workers, relatively speaking. Despite the establishment of whites as the professional class this must already be happening. So the question as it pertains to your objection is “How many Black professionals need to be competing for the jobs before prices can go down in aggregate?”

It is not, as you suggest, “How can there be a surplus of Black lower level labor and a deficit of Black professional labor?” It is very clear to see how this can be the case, and furthermore clear to see how the system has manifested this state of affairs.

 

[really]

The Sherbourne Hotel, Dublin's poshest hotel and part of the Marriott group from the US removed some statues from outside because some representated slaves in antiquity.

They are now in trouble with the city council as the hotel is a protected structure and they need permission to change it.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I don't dispute that there is a difference in outcomes based on different measurements, I dispute the concept that there is some inherent racial bias in wages and that capitalism is at fault. The outcomes that you're measuring don't demonstrate this suggestion.

If there is an anti-black bias in wages, is there also a pro-Asian bias in wages? By the same measurements I'm sure you can find, Asians tend to have higher incomes than whites, blacks, or Hispanics.

Asian-Americans people on average do earn more than white people, yes. However, that is far from the whole picture.

Firstly, lumping all immigrants and refugees from Asia into one category is extremely unhelpful statistically. There is a great deal of variation of subgroups of Asian-American populations, with Asian-Americans from communities that are well established and consisting primarily of economic immigrants and descendants of economic immigrants doing really well and with Asian-Americans from communities that are not well established and consisting primarily of refugees and descendants of refugees are doing extremely poorly. Hmong and Bangladeshi people have poverty rates that rival African-American communities, for example.

United States immigration policies have self-selected for the highest educated among Asian populations. Historically it is easier to get into the United States and other western countries as a white person than a person of colour, so only those who are extremely highly educated among people of colour are able to pass the much higher levels of scrutiny in the process to getting a Green Card.

But not only that, according to the study where I got most of these facts from:

In a multivariate study of income by education and by occupation, Barringer et al (1993:265) found that when other factors were controlled, "whites earned more than Asian Americans in almost all occupational categories except in the professions, where Asian Americans had much higher incomes, but even there they bested whites only among the self employed." They conclude that Asian Americans are highly educated and convert that education into high status occupations, but nevertheless they are paid less than whites for the same or comparable positions (Barringer et al 1993:266).

So while Asian-Americans are paid more on average, that is because they are more likely to be highly educated. However, when you compare an Asian-American person in the same role as a white person, the Asian-American person is paid less on average. So if racism was not a factor, some Asian-American communities would be doing even better than they are now!

We have correlation for both. And in both cases competent analysis should reject using correlation alone to infer causation.

I said correlation does not imply causation in my previous post though.

Disgusting strawman garbage. My argument is that societal biases against short people and (more importantly) women and people of colour (which exist) lead to worse economic outcomes because people who make decisions about promotion, hiring and access to higher education are (both consciously and unconsciously) biased against those groups. The fact that there are societal biases against these groups is self evident and it has been proven time and time again that there are worse outcomes for these groups. I have found no compelling reasons that this disparity exists for any reason other than societal bias, therefore I must conclude that this disparity exists because of societal bias.

While correlation does not imply causation, it does not follow that correlation implies that no causation. The burden of proof here is on you to prove that I am committing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and you have failed to do so.

This quote denotes some blatant hypocrisy.

How is it hypocritical to observe that the oppression of short white men is not comparable to the oppression of women and people of colour?

Also, this is important so I would like to see it addressed:

I took out the trash a while back and can't see those kinds of posts.

I will quote the relevant post so you are forced to read it, then:

It’s pretty simple if you think about it for five seconds. By and large they don’t go for the same jobs. You see lots of Black people being hired into the lowest jobs, which are also the most disposable jobs and the first to go when the economy goes bad. In the cases where Black folks can compete for better jobs, they have less leverage than their white counterparts, partially due to the established practice of getting away with underpaying. On top of this there aren’t actually enough Black professionals for the market to pivot around exploiting their lower prices, even though you do see some instance of this interaction nevertheless when white professionals complain about being passed up for jobs.

All of this is pretty simple to understand from an economic perspective, but maybe not with an Econ 101 perspective.

None of this had to do with black people being "inherently" willing to take less money though.

As for history, there are several metrics (including important predictors of success) that were better in the black community during or just after Jim Crow than they are now. That includes crime rate, access to education (relative to quality available to peers), and two parent households. By the logic you're using regarding wages above, we should infer that Jim Crow was beneficial to black Americans. Using sensible logic, we should not infer that.

Where on Earth are you getting these statistics that so obviously contradict with reality? Under Jim Crow there were crimes (both official and unofficial) that applied solely to African Americans. Segregation ensured that African Americans had worse educational outcomes due to less resources being pumped into African American schools (a policy that continues to this day, albeit less aggressively).

Not relevant to Ninjacow's assertion of racism being inherently profitable.

It is relevant, however, to the fact that historical events adversely impact marginalised communities that needs to be acknowledged in these sorts of debates and you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge.

lol

Not an argument. My facts don't care about your feelings of mirth.

What evidence, specifically, would reject it?

A racially elgalitarian Capitalist society. This does not exist.

What evidence would support your model, specifically?

All the donations that flow to politicians who support racism from the very tippy top of society. All the rich and powerful people who have hindered even the mildest reforms addressing racism. And a billion other things.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Disgusting strawman garbage. My argument is that societal biases against short people and (more importantly) women and people of colour (which exist) lead to worse economic outcomes because people who make decisions about promotion, hiring and access to higher education are (both consciously and unconsciously) biased against those groups. The fact that there are societal biases against these groups is self evident and it has been proven time and time again that there are worse outcomes for these groups. I have found no compelling reasons that this disparity exists for any reason other than societal bias, therefore I must conclude that this disparity exists because of societal bias.

Your statement was that I was counting correlation against short people, but not correlation against race. I was not.

You have not established factual basis for this allegedly "self-evident" assertion. You simply repeat the claim of societal bias.

While correlation does not imply causation, it does not follow that correlation implies that no causation. The burden of proof here is on you to prove that I am committing a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and you have failed to do so.

The burden of proof on claiming something is on the claim. The claim of systemic racism therefore has a burden of proof to demonstrate it. A burden that is not and cannot be reached by showing correlation.

How is it hypocritical to observe that the oppression of short white men is not comparable to the oppression of women and people of colour?

Oppression can be compared to oppression, insofar as it exists. In both cases, we have some correlation and not much else. In other words, comparable evidence. However there always seems to be bias towards particular things about people they can't control over other things about people they can't control.

I will quote the relevant post so you are forced to read it, then:

If I wanted to read trash I would read it. But I'm not compelled to do so. Skipped.

Where on Earth are you getting these statistics that so obviously contradict with reality? Under Jim Crow there were crimes (both official and unofficial) that applied solely to African Americans. Segregation ensured that African Americans had worse educational outcomes due to less resources being pumped into African American schools (a policy that continues to this day, albeit less aggressively).

I am stating that the African American crime rate, single parent household rate, etc were better under/just after Jim Crow than they are now, and that the reason for this is obviously not Jim Crow.

It is relevant, however, to the fact that historical events adversely impact marginalised communities that needs to be acknowledged in these sorts of debates and you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge.

If history matters the trend lines before/after the 1970s should matter too, and I'm not the one who fails to acknowledge that.

A racially elgalitarian Capitalist society. This does not exist.

I'm talking about specific observations.

All the donations that flow to politicians who support racism from the very tippy top of society. All the rich and powerful people who have hindered even the mildest reforms addressing racism. And a billion other things.

In other words you don't actually have evidence to support your position and default to simply calling people racist. "Self-evident" again?

 

[NinjaCow64]

Your statement was that I was counting correlation against short people, but not correlation against race. I was not.

You have not established factual basis for this allegedly "self-evident" assertion. You simply repeat the claim of societal bias.

The burden of proof on claiming something is on the claim. The claim of systemic racism therefore has a burden of proof to demonstrate it. A burden that is not and cannot be reached by showing correlation.

Systematic racism existing is so obvious to anyone paying attention that I would struggle to explain it in the same way you would struggle to explain to me that fire is hot if I demanded proof from you that fire is hot.

If I wanted to read trash I would read it. But I'm not compelled to do so. Skipped.

Ad hominem. Probably the most obvious case of it, implicitly calling Crezth "trash" and admitting to not even reading the arguments.

Either read my post in its entirety, or concede. The burden is on you to fully read my posts and fully engage with my arguments if you wish to have a meaningful debate.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ad hominem. Probably the most obvious case of it, implicitly calling Crezth "trash" and admitting to not even reading the arguments.

There's some irony in calling me out for ad hominem in the context of multiple posters who flagrantly violated forum rules repeatedly to do little more than make childish attacks on posters rather than the content of their posts. Even in RD threads. That is why I now can't see those posts, and I have no interest in further looking at them. Those posts obviously couldn't manage basic discussion and weren't worth the time.

It was the content of those posts that got me to take out the trash, and I ask as a courtesy that you not try to bypass the block feature to "force" (lol) me to read trash.

Either read my post in its entirety, or concede.

I will do neither. Don't quote trash to me. Use your own words to address arguments, or don't. It's up to you. I have no obligation or even reasonable expectation to address the content of justifiably blocked posters.

Systematic racism existing is so obvious to anyone paying attention that I would struggle to explain it in the same way you would struggle to explain to me that fire is hot if I demanded proof from you that fire is hot.

We could define what is meant by "hot", and then establish whether a particular fire meets the criteria by measuring it directly. No need for making up causes out of correlated data, or to repeatedly claim the same thing regardless of what is observed.

Also some things burn at pretty low temperatures, relative to fires we're used to seeing.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Systematic racism existing is so obvious

I'm still waiting to see the evidences of such by you and other members who make this claim?

 

[Senethro]

Systemic racism has been the norm in US history. The burden is on you to prove it ever stopped.