Gotta wonder......

PrintSmith wrote: An interesting concept to keep the idea that our society remains a rampantly racist one and perpetuate the existence of a "victim" class is what I take away from it at first blush.

Your "first blush" should then be a very, very deep red, IMO.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: An interesting concept to keep the idea that our society remains a rampantly racist one and perpetuate the existence of a "victim" class is what I take away from it at first blush.

Your "first blush" should then be a very, very deep red, IMO.

Jon Stewart's take on the 'victim' perspective....

digg.com/video/daily-show-ferguson-the-rage-is-palpable

"A gentleman on Fox News said that black people have been convinced by a network of shrewd propagandists that they are somehow victims, and this is somehow wrong, to agitate a population , to scare them - utilizing all the tools of modern communication - graphics, music, etc. - to stoke these people into a resentful frenzy. Fox News feels that's just damaging to this great nation and tears at our very fabric. I can't imagine anyone would do such a thing... just roll the %^&$ing tape"

ZHawke wrote: Okay. Let's talk, then, about "racism without racists". this article lays it out pretty well, IMO.


edition.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-r...cial-bias/index.html

Article written not as an investigation into racism, but instead was written with the result they wanted to show, and worked backwards into a poor article. They didn't even attempt to show the "racism" by those who have something to gain by keeping certain minority groups down and poor.

I notice they didn't address the rampant "racism" in public schooling? School choice would be a huge step towards bringing all together, but that wouldn't help those who benefit from continuing the race baiting.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: An interesting concept to keep the idea that our society remains a rampantly racist one and perpetuate the existence of a "victim" class is what I take away from it at first blush.

Your "first blush" should then be a very, very deep red, IMO.

What I have found in my 50+ years of living is that the left generally divides and organizes everything under one or more of three categories - race, class and gender. The piece you presented for contemplation highlights two of the three, race and class.

Another thing I have found in my 50+ years is that anything divided and organized under one or more of these three categories is to be viewed with a high degree of skepticism from the outset because it has probably been divided and organized into one or more of those categories intentionally, to produce a desired outcome.

A third thing I have found in my 50+ years is that "soft" sciences, such as sociology, have a very high degree of fallibility built into their "experiments". They are often designed and executed with only cursory attention paid to the 5 pillars of what constitutes scientific examination: clearly defined terminology, highly controlled conditions, quantifiable, ability to be reproduced, predictability and testability.

What the professor is attempting to do, IMNTBHO, is sprinkle a few numbers around to give his "research" some legitimacy as laying bare a secular truth. Sociology isn't really a science, it might occasionally provide some interesting insights, but its practitioners rarely, if ever, present factual, truthful, conclusions to the topics being "studied".

PrintSmith wrote:
What the professor is attempting to do, IMNTBHO, is sprinkle a few numbers around to give his "research" some legitimacy as laying bare a secular truth. Sociology isn't really a science, it might occasionally provide some interesting insights, but its practitioners rarely, if ever, present factual, truthful, conclusions to the topics being "studied".

Yup, creating a "scientific" study tailored to a desired result. I'm surprised this isn't a taxpayer funded study.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: An interesting concept to keep the idea that our society remains a rampantly racist one and perpetuate the existence of a "victim" class is what I take away from it at first blush.

Your "first blush" should then be a very, very deep red, IMO.

What I have found in my 50+ years of living is that the left generally divides and organizes everything under one or more of three categories - race, class and gender. The piece you presented for contemplation highlights two of the three, race and class.

Another thing I have found in my 50+ years is that anything divided and organized under one or more of these three categories is to be viewed with a high degree of skepticism from the outset because it has probably been divided and organized into one or more of those categories intentionally, to produce a desired outcome.

A third thing I have found in my 50+ years is that "soft" sciences, such as sociology, have a very high degree of fallibility built into their "experiments". They are often designed and executed with only cursory attention paid to the 5 pillars of what constitutes scientific examination: clearly defined terminology, highly controlled conditions, quantifiable, ability to be reproduced, predictability and testability.

What the professor is attempting to do, IMNTBHO, is sprinkle a few numbers around to give his "research" some legitimacy as laying bare a secular truth. Sociology isn't really a science, it might occasionally provide some interesting insights, but its practitioners rarely, if ever, present factual, truthful, conclusions to the topics being "studied".

So, basically, what you are trying to do is "destroy" the credibility of someone rather than try to see if there might even be a shred of validity to what the author is trying to say? Priceless. One of the things I've seen in my 60+ years of living on this Earth is an almost constant mantra of denial on the part of Regressives. Denial does not make something go away just because you want it to go away.

From what I've been seeing from the more "Regressive" side of the aisle, this meme kind of does make me wonder:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Okay. Let's talk, then, about "racism without racists". this article lays it out pretty well, IMO.


edition.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-r...cial-bias/index.html

Article written not as an investigation into racism, but instead was written with the result they wanted to show, and worked backwards into a poor article. They didn't even attempt to show the "racism" by those who have something to gain by keeping certain minority groups down and poor.

I notice they didn't address the rampant "racism" in public schooling? School choice would be a huge step towards bringing all together, but that wouldn't help those who benefit from continuing the race baiting.

Interesting......you rebuke something based on what they "didn't include" rather than looking at what they did include.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A third thing I have found in my 50+ years is that "soft" sciences, such as sociology, have a very high degree of fallibility built into their "experiments". They are often designed and executed with only cursory attention paid to the 5 pillars of what constitutes scientific examination: clearly defined terminology, highly controlled conditions, quantifiable, ability to be reproduced, predictability and testability.

What the professor is attempting to do, IMNTBHO, is sprinkle a few numbers around to give his "research" some legitimacy as laying bare a secular truth. Sociology isn't really a science, it might occasionally provide some interesting insights, but its practitioners rarely, if ever, present factual, truthful, conclusions to the topics being "studied".

So, basically, what you are trying to do is "destroy" the credibility of someone rather than try to see if there might even be a shred of validity to what the author is trying to say? Priceless. One of the things I've seen in my 60+ years of living on this Earth is an almost constant mantra of denial on the part of Regressives. Denial does not make something go away just because you want it to go away.

Oh, I believe there is a shred of validity in the reporting that a resume from "Brendan" generated more invitations for interviews than a resume from "Jamal" did, just not that it demonstrates "racism without racists" explains why this is so.

ZHawke wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Okay. Let's talk, then, about "racism without racists". this article lays it out pretty well, IMO.


edition.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-r...cial-bias/index.html

Article written not as an investigation into racism, but instead was written with the result they wanted to show, and worked backwards into a poor article. They didn't even attempt to show the "racism" by those who have something to gain by keeping certain minority groups down and poor.

I notice they didn't address the rampant "racism" in public schooling? School choice would be a huge step towards bringing all together, but that wouldn't help those who benefit from continuing the race baiting.

Interesting......you rebuke something based on what they "didn't include" rather than looking at what they did include.

No, I rebuke someone who makes an argument by starting with their desired conclusion, and then makes a tortured argument to get to that conclusion, all the while ignoring any facts that aren't convenient to their belief system.