Reply Previous - Next - Back

"Saying "tar baby" is a tar baby"
On 8/2/2011 at 8:37:44 PM, Ostromite started the thread:
U.S. Representative apologizes for saying "tar baby"

When is this going to stop? It seems like every eight months I have to hear about some Republican politician saying "tar baby" and then getting run through the wringer for the racist implications it has. Naturally, Democrats don't ever say it in public because they know better than to correctly use phrases that might be misunderstood by ignorant people.

The only racist implications "tar baby" has are the ones scandal-hungry media vultures made up to get ratings. "Tar baby" has literally never been a racist term, and I have never heard a Republican politician use it as such. Just because some backwoods white supremacists might use it that way doesn't mean it should be eliminated from our public vocabulary - those jack-offs do the same thing with other harmless words and phrases, like "call a spade a spade" and "monkey business."

I understand Lamborn apologizing personally to Obama to clarify that he didn't mean it as a racist comment (any decent person does the same thing when they say something that might accidentally cause offense), but if people keep clamoring for him to make a public apology, I hope he digs his heels in and refuses.

    Replies: 16

---

Msg #16: On 8/7/2011 at 8:35:42 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #15, saying:
Indeed. That's why it exists. The civil rights act is also racial-minded.

---

Msg #17: On 8/7/2011 at 8:59:29 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #14, saying:
I wonder if you'd say that if you were black.

That's not really an argument.

Affirmative action isn't racist.

I'd love to know why a program which gives preferential status to different racial groups isn't racist.

    Replies: 23

---

Msg #18: On 8/7/2011 at 9:19:35 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
That's not really an argument.

To be fair, neither is anecdotal evidence from a biased perspective. A white person saying that white people are the least racist people they know is not really a position that can be taken seriously.

    Replies: 19, 20, 21

---

Msg #19: On 8/7/2011 at 9:30:10 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #18, saying:
Well then are you two gonna actually argue some real points or do I have to put my box of popcorn down?

---

Msg #20: On 8/7/2011 at 9:58:16 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #18, saying:
Any source is a biased perspective.

---

Msg #21: On 8/7/2011 at 10:05:19 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #18, saying:
Hence the reason I told ford that any evidence I have is purely anecdotal.

---

Msg #22: On 8/8/2011 at 12:20:29 AM, Varan101 replied, saying:
I dunno...just read the moronic comments on some news website. You'll see tons of racist comments by people of all colors. At least its all inclusive racism though, because then its fair!

---

Msg #23: On 8/8/2011 at 2:26:35 AM, fordprefect replied to Msg #17, saying:
I'd love to know why a program which gives preferential status to different racial groups isn't racist.

It discriminates based on race to address the systematic inter-generational disadvantage that blacks have inherited from centuries of subjugation - the representation that blacks now have in professions like medicine, law and business is largely due to affirmative action policies. To say that it is racist to attempt to redress a disparity that is racially caused simply because it redresses that disparity racially is ludicrous.

Even with affirmative action policies, it's not white kids missing out on places: what's shown to happen is that white representation in these fields stay the same and Asian kids' numbers go down. White kids are given preferential treatment subconsciously by employers regardless of their qualifications and affirmative action is an attempt to do something about it.

    Replies: 24

---

Msg #24: On 8/8/2011 at 8:57:54 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #23, saying:
It discriminates based on race = racism. :p

to address the systematic inter-generational disadvantage that blacks have inherited from centuries of subjugation

I would have agreed with it in the 60s, 70s, hell maybe even the 80s, but now it is a policy that has, at best, outlived its usefulness. When will it end? At some point you can no longer point fingers at the specter of racism and must take individual and communal responsibility.

the representation that blacks now have in professions like medicine, law and business is largely due to affirmative action policies

I'd have been more inclined to attribute it to the individuals' hard work, but that's one of the negative side effects of affirmative action: it diminishes individual accomplishment in the eyes of some.

Even with affirmative action policies, it's not white kids missing out on places: what's shown to happen is that white representation in these fields stay the same and Asian kids' numbers go down.

So, accepting this as true, does this mean I should accept it because it's not discriminating against my race? And doesn't this mean my own children will have less opportunity?

---

Msg #25: On 8/8/2011 at 9:08:00 AM, QuickComment replied, saying:
It discriminates based on race to address the systematic inter-generational disadvantage that blacks have inherited from centuries of subjugation - the representation that blacks now have in professions like medicine, law and business is largely due to affirmative action policies.

Which doesn't address whether they deserve to be there on their merit. I don't want someone to be a lawyer or a doctor with a degree from a prestigious school if they were chosen to meet some racial quota. It's harmful to society.

Life isn't fair. We can't, and shouldn't, attempt to attach arbitrary reparations of any kind in some guilt-laden attempt to make up for things that were done by previous generations. If you find an institutional bias, you prosecute those involved or throw out their business. You don't create double standards that perpetuate racial differences.

"White kids are given preferential treatment subconsciously by employers regardless of their qualifications and affirmative action is an attempt to do something about it."

Ah, yes. The old "you're racist and you don't know it" line. To hell with that.

---

Msg #26: On 8/8/2011 at 1:56:25 PM, Varan101 replied, saying:
So ford, some people who had nothing to do with the old racist policies, should suffer under some policy where a lesser qualified minority is hired to fill some sort of imaginary quota. Gotcha.

---

Msg #27: On 8/8/2011 at 2:34:53 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I would have agreed with it in the 60s, 70s, hell maybe even the 80s, but now it is a policy that has, at best, outlived its usefulness.

It's easy to claim in retrospect that race used to be a problem, but now it's all right and systematic discrimination has been wiped out. The thing is, white people in 1960 and 1970 and 2000 all said, repeatedly in dozens and dozens of polls, that they believed black people were treated fairly in their communities and in the economy and that blacks were the ones making racism out to be an issue when it really wasn't. Odds are, if non-whites still think racism is a problem, then it probably is. White culture is horribly self-deceptive about this matter.

And doesn't this mean my own children will have less opportunity?

No, it doesn't, because white people still have it made in this country, and it's not going to change for a long time. A white guy occasionally losing a job because a black guy got picked instead does not constitute an equally discriminatory reversal of the racism that subjugates blacks.

Ah, yes. The old "you're racist and you don't know it" line. To hell with that.

First of all, Ford is correct. White people are almost always shown, in every sector of the economy, to be given preferential treatment automatically, even when qualifications are not an issue (and, in many cases, when non-whites are more qualified). This is one of the main problems affirmative action tries to address.

Second, simply by merit of being white, you benefit from white privilege in this country, so whether or not you are personally racist, all white people benefit from the systematic racism that is built into our society. Every time you are let off the hook by a cop who understands that you just weren't paying attention to the speed limit, a school teacher cuts you some slack for getting a C because you usually get A's, or a bank doesn't bother to perform a background check on you, or a store security doesn't follow you around, you are benefiting from white privilege because all those things are routinely done to non-whites.

So ford, some people who had nothing to do with the old racist policies, should suffer under some policy where a lesser qualified minority is hired to fill some sort of imaginary quota

There are no "quotas" that must be filled (they were deemed illegal years ago). This white myth that non-whites are simply being used to fill up these straw man quotas and making innocent whites suffer has been plaguing affirmative action policies literally since they were invented - when, by the way, white people made the exact same claims as they do know, i.e. that it's racist and unnecessary. As I said, regardless of whether or not you personally had anything to do with Jim Crow, you benefit from the endemic racism in America simply by being white, just like how blacks who were never slaves or segregated still suffer from it.

---

Msg #28: On 8/8/2011 at 4:40:30 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
Odds are, if non-whites still think racism is a problem, then it probably is.

If, Then:
Whites say racism is problem = Whites are racist
Whites say racism isn't problem = Whites are racist
Non-whites say racism is problem = Whites are racist
Non-whites say racism isn't problem = Whites are racist (self-loathing minorities likely filtered into the survey)

A white guy occasionally losing a job because a black guy got picked instead does not constitute an equally discriminatory reversal of the racism that subjugates blacks.

In other words: it's ok to promote or hire based on race because it's not as bad as atrocities committed 150 years ago in this country.

White culture is horribly self-deceptive about this matter.

And black culture is horribly self-deceptive when it comes to overlooking their own racism as well as finding racism where it simply does not exist.

No, it doesn't, because white people still have it made in this country, and it's not going to change for a long time.

But Ostro, if my life continues on its current path, my kids will be half-Asian. Therefore, they'll be a part of both the racist majority you condemn AND they'll likely be noticeably non-white. Ford (and I assume you agree) seems to be implying that it's fine to discriminate against Asians, so I guess I should just allow my children to be screwed over. Fuck. That.

Second, simply by merit of being white, you benefit from white privilege in this country, so whether or not you are personally racist, all white people benefit from the systematic racism that is built into our society. Every time you are let off the hook by a cop who understands that you just weren't paying attention to the speed limit, a school teacher cuts you some slack for getting a C because you usually get A's, or a bank doesn't bother to perform a background check on you, or a store security doesn't follow you around, you are benefiting from white privilege because all those things are routinely done to non-whites.

No offense, Ostro, but almost all of what you're saying on this matter seems like cloistered academic theory coming from someone who has had little contact with the real world. And I really intend no offense to either you or ford, since I respect both of you very much; I just could not disagree with you more.

I reject the notions of racial and hereditary guilt. I also reject the idea that America is fundamentally racist. If we are racist, then most other nations must be much moreso. Go to Japan and try to fit in there. You won't. Finally, anyone who claims that non-white communities are bereft of overt racism has never had contact with one.

---

Msg #29: On 8/8/2011 at 5:22:54 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I don't really get where that first part of your post is coming from, so I'm not going to comment on it. Please elaborate on it because I'm genuinely confused. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't follow.

In other words: it's ok to promote or hire based on race because it's not as bad as atrocities committed 150 years ago in this country.

Nobody is hired "based on race." What affirmative action promotes is favoring non-white minorities in instances where all other factors are equal to correct systematic favoring of whites all across American society. If you don't think this occurs, then you are blind to the social reality of this country.

And black culture is horribly self-deceptive when it comes to overlooking their own racism as well as finding racism where it simply does not exist.

The racism of blacks against whites is largely irrelevant on a large scale because it has never resulted in a systematic subjugation of whites. What affirmative action tries to correct is not the cultural racism of white people, but the automatic racism that is built into the entire society at all levels.

Therefore, they'll be a part of both the racist majority you condemn AND they'll likely be noticeably non-white.

I'm not calling white people a "racist majority." Regardless of how racist an individual white person is, the cumulative effect of American society is massive systematic racism against non-whites. Also, being half-white in America doesn't count as being white. If you are "noticeably non-white," you're not white as far as social advantages are concerned. You do not benefit as much from white privilege simply because one of your parents is white.

Ford (and I assume you agree) seems to be implying that it's fine to discriminate against Asians, so I guess I should just allow my children to be screwed over.

Where did you get that idea?

No offense, Ostro, but almost all of what you're saying on this matter seems like cloistered academic theory coming from someone who has had little contact with the real world.

What would you consider the "real world"? Do you really need to hear my street credentials in talking about race? This notion that somehow going to college fills people's heads with "cloistered academic theory" is quite offensive, not to mention outright false (especially since I never studied any of this kind of thing in school). Would you say the same thing if you didn't know that I was white?

Finally, anyone who claims that non-white communities are bereft of overt racism has never had contact with one.

Nobody is claiming that non-whites aren't racist, or that other countries don't have their own problems with race. The difference is that the historical racism against non-whites in America is built into our economy, government, and culture. Just because you reject that idea doesn't make it incorrect - it's demonstrable, in one way or another, at nearly every level.

---

Msg #30: On 8/8/2011 at 5:35:50 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Let me put it this way: if a black man tells you that he has been racially discriminated against all his life, that he is treated differently by his bosses and his teachers and cab drivers and cops, and your response is that he's the racist and reading non-existent racism into his own misfortunes that have nothing to do with race, then I don't think we can even discuss this issue.

    Replies: 32

---

Msg #31: On 8/8/2011 at 6:48:36 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
First of all, Ford is correct. White people are almost always shown, in every sector of the economy, to be given preferential treatment automatically, even when qualifications are not an issue (and, in many cases, when non-whites are more qualified). This is one of the main problems affirmative action tries to address.

According to what, exactly?

Second, simply by merit of being white, you benefit from white privilege in this country, so whether or not you are personally racist, all white people benefit from the systematic racism that is built into our society. Every time you are let off the hook by a cop who understands that you just weren't paying attention to the speed limit, a school teacher cuts you some slack for getting a C because you usually get A's, or a bank doesn't bother to perform a background check on you, or a store security doesn't follow you around, you are benefiting from white privilege because all those things are routinely done to non-whites.

All those are delightfully unmeasurable and not something I would agree exist.

---

Msg #32: On 8/8/2011 at 6:49:33 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #30, saying:
Not that I'm agree that what you just proposed is the stance that is being presented, but we shouldn't bother because, as Trainwreck said, you're sitting in a little ivory tower and operating under delusions of what happens in America that might as well come from a film festival.

---

Msg #33: On 8/8/2011 at 7:33:22 PM, fordprefect replied, saying:
I will respond to everything here at some point. My borough is in the middle of burning down for some reason so am a bit distracted.

---

Msg #34: On 8/8/2011 at 7:35:26 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
According to what, exactly?

Countless studies, statistics, polls, et cetera. I'm not going to look up any sources because I'm quite busy (I've been typing these responses in five minute intervals between work), but it's everywhere and consistent.

All those are delightfully unmeasurable and not something I would agree exist.

So what if they're "unmeasurable"? They're real, and your agreement with their existence is irrelevant because they simply do exist. Racism doesn't just exist as numbers and data points. Regardless of the problems with affirmative action, it's simply a fact that white people benefit from not being discriminated against at the expense of non-whites. My point has not been to defend affirmative action - which has many flaws in its implementation - but to argue for the basic impulse behind its inception, and the continued need for active racial redress.

you're sitting in a little ivory tower and operating under delusions of what happens in America that might as well come from a film festival.

You think I'm the one in an ivory tower when you're telling me that my opinions are inferior to yours because you assume that I don't have as much "real world" experience as you? If you honestly think my opinions come from brainwashing and bullshit that's been shoveled down my throat by college professors and indie filmmakers and that I'm out of touch with real life in America, you can go fuck yourself. I'm not taking this personally or getting angry (though I find your opinions highly offensive to non-whites, as you're essentially implying that they can't tell when they're being oppressed or not), but if you're going to be so quick to belittle me by claiming my opinions are invalid by some arbitrary assumption of where my ideas come from, I'm simply not going to talk to you about it.

I don't like telling people to fuck off on message boards because it smacks of being a whiny bitch, but just last week you basically called me insane for referring to members of the Bush cabinet as war criminals (hardly a new claim), and now you've insulted my opinions on race relations by calling them "delusions." I'm not shitting out creationist propaganda like Monkipzzle, here. I've been taking your opinions seriously, even if I think you're wrong, and I haven't acted like you need to prove what "real world" experience you've had that led to your opinions.

---

Msg #35: On 8/8/2011 at 8:12:47 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
Roughly 60% of the country is White (I know I know... Wikipedia. Sue me) and roughly 12% of the country is Black.

I recall some people I know complaining about the fact that there aren't any successful American woman directors. I pointed out that the filmmaking field has always been men-dominated. I've assumed this was due to interests. Not every person working as a film director makes it. Some do. Very few in that percentage are probably women. The liklihood of a woman director making it is less than if a man director makes it. That seems like common sense, right?

Why couldn't we apply that logic here?

---

Msg #36: On 8/8/2011 at 8:23:01 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
I think we all need to back off and calm down a bit here. First of all, I must apologize because I've said some things that are unfair to Ostromite, and for that I offer a sincere and unqualified apology. I don't mean to insult your education, your intelligence, your intentions, or your personal experience.

So, I'll try to get to this argument in a more intelligent and fair manner, starting...now! And keep in mind, I'm posting responses mostly in between writing my final paper for my Decision Sciences class (KILL ME PLEASE).

Now, regarding the statistics, studies, polls, etc. that Ostro claims show white people to be given preferential treatment: do they adequately distinguish between class and race? To the point: it is an unfortunate and sad fact that a lot of popular black culture adopts in high profile ways the "ghetto" lifestyle. You know: baggy pants, vulgar language or aggressive inflection, gansta rap, emphasis on scholastic failure, etc. Now, a prospective job applicant who seems to be the stereotypical gansta will almost certainly not get hired for most typical jobs, regardless of credentials. However, this is not so much a function of race as it is class: I'm confident that if a white guy carries himself in exactly the same fashion (as a good number do), he will face the exact same "discrimination" as the black man. On the other hand, a black man who speaks properly, is respectful, and well-dressed is probably just as likely to get the job as a similarly-mannered white man.

Another point: how do we explain high rates of illegitimacy in black urban communities? Is this due to white racism as well, or problems endemic to the black subculture? What is the true origin? And what are we to do about it today?

As for ford and his seeming lack of concern for Asians, it stems from his comment that seemed to imply that I need not worry about affirmative action, since Asians are the true victims. Accepting this as fact, I see no reason why screwing over one race in favor of another is acceptable in America or anywhere else!

Now, I don't think that ford has a genuine lack of concern for Asians (being nominally Asian himself), so it'd be nice to get some clarification. However, he both accepts this as fact and supports affirmative action, so it seems logical that ford does support the raising of one race over another.

---

Msg #37: On 8/8/2011 at 8:49:27 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Chase: Obviously the female directors thing is a separate issue, but looking at the prominence of female directors in foreign cinemas, there is something distinctly sexist in Hollywood. My personal opinion is that it's basically just difficult for women to mobilize upwards in any corporate system, particularly in America, and the American studio system is intensely corporate. Unfortunately - and I'm sure you're aware of this firsthand, Chase - being a director is considered something of a corporate privilege granted to loyal employees through promotion. I don't think has anything to do with fewer women entering the field as much as it does an industry-wide bias against promoting women upwards in the system unless they've proven themselves to be profitably mediocre (like Kathryn Bigelow).

I must apologize because I've said some things that are unfair to Ostromite, and for that I offer a sincere and unqualified apology.

I should have put this in my previous post, but I was obviously only addressing QC, not you, because I don't think you were being as dismissive as he was.

And QC, don't think I have anything against you personally. I just don't appreciate you insulting me so all of a sudden on the political board every time I disagree with you.

On the other hand, a black man who speaks properly, is respectful, and well-dressed is probably just as likely to get the job as a similarly-mannered white man.

The problem, though, is that if that black man and a similar white man apply for the same job, statistically, the white man is more likely to get it. I don't know where the original study was, but one example was discussed in the film Freakanomics, which I only mention because it's available on Netflix Instant and therefore easy to find. The study wasn't conducted for the film itself, but it is cited in it in a major segment. It found that, on average, between two identical applications, the ones with the "black-sounding" names and data indicative of a black background got called into interviews two thirds as often.

Decision Sciences class

What in the shit is that?

    Replies: 38

---

Msg #38: On 8/8/2011 at 9:09:04 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #37, saying:
I should have put this in my previous post, but I was obviously only addressing QC, not you, because I don't think you were being as dismissive as he was.

Yeah, but I was being a dick, too. At least, I wasn't really taking the debate very seriously.

It found that, on average, between two identical applications, the ones with the "black-sounding" names and data indicative of a black background got called into interviews two thirds as often.

To me, that has more to do with class than race. Names like Bonequeshia or Lemonjello (to use absurd examples) are identified as "black," yes: but I think the more important association is that it is associated with low-class, "ghetto" individuals. Anecdotal evidence: most black kids born into middle class or higher families have more mainstream names.

I'm not trying to justify it, I just disagree with the cause.

What in the shit is that?

Some damn class on how to make decisions and utilize tools to gather, quantify, or otherwise analyze data to arrive at that goal. I'm in my last week, and I can literally poop out an A+ paper in any class, so I'm not worried about it: I just really don't want to do it.

    Replies: 40

---

Msg #39: On 8/8/2011 at 10:04:37 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
They're real, and your agreement with their existence is irrelevant because they simply do exist. Racism doesn't just exist as numbers and data points. Regardless of the problems with affirmative action, it's simply a fact that white people benefit from not being discriminated against at the expense of non-whites.

If you're trying to state that a problem is significant enough that it requires federal intervention, you need to be able to prove the case beyond effectively saying that's what it feels like. To put the shoe on the Monki foot, a good segment of the population feels like there is a bias and deliberate maligning of Christians in this country. That doesn't make it so. You aren't stating opinions here that can be disagreed with and respected, you are stating unequivocally that the majority of non-whites currently face discrimination at a level warranting intervention. If you want to say it's your opinion and it's how you feel, then say that. Don't couch it as "it is a fact" when you're providing opinion if you don't wish to have it declined or dismissed out of hand.

You think I'm the one in an ivory tower when you're telling me that my opinions are inferior to yours because you assume that I don't have as much "real world" experience as you?

I didn't state your opinion was inferior. I stated that you're providing a line of reasoning that is so predicable that it could easily come from a liberal stereotype such as the daughter on American Dad. Nor did I state that I had a vast depth of real world experience that trumps you. I would say that when you're speaking in terms of what people feel, it doesn't rise to the level requiring federal intervention. My dismissal isn't at your opinion, it's at the standard of proof you require before coming to the conclusion that intervention is necessary and the casual way you toss around the weight of the federal government as if it is a given. What you're reading as a personal slight is a deep ideological divide.

? If you honestly think my opinions come from brainwashing and bullshit that's been shoveled down my throat by college professors and indie filmmakers and that I'm out of touch with real life in America, you can go fuck yourself.

You're so quick to just randomly provide evidence of your viewpoint as generic studies or conversations you've had in the past, whereas in the other thread you rammed specific quotations down Monki's deservedly crammed throat. Again, what catches me here isn't what you feel, it's that you think that a feeling or sense of a community you do not belong to, nor can claim to represent, is enough to demand action that directly and adversely affects the country.

though I find your opinions highly offensive to non-whites, as you're essentially implying that they can't tell when they're being oppressed or not

I don't care what any group, non-white, white, protestant or martian thinks about itself when it comes to using the force and power of law and the government. It's one thing to point to observable and deplorable practices like separate drinking fountains or institutional anti-minority lending practices as policy. It's another to state that there is such a racial bias boiling beneath the surface of a majority of the country that it demands redress. I also think it's massively arrogant for you to claim to understand or speak for an entire racial segment of the population, or that you would even paint them as a uniform group on the issue. Just like I don't care about pandering to evangelical or Latino voters, I don't paint the black population as a lockstep group that anyone should claim to speak for.

but if you're going to be so quick to belittle me by claiming my opinions are invalid by some arbitrary assumption of where my ideas come from, I'm simply not going to talk to you about it.

I went to college too. You're a self professed socialist (albeit stating things don't mean what their common definitions are to you, which defeats the purpose of self identification with a group or ideology, but that's another issue...) with a journalism degree. There's more verifiable evidence of liberal bias in both personal life and professional reporting of the news than there is of any racism in this country as a whole.

but just last week you basically called me insane for referring to members of the Bush cabinet as war criminals (hardly a new claim)

An equally delusional claim wherever you find it. You accuse someone of war crimes, not exactly a small thing, and then proclaim the burden of proof is on someone to prove that they aren't a war criminal. It is a ludicrous claim and it isn't worth addressing. That you repeat it as some example of my insensitivity to you further illustrates how off to the left you are.

I haven't acted like you need to prove what "real world" experience you've had that led to your opinions.

Again, you aren't providing opinions. You're painting things as given truths when they are most certainly not. If you want me to entertain them, you're going to have to stop relying on ambiguities and third hand stories from your clique.

Beyond the federal government intervention that you're endorsing, redress in any form, it's the off handed attitude where you dismiss the country as racist that irks me.

I was completely serious in stating that it doesn't matter to me whether the conversation goes anywhere. You already proved yourself on these matters in the other thread. I simply can't take someone seriously who considers George Bush a war criminal with the flippancy that you've displayed. It's affirmed here. It's torture on wheels to even type this much because I can't force myself to care about where your opinion comes from. We're so divergent in our politics that the discussion will continue to be like the massage without the happy ending.

Edit: Freakanomics is crap in a hat.

Edit²: And I don't mean to personally offend you, I just can't find enough common ground here to warrant the discussion. As TW said, I was being too vague in my responses previously and I can see where it would come across as being purposefully hostile. I didn't mean that and apologize for it.

---

Msg #40: On 8/8/2011 at 10:28:32 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #38, saying:
Some damn class on how to make decisions and utilize tools to gather, quantify, or otherwise analyze data to arrive at that goal.

Sounds like an equally pointless class I had to take while working on my Bachelor's called Reason and Argument. Hated the class, but hey, it took care of my verbal communication requirement, so I never had to take speech. It was like the anti-social's alternative to the speech requirement.

---

Msg #41: On 8/8/2011 at 10:57:23 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
I don't know why I even bother trying to participate in debates. I have more fun reading them.

---

Msg #42: On 8/9/2011 at 3:29:56 AM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I'm sorry if I overreacted and took your motives as hostile, but I'm not going to discuss this or anything else on this sub-forum with you any further if you're going to openly admit to having no respect for my opinions. I'll admit that there's an unbridgeable gulf between our political ideologies, and I may have been a bit too flippant, but I've tried to engage with you as best I could (without committing a day's work to it, that is), especially since you called me out on not reading any conservative writers earlier in the week. However, if you're simply going to say that you actually don't care about what I have to say, I'm not going to bother. I do, however, think I should defend myself on a few points:

in the other thread you rammed specific quotations down Monki's deservedly crammed throat

I know the following comment will amount to an admission of laziness, but everything I posted in Monkipzzle's nuthouse thread was stuff I already knew off the top of my head. While I have an electronic Bible handy to pull passages from, I don't have an index of sociological studies on race relations.

how off to the left you are.

I fail to see why being a leftist is a bad thing.

I also think it's massively arrogant for you to claim to understand or speak for an entire racial segment of the population

I never claimed that. I'm speaking for myself from my own experience

with a journalism degree

I don't really understand why you keep implying that my having a baccalaureate in journalism automatically gives me a liberal bias. It doesn't offend me personally, as I do consider myself politically left-wing, but it's offensive to all journalists and all students studying it. As I said in a different thread, journalism professors and the departments they work in are the least politically biased academics I've ever encountered outside the hard sciences (and, I guess, physical education, which I've never been anywhere near). If you believe that there is a liberal bias in mainstream news media, that's one thing, but to act as though journalism students are somehow trained to be liberally biased is, quite frankly, just insulting.

Freakanomics is crap in a hat.

I agree, but that's irrelevant anyway because I only mentioned it because I happened to have just seen it the other day (parts of it, anyway, since I can't stand Morgan Spurlock) and the study it cites is what I was interested in. The film itself is barely even a documentary, just a re-enactment of others' research. I'm only commenting on this so you don't think I like that movie.

---

Reply Previous - Next - Back