koti Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Area54 said: Thank you. Would you have the courtesy of telling me whether or not my understanding of your point was accurate or not? Its actually spot on. +1.
iNow Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, koti said: I haven't seen a rule on this forum stating that something needs to be clarified repeatedly over and over so, no... no repeated clarification will be provided. You've not clarified over and over. You have instead just repeated yourself and directed us "over and over" to your original post... To that end, I will direct you now to rule 2.8: http://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ 2.8: This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. 5 hours ago, Area54 said: From koti's point of view. The statement, as written, is misleading, even dangerous, on principle. Koti believes that assigning explanations/blame to issues based upon gender or ethnicity represents a convenient oversimplification that exacerbates rather than alleviates the problem. Therefore, to identify white males at being at the heart of this extremism is to obscure the underlying causes rather than to illuminate them. Where did I place blame or assign an explanation? It was an objective statement of fact, not a thesis on underlying cause. Edited August 19, 2017 by iNow
koti Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, iNow said: You've not clarified over and over. You have instead just repeated yourself and directed us "over and over" to your original post... To that end, I will direct you now to rule 2.8: http://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ 2.8: This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. It is up to the moderators than to decide whether or not I broke the rules. Thank you for that useful observation Sir.
Ten oz Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, koti said: I read your post carefully Area54. Thank you for writing it, it did not go to waste. I suppose my post did go to waste? I provide research which demonstrated the advantages white males have in employment and education which directly counter you claim to the contrary. In your follow ups to iNow you seem to be asserting that the existence of your opinions somehow are their own circular justification; that is how you feel therefor it is fair its how I feel. Having a thought or belief in itself isn't a manifestation of logic, truth, or reason.
koti Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Ten oz said: I suppose my post did go to waste? I provide research which demonstrated the advantages white males have in employment and education which directly counter you claim to the contrary. In your follow ups to iNow you seem to be asserting that the existence of your opinions somehow are their own circular justification; that is how you feel therefor it is fair its how I feel. Having a thought or belief in itself isn't a manifestation of logic, truth, or reason. In a sense Ten oz, your post did go to waste as you conveniently skewed my below statement into implying that I "claim to the contrary" where I am only stating a fact (from my own experience) that American employers ask you for your ethnicity, religion and gender whereas European employers in vast majority of cases don't (unless we're dealing with a US company operating in Europe for example): "I'm curious, which groups are more likely to get hired in the US? I'll tell you this...While looking for a job recently, I applied to probably a couple of thousand job offers in various countries including a 100 or maybe 150 jobs in the US in the last few months. Every single job offer that I applied for in the US was asking for my ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to other countries where I never got asked about my ethnicity, gender or religion. Kinda makes you think doesn't it. " This kind of shoving down somebodies throat of assertions which are not there is misleading, annoying and uncalled for Ten oz. Please stop doing it. Edited August 19, 2017 by koti -1
waitforufo Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 Koti I think you are missing the point. By using the term "white males" they are implying Republicans because blacks and feminist vote for Democrats. Yet when it comes to racism in the US, as I have consistently pointed out, history points to Democrats. When doing so on this blog, defenders of the Democratic party always claim that all that Democratic party racist history was transferred to the Republican party due to the Southern Strategy of the 1968 election. Does this pan out when looking at data from the 1968 election? Well let's take a look. 1968 Election Results Candidate Party Electoral Votes Popular Votes ✓ Richard M. Nixon Republican 301 31,710,470 Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic 191 30,898,055 George C. Wallace American Independent 46 9,906,473 1968 Election Facts Wallace's tally of 46 marks the most recent election that a 3rd party candidate has won Electoral Votes Nixon won North Carolina; however one Elector cast a vote for Wallace Above George Wallace is listed as "American" Independent" but he was in fact the former Democratic Governor of Alabama. So the racists didn't vote for Nixon, they voted again for a Democrat. This was not 100 years ago, it was 50 years ago. Though I was in elementary school at the time, I remember the election well.
Area54 Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 24 minutes ago, iNow said: .Where did I place blame or assign an explanation? It was an objective statement of fact, not a thesis on underlying cause. FFS will you drop your preconceptions and take a moment to consider an alternate point of view. You may have intended it as a statement of fact, but it carries with it real and virtual implications. I know from reading many of your posts that you are smart enough to know this and am bewildered by your intransigence here. You are both behaving like spoiled brats. I'm done with this nonsense. Have a nice day!
koti Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Area54 said: You are both behaving like spoiled brats. I can agree to being a spoiled brat in this thread and I think that your posts are spot on Area54. On the other hand: 14 minutes ago, Area54 said: I'm done with this nonsense. Have a nice day! Is the very definition of a "spoiled brat" now isn't it. Edited August 19, 2017 by koti
Delta1212 Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 28 minutes ago, waitforufo said: Koti I think you are missing the point. By using the term "white males" they are implying Republicans because blacks and feminist vote for Democrats. Yet when it comes to racism in the US, as I have consistently pointed out, history points to Democrats. When doing so on this blog, defenders of the Democratic party always claim that all that Democratic party racist history was transferred to the Republican party due to the Southern Strategy of the 1968 election. Does this pan out when looking at data from the 1968 election? Well let's take a look. 1968 Election Results Candidate Party Electoral Votes Popular Votes ✓ Richard M. Nixon Republican 301 31,710,470 Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic 191 30,898,055 George C. Wallace American Independent 46 9,906,473 1968 Election Facts Wallace's tally of 46 marks the most recent election that a 3rd party candidate has won Electoral Votes Nixon won North Carolina; however one Elector cast a vote for Wallace Above George Wallace is listed as "American" Independent" but he was in fact the former Democratic Governor of Alabama. So the racists didn't vote for Nixon, they voted again for a Democrat. This was not 100 years ago, it was 50 years ago. Though I was in elementary school at the time, I remember the election well. And why did George Wallace run as an "American Independent" instead of a Democrat?
Ten oz Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 49 minutes ago, koti said: In a sense Ten oz, your post did go to waste as you conveniently skewed my below statement into implying that I "claim to the contrary" where I am only stating a fact (from my own experience) that American employers ask you for your ethnicity, religion and gender whereas European employers in vast majority of cases don't (unless we're dealing with a US company operating in Europe for example):"I'm curious, which groups are more likely to get hired in the US? I'll tell you this...While looking for a job recently, I applied to probably a couple of thousand job offers in various countries including a 100 or maybe 150 jobs in the US in the last few months. Every single job offer that I applied for in the US was asking for my ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to other countries where I never got asked about my ethnicity, gender or religion. Kinda makes you think doesn't it. " This kind of shoving down somebodies throat of assertions which are not there is misleading, annoying and uncalled for Ten oz. Please stop doing it. You said your were curious and then went on to imply per your experience is wasn't white males. I provided evidence that your experience isn't what is happening and you aren't willing to address it instead choosing to deflect.
koti Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ten oz said: You said your were curious and then went on to imply per your experience is wasn't white males. I provided evidence that your experience isn't what is happening and you aren't willing to address it instead choosing to deflect. My experience is only that the US employers are asking for ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to non US employers. I was curious about which groups are more likely to get hired in the US (not anymore since you clarified it) and from what you write it is evident that it's the white male. I see you will keep on insisting on things which I have not stated nor even implied, I'm having deja vu from our discussion in the religious thread where you did the same. I have nothing to address since the evidence you provide contradicts points which I never made.
Delta1212 Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, koti said: My experience is only that the US employers are asking for ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to non US employers. I was curious about which groups are more likely to get hired in the US (not anymore since you clarified it) and from what you write it is evident that it's the white male. I see you will keep on insisting on things which I have not stated nor even implied, I'm having deja vu from our discussion in the religious thread where you did the same. I have nothing to address since the evidence you provide contradicts points which I never made. I know you aren't from the US, but for the sake of background information, you should probably know that the questions you asked are very common "questions" asked by people who live here and very much are intending to imply a specific answer/point. 1
koti Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Delta1212 said: I know you aren't from the US, but for the sake of background information, you should probably know that the questions you asked are very common "questions" asked by people who live here and very much are intending to imply a specific answer/point. Sure Delta, I should have known to not present questions or statements here which are unconfortable to answer. Lesson learned for me. -1
Phi for All Posted August 19, 2017 Posted August 19, 2017 ! Moderator Note I'm locking the thread temporarily to reset some sanity levels. This is becoming far too personal to gain meaning from the discussion. Most of the staff is involved, which makes it tough to make judgement calls, but MigL you know better than to purposely court suspension for a cheap personal shot. The fact that lots of those are flying around is the only reason you're not going to be on vacation for the eclipse discussions on Monday. This goes for everyone. No matter which "side" you feel you're on, losing your mind is always a bad strategy. Please recognize that this thread perhaps needs more focus than "anything related to White House ass-booting", and that some of the concepts blended here may be more accurately discussed in separate threads, where cool heads can ensure that stances are explained to everyone's satisfaction within the rules of civility we all claim to appreciate. Staff will review, and we may open this back up later today or tomorrow.
Recommended Posts