Nasa Racism Claims

[Raider5678]

Just now, Ten oz said:

Which proves what? Additionally what am I claiming that you are attempting to counter? Raider's OP asked for thoughts on the story. My thoughts are that I have no idea what happened and thus far no one in this discussion does either. What is "I don't know" a problematic answer in a situation like this where all the players are not known. If this issue becomes big in the news it would make sense for NASA to explain what happened. At that point we will all have much more info to create opinions with. 

I have an idea. Well, hypothesis.

But I can't 100% prove it.

However, I have reasonable evidence to back it up.

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

You didn't answer my question.

I must not understand your question. Can you rephrase it? I wasn't deflecting anything. 

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Technically in science we don't ever 100% KNOW.

However, we can make observations and come to reasonable conclusions.

 

Epps was a flight engineer. Her replacement is a Medical Specialist.

These are two different roles, and it points more to a difference in WHO they needed for the ISS then what race they wanted in the ISS.

With this, while neither of us know for 100% certain, we can make reasonable assumptions.

Observations; at a minimum don't we need to know which person(s) made the decision and hear their account for why? NASA has a public relations office. Since this is in the news I'd imagine they will be responding shortly. No need for our own pet hypotheses. 

[zapatos]

You said:

"I have no real opinion about the story because I have no idea at what level these types of decisions are made at NASA but I see no reason for doubt to be the default position."

I was just seeking clarification on what you were referring to when you said "I see no reason for doubt to be the default position". Both NASA and the brother of the astronaut made statements. Did you mean 'I see no reason for doubt of NASA to be the default position', or possibly 'I see no reason for doubt of the brother to be the default position'?

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Observations; at a minimum don't we need to know which person(s) made the decision and hear their account for why? NASA has a public relations office. Since this is in the news I'd imagine they will be responding shortly. No need for our own pet hypotheses. 

 

Pet hypotheses?

 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/01/22/nasa-pulled-this-astronaut-from-a-space-station-crew-her-brother-blames-racism/?utm_term=.e7ba7e573772

 

There are rumors going around that Nasa is racist because they pulled a black astronaut from the ISS  mission in June and replaced her with a Hispanic woman.

Thoughts?

Highly unlikely, they are too politically savvy for that. There are many potential reasons for the switch and without further information all speculation is moot.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

You said:

"I have no real opinion about the story because I have no idea at what level these types of decisions are made at NASA but I see no reason for doubt to be the default position."

I was just seeking clarification on what you were referring to when you said "I see no reason for doubt to be the default position". Both NASA and the brother of the astronaut made statements. Did you mean 'I see no reason for doubt of NASA to be the default position', or possibly 'I see no reason for doubt of the brother to be the default position'?

Technically only the brother has made a statement which we can believe, doubt, or withhold judgement on. To my knowledge NASA hasn't issued a statement responding to the claim. So at this point the discussion is primarily centered around whether or not to believe, doubt, or withhold judgement on the claim. In my opinion withholding judgement is what makes most sense. I know nothing about the brother, very little about the astronaut, and nothing about the person(s) that made the call. I simply do not have enough information to render an opinion. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve the claim on the claim's own merit. 

 

[Lord Antares]

43 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Highly unlikely, they are too politically savvy for that. There are many potential reasons for the switch and without further information all speculation is moot.

What do you mean? It happened exactly because they are trying to be politically correct. They figured a hispanic woman (which is, like, double oppression, man) is going to be a more liberal choice than a black man (which is only single oppression). In their attempt to be too anti-racist, they appeared racist. They didn't think it would backfire (and neither would I, because I would assume that a woman from a minority is going to be proggressive enough to blot out any perceived bigotry) but it did.

Of course, I have no evidence for this claim, but this is my most likely scenario.

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Technically only the brother has made a statement which we can believe, doubt, or withhold judgement on. To my knowledge NASA hasn't issued a statement responding to the claim.

2

They did.

They said it had nothing to do with racism but what they needed on the ISS.

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

What do you mean? It happened exactly because they are trying to be politically correct. They figured a hispanic woman (which is, like, double oppression, man) is going to be a more liberal choice than a black man (which is only single oppression). In their attempt to be too anti-racist, they appeared racist. They didn't think it would backfire (and neither would I, because I would assume that a woman from a minority is going to be proggressive enough to blot out any perceived bigotry) but it did.

Of course, I have no evidence for this claim, but this is my most likely scenario.

I have no evidence for this claim, but I think anyone who could come to a conclusion like you just did has either an agenda or a chip on his shoulder.

[Lord Antares]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I have no evidence for this claim, but I think anyone who could come to a conclusion like you just did has either an agenda or a chip on his shoulder.

Why do you think so? This is not a rhetorical question.

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Why do you think so? This is not a rhetorical question.

I think you are reading things into it from insufficient data. Until otherwise shown, I think the default position should be that it was a purely operational decision.

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

They did.

They said it had nothing to do with racism but what they needed on the ISS.

I was unaware they had made a press release directly responding to the claim. I didn't see one on their press release page. Do you have a link I can read? 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Why do you think so? This is not a rhetorical question.

Because you said it with such confidence ("It happened exactly because they are trying to be politically correct. They figured..."); because of your 'single oppression' vs 'double oppression' analysis; and because your default position for a science-based, cutting edge organization, is to assume they suddenly changed their mission configuration because their anti-racist choice of a black woman could be made double-dog-dare-anti-racist by swapping her out for an Hispanic woman. All without offering a shred of evidence that supports this claim.

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

What do you mean? It happened exactly because they are trying to be politically correct. They figured a hispanic woman (which is, like, double oppression, man) is going to be a more liberal choice than a black man (which is only single oppression).

Who are "they", why do you assume "they" are liberal or care about liberal choices, and why can't a Hispanic or Black female just be the best 2 individuals for the job? 

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

don't know if race was a factor or not.

Nor does anyone else here.

Which means that NASA is innocent until proven guilty.

But seriously, if they were going to e racist about it, surely they would have chosen a white man as the replacement.?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Nor does anyone else here.

Which means that NASA is innocent until proven guilty.

But seriously, if they were going to e racist about it, surely they would have chosen a white man as the replacement.?

Didn't you read the previous comments by Ten Oz?

It could be a Hispanic racist.

We don't know.

[John Cuthber]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Didn't you read the previous comments by Ten Oz?

It could be a Hispanic racist.

We don't know.

Yes I did read it. The word "surely" is a rhetorical device.

It could be, but how did they get into a senior position in NASA?
At best, you have to say the odds are poor.

 

[koti]

Lets not jump into conclusions but what comes out of in between the lines from the below quote just might have something to do with this precedent:

“My sister Dr. Jeannette Epps has been fighting against oppressive racism and misogynist in NASA and now they are holding her back and allowing a Caucasian Astronaut to take her place!” Henry Epps wrote in a Facebook post Saturday. (The post has since been removed.)”

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, koti said:

Lets not jump into conclusions but what comes out of in between the lines from the below quote just might have something to do with this precedent:

“My sister Dr. Jeannette Epps has been fighting against oppressive racism and misogynist in NASA and now they are holding her back and allowing a Caucasian Astronaut to take her place!” Henry Epps wrote in a Facebook post Saturday. (The post has since been removed.)”

History at NASA doesn't support him.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Which means that NASA is innocent until proven guilty.

No place have I implied otherwise. Saying "I don't know" specifically to the claim made, on its own merit, in no way shape or form accuses NASA or proves them guilty of a single thing.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

But seriously, if they were going to e racist about it, surely they would have chosen a white man as the replacement.?

I don't see how. Racism can exist without white males being involved. 

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No place have I implied otherwise. Saying "I don't know" specifically to the claim made, on its own merit, in no way shape or form accuses NASA or proves them guilty of a single thing.

Quite right, you didn't. But others (not necessarily on this forum- I was using a rather more general "here") have done so.

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't see how. Racism can exist without white males being involved. 

It can, but they tend to go hand in hand.

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No place have I implied otherwise. Saying "I don't know" specifically to the claim made, on its own merit, in no way shape or form accuses NASA or proves them guilty of a single thing.

I don't see how. Racism can exist without white males being involved. 

Racism exists between groups other than with white groups. it's not an exclusively white phenomenon.

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Quite right, you didn't. But others (not necessarily on this forum- I was using a rather more general "here") have done so.

I don't disagree that other shouldn't do that. 

 

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It can, but they tend to go hand in hand.

I don't believe that. Because white males have the most power and influence (money, CEO positions, most elected offices, etc) it is simply easier to identify when white males are involved.

 

[John Cuthber]

In my (, granted, not very well informed) opinion, those who suffer from prejudice are likely to recognise that it's wrong.

Most people in the US who are not white males will have been on the wrong end of prejudice and will have had a clear lesson in the idea that it's just wrong.

White men won't have had that lesson so much.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

What do you mean? It happened exactly because they are trying to be politically correct

It implies that for some reasons they are trying to be PC yet have no idea how bad it looks to pull someone after selection for these reasons. While internally they do have issues, they are very cognizant of things that are presented to the public.

The whole statement of yours seems like wild speculation presented as coherent fact. Considering that there may be many reasons for being pulled off a flight. However, neither NASA nor Epps commented on it (which is not unusual).