Nasa Racism Claims

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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). 

This is one problem with the internet: problems are magnified beyond the probable reality. 

[Lord Antares]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

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.

You mean the same science-based, cutting edge organization which would apparently swap said black man for a hispanic woman because they are all inherently racist? Do you not see the irony? The premise of the thread was that NASA pulled a black man out of an operation; therefore NASA is racist. I am not saying anyone (including the OP) openly believed this but it was not dismissed as crazy by anyone and it is being discussed and addressed seriously. 

Then I made this satirical post claiming the exact opposite trying to prove how people on this forum are willing to jump someone who claims that something bad might be an act of liberalism but would be perfectly willing to accept that something bad might be an act of conservatism. How exactly does my scenario sound more delusional and far-fetched than the opposite, original scenario? Why is it acceptable to suspect someone of racism simply because the man being pulled away from the mission was black? Would NASA be mysoginists if the opposite scenario happened where the hispanic woman was swapped for the black man?

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

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.

I agree with you entirely. That also goes for the side who are claiming racism.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

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.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. No individual race held the majority numbers wise at any school I attended k-12. I knew loads of kids who were first generation born U.S. citizens who had parents which had immigrated from other countries. Some of those first generation kids (many actually but it's all relative) were not allowed by their families to socialize with black children. The attitude, as I heard it expressed numerous over, is that in U.S. society blacks were at the bottom and to succeed one mustn't be associated with them. I saw first hand Latinos and Asians be overtly racist towards blacks. In those cases it was about fear those recently immigrated had of sharing the societal position they believed blacks held. 

Separately I saw whites and blacks team up together as "normal Americans" (not immigrants or the children of immigrants) and make fun of those from China, India, Nicaragua, and etc for having parents with accents and etc. I have seen it play out a whole lot of different ways and I am not even adding the gender element into the mix. 

 

13 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

Then I made this satirical post claiming the exact opposite trying to prove how people on this forum are willing to jump someone who claims that something bad might be an act of liberalism but would be perfectly willing to accept that something bad might be an act of conservatism.

Who here has posted that they believe the claim of Racism? 

14 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

How exactly does my scenario sound more delusional and far-fetched than the opposite, original scenario?

Because the original is an actual claim being made and not a sarcastic scenario. The OP is asking for thoughts on something which has actually accorded. Whether the claim made by the brother is true or false it was made and does exists so it isn't crazy for the OP to ask for our thoughts regarding it.

[Lord Antares]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Whether the claim made by the brother is true or false it was made and does exists so it isn't crazy for the OP to ask for our thoughts regarding it.

And it is exactly as baseless and lacking evidence as my mock alternative, (which I don't, in fact, consider to be any less likely than the original) yet the original one is being discussed seriously. Since when is it acceptable to accuse someone of racism without any evidence whatsoever? How the fuck should any of us know what the real reason for that was? ''Something something happened and I'm not sure but I think it's for this reason but I can't give you any evidence for this anyways what do you guys think?''. There is nothing to think.

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

, (which I don't, in fact, consider to be any less likely than the original) yet the original one is being discussed seriously.

Yours is rhetorical. You have no relationship to anyone associated with a NASA mission. There is not a petition going based on your purely argumentative scenario. It is not real (as a thing be claimed to have happened) and the other is. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Ten oz
typos

[Lord Antares]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yours is rhetorical. You have no relationship to anyone associated with a NASA mission. There is a petition going based on you purely argumentative scenario. It is not real (as a thing be claimed to have happened) and the other is. 

No, you comments absolutely doesn't hold water. So what that the brother is personally involved in the matter? It doesn't make any of what he says as automatically true without any evidence. Anyone talking without evidence is being equally assertive. 

Also, get this. I did a quick google search. There have been 14 black people in space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_astronauts

There have been 12 hispanic people in space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hispanic_astronauts

The argument makes no sense. Seeing how less Hispanic people have been to space than black people, and also taking into account NASA's quote...

Quote

“Diversity and inclusion are integral to mission success at NASA and we have a diverse astronaut corps reflective of that approach.”

...(taken from the link in the OP), saying that they want more diversity, my made-up scenario seems more plausible than the racism claim. 

[CharonY]

It only makes sense if one thinks that organizations try to select based on ethnic stratification. Not that OP made any more sense.

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

It doesn't make any of what he says as automatically true without any evidence. Anyone talking without evidence is being equally assertive

I never said it made it true.....smh

Edited January 24, 2018 by Ten oz
Typo

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Lord Antares said:

Then I made this satirical post claiming the exact opposite trying to prove how people on this forum are willing to jump someone who claims that something bad might be an act of liberalism but would be perfectly willing to accept that something bad might be an act of conservatism. How exactly does my scenario sound more delusional and far-fetched than the opposite, original scenario? Why is it acceptable to suspect someone of racism simply because the man being pulled away from the mission was black? Would NASA be mysoginists if the opposite scenario happened where the hispanic woman was swapped for the black man?

 

So you do have an agenda. Good to know I didn't misread your intentions.

Edited January 25, 2018 by zapatos

[Lord Antares]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So you do have an agenda. Good to know I didn't misread your intentions.

Shit, you're technically right.

[MigL]

Now I know what 'tempest in a teapot' means.
Was this story reported in Daily Mail ?

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Now I know what 'tempest in a teapot' means.
 

Storm in a teacup.

[zapatos]

58 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Storm in a teacup.

Quote

Tempest in a teapot (American English), or storm in a teacup (British English), is an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion. There are also lesser known or earlier variants, such as tempest in a teacup, storm in a cream bowl, tempest in a glass of water, storm in a wash-hand basin,^[1] and storm in a glass of water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_in_a_teapot

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_in_a_teapot

I thought it was foreign.