You’re a really bad troll. And I’ve been around the internets for a fair bit.
Step it up. You’re better than this.
1 Like
“White taxpayers do not want to waste money”
This is about the dumbest statement too. I don’t recall Barbara Mikulski calling me up on the phone:
“Hey, Chris, we’re getting ready to draft the new budget, would you prefer we spend money on the Joint Strike Fighter Program or the SGI education program?”
“Lol, Barbara, obviously the JSF program. I don’t like to waste money on SGI education.”
Ridiculous*.
*As is my spelling…
I think these types of polls are really misleading, because the underlying assumption has to be that the average American has absolutely any idea how spending works, or how much we’re currently spending, etcetc.
Put any of these “spend more” people into a basic personal finances class and I bet they shit a brick before chapter 2.
1 Like
Ya, probably, but that doesn’t change the fact that when asked the majority of people polled want to spend more on education. I assume they asked some white people.
1 Like
Probably white guilt brought on by questionable flow charts.
2 Likes
Probably…
Fixed your post to make it easier understood.
1 Like
Right. Couldn’t possibly. The statement is perfectly neutral, laden with no ideology - everyone knows only white people fund public education and that’s the only reason to have the ethnic identifier in the flow chart.
2 Likes
I would phrase it ‘we’re part of the vicious circle.’
Why you insist on making it a judgmental thing, I have no idea.
Circa 2017, I believe that, in most locales of significant population, white racial animus has little effect on public funding of education. Now, am I willing to make the same assertion about every little podunk parish/county/town in the country? No. Are you?
I don’t understand the question. To what standard does the word should refer?
Nothing besides what? That is, what are you positing as the cause of the white taxpayer behavior?
Look at the Figure again. It has lots of arrows. What’s so special about the one you selected?
Everything in the Figure is considered a “perpetuating factor.”
It implies no such thing. It states, explicitly, that when white taxpayers see SGIs ‘underperforming by cultural measures of success,’ they (the white taxpayers) see no point in pumping more money into what appears to be a fruitless endeavor.
I don’t understand why you are so bound and determined to make white people the victims here.
Stop a moment and re-read what you wrote here. Do you really think it’s “dumb” to assert that white taxpayers (or any taxpayers, for that matter) don’t want to waste money?
Or perhaps it’s because, compared to SGIs, whites tend to have higher incomes (and therefore pay higher income taxes) and own more (and more expensive) properties (and therefore pay higher property taxes)? In other words, could it be that the author used the attribution white with respect to taxpayers because whites typically comprise the lion’s share of the tax base?
Nah. Let’s go with the ‘racist code-word conspiracy’ instead. Sure, it flies in the face of all the actual evidence. But who needs evidence when we already know the truth?
Irrelevant, as they aren’t the totality of the tax base, which provides funding for public education. You wouldn’t include the distinction of “white” people if you were simply making a point about the total tax base. No, the author had a point to make specifically about white people and their approach and to distinguish them from non-whites, who don’t share that approach (expressio unius est exclusio, and all that).
His aim was to identify something that whites were doing to hurt SGIs, that’s obvious to anyone reading. That’s fine, I’m not offended - my point is: is his claim valid? Is it justified? And the answer is no, for the reasons stated. It’s ideology (starting with an unfounded political conclusion he likes) and working backwards, but skipping steps of logic, causation, and the responsibility to debunk alternative explanations along the way to get to his result.
There’s no racist code word conspiracy - it’s application of common sense in social science settings and understanding the language as it’s being used.
Heh. It doesn’t fly in the face of any evidence presented, and I’ll punt on the irony of someone as devoted to confirmation bias as you complaining that I’m not being objective enough.
Here we have an author taking the pain to complain about something white people are doing that’s bad for SGIs. Not everyone - white people. I merely point out that his unfounded bias is showing - as evidenced not only by his choice of language but also by the fact that his causation flow chart ignores many other variables that cause the problems he is describing to the amplification of one he likes (white people not doing what they should for minorities) - and you suspend reason to say no way the author has the preconception on race, which happens to be the same preconception that you yourself have and say we all should too.
You’ve been telling us in IP-related threads that white people have both blatant and subtle prejudices against SGIs and do things to hurt them, all the time. I say this author is saying the same thing about white people that you do, and you say “Malarkey! There’s no basis to think that about him!”
It’s baffling, frankly.
2 Likes
Approach?
No, that is your aim in reading it.
Did you not accuse the author of “dissembling”, ie, of concealing his true motives? What could this mean, other than that he is using racist code words?
The original source material was the evidence I used to support my position concerning the author’s intentions. What evidence did you present to support your position concerning his intentions?
Yes, you would do well to steer clear of that subject.
If you’ll read the source material, you’ll discover he makes no claims with regard to having provided an exhaustive compendium of the variables involved. Also, doing so would have made for a very cumbersome chart–difficult to print, much less read.
With respect to the point of the Figure under discussion, yes.
‘Blatant prejudices’ = racists. I assume you agree that some white people are racists.
‘Subtle racial effects’ (I don’t think prejudices is apt) = white privilege. Do you reject this concept outright? That is, is it your opinion no such thing exists?
More accurately, I was pushing back against the simplistic, misleading assertion that the author was blaming white people for the plight of SGIs vis a vis education and socioeconomic achievement–that he was calling all white people racists. I’ve never said that about white people–and neither did the author in the form of the Figure in question.
Yes, refusal to adequately fund public education.
Nonsense, and this is growing tiresome. You don’t identify white people to the exclusion of other ethnicities unless you’re making a point about them.
No, I never accused the author is dissembling - that was directed toward one of your responses, to which I also shared my disappointment.
You’ve been reading it this whole time, chief. Read my opening post criticizing his approach, in large part, his leaving out of too many factors that impact the ultmate result (poorly performing SGIs).
That’s good, because you’ve been setting records of late.
Have you read his book? It’s a current version of his textbook, meaning it costs money - I didn’t see where it was free.
Re: his claims: and? He doesn’t get to skip that step, regardless of whether he claimed he did or didn’t. You want to produce a theory to teach, you have a professional obligation to test that theory and make sure it’s correct, especially with respect to alternative explanations that explain results better than your theory. That’s science, friend. You don’t get to skip the variables and then claim you’re delivering the truth.
Imagine me trotting out a theory that insects were why the crops failed but I didn’t include credible information about the impact of a bad drought, a bad fungus that hit, and soil deficiencies from failing to rotate crops. When challenged, is it an excuse to say “hey, I never claimed I looked at all those other variables to account for them!”? Of course not.
But that’s precisely what he’s doing in his flow chart, for all the reasons stated. He’s singling out white people as offenders here - whether motivated by direct racism (a racist, by your phrasing) or subtle racism (what you term white privilege) - on the basis of ideology. The whole tax base could, in theory, be underfunding public education for a variety of reasons unrelated to race (as I have pointed out), but that isn’t what he is claiming. Instead, he makes the point that white people are underfunding it - making it a matter and more specifically, a function, of race relations. That’s his point.
In other words, your opinion is your evidence. Gotcha.
I read the relevant excerpt, and posted it above.
So to be clear: You haven’t read his book (or even the excerpt I added upthread, apparently), but you’re prepared to criticize him for skipping steps? That’s nonsense, friend.
Actual evidence–in the form of the caption accompanying the Figure, and the text which refers to it–says differently. But this fact doesn’t seem to impact your set-in-stone opinion, so I guess we’re at an impasse.
Your use of the term offenders speaks volumes. The author makes no such value-judgments–that’s all you, and is of a piece with the simplistic, misleading characterization I was pushing back against.
That’s not his point. It’s a cycle–a vicious circle. Why is this so hard for you and others to understand? Why do you perseverate over this one aspect?
Yes, same as you. It’s a fun little exercise we call argument. You won’t find it inside echo chambers, though.
“Relevant excerpt” - you mean the flow chart’s caption that restated the conclusions on the chart?
It’s not nonsense, if you have any familiarity with logic and science - the flow chart is itself a theory of how something works, and that theory can be attacked (or defended) at every at step of the chart.
Which is what I’ve done, to your apparent consternation.
Good Lord. It’s a caption, not supporting evidence supporting a working theory. The caption simply restates the point of flow chart, it doesn’t supplement it with confirming proof. This has gotten comical.
Does it? Are white people, in his theory, not committing a wrong?
Oh, and the refrain of “misleading” - delightful.
Yep, it is, and I’ve said it over and over, and you whistle past it. White people don’t fund public education - all taxpayers do. You single out white people if you’re trying to make a point about white people, not all people. In singling out white people and the reasons they refuse to adequately fund public education for SGIs, he’s explaining that SGI struggles are a function of something white people are doing. He’s making it a matter of race relations.
Because we know how to read a basic argument and understand what people are getting at? And also know when someone lets their reason get shelved in favor of their ideology?
How can we expect to grow, as a society, when people are still using terms like this? “Dominant-group Individuals” is the proper term.
“That LGBTQ mass of atoms is also a DGI and responsible for the state of all SGIs.” That’s the kind of talk we need, for healing to begin.
We passed tiresome 3 exits back. I thought it would be interesting watching two intelligent left leaning guys argue about a left leaning text. Nope.
I thought different flavored conservatives were bad at eating each other… But damn.
1 Like
No, not the same as me. I have the author’s own words to buttress my position. Really, you can’t even call my position an argument so much as simply a statement of fact.
No, I mean the text of the book in which the Figure is discussed.
In strawman fashion, sure.
Comical, indeed. Yet again, my oft-repeated reference to the text of the book has somehow eluded your attention.
As he has offered no theory, there is no answer possible. I can say with confidence that the text–I SAY AGAIN, THE TEXT–makes no mention of white people committing a wrong.
On the other hand, per your (baseless) theory of his (not-in-evidence) theory, he apparently thinks all white people are evil, rapacious racists committing socioeconomic genocide.
That’s true–you have said it over and over.
If you look at the Figure, it makes just as much sense to say he’s explaining that white taxpayer behavior is a function of what SGIs are doing. (That’s how vicious circles work.) Your ideology is forcing a false linearity onto a non-linear process.
I look forward to seeing evidence of this.
We did, but to be clear, ED and I are not in the same camp on this one ideologically, hence the disagreement. But as is, I learned a few things in this exchange, and that’s always a useful takeaway.
I understand. I was aware
@thunderbolt23 is a sell on IP/grievance politics
@eyedentist is a buy on IP/grievance politics
That’s why it was interesting to me. But it boiled down to “he didn’t mean anything by ‘white taxpayers’”. I think literally every other person who saw the chart holds the opposite opinion.
This is all your fault @anon71262119 . Lol
1 Like