271–280 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly enough, Jonathan Haidt is a proper full professor, unlike Tim Urban and Greg Lukianoff. I'm curious how he navigates the university culture.
Not too tricky to navigate after you've got tenure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The first time some people will see or touch a book is when they get to elementary school. Those people are set up to fail in life, and anybody growing up from birth in an environment with no books is disadvantaged. That is the concern of the parents, there is nothing preventing anyone from reading if they are so inclined today. >We all exist within history, it’s not some bubble where what happened before your birth…
> Blaming the peoples of today for sins committed by the peoples of yesterday only breed resentment. The goal is not to blame anyone, instead it is creating a plain level field. White people only need to compete amongst themselves, so I'm pretty sure that the best will survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't know what "diversity" means. The modern use seems to mean that a person is inherently more valuable if they have less common appearance attributes, regardless of their character or the soundness of their beliefs. The problem with inverting bias discrimination is it tends to promote identity-based entitlement rather than accomplishment-based pride. Identity-based entitlement is a universally unhealthy ou…
To understand what "diversity" truly means in a modern context, simply ask yourself this question: have you ever heard anyone claim that the NBA is not diverse enough?
I kind of pieced something together recently that makes me feel sick to my stomach. Diversity only matters in white majority areas or white countries. Too many white people anywhere is a bad thing apparently. Nobody in Japan is losing out on a university job for being Asian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Targeting class diversity naturally gets you racial diversity anyways. Not always true. Look at the SHSAT. If you looked at the poor kids and took the top scores, it would be mostly Asians. The same thing applies for admissions to the Ivies. If they set aside 25% of their incoming class to be from the bottom 25% of the income distribution they'd fill most of those slots with Asians.
> mostly Asians So what? A few generations ago they said the same thing about Jews which was why they added extra admissions criteria in the first place. If one person has proven to be more academically qualified than another, they should be admitted. It doesn’t matter if they’re Jewish, Asian (which is an entire continent so it’s a bit silly to lump them all together, as if someone from China and someone from India…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Targeting class diversity naturally gets you racial diversity anyways. Not always true. Look at the SHSAT. If you looked at the poor kids and took the top scores, it would be mostly Asians. The same thing applies for admissions to the Ivies. If they set aside 25% of their incoming class to be from the bottom 25% of the income distribution they'd fill most of those slots with Asians.
> Not always true. Look at the SHSAT. If you looked at the poor kids and took the top scores, it would be mostly Asians. That's assuming you're filling these slots solely on the basis of highest score and not, for example, setting a threshold score below which you might not expect those students to be able to succeed in that environment and then choosing from the remainder by lottery. After all, if the point is diver…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Targeting class diversity naturally gets you racial diversity anyways. Not always true. Look at the SHSAT. If you looked at the poor kids and took the top scores, it would be mostly Asians. The same thing applies for admissions to the Ivies. If they set aside 25% of their incoming class to be from the bottom 25% of the income distribution they'd fill most of those slots with Asians.
SHSAT is an NYC-only HS thing, right? Are there any other US cities or regions doing similar at HS admissions level (ages 12-14)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialized_High_Schools_Admis...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
counterpoint to referendums: Brexit, which has been a disaster for Britain.
You are evidence for the argument made by the comment you replied to. You think it is more important that the right (in your opinion) decision is made than the decision the electorate prefers is made. This is actually a general argument in favour of rule by an oligarchy of experts rather than democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support your railing against bureaucracy, but question your assertion that a specific quantity of public spending is bad. Firstly, government spending does not imply greater bureaucracy; compare and contrast healthcare in America with pretty much anywhere else. Secondly, fiscal policy should be dynamic and reactive to economic conditions. I don't pretend to understand Keynes, but I believe he established that princ…
Keynes has been discredited in recent years, it's odd that you think he's established anything. The Austrians were proven right and recent monetary policy reflects their view - you don't see much discussion of Keynes anymore. If you don't understand Keynes maybe that's why you don't realise that? To recap Keynes: his core idea was countercyclical monetary policy, i.e. to issue debt (print money) when times are bad an…
I always had this gut feeling that the Keynesianism in the aftermath of 2008 was a really bad idea but economics isn't my space and I don't care to argue with politicos about economics. This explains it really well.
So... now what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s impossible to read a book you don’t have access to. That’s the entire point, there was a multigenerational intentional program of making sure one race couldn’t read. The effects of it persist. I think you aren’t engaging with this logically and are being emotional. Please try to think clearly and critically. You seem angry.
Your tone is antagonizing. I think you should apologize to the person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, Marxists got into quite a fight against other leftists in the early days because they were opposed to equity. Marxists are, in theory, only for equality of opportunity, hence why Marxists countries like the USSR had things like pay by commission, higher pay for certain jobs, etc...
Marx is the poster child for equality of outcome. Would be very interested to know where you heard he stood for equal opportunity. For example he is famous for saying "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" i.e. everyone works as hard as they can yet gets the same pay, because everyone's "need" is the same. Maybe adjusted by a few exceptions like family size and medical conditions, but…
"one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right."
"The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression."
Lenin also says:
"Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights."
"It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth."
Marx absolutely was opposed to equality of outcome, and had a lot of conflict against other leftists on this point. He was against class as a source of inequality, but he recognized that people have unequal capabilities and unequal needs.
I'm not a Marxist, but I actually read a bit of what he wrote - the difference between the words people typically put in his mouth and what he says is gigantic. This is an example. Marxism was a successful ideology over other leftist ideologies is in a huge part because it did recognize that people aren't equal, and that it based it's critique on capitalism on far more than that.