Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64498 times)

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #250 on: March 04, 2019, 09:12:55 AM »
Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I love this. I liked tyort's contribution as well.

The way I've always thought of it, is that I'm conservative on an individual to individual basis, but I'm liberal when it comes to the macro level issues.

If a disadvantaged person wants to better their life, I'd tell them to work harder, work smarter, live leaner, negotiate, read books and get smarter. All that shit. Voting liberal won't help their lives on an individual basis.

But on the macro level, white men empirically wield outsized power. This is not because they're more talented than women/minorities. It's not because they work harder. There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed. So the personal conservatism that I practice in my own life does zero good on the national stage.

That's why I vote liberal. We need people who understand these issues and are willing to address them. Many conservatives at best, don't understand or won't acknowledge the issues, and at worst, actively work to exacerbate the issues.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 09:16:11 AM by mathlete »

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #251 on: March 04, 2019, 09:18:28 AM »
I disagree that exercising self-control and being good with money are "conservative" traits. Conservatives / liberals disagree on what standard to demand of other people and/or how best to help those who need it. Everyone is in favor of such generic concepts as making yourself personally disciplined and fiscally responsible.

This is a good point too. It's annoying that conservatism has managed to co-opt ideas like personal responsibility, support of the troops, etc.

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #252 on: March 04, 2019, 09:35:51 AM »
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America

I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #253 on: March 04, 2019, 10:09:39 AM »
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America

I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?

Or could it be some combination of the two, if it was actually easy for you?

Sugaree

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 827
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #254 on: March 04, 2019, 10:10:03 AM »
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America

I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?


I freely admit that I had all the opportunity in the world.  I grew up in a house where I never had to worry about the power being shut off or not having enough food to eat.  I went to a public school that wasn't failing and had teachers who cared whether we could read or not.  If I worked in HS/college it was because I wanted to have extra money to spend and not because I needed to help with the bills.  I went to college directly out of HS courtesy of my parents/grandparents.  I went to college the second time courtesy of a co-op job that I'm pretty sure my dad pulled some strings on.  I live in a house that my mom inherited and that I'll inherit from her.  I've made some stupid choices and squandered most of my twenties, but it's a minor setback and not the end of the world.  Just because I'm a woman and I've had all these advantages, it doesn't mean that I don't understand that by and large, other women didn't have the same lot in life.  And there's a decent chance that a man given the same advantages is better off than I am. 

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #255 on: March 04, 2019, 10:38:11 AM »
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

When you hear that society is a repressive patriarchy, you are thinking that what is being said is that there is some outside entity trying to force or manipulate people to behave a certain way (e.g. be sexist).

But that's not what people are trying to say. No one thinks the problem is some cabal of evil men who actively and intentionally prevent women from being CEOs at large companies and trick people into watching LeBron James.


"You and me and everyone else" are Western society and our "own little decisions" add up to what we're describing as a repressive patriarchy. Men/women/liberals/conservatives--everyone in our society is a participant or victim (oftentimes both) of this subtle accumulation of individual behaviors.

You and I agree sexism and racism exist. And you and I agree that the individual choices people make contribute to those problems existing. Patriarchy is just a word used to describe exactly what we agree the problem is. So what exactly do we disagree on?

Just FYI, he may not be arguing in good faith.  I tried to point this out to him multiple times in another thread...

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #256 on: March 04, 2019, 10:40:10 AM »
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America
I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?

Or could it be some combination of the two, if it was actually easy for you?

Sure, it's a combination. But the stuff I had no control over had at least as big effect as anything I did.

One way I've talked about this before is Anyone vs Everyone.

Individually, just about Anyone can rise out of poverty and make a good life for themselves in America. Anybody can, but not Everybody can. Not Everybody, because it's always going to depend on circumstances and luck--it's a stochastic process. And not Everybody because all of those Anybodies are competing for the same opportunities*.

Like mathlete said a few posts ago, if someone asks me what to do to get ahead, I'd tell them to "work harder, work smarter, live leaner, negotiate, read books and get smarter". That's good advice for anybody-- black/white/woman/man. But just because doing those things can improve anyone's lot in life doesn't mean there aren't systematic issues that make life harder for some.

*I'm glossing over some complexity here. It's not a zero sum game, but there is clear a degree of competition.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 11:52:04 AM by Watchmaker »

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #257 on: March 04, 2019, 10:55:25 AM »
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

When you hear that society is a repressive patriarchy, you are thinking that what is being said is that there is some outside entity trying to force or manipulate people to behave a certain way (e.g. be sexist).

But that's not what people are trying to say. No one thinks the problem is some cabal of evil men who actively and intentionally prevent women from being CEOs at large companies and trick people into watching LeBron James.


"You and me and everyone else" are Western society and our "own little decisions" add up to what we're describing as a repressive patriarchy. Men/women/liberals/conservatives--everyone in our society is a participant or victim (oftentimes both) of this subtle accumulation of individual behaviors.

You and I agree sexism and racism exist. And you and I agree that the individual choices people make contribute to those problems existing. Patriarchy is just a word used to describe exactly what we agree the problem is. So what exactly do we disagree on?

Just FYI, he may not be arguing in good faith.  I tried to point this out to him multiple times in another thread...

Thanks for the link; it is indeed pretty much the same conversation. But for me this is more about how I approach these situations. I'm trying hard to assume the best of people, to really understand them, and to be kind. Regardless of who Steveo wants to be, that's who I want to be.

So Steveo, what of it? Are you here for serious conversation or just goofing off?

Edit: re-reading that last line, I thought it came across as too snarky, which isn't how I intended it. I'd just like to hear from you what you goal with this thread is?
[Also edited because my spelling sucks.]
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 11:43:51 AM by Watchmaker »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #258 on: March 04, 2019, 11:20:15 AM »
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

The modern western world is a great place and getting better.  I don't know why the perpetually outraged are perpetually outraged.

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

This thread is so absurdly to the left, that I don't even want to respond (just as I don't want to get into political arguments with my far-right parents). This is coming from one of the most liberal people I know in real life (because other people tell me regularly) and one who votes almost completely along Democratic lines.

I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16038
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #259 on: March 04, 2019, 11:39:12 AM »
(I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

Compared to some places in the world, the racism and sexism that we deal with on a daily basis here isn't so bad.  This is true, and something that I agree with!

What level of racism and sexism is acceptable to you?  While 'little' is certainly better than 'lots', the real goal is and should always be 'NONE'.
 Taking pride in only having a little racism is like only getting a little drunk before going for a drive.  It's kinda fucked up.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #260 on: March 04, 2019, 11:43:36 AM »
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

The modern western world is a great place and getting better.  I don't know why the perpetually outraged are perpetually outraged.

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

This thread is so absurdly to the left, that I don't even want to respond (just as I don't want to get into political arguments with my far-right parents). This is coming from one of the most liberal people I know in real life (because other people tell me regularly) and one who votes almost completely along Democratic lines.

I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

Most of those questions seem to be answered by the abstract and/or do not seem relevant to the study...

Quote
Abstract
IMPORTANCE:
Racial disparities in use of analgesia in emergency departments have been previously documented. Further work to understand the causes of these disparities must be undertaken, which can then help inform the development of interventions to reduce and eradicate racial disparities in health care provision.

OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate racial differences in analgesia administration, and particularly opioid administration, among children diagnosed as having appendicitis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Repeated cross-sectional study of patients aged 21 years or younger evaluated in the emergency department who had an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis of appendicitis, using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2003 to 2010. We calculated the frequency of both opioid and nonopioid analgesia administration using complex survey weighting. We then performed multivariable logistic regression to examine racial differences in overall administration of analgesia, and specifically opioid analgesia, after adjusting for important demographic and visit covariates, including ethnicity and pain score.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
Receipt of analgesia administration (any and opioid) by race.

RESULTS:
An estimated 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78-1.10) million children were diagnosed as having appendicitis. Of those, 56.8% (95% CI, 49.8%-63.9%) received analgesia of any type; 41.3% (95% CI, 33.7%-48.9%) received opioid analgesia (20.7% [95% CI, 5.3%-36.0%] of black patients vs 43.1% [95% CI, 34.6%-51.4%] of white patients). When stratified by pain score and adjusted for ethnicity, black patients with moderate pain were less likely to receive any analgesia than white patients (adjusted odds ratio = 0.1 [95% CI, 0.02-0.8]). Among those with severe pain, black patients were less likely to receive opioids than white patients (adjusted odds ratio = 0.2 [95% CI, 0.06-0.9]). In a multivariable model, there were no significant differences in the overall rate of analgesia administration by race. However, black patients received opioid analgesia significantly less frequently than white patients (12.2% [95% CI, 0.1%-35.2%] vs 33.9% [95% CI, 0.6%-74.9%], respectively; adjusted odds ratio = 0.2 [95% CI, 0.06-0.8]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #261 on: March 04, 2019, 11:50:43 AM »
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

The modern western world is a great place and getting better.  I don't know why the perpetually outraged are perpetually outraged.

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

This thread is so absurdly to the left, that I don't even want to respond (just as I don't want to get into political arguments with my far-right parents). This is coming from one of the most liberal people I know in real life (because other people tell me regularly) and one who votes almost completely along Democratic lines.

I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #262 on: March 04, 2019, 11:52:20 AM »
If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

I can't quite believe I have to point this out: the post by mjr that I was responding to was siding with the person saying "maybe Hispanics eat beans" because the other side hadn't done enough multivariate analysis for their liking.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #263 on: March 04, 2019, 12:20:27 PM »
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

People looking at studies, facts, and statistics to support their arguments is what's wrong with politics today? Other underlying differences are implicit considered in any well-designed study, as shenlong's post points out. A few posts ago, I explicitly mentioned childbearing as a factor that could cause women to lag behind in career achievement.

It's nuts to say that this thread is emblematic of what's wrong with politics. This thread is better than a vast majority of political discussions you see elsewhere in life. The only way I could see someone thinking this thread is a "bad" representation of political discourse, is if you're main goal in discourse is pacification. i.e., Sides A and B both respecting each other's arguments regardless of merit.

I consider this very bad discourse. I don't like lending credibility to conclusions not found in evidence.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #264 on: March 04, 2019, 12:27:56 PM »
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

People looking at studies, facts, and statistics to support their arguments is what's wrong with politics today? Other underlying differences are implicit considered in any well-designed study, as shenlong's post points out. A few posts ago, I explicitly mentioned childbearing as a factor that could cause women to lag behind in career achievement.

It's nuts to say that this thread is emblematic of what's wrong with politics. This thread is better than a vast majority of political discussions you see elsewhere in life. The only way I could see someone thinking this thread is a "bad" representation of political discourse, is if you're main goal in discourse is pacification. i.e., Sides A and B both respecting each other's arguments regardless of merit.

I consider this very bad discourse. I don't like lending credibility to conclusions not found in evidence.

It isn't that they're using facts to support their position, it's that a lot of people are using tangential facts to assert something that can't be proven, and when steveo points this out many of them (though not all) shout him down. That's the problem, and I see it on both sides.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #265 on: March 04, 2019, 12:29:07 PM »
If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

I can't quite believe I have to point this out: the post by mjr that I was responding to was siding with the person saying "maybe Hispanics eat beans" because the other side hadn't done enough multivariate analysis for their liking.

Sorry, I thought it was sarcasm. Fail on my part.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #266 on: March 04, 2019, 12:31:01 PM »
If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

I can't quite believe I have to point this out: the post by mjr that I was responding to was siding with the person saying "maybe Hispanics eat beans" because the other side hadn't done enough multivariate analysis for their liking.

ROLF!!

To steveo's point, I'm perfectly fine acknowledging that confounding variables exist. But people who research this stuff try to find confounding variables too. And if you want to criticize the conclusion that institutionalized racism and sexism are absolutely 100% a thing, maybe suggestion some confounding variables that you think explain the differences. Bonus points for pointing to studies that support your conclusion.

For example, lots of liberal politicians like to cite large pay-gap figures. 77 cents on the dollar is a common one. But when you look at the BLS research, after controlling for hours worked and occupation, that gap shrinks dramatically. That doesn't mean women don't face discrimination and barriers in the workforce that aren't faced by men, but it does mean that there probably isn't a large sexist conspiracy to pay women less for the same exact work.

I consider this a valid criticism of liberal rhetoric. But we haven't gotten much like that in this thread sadly.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #267 on: March 04, 2019, 12:38:22 PM »
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

I find this disingenuous at best.

The alternative to statistics is anecdotes.  Anecdotes aren't good enough for you.  I can give you story after story after story of black people, women, other minorities being treated badly and you will ignore it.

"That's just that woman."  "Well, what did that black guy do that the cops beat him up?"

You'll gloss over and find excuses to ignore each case.  So we look at the en masse result of treatment, and what do we see?
Black people just somehow end up living where education systems are the worst.
Women just magically end up not getting very far in politics.

Believe it or not, scientists do look at the underlying trends that lead to black people having shorter life expectancies.  Do you honestly think the entire scientific apparatus just stops at "Look!  Racism!" and then shrugs and walks away?  What kind of stupid would that be?  The issues underlying the situation are numerous and well researched.

But you can't seriously come here without noting that the United States was founded with slavery.  When it abolished that, they fought through Jim Crow and then through a Civil Rights Act that was needed just so black people could eat at the same restaurants and get service at gas stations as white people.  That's nuts.  It is not reasonable to pretend your nation has been cured of all of its racist ills - both conscious and unconscious - in such a short time.  Especially not when all of the statistical markers of slavery and poor treatment (from health care, through employment and education) are still waving the same red flags that have stood for over a century.

Toque.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #268 on: March 04, 2019, 12:44:19 PM »
For example, lots of liberal politicians like to cite large pay-gap figures. 77 cents on the dollar is a common one. But when you look at the BLS research, after controlling for hours worked and occupation, that gap shrinks dramatically. That doesn't mean women don't face discrimination and barriers in the workforce that aren't faced by men, but it does mean that there probably isn't a large sexist conspiracy to pay women less for the same exact work.

I consider this a valid criticism of liberal rhetoric. But we haven't gotten much like that in this thread sadly.

It's not a valid criticism of any liberal position I know, because every liberal I know is perfectly well aware that women are in lower paying careers, take more time off work when children are born, and work fewer hours in general.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless you're taking a really simplified view of the pay gap problem.

We usually talk about the system which steers women into lower paying careers, assigns lower value to work deemed to be women's work, punishes women for having children where men are rewarded, assigns emotions to women that make them unsuitable for certain positions, and applies social pressure to get women to conform to traditional roles.

I mean, sure, if you ignore all of those factors, you can just say, "Hey, women are choosing to make less money", but that's a pretty silly position to take.

Toque.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #269 on: March 04, 2019, 12:44:50 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #270 on: March 04, 2019, 12:45:32 PM »
It isn't that they're using facts to support their position, it's that a lot of people are using tangential facts to assert something that can't be proven, and when steveo points this out many of them (though not all) shout him down. That's the problem, and I see it on both sides.

Almost nothing can be proven. This is why we rely on inductive reasoning. See the leaves moving outside, and conclude that the wind is blowing. Everyone does this. If we didn't, we'd be paralyzed by indecision driven by lack of information. We'd perish of thirst while waiting for complete multivariate studies on the safety of drinking water.

If steveo wants to deny that lack of female representation in government or in executive leadership is driven not by systemic and institutionalized biases against women, then it'd be best for him to posit what he thinks they are being driven by.

That's the way good discussion works.

Right now, the discussion looks more like this,

1.) empirical evidence that women aren't achieving at similar levels as men. (or sub minorities and whites if you want)
2.) Side A posits that there are institutionalized forces working against women/minorities and provides support for this argument.
3.) Side B says that since Side A's data does not constitute a full and complete multivariate study, the conclusion is wrong, and thus we revert to the null hypothesis that racism and sexism aren't that big of a deal.

That is not a fair or honest discussion.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 12:56:34 PM by mathlete »

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #271 on: March 04, 2019, 12:53:14 PM »
It's not a valid criticism of any liberal position I know, because every liberal I know is perfectly well aware that women are in lower paying careers, take more time off work when children are born, and work fewer hours in general.

Here's an example of politifact making this exact criticism on an Obama re-election ad:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/



I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless you're taking a really simplified view of the pay gap problem.

We usually talk about the system which steers women into lower paying careers, assigns lower value to work deemed to be women's work, punishes women for having children where men are rewarded, assigns emotions to women that make them unsuitable for certain positions, and applies social pressure to get women to conform to traditional roles.

I mean, sure, if you ignore all of those factors, you can just say, "Hey, women are choosing to make less money", but that's a pretty silly position to take.

Toque.

If you've read any of my posts, you'd know that this isn't the position I'm taking at all. If you read the post you quoted, you'd see that the reason I brought this up is to show posters like steveo that proper way to argue against my positions.

i.e., don't say,

"Your conclusion is false because your support may not consider every relevant factor.", but instead, say,

"Your conclusion is false because your support doesn't consider mitigating factors A, B, and C. When XYZ study controls for these factors, the results look like 123."

The latter is specific and direct. And the conversation can continue from there. The former is a criticism that can be levied at any and every position and is used to prematurely end discussion.

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #272 on: March 04, 2019, 12:56:51 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #273 on: March 04, 2019, 12:59:05 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Actually, there are a couple of pages of on the subject of whether or not institutional racism exists.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16038
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #274 on: March 04, 2019, 01:05:45 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

Yes, they are.  It's a great example of both the existence of patriarchy and why it remains a problem.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #275 on: March 04, 2019, 01:14:49 PM »
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

I find this disingenuous at best.

The alternative to statistics is anecdotes.  Anecdotes aren't good enough for you.  I can give you story after story after story of black people, women, other minorities being treated badly and you will ignore it.

"That's just that woman."  "Well, what did that black guy do that the cops beat him up?"

You'll gloss over and find excuses to ignore each case.  So we look at the en masse result of treatment, and what do we see?
Black people just somehow end up living where education systems are the worst.
Women just magically end up not getting very far in politics.

Believe it or not, scientists do look at the underlying trends that lead to black people having shorter life expectancies.  Do you honestly think the entire scientific apparatus just stops at "Look!  Racism!" and then shrugs and walks away?  What kind of stupid would that be?  The issues underlying the situation are numerous and well researched.

But you can't seriously come here without noting that the United States was founded with slavery.  When it abolished that, they fought through Jim Crow and then through a Civil Rights Act that was needed just so black people could eat at the same restaurants and get service at gas stations as white people.  That's nuts.  It is not reasonable to pretend your nation has been cured of all of its racist ills - both conscious and unconscious - in such a short time.  Especially not when all of the statistical markers of slavery and poor treatment (from health care, through employment and education) are still waving the same red flags that have stood for over a century.

Toque.

Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective: African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and many celebrate the thug life culture; they are therefore rationally more apprehensive when confronting minorities. Additionally, police brutality cases are often blown out of proportion (Michael Brown being the poster-child), and the attitude among many liberals is to lean toward the word of criminals rather than erring on the side of our law enforcement officers.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #276 on: March 04, 2019, 01:16:35 PM »
Regarding this forum having a left-wing bias, I want to state again that education now has a "left-wing bias".

Most of this forum is college educated. Most Republicans now hold the view that colleges and universities have a negative impact on the country.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/


Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #277 on: March 04, 2019, 01:17:32 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

No crazy pills needed. Traditional gender roles ≠ systemic gender discrimination.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #278 on: March 04, 2019, 01:24:40 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Actually, there are a couple of pages of on the subject of whether or not institutional racism exists.

I said racism and sexism exist, but I am with steveo: there is very little that remains of institutional racism (at least as far as the law is concerned). There are a few points that I feel the government should work to improve (the drug war and associated mass incarceration, gerrymandering and other techniques that limit a person's democratic rights), but overall I feel "institutional racism and sexism" is hardly a thing these days. Where it is a problem (or rather, where the byproduct of the laws has made it into a problem), we need to come up with solutions.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #279 on: March 04, 2019, 01:29:25 PM »
Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective: African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and many celebrate the thug life culture; they are therefore rationally more apprehensive when confronting minorities. Additionally, police brutality cases are often blown out of proportion (Michael Brown being the poster-child), and the attitude among many liberals is to lean toward the word of criminals rather than erring on the side of our law enforcement officers.

Why do you think black people commit more crime? I would wager that there is dramatically more empirical support that blacks commit more crime due to systemic racism and oppression, than because their culture glorifies criminal activity. White people love Jay Z too. But really, I would like to know what you think.

Michael Brown seems like he was a dick, but the DoJ review of the Ferguson Police Department that was triggered by the incident revealed that the city of Ferguson was largely dependent upon their mostly white policy force harassing and fining their mostly black citizenry.1 In light of the DoJ's report, I don't think anything was blown out of proportion at all. The cops shoot people all the time. People don't riot and protest unless something has been bubbling below the surface for a long time.

1https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #280 on: March 04, 2019, 01:40:12 PM »
Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.
So this conversation is really about just about how much racism and sexism is acceptable in our society? That's genuinely a different conversation then the one I thought I'd been having.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective...
Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2903
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #281 on: March 04, 2019, 01:47:57 PM »
There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the systemic issues are obvious; at least not obvious enough to point out specific causes. Sure, you don't have to look all that carefully to see that there probably are systemic issues (there is plenty of difference in outcomes); but it is much harder to see exactly what those systemic issues are (what specifically causes the outcomes to be different). We've corrected (most) explicit discrimination (those were obvious, systemic issues); but that's evidently not enough to correct everything. Until a decade or so ago, one might argue that changes to educational opportunity simply hadn't had time to reach the top (it usually takes decades after college to become a CEO or hold a high political office); but now the average person in these types of positions was born after the explicit discrimination corrections were made.

What are the systemic issues? I think most of us would agree that they are cultural "norms" (many subtle, some far less subtle). I also think that most of us would agree that these have been improving over time. I think some conservatives would say that they've been fully corrected but haven't had time to reach the top. I think many conservatives who agree that they haven't been fully corrected believe that the momentum behind the correction is sufficient to ensure that it will be fully corrected soon (thus no further explicit action to correct is needed). Most liberals believe a full correction has not been made and feel it is important to keep pushing for policy that explicitly makes corrections. Perhaps, the most extreme liberals push for enough policy that many conservatives are fearful of over-correcting (discriminating against whites and/or men).

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Location: Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #282 on: March 04, 2019, 01:59:46 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

Yes. 

Tradition is a system, and the system is discriminating, and therefore we have systemic discrimination.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #283 on: March 04, 2019, 02:14:51 PM »
There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the systemic issues are obvious; at least not obvious enough to point out specific causes. Sure, you don't have to look all that carefully to see that there probably are systemic issues (there is plenty of difference in outcomes); but it is much harder to see exactly what those systemic issues are (what specifically causes the outcomes to be different). We've corrected (most) explicit discrimination (those were obvious, systemic issues); but that's evidently not enough to correct everything. Until a decade or so ago, one might argue that changes to educational opportunity simply hadn't had time to reach the top (it usually takes decades after college to become a CEO or hold a high political office); but now the average person in these types of positions was born after the explicit discrimination corrections were made.

What are the systemic issues? I think most of us would agree that they are cultural "norms" (many subtle, some far less subtle). I also think that most of us would agree that these have been improving over time. I think some conservatives would say that they've been fully corrected but haven't had time to reach the top. I think many conservatives who agree that they haven't been fully corrected believe that the momentum behind the correction is sufficient to ensure that it will be fully corrected soon (thus no further explicit action to correct is needed). Most liberals believe a full correction has not been made and feel it is important to keep pushing for policy that explicitly makes corrections. Perhaps, the most extreme liberals push for enough policy that many conservatives are fearful of over-correcting (discriminating against whites and/or men).

I do agree there is a difference in perception, as well as attitudes. I do agree that most "liberals" feel that a full correction has not been made and it is important to keep pushing. Again while many of these things are still "illegal" (racial profiling, shooting of unarmed black males, sexual discrimination in the workplace) they STILL KEEP HAPPENING. Racial and other kinds of gerrymandering STILL KEEP HAPPENING. As a women, things that directly impact me, such sex education for students, as access to reproductive care, the ability to say report and have legal consequences if I'm raped as a college student, conservatives are actively rolling back existing protections. So yes, there is no sense of complacency with the current administration and current crop of conservatives. You only have to see what elected conservatives say about women, about rape, about minorities (for example what Trump said about the Central Park 5) (i.e the people who administer the law, interpret the law, and who make the laws) to understand, yes there is still a problem.

And I'm not a big liberal. I'm definitely not a social activist. For me to comment on this line of the thread, has gotten to be pretty bad, to get me worked up about it! And for the people on the other side, who are watching Fox news, turn off the damn tv! you are getting your buttons pressed by people desperate to hold onto power, and they are preying on your fears, to keep them elected.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #284 on: March 04, 2019, 02:17:33 PM »
Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective: African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and many celebrate the thug life culture; they are therefore rationally more apprehensive when confronting minorities. Additionally, police brutality cases are often blown out of proportion (Michael Brown being the poster-child), and the attitude among many liberals is to lean toward the word of criminals rather than erring on the side of our law enforcement officers.

Why do you think black people commit more crime? I would wager that there is dramatically more empirical support that blacks commit more crime due to systemic racism and oppression, than because their culture glorifies criminal activity. White people love Jay Z too. But really, I would like to know what you think.

Michael Brown seems like he was a dick, but the DoJ review of the Ferguson Police Department that was triggered by the incident revealed that the city of Ferguson was largely dependent upon their mostly white policy force harassing and fining their mostly black citizenry.1 In light of the DoJ's report, I don't think anything was blown out of proportion at all. The cops shoot people all the time. People don't riot and protest unless something has been bubbling below the surface for a long time.

1https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

To answer your first paragraph, I have no idea, but nonetheless it is a fact. If climate change creates Category 6 or 7 hurricanes, we don't say "it isn't the hurricanes' fault, it was humans who created their conditions, so we shouldn't build houses to withstand the new winds and surges".

As to your second paragraph, yes, I am familiar with the Ferguson report and agree there were major systemic issues. I think the first solution, in this case, would be a better integrated police department.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #285 on: March 04, 2019, 02:23:49 PM »
Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.

Agreed. But officers are murdered too, many of them with the best of intentions. How many lines of work have that distinction?

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #286 on: March 04, 2019, 02:37:23 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

No crazy pills needed. Traditional gender roles ≠ systemic gender discrimination.

Two other posters, as well as myself disagree. I don't think a discussion about what to do about or whether systemic discrimination exists will be very fruitful if posters have such widely differing definitions of what it even is.

Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.

Agreed. But officers are murdered too, many of them with the best of intentions. How many lines of work have that distinction?

I was curious so I looked it up. Looks like police patrol officers clock in around #14, with about 15 deaths per 100K workers per year.

slow hand slow plan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
  • Location: Colorado ish
  • Living the dream
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #287 on: March 04, 2019, 02:39:31 PM »
Taxi drivers are murdered at twice the rate of police officers . Police barely come in above food service managers for murders in careers..

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #288 on: March 04, 2019, 02:41:20 PM »
There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the systemic issues are obvious; at least not obvious enough to point out specific causes. Sure, you don't have to look all that carefully to see that there probably are systemic issues (there is plenty of difference in outcomes); but it is much harder to see exactly what those systemic issues are (what specifically causes the outcomes to be different). We've corrected (most) explicit discrimination (those were obvious, systemic issues); but that's evidently not enough to correct everything. Until a decade or so ago, one might argue that changes to educational opportunity simply hadn't had time to reach the top (it usually takes decades after college to become a CEO or hold a high political office); but now the average person in these types of positions was born after the explicit discrimination corrections were made.

What are the systemic issues? I think most of us would agree that they are cultural "norms" (many subtle, some far less subtle). I also think that most of us would agree that these have been improving over time. I think some conservatives would say that they've been fully corrected but haven't had time to reach the top. I think many conservatives who agree that they haven't been fully corrected believe that the momentum behind the correction is sufficient to ensure that it will be fully corrected soon (thus no further explicit action to correct is needed). Most liberals believe a full correction has not been made and feel it is important to keep pushing for policy that explicitly makes corrections. Perhaps, the most extreme liberals push for enough policy that many conservatives are fearful of over-correcting (discriminating against whites and/or men).

Oh no, we don’t want to overcorrect and end up with discrimination against white men!

White men: “Yeah, cause being discriminated against SUCKS!”

Women and minorities:  “I KNOW, right?”

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #289 on: March 04, 2019, 02:45:38 PM »
Taxi drivers are murdered at twice the rate of police officers . Police barely come in above food service managers for murders in careers..

Is that murders/ intentional harm or fatalities? Inquiring minds want to know!

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #290 on: March 04, 2019, 02:46:34 PM »
I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

This is indicative of one of the most poisonous and insidious trends in western politics: the doubt-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to discrediting your opponents. Demand evidence, then when it's presented demand that it take a bunch of other variables into account, while ignoring the fact that those variables are either controlled for or not relevant, and all the while ignore the mountain of accumulated evidence across dozens of spheres.

CVs with stereotypically black names are less likely to trigger a call for interview than identical CVs with stereotypically white names. Black Americans are more likely to be harassed under stop-and-frisk laws; they're more likely to be targeted by voting measures designed to stop them voting, they're more likely to receive custodial sentences, they're more likely to die in police custody; they're more likely to suffer any one of a thousand indignities and disadvantages.

None of this is taken into account when furiously arguing that maybe there's an explanation for the difference in prescriptions for children that absolves white people of having to take any responsibility. And no matter how many times the other side presents research papers, Cochrane reviews and entire books detailing those indignities, the response is always the same: demand a specific example, then throw as much mud at that specific example as you can in the hope that enough sticks to obscure the truth. It's hard to tell whether what's happening is an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of race in America, or a cynical derailing of discussion, and it's hard to tell which prospect is more depressing.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #291 on: March 04, 2019, 02:56:24 PM »
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

No crazy pills needed. Traditional gender roles ≠ systemic gender discrimination.

Two other posters, as well as myself disagree. I don't think a discussion about what to do about or whether systemic discrimination exists will be very fruitful if posters have such widely differing definitions of what it even is.

Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

I was curious so I looked it up. Looks like police patrol officers clock in around #14, with about 15 deaths per 100K workers per year.

This is an older report, but it claims #2. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/work-related-homicides-the-facts.pdf If you have a newer citation please share. Though to be honest it is not very relevant, because only one occupation is trained in the use of deadly force (outside of the military, which of course has a much higher death rate (though they don't call it murder)).

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #292 on: March 04, 2019, 02:58:27 PM »
Police work is difficult and dangerous, and we should all respect that. But when a criminal kills a cop, that's a capital offense. The state spends huge resources to arrest the person who did it, and then depending upon the municipality, even put them to death. DAs aren't shy about prosecuting cop killers, and juries aren't shy about convicting them.

When a cop kills an unarmed black man though, comparatively little is often done about it. In fact, tons of people get righteously indignant at even the suggestion that the cops could be doing something better. The President demonizes athletes that peacefully try to draw attention to the subject.

This is what "Black Lives Matter" means. And it's why we don't need a "Blue Lives Matter" movement. Everyone universally agrees that killing a cop is terrible. People in the highest offices often don't agree that a cop wrongfully killing an unarmed black person is bad.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #293 on: March 04, 2019, 03:05:02 PM »
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Do you think there is some sort of natural law or order that explains why we haven't had a female president, or why females are so underrepresented as executives?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #294 on: March 04, 2019, 03:08:02 PM »
I work doing research in the healthcare field. Anytime we do a study we need to collect gender and race. Even if not the primary focus, there is a whole discipline of "racial disparities in health care". Social-economic status and access explains much, but not all of the differences. I'm assuming the people who do this research have studied this question with more detail and nuance than some people's off the cuff remarks or assumptions.

And the aim of this research is not to reduce to zero health outcomes between blacks and whites (which might not be possible). The purpose is to understand, reduce or eliminate any systemic differences in the ways minorities have less access to care, their quality of care, or are treated differently when presenting for care. It benefits all of us to have a healthy populace so I don't see why this should be seen as controversial or considered beneath examining.   

It wasn't all that long ago that we had the Tuskegee syphilis study (You think of these horrible things as being in the past, but this particular study ended less than 50 years ago, and only due to a whistle blower calling attention to the study).
In my state (NC) people were sterilized without their consent for being "mentally defective", and it was heavily racist who was chosen to be sterilized. This eugenics board was only dissolved in 1977, and only in 2003 involuntary sterilization laws were overturned.   

« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 03:19:58 PM by partgypsy »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #295 on: March 04, 2019, 03:10:07 PM »
Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I love this. I liked tyort's contribution as well.

The way I've always thought of it, is that I'm conservative on an individual to individual basis, but I'm liberal when it comes to the macro level issues.

If a disadvantaged person wants to better their life, I'd tell them to work harder, work smarter, live leaner, negotiate, read books and get smarter. All that shit. Voting liberal won't help their lives on an individual basis.

But on the macro level, white men empirically wield outsized power. This is not because they're more talented than women/minorities. It's not because they work harder. There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed. So the personal conservatism that I practice in my own life does zero good on the national stage.

That's why I vote liberal. We need people who understand these issues and are willing to address them. Many conservatives at best, don't understand or won't acknowledge the issues, and at worst, actively work to exacerbate the issues.

I think that's a simplistic view. I don't believe in "quotas" but I generally agree that we should be taking some affirmative action to help underprivileged minorities. My view is that the best way to do this is by avoiding hiring practices that emphasise wealth/connections (e.g. stuffy interviews) and by promoting practices that reveal talent (e.g. scholarships funded for poor/low SES individuals; heavy use of aptitude or skills-based testing in job interviews).

So in that sense you could call me "liberal" because I want to see a fairer society with less engrained privilege.

But in another sense I'm fairly illiberal in that I believe the best and brightest should be taxed less and I have no issues with seeing the less talented in society barely scrape by, wages wise. I don't believe in redistribution.

EvenSteven

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #296 on: March 04, 2019, 03:11:01 PM »
Quote
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

No, I wouldn't call it gender discrimination in other species. I would apply it specifically to humans. Like many other social interactions, I don't think we should look to other species in the animal kingdom to justify human actions. Many species in the animal kingdom have a very loose relationship with sexual consent, which does not excuse rape among humans. Many species in the animal kingdom eat their young, which does not excuse killing and eating babies in human societies.

Are you making the argument that strict gender roles that prevent women from positions of leadership and power is a good thing?

Quote
This is an older report, but it claims #2. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/work-related-homicides-the-facts.pdf If you have a newer citation please share.

I was looking at deaths, not specifically homicides, which would go a long way towards explaining the discrepancy.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #297 on: March 04, 2019, 03:13:08 PM »
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Can it not be both?

Also, can you give me some examples of the benefits it provides to society at the stage of development that most first world nations are currently at?

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #298 on: March 04, 2019, 03:29:42 PM »
I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

This is indicative of one of the most poisonous and insidious trends in western politics: the doubt-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to discrediting your opponents. Demand evidence, then when it's presented demand that it take a bunch of other variables into account, while ignoring the fact that those variables are either controlled for or not relevant, and all the while ignore the mountain of accumulated evidence across dozens of spheres.

CVs with stereotypically black names are less likely to trigger a call for interview than identical CVs with stereotypically white names. Black Americans are more likely to be harassed under stop-and-frisk laws; they're more likely to be targeted by voting measures designed to stop them voting, they're more likely to receive custodial sentences, they're more likely to die in police custody; they're more likely to suffer any one of a thousand indignities and disadvantages.

None of this is taken into account when furiously arguing that maybe there's an explanation for the difference in prescriptions for children that absolves white people of having to take any responsibility. And no matter how many times the other side presents research papers, Cochrane reviews and entire books detailing those indignities, the response is always the same: demand a specific example, then throw as much mud at that specific example as you can in the hope that enough sticks to obscure the truth. It's hard to tell whether what's happening is an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of race in America, or a cynical derailing of discussion, and it's hard to tell which prospect is more depressing.

What part of reality did I not acknowledge? I only acknowledged that people on this board are characterizing others as misogynists or racists or trolls when they decline to agree with their claim of institutional racism and patriarchy in modern-day America. And by institutional, I mean pervading our institutions, not prevalent in pockets here and there.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #299 on: March 04, 2019, 03:36:14 PM »
What part of reality did I not acknowledge? I only acknowledged that people on this board are characterizing others as misogynists or racists or trolls when they decline to agree with their claim of institutional racism and patriarchy in modern-day America. And by institutional, I mean pervading our institutions, not prevalent in pockets here and there.

Has anyone been called a racist or a misogynist in this thread? I saw steveo get called a troll but that's about it.

I'm more than willing to characterize someone as denying objective realities when they doubt the existence of institutionalized racism in the face of things like state legislatures actively working to suppress the black vote though. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that.