America does have a problem with white supremacy. Bill Maher is a bigot. Those are objectively measurable things. There's right, there's left, and then there's reality. That people think there's a left and right perspective on this is ludicrous. If we want to talk about why, or who, or what form white supremacy takes or whether a particu…
America does have a problem with white supremacy. Bill Maher is a bigot. Those are objectively measurable things. There's right, there's left, and then there's reality. That people think there's a left and right perspective on this is ludicrous. If we want to talk about why, or who, or what form white supremacy takes or whether a particular incident is driven by white supremacy, there rare definitely left and right perspectives (and center and actual-left and far-right-nazi ones, too) .... If someone says or does bigoted things, they're by definition, a bigot. But we all know that's not what pisses us lefties off. It's being a PROUD BIGOT, an UNREPENTANT bigot, that really makes us riled up. I'd argue Maher's that, in spades, as well, and he delights in it. Winding people up is his schtick, it's how he earns a living. What we should be asking ourselves is why we want to legitimize bigotry as a way to earn a living. Now that's an interesting question to ask both right and left on, and one I suspect many of them might actually agree on the answer: we shouldn't. But instead, somehow, some folks still think there's really more to get out of a debate on what a bigot looks like in makeup, under bright lights, and streaming to our TV thru a haze of smoke. Not me.
Her views (and yours) are 3-4 standard deviations to the left of the median American. Normal people without brainworms do not think America "has a problem with white supremacy". You are free to have your (incorrect) opinions. But I don't want to be paying the salary of someone that has politics that I find completely reprehensible.
And no, saying "America has a problem with white supremacy" is not at all "objectively measurable". You have to define what "problem" is and how you quantify it. I would say living in a country where none (zero) of the top 5 ethnic groups with highest income are of European/white background is a pretty strong indication that we don't have a "problem with white supremacy".
As for bigotry, I can make the argument that Katherine Maher is a bigot. She clearly has strong animus against white/European Americans. That much is evident from her tweets. But I have a feeling you do not consider that bigotry. I also have a feeling you don't consider jabs at Christianity in popular media to be bigotry either.
I'm not white or Christian, but just find it funny that the left's definition of bigotry only pertains to people they consider their in-group.
"I would say living in a country where none (zero) of the top 5 ethnic groups with highest income are of European/white background is a pretty strong indication that we don't have a "problem with white supremacy"."
Source? You must rely on some tricky stats for that one.
Even if it were true, it wouldn't show there's not a problem with white supremacy. I don't think people who say what was quoted above mean what you might mean by it, in any case.
Latest census data. I think summarized somewhere on Wikipedia.
And glad to know that “white supremacy” is just a vibes based belief that doesn’t require any actual data. Fun to make up something that’s completely unfalsifiable and just assert that it’s true. Far cry from the original poster up there calling it “objectively measurable”.
My favorite factoid is that black and white incomes are almost identical when normalized for SAT score (black slightly higher). There is absolutely no aspect of leftism that can explain this. If group differences are due to discrimination (the absolute most holy belief in leftism), then somehow we live in a society that discriminates blacks savagely up to the minute they take the SAT, but not once second after. That's the only way you can explain it with a leftist lens. Like I said before, it's a religion.
You're only showing your own unawareness of the most basic elements of this issue. Anyone who has gone beyond the politics knows that SAT scores are suspect racially, and that the averages by race vary greatly for reasons most likely social, affected by generations of prejudice and oppression.
Yes, politics is typically much like religion, except largely hate-based, where religion in the US tends to be at least ostensibly love-based. You're illustrating that here yourself.
The fact that you think SAT scores are "suspect racially" is just so amusing. SAT scores are a rough proxy for intelligence/IQ. That's fairly well known. No one other than hard-left academics thinks they are racially biased. But it's irrelevant. Every single test of aptitude shows the same racial outcomes. You can scrap the SAT and replace it with any intelligence test you want and you will get the same result. That's why UC's are not replacing the SAT, they are just replacing with things that are more *subjective*. Because subjectivity allows them to pick and choose their preferred racial groups instead of relying on skills of aptitude where they know the results wouldn't be to their liking.
"SAT scores are suspect racially, and that the averages by race vary greatly for reasons most likely social, affected by generations of prejudice and oppression"
Hahahahaha. Actually no one thinks this at all other than hard left academics.
"averages by race vary greatly for reasons most likely social, affected by generations of prejudice and oppression"
There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. Dirt poor Asian Americans (including my wife, who grew up 6 people to a <500 sq foot "home") are dominant in standardized testing. So are Asians in Canada, the UK, Brazil, Argentina. Any country you can think of.
It's fascinating that "generations of prejudice and oppression" have led to a scenario where in ltierally every single country in the world, dirt-poor Asian immigrants outperform natives. You can't find one country where this isn't the case.
I know you will not change your mind to any evidence whatsoever (again, it's a religion). But I hope at least somewhere in the back of your mind you think "hmm, it is strange that black and white incomes are equal when adjusting for SAT scores. My world view really does not have any explanation for that."
Identity politics and the claims @scf0101 makes are entirely different matters. You can see the gaping holes in his arguments without approving of identity politics.
Your world view is identical to a religion. It's funny you can't see that. There is no piece of information that would lead you to reconsider your views. I point something out - "oh well, it's because of XYZ". We could go on like this for hours.
You are utterly and completely convinced that all differences in group outcomes are due to discrimination. Thinking otherwise would completely upend everything you believe in. So you have to cling to it with all your might.
And no, it's not "one, huge expansive group". European ancestry is also broken down. Asian Americans dominate as Asian groups do everywhere else. (Did you know Japanese Brazilians - a group that immigrated as lowly agricultural workers - are the richest ethnic group in Brazil? Or Korean Argentinians - a group that immigrated as lowly textile workers - are the richest ethnic group in Argentina? Did you know that Malaysia actively discriminates against its Chinese minority population because they are *too successful*? How does your brain explain these things?!)
Again, it's one huge expansive group. No, it's not further broken down there in any complete way, since all the European subgroups are below the average European in income, mathematically impossible if all groups are there.
The rest of what you say is just you talking to a voice in your head.
I'm not sure you're indicative of the median American either. And given that the median German citizen claimed to be unaware of Auschwitz' existence in 1945, one could argue that the median is a not a good enough goal in the first place.
Personally, I very much dislike the phrase "white supremacy" as a nationwide problem. I'm quite sure, as the opening anecdote of White Fragility points out, that almost all White Americans don't want to be racist, and think that they're not. The phrase "white supremacy" is entirely too loaded and inflammatory a term, and is far more likely to alienate people who are (or were) willing to listen to you and change than it is to foster facing uncomfortable truths.
Is America in 2024 the result of many centuries (including this one) of an unfair system that is based (both directly and indirectly) on race? Absolutely. You'll get agreement from 65% of the White people in the country on that point.
I don’t need to hold the views of the median American because I’m not the head of a publicly funded news organization!
Comparing Americans to Nazi era Germans is disgusting and you should be ashamed.
But besides all of that, you’re wrong. America is very close to a pure meritocracy. Outcomes are closely related to intelligence and hard work. For example, when holding SAT scores constant, black incomes are the same as whites (historically slightly higher due to AA). Astonishing for a society where supposedly all the cards are stacked in favor of whites and racism is everywhere! I guess the racists forget to discriminate for that one.
Your worldview is an unfalsifiable fairytale and you’re no better than the religious people you sneer at.
"America is very close to a pure meritocracy. Outcomes are closely related to intelligence and hard work. For example, when holding SAT scores constant, black incomes are the same as whites (historically slightly higher due to AA)."
Oh my. You must know better than to make that argument. If not, you have a great deal of work to do should you develop an interest in truth over politics.
Here's some fun reading for you. I assume this is the type of information you have never been exposed to given your media bubble and your far left views on race.
American incomes are the most closely correlated to numeracy of any OECD country.
Black incomes are the same as white incomes when holding SAT scores constant.
Maybe you would know these things if you read anything other than hard-left sources like NPR. America is a meritocracy. Just because you failed at it doesn't mean we should overturn the system.
My point is made. You've chosen politics over truth, and clearly love it more than truth. Your choice. Should you ever decide to try truth instead, no one will have to explain the obvious problems and gaping holes in your views.
Your point of view is unfalsifiable. I have pointed to metrics and stats. You keep repeating your religious dogma. You haven't given me a single number or quantitative metric this entire conversation. It's like trying to argue the existence of God. You are convinced. There is nothing I can say that will get you to change your mind. Nothing will ever change your mind because you are a religious fanatic. Your religion is just leftism.
You again talk to a voice in your head. I've talked with enough people with religious political views like you to know there's no point to going further.
Should you ever decide truth matters more than your personal politics, you'll figure it out. Until then, no one can help you.
Right - the person who is providing actual hard numbers, data and facts is being religious. Not the person that is repeating unscientific-yet-sacred dogma ("affected by generations of prejudice and oppression"). Listen to yourself. You haven't provided a single piece of knowledge other than repeating hard-left jargon! Embarassing!
You need to look inward. People can produce hard numbers all day for all kinds of silly views - I've seen people with views opposite to yours do that easily (including for literal religious views).
But that doesn't help unless you actually want to understand the issue instead of proving your point of view. That's where you fail completely.
The fundamental problem with your thesis (and most everyone at NPR, I suspect) is that you presume that your beliefs are objective facts, without room for disagreement. I don’t know if you’re right or wrong in your opinions, but I do know there are many very smart people (who you dismiss as ignorant) who would disagree with your takes on Bill Maher and white supremacy. The problem isn’t that you’re wrong… it’s that you can’t even imagine you MIGHT be wrong, and it leads you to dismiss, without any concern of bias, anyone who thinks differently. I assume most people at NPR are the same. Everything you said in your post is an opinion, presented as objective fact. But you, and so many at NPR, have conflated “opinion”, “belief”, “viewpoint” and “judgment” as fact.
I would genuinely like to know why you think he's a bigot.
"If someone says or does bigoted things, they're by definition, a bigot." We're in agreement on this.
But I would have expected you to provide some examples, other than "winding people up". That's a bit vague, no? What has Maher said or done that you consider bigoted?
You’re why the internet is dying thanks to AI. The sooner we’re rid of people’s ability to comment nonsensical sinister piffle (like saying someone is a bigot and calling it “objectively measurable” without citing one scrap of measly evidence as if it’s simply beyond the capability of the fingertips you uses to scribble this babble), the better off we’ll all be.
And yes, I know I’m making a comment, but it’s simply amusing yet depressing that people like you exist all over the place that turn any opportunity for discussion into a cesspool of pure dreck.
America does have a problem with white supremacy. Bill Maher is a bigot. Those are objectively measurable things. There's right, there's left, and then there's reality. That people think there's a left and right perspective on this is ludicrous. If we want to talk about why, or who, or what form white supremacy takes or whether a particular incident is driven by white supremacy, there rare definitely left and right perspectives (and center and actual-left and far-right-nazi ones, too) .... If someone says or does bigoted things, they're by definition, a bigot. But we all know that's not what pisses us lefties off. It's being a PROUD BIGOT, an UNREPENTANT bigot, that really makes us riled up. I'd argue Maher's that, in spades, as well, and he delights in it. Winding people up is his schtick, it's how he earns a living. What we should be asking ourselves is why we want to legitimize bigotry as a way to earn a living. Now that's an interesting question to ask both right and left on, and one I suspect many of them might actually agree on the answer: we shouldn't. But instead, somehow, some folks still think there's really more to get out of a debate on what a bigot looks like in makeup, under bright lights, and streaming to our TV thru a haze of smoke. Not me.
Her views (and yours) are 3-4 standard deviations to the left of the median American. Normal people without brainworms do not think America "has a problem with white supremacy". You are free to have your (incorrect) opinions. But I don't want to be paying the salary of someone that has politics that I find completely reprehensible.
And no, saying "America has a problem with white supremacy" is not at all "objectively measurable". You have to define what "problem" is and how you quantify it. I would say living in a country where none (zero) of the top 5 ethnic groups with highest income are of European/white background is a pretty strong indication that we don't have a "problem with white supremacy".
As for bigotry, I can make the argument that Katherine Maher is a bigot. She clearly has strong animus against white/European Americans. That much is evident from her tweets. But I have a feeling you do not consider that bigotry. I also have a feeling you don't consider jabs at Christianity in popular media to be bigotry either.
I'm not white or Christian, but just find it funny that the left's definition of bigotry only pertains to people they consider their in-group.
"I would say living in a country where none (zero) of the top 5 ethnic groups with highest income are of European/white background is a pretty strong indication that we don't have a "problem with white supremacy"."
Source? You must rely on some tricky stats for that one.
Even if it were true, it wouldn't show there's not a problem with white supremacy. I don't think people who say what was quoted above mean what you might mean by it, in any case.
Latest census data. I think summarized somewhere on Wikipedia.
And glad to know that “white supremacy” is just a vibes based belief that doesn’t require any actual data. Fun to make up something that’s completely unfalsifiable and just assert that it’s true. Far cry from the original poster up there calling it “objectively measurable”.
You're mixing up tiny subgroups that haven't been primary targets of social oppression for ages in the US, and one huge expansive group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
I didn't say anything that remotely implies what you say in the rest.
My favorite factoid is that black and white incomes are almost identical when normalized for SAT score (black slightly higher). There is absolutely no aspect of leftism that can explain this. If group differences are due to discrimination (the absolute most holy belief in leftism), then somehow we live in a society that discriminates blacks savagely up to the minute they take the SAT, but not once second after. That's the only way you can explain it with a leftist lens. Like I said before, it's a religion.
You're only showing your own unawareness of the most basic elements of this issue. Anyone who has gone beyond the politics knows that SAT scores are suspect racially, and that the averages by race vary greatly for reasons most likely social, affected by generations of prejudice and oppression.
Yes, politics is typically much like religion, except largely hate-based, where religion in the US tends to be at least ostensibly love-based. You're illustrating that here yourself.
The fact that you think SAT scores are "suspect racially" is just so amusing. SAT scores are a rough proxy for intelligence/IQ. That's fairly well known. No one other than hard-left academics thinks they are racially biased. But it's irrelevant. Every single test of aptitude shows the same racial outcomes. You can scrap the SAT and replace it with any intelligence test you want and you will get the same result. That's why UC's are not replacing the SAT, they are just replacing with things that are more *subjective*. Because subjectivity allows them to pick and choose their preferred racial groups instead of relying on skills of aptitude where they know the results wouldn't be to their liking.
They are not.
They are a rough proxy for social exposure and interest.
"SAT scores are suspect racially, and that the averages by race vary greatly for reasons most likely social, affected by generations of prejudice and oppression"
Hahahahaha. Actually no one thinks this at all other than hard left academics.
"averages by race vary greatly for reasons most likely social, affected by generations of prejudice and oppression"
There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. Dirt poor Asian Americans (including my wife, who grew up 6 people to a <500 sq foot "home") are dominant in standardized testing. So are Asians in Canada, the UK, Brazil, Argentina. Any country you can think of.
It's fascinating that "generations of prejudice and oppression" have led to a scenario where in ltierally every single country in the world, dirt-poor Asian immigrants outperform natives. You can't find one country where this isn't the case.
Wow. Your choice.
You're a religious nut.
I know you will not change your mind to any evidence whatsoever (again, it's a religion). But I hope at least somewhere in the back of your mind you think "hmm, it is strange that black and white incomes are equal when adjusting for SAT scores. My world view really does not have any explanation for that."
San Pete! Dude. Snap out of it.
Did you know that Factoid means "An assumption that is incorrect, but accepted as fact anyway"
Identity politics and the claims @scf0101 makes are entirely different matters. You can see the gaping holes in his arguments without approving of identity politics.
Your world view is identical to a religion. It's funny you can't see that. There is no piece of information that would lead you to reconsider your views. I point something out - "oh well, it's because of XYZ". We could go on like this for hours.
You are utterly and completely convinced that all differences in group outcomes are due to discrimination. Thinking otherwise would completely upend everything you believe in. So you have to cling to it with all your might.
And no, it's not "one, huge expansive group". European ancestry is also broken down. Asian Americans dominate as Asian groups do everywhere else. (Did you know Japanese Brazilians - a group that immigrated as lowly agricultural workers - are the richest ethnic group in Brazil? Or Korean Argentinians - a group that immigrated as lowly textile workers - are the richest ethnic group in Argentina? Did you know that Malaysia actively discriminates against its Chinese minority population because they are *too successful*? How does your brain explain these things?!)
Again, it's one huge expansive group. No, it's not further broken down there in any complete way, since all the European subgroups are below the average European in income, mathematically impossible if all groups are there.
The rest of what you say is just you talking to a voice in your head.
Do you read what you write?
Ha, you have no idea what I'm talking about. At least the guy I was talking about could see they were wrong and gave up the point.
Whachoo talkin bout, Willis?
I'm not sure you're indicative of the median American either. And given that the median German citizen claimed to be unaware of Auschwitz' existence in 1945, one could argue that the median is a not a good enough goal in the first place.
Personally, I very much dislike the phrase "white supremacy" as a nationwide problem. I'm quite sure, as the opening anecdote of White Fragility points out, that almost all White Americans don't want to be racist, and think that they're not. The phrase "white supremacy" is entirely too loaded and inflammatory a term, and is far more likely to alienate people who are (or were) willing to listen to you and change than it is to foster facing uncomfortable truths.
Is America in 2024 the result of many centuries (including this one) of an unfair system that is based (both directly and indirectly) on race? Absolutely. You'll get agreement from 65% of the White people in the country on that point.
I don’t need to hold the views of the median American because I’m not the head of a publicly funded news organization!
Comparing Americans to Nazi era Germans is disgusting and you should be ashamed.
But besides all of that, you’re wrong. America is very close to a pure meritocracy. Outcomes are closely related to intelligence and hard work. For example, when holding SAT scores constant, black incomes are the same as whites (historically slightly higher due to AA). Astonishing for a society where supposedly all the cards are stacked in favor of whites and racism is everywhere! I guess the racists forget to discriminate for that one.
Your worldview is an unfalsifiable fairytale and you’re no better than the religious people you sneer at.
"America is very close to a pure meritocracy. Outcomes are closely related to intelligence and hard work. For example, when holding SAT scores constant, black incomes are the same as whites (historically slightly higher due to AA)."
Oh my. You must know better than to make that argument. If not, you have a great deal of work to do should you develop an interest in truth over politics.
Here's some fun reading for you. I assume this is the type of information you have never been exposed to given your media bubble and your far left views on race.
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/qa6dy6/many_blackwhite_disparities_in_important_life/
Literally nothing I said is false.
American incomes are the most closely correlated to numeracy of any OECD country.
Black incomes are the same as white incomes when holding SAT scores constant.
Maybe you would know these things if you read anything other than hard-left sources like NPR. America is a meritocracy. Just because you failed at it doesn't mean we should overturn the system.
My point is made. You've chosen politics over truth, and clearly love it more than truth. Your choice. Should you ever decide to try truth instead, no one will have to explain the obvious problems and gaping holes in your views.
Your point of view is unfalsifiable. I have pointed to metrics and stats. You keep repeating your religious dogma. You haven't given me a single number or quantitative metric this entire conversation. It's like trying to argue the existence of God. You are convinced. There is nothing I can say that will get you to change your mind. Nothing will ever change your mind because you are a religious fanatic. Your religion is just leftism.
You again talk to a voice in your head. I've talked with enough people with religious political views like you to know there's no point to going further.
Should you ever decide truth matters more than your personal politics, you'll figure it out. Until then, no one can help you.
Also - before I leave, just remember:
America will always be capitalist.
Affirmative action will never come back.
Advances in genetics will prove that group differences are not due to discrimination.
There will always be people that deserve to be richer than you because they are smarter and work harder.
Cope and seethe.
Ha, thanks for sharing your religious faith.
So, america will die then.
Right - the person who is providing actual hard numbers, data and facts is being religious. Not the person that is repeating unscientific-yet-sacred dogma ("affected by generations of prejudice and oppression"). Listen to yourself. You haven't provided a single piece of knowledge other than repeating hard-left jargon! Embarassing!
You need to look inward. People can produce hard numbers all day for all kinds of silly views - I've seen people with views opposite to yours do that easily (including for literal religious views).
But that doesn't help unless you actually want to understand the issue instead of proving your point of view. That's where you fail completely.
Your choice.
"hard left sources"
Wow. Do you have any idea what an actual hard left source is?
Neither does the head of any news organization. Ever. For any reason.
Where did I sneer at religious people? I think you might be confusing me with someone else.
Please read this before saying that: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/20/2236047/-Stephen-Miller-Sues-CBS-for-Discrimination-against-White-People
"I would say living in a country where none (zero) of the top 5 ethnic groups with highest income are of European/white background "
That's false.
do you do kids shows? Maybe comedy clubs?
This may be some of the funniest text i've read in a while.
The fundamental problem with your thesis (and most everyone at NPR, I suspect) is that you presume that your beliefs are objective facts, without room for disagreement. I don’t know if you’re right or wrong in your opinions, but I do know there are many very smart people (who you dismiss as ignorant) who would disagree with your takes on Bill Maher and white supremacy. The problem isn’t that you’re wrong… it’s that you can’t even imagine you MIGHT be wrong, and it leads you to dismiss, without any concern of bias, anyone who thinks differently. I assume most people at NPR are the same. Everything you said in your post is an opinion, presented as objective fact. But you, and so many at NPR, have conflated “opinion”, “belief”, “viewpoint” and “judgment” as fact.
I would genuinely like to know why you think he's a bigot.
"If someone says or does bigoted things, they're by definition, a bigot." We're in agreement on this.
But I would have expected you to provide some examples, other than "winding people up". That's a bit vague, no? What has Maher said or done that you consider bigoted?
Baron provides perfect justification to defund.
You have every right to be an extremely activist but you don’t have a right to force me to pay for it.
I like this question — why do we want to legitimize bigotry as a way to make a living?
You’re why the internet is dying thanks to AI. The sooner we’re rid of people’s ability to comment nonsensical sinister piffle (like saying someone is a bigot and calling it “objectively measurable” without citing one scrap of measly evidence as if it’s simply beyond the capability of the fingertips you uses to scribble this babble), the better off we’ll all be.
And yes, I know I’m making a comment, but it’s simply amusing yet depressing that people like you exist all over the place that turn any opportunity for discussion into a cesspool of pure dreck.
“Objectively Measurable”
I don’t think you know what that means?