A point that the article made that I completely agree with is that people (whether left wing or right wing) use ideology to dismiss scientific fact when it should be the other way around. Scientific fact should dismiss ideology.

The right does this with evolution. A lot of right wingers don't want to acknowledge the fact that people have evolved over time since it goes against their religious beliefs. They try and force poorly based reasoning for why evolution can't be. There are other things too, like people believing that the world is only a couple thousand years old when science points to the fact that the earth is way older than that. I've spoken to some people that have gone so far to dismiss science entirely and say that most of it is made up. This is ignorant and sad.

The left does this with gender as well as race. There are differences between the male brain and the female brain. There are differences between the male anatomy and female anatomy. There are biological differences between race as well and, more explicitly, ethnicity. A lot of things on the left are turned into a racist/sexist issue and it is absolutely repulsive due to its overuse and appearance in situations where it isn't even a factor.

The best way to solve sexism and racist problems is to stop drawing so much attention to them. Instead of thinking of someone as a "female programmer" think of them as "a programmer who happens to be female". Hire the best person for the job based on their qualifications, not based on their personal obstacles that they've had to face in life to achieve those qualifications. There will be biases, they simply exist. Hiring managers should be educated on such biases and do their best to be as open minded and omniscient in the hiring process as possible. When systems are made that force a certain % of a group of people to obtain a job based on race, gender, etc... you are using the very biases that you are trying to eliminate.

CEOs are on average tall people. Are short people being discriminated against? On some level yes. Do we create a system to give short people an advantage because of this? No, this is a subconscious thing and can't be controlled. You can do this with pretty much everything. Ugly people probably have a disadvantage compared to attractive people. Fat people compared to skinny people. Gay people compared to straight people.

I have a baby face. Perhaps this effects my ability to get a supervisory position at my workplace. Management may perceive me to be too young and inexperienced for a job that I am very well qualified for. It would be great if a system could exist to make this better for me, but from a pragmatic viewpoint this just isn't realistic in the world that we live in. The best I can do is grow out a beard to make myself look older.


Another point that the article made is that political ideology is based on moral values. Moral values are subjective and cannot be proven. They are based upon ones own life experiences.

I think it is great when people are able to recognize their differences and acknowledge them without getting hostile. It is much better than pretending they don't exist or be walking on egg shells with people.


Great posts in this thread by the way. I read all of it so far and was impressed by people's ability to say what they thought without getting so upset with differing views.

Ok, let's stop here for a second. Do you believe this was true 60 years ago as well?

Take two examples from people who thing race is way overblown: Morgan Freeman and Lil Wayne. They are both from the deep south, still live there, and they simply refuse to discuss it, taking the tact that talking about it makes it worse.

The fact is that there are many many more issues at hand than racism, sexism, etc. Humans, rightly or wrongly, sort themselves and each other into buckets. I face this (classism) as a white guy even, and that's just the way it is, and you can't educate people out of ignorance.

Here's the thing that bothers me about the programming narrative on all this stuff: talk is cheap, bull**** walks. Who was the last person that got fired for calling a coworker a racist or sexist thing? They don't get fired, they don't get booted out of the profession. It happens these types are more alpha, so sorting in our minds, we consider them management material. If there was a real desire to clean out the closet, there would be much fewer men, but at least that would be counter-balanced by much lower attrition.

I'm too lazy to find them, but holy **** has Damore said some profoundly dumb things lately trying to milk his 15 minutes. Dude is just legit stupid.

Dave, are you replying to me? If so, same question to you.

Surely, 60 years ago was different. Yes, the effects are still apparent today, but 60 years ago, the government and many agencies were passing policies and laws that were specifically racist. What does today have to do with 60 years ago?

The difference today is de facto via the humans on the ground. It isn't my fault people were raised so they can't respect their own mother's enough to know that women are valuable members of society. These people need to be gotten rid of. If they really can't control themselves enough to behave appropriately at a 6 figure job, then they get whatever they deserve.

Take the current thread. If the guy was silently fired and no one made a fuss, he would have quietly packed his bags and one more dote would be relegated to the unemployment line with zero viable outs. The problem is that everyone gave them an audience, and that is the point Morgan Freeman and Li'l Wayne try to make.

Cool. So the reason I asked is that, I want to use "science" here. How do you know (using science!) that this was a problem 60 years ago and its not a problem now? What are the facts?

This is just an opinion. Many of us would say the government and many agencies are passing policies and laws that are racist and sexist today.

I grew up in the ghetto. I have a lot of first hand knowledge on that topic, since that's something that affected my upbringing, my ability to go to college, and even affects me to this day. The situation today is very different from 20 years ago, much less 60 years ago.

Here's a taster of the government policies from 60 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETR9qrVS17g

You can also read up on some of the laws and their accidental consequences in these two books:

https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Inequa.../dp/0770435688

https://www.amazon.com/Class-Apart-P.../dp/0743299450

I have plenty more if you want.

Please, I'm sure we want to hear a white guy tell us why racism isn't a big deal anymore...

haha oh god

Dave, I don't care about your anecdotes. I don't even really care about this thread. I just found it funny to read a big rant about the anti-science of "the left" that contained literally no science.

I was just curious to see what science showed *ism was not a problem now. And, since most people acknowledge it was certainly a problem in the 60s, what has empirically changed over that time.

Edit: Just for the record Dave, I acknowledge that in the 60s racism and sexism existed and there were lots of Government policies that were pretty damn ****ty.

You asked if not drawing attention to them was true 60 years ago. Back then, I don't think so, but today, I think it's far more a non-issue than it was 60 years ago. I'll take the wisdom from much older people who lived during those times as my guidance.

I also presented you with actual data / "science" if you care to read up and educate yourself on the topic. But if you prefer dissolving everything do 140 characters, then enjoy. The topics are too complex for simplifications, and it's certainly a fault of both the right and left for over-simplifying and talking out their asses. Libraries exist for a reason. The world never has and never will be a small as an iPhone.

You'll take wisdom from a couple of people that say what you want to hear and ignore everything else.


Lol. You presented me with a youtubez and amazon book links. That's not presenting me with data or "science". Telling me to educate myself isn't presenting me with data or "science" either.


Lol. I had a simple question. Show me the science behind how you know racism/sexism was a problem that needed to have attention to it in the 60s but is no longer a problem that we should pay attention to.

I didn't ask you this question. You jumped in on your own. Just because I don't want to talk to you about something completely different has no bearing on whether I'm educated or not on these issues (although, given your use of random celebrities and youtubez, I feel safe in assuming I know a lot more about these issues than you do).

As a side note, the reason I kept my initial question so focused and simple is because I've done this dance many-a-times. And it always involves a bunch of people like you avoiding the issue and going on random tangents.

TheGodson made his claim that the left ignores science. I'd like to explore that.

Oh good, this ****ing thread again

Guys, go look in the LC thread and see that we can't even solve complex problems such as auto-save or how phones work, and then realize that we can't solve this **** either.

Hah, I made the argument we shouldn't have this thread in the forum, but...

I've made good progress at recovering since the height of my Politics Unchained days, but sometimes I relapse. The trigger is usually the "My side uses science and evidence!" posts that contain no science or evidence. That's why 9/11 trutherism kept drawing me back in...

Yeah it's scary how seductive cherry picking a couple studies that could support your position, then pointing to it and declaring "science!" can be with the masses. But the bottom line is it's much more effective if your audience is already pre-disposed to believe the conclusion.

"Segregation" was 60 years ago.

That's not science... my bad.

How do you measure / define segregation? Why is it bad and needs to be actively talked about (as opposed to ignored)? Do you believe that racism/sexism was 'solved' once Jim Crow segregation was abolished?

It's amazing to me that in discussions like this you guys will happily rant for thousands of words. But, gosh, golly, gee if someone actually wants specifics and evidence you guys can't seem to find the energy to type more than a youtubez link.

My whole point in this thread is that Domore or whatever the **** his name is should be relegated to the unemployment line with zero outs.

It was pure cowardice the way this situation was handled. A leader doesn't go on Twitter and create drama. The problem is that people who feel like they are the voice of the perceived voiceless are attracting more of exactly what they claim they don't want. People who talk talk talk / do no action have no notion of how stupid and ignorant they sound. Those that know roll their eyes and walk away.

I could tell you my entire upbringing, but you'd just pew pew about me being white, as if being a 1% entity gave me some huge advantages. If you want to "educate" yourself, go live in the hood for 6 months, of if that's too scary, do some after-school program for minority children teaching programming or baseball. Then come back and read what you are writing, and then go find some data that aligns with what you actually observed (hint: there is none).

What an amazingly scientific and persuasive argument!

Dave, I've done multiple volunteer programs in largely minority areas.

Once again though, 3 paragraphs of ranting and no actual substance or answering of my questions about segregation.

Dave, let's try a slightly different tack.

When (and I don't need an exact year or anything) did racial problems get solved enough that it became better to not talk about them? We know you think it's between the 60s and now. What general time period did that switch happen?

Society is like a bird. That's just science bro.

ok I did atually lol.

this effin guy.

dude suzzer you left out the best part. he posted a picture too. Im dying.