If you recall I started this thread stating I do not think you are racist. You not believing in systemic racism doesn't make you racist. I still don't think you're racist; I think you're confused af tho

Your confusion certainly overlaps actual racist peoples' views. Given a clear out you still refused to answer

And btw it is easy to misrepresent your position as you don't seem to have one, are lost in the weeds and barely treading water bc you're in way over your head discussing a complex issue you have no grasp abt. Lucky for you luckbox is here to spot you

No, I just don't have the patience to write elaborate post, only for them to get misrepresented:
Someone who has read what I have posted, and states that, is clearly being dishonest, or is being stupid.


You think I object to CRT on every other ground than the ones I actually assert (which incidentally coincides with almost all other progressive parrot rebuttal).

Your issue really isn't that I deny racism, it's that I put emphasis on other factors.

That is not what they are saying IHIV.

I cannot explain this to you as honestly you have the comprehension of a toddler. Sorry.


This sentence from the study is speaking to MORTALITY RATES:
You do not, DO NOT dismiss comparisons of mortality rates amongst groups because one group is doing so well their number is low.

OK old people die of covid at a high rate, babies at an infinitesimally small rate therefore nothing can be learned from the data.

D'oh.


This is an examination of aggregate data. Tons of data. And that the death rate for white kids is tiny is not a reason to say it is not illustrative. The exact opposite is true.

That's a massive goal post shift. If you go review the peer reviewed research, some of which I cited, you will find many other variables that point to the reason for the disparity, that does not include the doctors race, and could impact the outcomes doctors of different races unequally based on any number of factors, location, hospitals, socio economic status, etc.

This is actually an easy thing to see....just check the outcomes by doctor. You will see some white doctors perform better than some black doctors, and vice versa, same for hospitals, regions, etc. (as an example FL does better than most other southern states)

My issue certainly is that you deny racism and refuse to acknowledge systemic racism. That is it. Like one sentence you simply cannot type

Do I belive laws and policies disproportionately impact racial groups? Yes. Do I believe that is necessarily racist? No. By your stupid definition of what systemic racism is, you are right, I deny it, but that's not denying racism, or racial bias.

I've brought this up before, and you all hate this:


How the **** does that happen in a systemically racist country?

No. No goal post shift.

Everyone but IHIV : we have this aggregate data that points to a result. We understand there are lots of disparate unknown factors at this point but the result is not in question.

IHIV : But I can point to unknown disparate factors thus the result is worthless.

Everyone but IHIV : You really are dumb

Okay, a white NBA GM will pick a black player at 4-1 clip. Tell me why that is relevant. Is crack racist?

none of this matters.

What matters is if you take a set of black doctors with attributes X...

And a set of white doctors with attribute Y...

And you give them a group of black kids to treat prebirth/after...

And you give them a group of white kids to treat prebirth/after...


The black doctors will get great / great results with both white and black...

The white doctors will get great / poor in their results with the white and black...


Why their results fall off comparatively in the black group is concerning.

Size of group does not change that. Training or hospitals the doctors work at don't change that. It being Florida does not change that.

That the white doctor can get a superior result with white kids (that matches the black doctors)... that for whatever reason they are not getting with black kids is something to look in to. Not to be dismissed with hand waving because some people here are sensitive to certain things being indicated and will reflexively lash out against that.

what the holy hell????

You said racial disparities matter. I wanted you to tell me why that one is relevant (it's irrelevant), but your response tells the story. You are full of ****.

Wtf are your referring to?

Quote me saying that with the full context?

I certainly never suggest racial disparities matter in a vacuum such that looking at an NBA basketball team is proof of some wrong. So cite as i have no frikkin idea what point you are referring to.

That's not really saying what you seem to think it is

I don't think a single thing says what he thinks it does. I honestly don't. I think he has such selective bias based no an absolute need to see the world thru a set of race based biases that he cannot be anything approaching objective in anything he does.

I purposely ignored what you addressed, just as I tried to ignore his 'ah ha black Dr's have systemic advantage and get into elite hospitals in disproportionate rates'.


One might note that IHIV immediate jumps to systemic advantage for Blacks in Hospitals and systemic advantage for blacks in terms of incarceration in the two areas he cites.

Someone might then question whether this guy is a living, breathing example of a guy who jumps on any confirmation bias piece of material he can find and then fights to defend and justify it until the end days.

He hates the idea that systemic abuses impacts blacks but he loves the 'proof' how whites are disadvantaged.

I wish you good luck in your discussion with him. I am out for now.

The only real point I was trying to make is that I have had lots of conversations about race with black , Hispanic, and Asian friends and family, and the term critical race theory was never brought up. Also I never hear the term race baiter except online. Shrugs.

Yeah, many of them probably are not aware of the where the current social justice orthodoxy originated from.

See, you project your own biases with statements like this. I did not say they had systemic advantages, but the fact is, elite black do have systemic advantages, now that you bring it up. In fact, I know many minority doctors are in underserved areas. What you did not comprehend was that fact that blacks are overrepresented at prestigious institutions, but still under represented, as whole, across the field of ob-gyn, and doctors in general. If you are a good black doctor, you will get a place at a good hospital. My guess is, they are severely underrepresented when it comes to rural practices. There is nothing wrong with that, that's what AA does. Until you pivoted, you tried to make out that would not affect outcomes across the entire racial group, which was the reason I brought it up in the first place.

You all always do this deceitful **** then project it upon me.

The survey does seem to point to something real. It's a sample of 1,353,078 white newborns, and 459,901 black newborns. 3,936 white doctors, 514 black. And they have a lot of controls that show the effect as well, like with medicare vs non-medicare. Black babies do seem to do better with black doctors.
One possible reason is that black doctors do get more experience with black patients compared to white doctors and might be better skilled to treat patients with hypertension/obesity (which affects more black women) if they see them more. "Cultural competence" is also suggested as being a thing. With the numbers as they are, a doctor might only have a death every 15 months or so. So still possibly some other sample size issues.

But here's the thing...

Who.

Gives.

A.

****.

It's the ideas they discuss, not their origin, that should matter.

Results oriented thinking. The ideas you speak of are conclusions, not ideas. The process to which those ideas/conclusion were generated are wack, but that doesnt matter. You essentially said epistemology does not matter.

..



Again, they think the system is racist. It's stereotypical thinking by patients.

That also brings to bear self-selection issues. There was a blurb on that somewhere-- as it depends on insurance provider. The appendix is helpful.

My statement wasn't made to defend CRT, so results-oriented thinking doesn't come into it. I'm not saying "well, the discussion about race is good, and this came from CRT, so CRT is good". I'm saying that if someone is having productive discussions about race, there's no need to drop some kind of "but it came from CRT!" shadow over it.

Since I'm pretty sure I've seen even you agree that at one time it undeniably was--can you tell us when you think it ended? Such a big deal should probably be pretty easy to point to on a calendar. Or do you think it just gradually disappeared at some point?

The study points to a very real thing and shows the way that race can interact to produce disparate results. It is evidence of a problem. White doctors need to be better trained on how to communicate with black patients and to handle complications that are more prone to black women, and aa pop needs to understand that this is an issue and to act accordingly.