Not you, i am just pointing at a huge difference in wages which doesn't cause better outcomes where the wages are higher. Benefits are high in california as well

There is no science that demonstrates one race is better or more intelligent than another. There's literally no evidence, only your fantasies and your worn copy of "The Bell Curve". Race is a social construct ffs.

Let's take specific examples. Autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis can occur in men but are much, much more prevalent in women. There are widely accepted, non-behavioral (i.e., biological) explanations for why women are at greater risk of autoimmune disorders than men are. Sickle cell disease is caused by a gene mutation that is much more common among people who were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and to a lesser degree, more common among people whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa.

As far as I know, neither of these propositions is remotely controversial in the United States, no matter your politics.

Man, it is genuinely insulting that you expect anyone with a pulse to buy into this kinder, gentler version of eugenics you're pitching. I mean, ofc the racism is offensive as well.

Do you understand that since "woman" means "anyone who identifies as a woman" for the people aligned with you politically, the bold is factually false for anyone accepting gender theory yes?

You are supposed to use "individuals with ovaries", and yes you are a transphobe if you don't according to your ideological allies and people get fired for that in med schools.

"not controversial proposition no matter your politics" and you use men to mean people with xy chromosomes, what are you, in 2005?

And people accuse me of responding in bad faith . . . .

You wrote something that you thought was absolutely not controversial, and i pointed out that it actually is ferociously controversial under political lines.

Btw i might have misread you: you wrote in a limited cases some stuff is mostly genetical, i read an implication that wasn't there.

I read the implication the rest was still , uncontroversially, at least somewhat genetically determined anyway, and that the health example was just the most glaring almost-only-genetical one.

But i guess you didn't want to imply that voting behaviour is uncontroversially admitted to be genetically influenced as well, just to a lower degree (even if literature is absolutely clear about that)

You think that what I wrote about autoimmune disorders and sickle cell disease is "ferociously controversial?"

I can't speak for Italy, but it isn't remotely controversial in the U.S.

If you don't use the expression I wrote or a similar one and insist on using men/women yes and you know it.

As for thalassemia no I don't think that is controversial (yet?)

So these articles --all of which used the language I used and none of which used the language you offered -- are "ferociously controversial?"

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/02/women-autoimmune.html#:~:text=As%20many%20as%204%20out,s yndrome%2C%20it's%2019%20to%201.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7980266/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00267-6

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rs-are-female/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/h...hromosome.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-n...s-may-know-why

https://www.washingtonpost.com/scien...mune-diseases/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/healt...scn/index.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ommon-in-women

That's your contention? That's what you honestly expect us to believe? You probably shouldn't make these asinine arguments if you suspect that your audience has access to the internet.

Ho boy …..
Totally miss the mark !

Let’s say tomorrow we drop CEOs salaries by half , what would happened ?
Wouldn’t the quality of management go down ?

Now double salaries of teachers what would happened ?
Ie: Instead of having 50k teachers to fill up 75k positions presently , doubling salaries would probably end up having 500k teachers to fill up 75k position yah ?

Yes true , if your dumb enough to hire the worst teachers in the 500k pool to fill up the positions, it won’t improve much the educational system but I got the feeling that wouldn’t happened ….
Like the CEOs , when you want quality you pay them yah ?

That always amazes me about the right , always saying to bring the best you need the best pay but they expect paying the least to get the best for government employees …

0:: I know it sounds crazy but the law of supply and demand do actually work in the government environment too .

Also, the present teachers who were not already performing to the best of their ability would up their game if they knew the higher salaries would mean they were in competition against those with better skills than their present competition. This Luciom person is evidently a Communist.

David I very clearly wrote that if wage increases are coupled with easy firing, then they can work.

But that is never the case for public employee.

Give me one day notice for teachers and I give you 20% salary increase

I am relieved enough sources still use words with their normal meaning, thank you for posting that.

I won't delve in the back and forth posting AMA speech guidelines, anecdotes about medical schools punishing people because they dare to say mothers instead of pregnant people and so on. I am ok.

You know what I meant and I know what you meant.

When/if you will encounter the stuff I am talking about (if you haven't already) in your circles you will smile bitterly about this exchange

That didn't address my point . To address it there has to be a six month or so period where the teachers who have the ability to improve get the chance to actually do it.

95% of those who think that the Bell Curve is accurate want it to be accurate. 95% of those who think it is inaccurate want it to be inaccurate. I didn't read the book and barely know what it says about whether black people are less intelligent than white people. What I do know is this: Those black people who are capable of giving an unbiased and accurate critique of what is written in that book (or any other book that requires skill in probability and statistics) are much more intelligent than white people who are not capable of that.

Note: If you are in the latter category there is hope.

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-S...2699515&sr=8-1

On the long run , without firing people , improvement would still occur having a much higher pool of candidates to choose from .


So not it’s not a lie , its simply supply and demand .
Higher pay always attract higher quality .
I’m surprise a right wing would hold a narrative opposite to this ….

I really hope you're nowhere near the levers of power anywhere. The simplistic viewpoints you constantly share indicate that if you were able to remake the world in the way you think best, it would be a dystopian hellscape. And by "simplistic", I'm mainly thinking of your very black-and-white and extreme takes on things like the topic of this thread. Atlas Shrugged very much comes to mind when I read some of your posts.

Luciom thinks it should be legal for civilians to own tanks and thermonuclear warheads coz something 1A something. Nuance is not really his "thing".

i think the word is crude populism.

Thankfully, no. Were his views popular, we'd be in a very dark place indeed. But there certainly is some overlap.

I wasn’t aiming at popular meaning but more this one :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Granted better words probably exist to define it better .
To me , masses would love to live in a society with easy solution to complex problems in an uncomplicated world .
That is why I use it .

It’s to put aside nuances and just go with absolute simple policies like Luciom wishes .
Yes we would be in a heap of trouble if it was in fact popular in the general pop .

I am not but lately some people who think not so differently from me are. Like Milei in Argentina.

the tide is slowly changing, we had a Bolsonaro, we have a Bukele, we have Wilders in the Netherlands, and the first woman prime minister in Italy heads the first actual right-wing Italian government since the 60s.

your "nuanced" technocratic center left actual hell scape is pissing off enough people around the world, even while guys like you control most of the media, that we are saying "**** It, & **** you".

yes sometimes the solution (not the first best solution, just an improvement from the horrid status quo) is simple.

That happens to be true when it's not rationality that made things as they are, rather encrusted clientelar politics.

We are coming for the sweep and the world of mixed economy social-sweet-capitalism is coming to an end in many places.

your lot reduced us to automatons, who have to spend hours per week dividing the ****ing trash to pretend we recycle while we don't.

The cap on our bottles isn't removable anymore because "nuanced reasons". There is a 18 mph speed limit in my city, and lately men can get pregnant. You want to put warning labels on wine. I have to ****ing click away bull crap popups 300 times per day because GDPR because your lot is nuanced. We close nuclear because you are nuanced so we open coal plants for the climate.

You have to be thankful we aren't in a full scale civil war already

TIL I learnt that "leftism" is 18mph speed limits, recycling, data protection and closing nuclear power plants.

yes it actually is, at least those are clear bread and butter examples of inane, absurd, life ruining policies implemented with a big push by the left in Europe.

the maniacal desire to regulate everything is a core tenet of leftism.

psycho control freaks

and those people are the nuanced ones bobo wants to govern unlike people like me who would never regulate anything unless it's absolutely indispensable for the survival of society to regulate it