2012 Election Thread

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Temporaryscars']Drug laws had overtly racist language that was removed? :lol: ing moron.

I'll give you that blacks suffer from the drug war more than whites do, but I'm asking about laws that once had overtly racist language that was removed and is still in place.

Lets hear some of your other examples.[/QUOTE]

I never said anything about overtly racist language, don't attribute words to me that aren't mine. You think I'm going to get punked by a strawman, GTFO

You're damn right your mistake.

 

[Temporaryscars]

*douche chills*

 

[itachiitachi]

[quote name='dohdough']
Asians are a special and I hate to group all the ethnicities together like that, but the ones that get higher scores tend come from the higher socio-economic strata and tend to not be refugees.[/QUOTE]
From what I've read it seem that poor Asains still do very well academically.
[quote name='dohdough']
It still doesn't negate the fact that Asians are still a very small percentage of students in college that are far from being overrepresented except in a handful of regional schools,[/QUOTE]
Looking at the data from the BLS the percentage of Asian in college is greater than the percentage of Asian Americans of college age.
[quote name='dohdough']
which isn't a strike against affirmative action, but reiterates a need for it ,
when South East Asians, in particular tend to trend the same as Latinos and black people in regards to socio-economic status and scholastic achievement. They also sometimes require additional support from these institutions in order to navigate these spaces.[/QUOTE]
Ok let's focus on Chinese and Japanese Americans both groups faced racism and yet both groups overcame it, and affirmative actions seems to have nothing to do with it.

Also affirmative action does not target those who actually need it(poor,people who have been in jail for drugs,people from single parents homes ect....)

[quote name='dohdough']
Not to mention that outside of college, Asians of all stripes tend to hit the glass ceiling as well as being paid less than their white counterparts even when accounting for experience and education.[/QUOTE]
The little research I could find on the subject suggest that this is only true for firs generation Asains and 2nd or even 1.5th generations ones are paid the same as their white counterparts.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Temporaryscars']*douche chills*[/QUOTE]

weak

 

[dohdough]

I honestly don't even know how to being to address this mess...

[quote name='itachiitachi']From what I've read it seem that poor Asains still do very well academically.[/QUOTE]
"Poor" does not mean refugee or uneducated.

Looking at the data from the BLS the percentage of Asian in college is greater than the percentage of Asian Americans of college age.

I'm not sure if you understand what that means, but it still has absolutely nothing to do with my point about Asians, regardless of citizenship, being far from being grossly overrepresented in higher education. Even by (mis)interpreting data they way you did, it still makes my case about Asian Americans even stronger about not being overrepresented.

Ok let's focus on Chinese and Japanese Americans both groups faced racism and yet both groups overcame it, and affirmative actions seems to have nothing to do with it.

Uhhh...wut??? You're going to have to explain how they "overcame" it.

Also affirmative action does not target those who actually need it(poor,people who have been in jail for drugs,people from single parents homes ect....)

That's because affirmative action programs aren't supposed to address those things or at least not supposed to directly address them. Affirmative action isn't a social safety net and the things you think it should address are things that other programs would address because a program like affirmative action failed.

The little research I could find on the subject suggest that this is only true for firs generation Asains and 2nd or even 1.5th generations ones are paid the same as their white counterparts.

Except that every reputable study on labor statistics find huge disparities in income when looking at race and gender?

 

[itachiitachi]

[quote name='dohdough']I honestly don't even know how to being to address this mess...[/QUOTE]
You could try and open mind and respect.

[quote name='dohdough']
"Poor" does not mean refugee or uneducated. [/QUOTE]
Do uneducated refugee's of any race have a representation in colleges?
[quote name='dohdough']
I'm not sure if you understand what that means, but it still has absolutely nothing to do with my point about Asians, regardless of citizenship, being far from being grossly overrepresented in higher education. Even by (mis)interpreting data they way you did, it still makes my case about Asian Americans even stronger about not being overrepresented.[/QUOTE]
You going to have to explain that.

[quote name='dohdough']
Uhhh...wut??? You're going to have to explain how they "overcame" it. [/QUOTE]
What you mean how they the stereotypes like "sneaky asain" and racist acts like interments camps?

[quote name='dohdough']
That's because affirmative action programs aren't supposed to address those things or at least not supposed to directly address them. Affirmative action isn't a social safety net and the things you think it should address are things that other programs would address because a program like affirmative action failed.[/QUOTE]
So instead of instituting a program based on need that will help minorities get out ghettos and break free from the cycle of poverty, we should go with program that helps middle class and rich minorities get into slightly better schools and leaves poor people to rot?



[quote name='dohdough']I
Except that every reputable study on labor statistics find huge disparities in income when looking at race and gender?[/QUOTE]
Do they account for things like first generation vs second generation, career oriented workers vs family oriented workers.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='itachiitachi']You could try and open mind and respect.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but that's reserved for people with actual demonstrated knowledge on a subject that add nuanced views. You've done neither in the area of Asian/Asian American issues here. You're asking questions that show that you're only pretending to know what you're talking about, so you get neither from me.

Do uneducated refugee's of any race have a representation in colleges?

This is so far removed from the original point that it's a completely different subject, but the answer is that they wouldn't be counted as their own demographic anyways. That's like asking if there's a special program for rural Chinese students and rich urban ones, when they're both counted as Asian and international students.

The original point is that an educated family of some means in China would still be poor in the US for a myriad of reasons. We also saw a large influx of refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Hmong throughout the 70's and 80's and they weren't exactly welcomed or given jobs with living wages when they got over here. Some were educated, but most weren't, which adds to the difficulties of immigration. How this plays out is that despite both groups being poor in the US, you have educated parents being more economically mobile with kids that do better in school and uneducated parents that don't do well in school, which is consistent with the same trend for most families in the US.

You going to have to explain that.

Seriously? You want me to explain your own point to you? Are you asserting that Asians, regardless of "American" status, are grossly overrepresented? Or maybe you should explain your reason for posting that BLS statistic and your interpretation of it because it doesn't refute my point.

What you mean how they the stereotypes like "sneaky asain" and racist acts like interments camps?

Uhhh...those aren't examples of overcoming racism. That's like saying black people overcame racism because they aren't considered monkeys anymore and that they aren't slaves on plantations.

So instead of instituting a program based on need that will help minorities get out ghettos and break free from the cycle of poverty, we should go with program that helps middle class and rich minorities get into slightly better schools and leaves poor people to rot?

The short answer is yes. Again, that's not the goal or purpose of affirmative action. Education and social safety nets are the things that are supposed to address poverty. This is not complicated. It's like asking why the GI Bill doesn't help or cover people before they entered the military.

Do they account for things like first generation vs second generation, career oriented workers vs family oriented workers.

How is this relevant when this is the trend of income disparity for every one in the country according to race and gender? The gap between white men and white women alone is 25% with everyone else being much worse.

 

[itachiitachi]

[quote name='dohdough']Sorry, but that's reserved for people with actual demonstrated knowledge on a subject that add nuanced views. You've done neither in the area of Asian/Asian American issues here. You're asking questions that show that you're only pretending to know what you're talking about, so you get neither from me.[/QUOTE]
Basically you are admitting you are close minded, and saying anyone who disagrees with you doesn't deserve respect.
[quote name='dohdough']
This is so far removed from the original point that it's a completely different subject, but the answer is that they wouldn't be counted as their own demographic anyways. That's like asking if there's a special program for rural Chinese students and rich urban ones, when they're both counted as Asian and international students. [/QUOTE]
Then why did you bring it up?
[quote name='dohdough']
The original point is that an educated family of some means in China would still be poor in the US for a myriad of reasons. We also saw a large influx of refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Hmong throughout the 70's and 80's and they weren't exactly welcomed or given jobs with living wages when they got over here. Some were educated, but most weren't, which adds to the difficulties of immigration. How this plays out is that despite both groups being poor in the US, you have educated parents being more economically mobile with kids that do better in school and uneducated parents that don't do well in school, which is consistent with the same trend for most families in the US.[/QUOTE]
The original point is groups have overcome racism, bringing up groups that may not have done had nothing to do with the fact that other groups have overcome.

[quote name='dohdough']
Seriously? You want me to explain your own point to you? Are you asserting that Asians, regardless of "American" status, are grossly overrepresented? Or maybe you should explain your reason for posting that BLS statistic and your interpretation of it because it doesn't refute my point.[/QUOTE]
You mean my point that higher percentage of Asians who get into college is larger than than the number of Asians who go to highschool?
[quote name='dohdough']
Uhhh...those aren't examples of overcoming racism. That's like saying black people overcame racism because they aren't considered monkeys anymore and that they aren't slaves on plantations. [/QUOTE]
Going from being thought of as sneaky and placed in interment camps to being the group with the highest income is not overcooking rascism?
[quote name='dohdough']
The short answer is yes. Again, that's not the goal or purpose of affirmative action. Education and social safety nets are the things that are supposed to address poverty. This is not complicated. It's like asking why the GI Bill doesn't help or cover people before they entered the military.[/QUOTE]
So basically we should go on with affirmative action "to fix rascism" even-though it does not address any of the problems that are keeping minorities from succeeding? Is the point to simply make some places look more diverse?
I think I'll stick with the system that focuses on helping the people who have been totally screwed over by society rather than a system that helps people who look like the poeple who have been screwed over.
[quote name='dohdough']
How is this relevant when this is the trend of income disparity for every one in the country according to race and gender? [/QUOTE]
The gap between white men and 2nd generation Asians is maybe 1%.
Is it surprising that someone who is new to a country and is not master of it's language and culture does not earn as much as someone who has mastered them?
[quote name='dohdough']
The gap between white men and white women alone is 25% with everyone else being much worse.[/QUOTE]
The gap between carrier oriented men and carrier orientated women is almost nill, in fact some jobs the women earn more.

The are more homeless men than women and more men in jail in women does this mean are society sexual discriminates against men?
Or are the more complicated factors, and claiming discrimination simply based on a disparity between groups shows a lack of curiosity and strong confirmation biased.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='itachiitachi']Basically you are admitting you are close minded, and saying anyone who disagrees with you doesn't deserve respect.[/quote]
All points of view are NOT equal. We're not debating flavors of ice cream here, so stop treating it as such. I happen to know a lot about Asian American issues and you sound like you barely know anything about it beyond model minority stereotypes.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because "Asian" is not a homogenous group and there are huge disparities when breaking down by nationality and ethnicity when being a homogenous group is exactly what you're implying. While there's some overlap, there are marked difference between "Asian" and "Asian American" issues and statistics. My only mistake was taking what you said as face value because I assumed that you understood the difference because you used the terminology, despite me having the strong feeling that you didn't understand it.

The original point is groups have overcome racism, bringing up groups that may not have done had nothing to do with the fact that other groups have overcome.

Yeah that's nice, but your premise conceptually flawed. No one overcomes racism; society just becomes less racist or at least less overtly racist and only some of the time.

You mean my point that higher percentage of Asians who get into college is larger than than the number of Asians who go to highschool?

You actually said "Asians" and then "Asian American." There's a difference and not my fault that you think those terms are interchangeable when it fits your mood. Maybe you should stop pretending that you know what you're talking about. If this IS your point, it still doesn't change my point that Asians and Asian Americans are far from being grossly overrepresented on college campuses nor does it refute my argument and the math simply doesn't work. Just cite your source because you're making a mess of this particular point.

Going from being thought of as sneaky and placed in interment camps to being the group with the highest income is not overcooking rascism?

The devil is in the details and you don't seem to care for them. Asians are still thought of as sneaky and a whole slew of other conflicting stereotypes and not being interred in internment camps isn't exactly a high bar to set. The elimination of Jim Crow doesn't mean that racism is over.

Disaggregate that income data by gender and education and Asian males are only doing slightly better with post graduate education and the spread with white males is less than 5%.

So basically we should go on with affirmative action "to fix rascism" even-though it does not address any of the problems that are keeping minorities from succeeding? Is the point to simply make some places look more diverse?

Affirmative action isn't meant to "fix" racism and never was. You're absolutely correct in thinking that it is a move to make places more diverse, but it isn't as simple and cynical as you make it sound. If we didn't have affirmative action, even those middle and upper class people of color wouldn't have had the kind of access that they currently do. Don't think for a second that we still don't need a program like affirmative action because those that already have limited access will see even more limited access.

I think I'll stick with the system that focuses on helping the people who have been totally screwed over by society rather than a system that helps people who look like the poeple who have been screwed over.

Could a rich guy from Africa NEVER experience racism in the US? Could a South Korean NEVER experience racism in the US? Racism happens specifically because of the way a person looks and to think that money makes you exempt is beyond stupid. I mean , how the hell do you think racism works?

The fact of the matter is that we DON'T have a system that effectively helps people screwed over by society. A large enough part of our society and the power elite, prefer to keep certain segments of our society, especially the most vulnerable parts of it, down.

The gap between white men and 2nd generation Asians is maybe 1%.
Is it surprising that someone who is new to a country and is not master of it's language and culture does not earn as much as someone who has mastered them?

Except that you're completely wrong. Look up the stats.

The gap between carrier oriented men and carrier orientated women is almost nill, in fact some jobs the women earn more.

Women making more money in porn and strip clubs doesn't mean that there is a negligible gap. Again, look up the stats. "Career oriented" is a sloppy ing term to be using in this conversation too. How the do you even quantify that?

The are more homeless men than women and more men in jail in women does this mean are society sexual discriminates against men?

Given your data, I'd say that society is harsher on homeless men and in the justice system. Judging from your posts in this thread, you'd say that more men are homeless and/or criminals. Unlike you, I'm coming at these issues looking at the systems; not the individuals.

Or are the more complicated factors, and claiming discrimination simply based on a disparity between groups shows a lack of curiosity and strong confirmation biased.

This is funny as shit coming from you. I don't think you really have an idea of what those terms mean in relation to what we're talking about. I don't know if it's because english is a secondary language for you or that you can't write for shit. I sincerely hope it's the first because I'm losing my patience.

 

[itachiitachi]

[quote name='dohdough']All points of view are NOT equal. We're not debating flavors of ice cream here, so stop treating it as such. I happen to know a lot about Asian American issues and you sound like you barely know anything about it beyond model minority stereotypes.[/QUOTE]
Knowing more(or thinking you do) makes being disrespectful and close minded ok?

[quote name='dohdough']
Yeah that's nice, but your premise conceptually flawed. No one overcomes racism; society just becomes less racist or at least less overtly racist and only some of the time. [/QUOTE]
If your measure of racism is how many people have racists beliefs then there will always be some amount of racism.
If your measure of racism is being a certain race helping or hurting your opportunists than that is something that can be practically eliminated.

For some reason you have decided to hinge your whole argument on the first definition even though the 2nd definition is the one that is relevant.

[quote name='dohdough']

You actually said "Asians" and then "Asian American." There's a difference and not my fault that you think those terms are interchangeable when it fits your mood. [/QUOTE]
It's not my fault language is mutable and the terms are used interchangeably, and it's not my fault that rather than figuring out which one I meant by context, or asking for clarification you decided to go of on semantical tangent.


[quote name='dohdough']
Maybe you should stop pretending that you know what you're talking about. If this IS your point, it still doesn't change my point that Asians and Asian Americans are far from being grossly overrepresented on college campuses nor does it refute my argument and the math simply doesn't work. Just cite your source because you're making a mess of this particular point.[/QUOTE]
1. Please show me where I ever said "Asians are grossly overrepresented".
2. I already gave you the source.

[quote name='dohdough']
The devil is in the details and you don't seem to care for them. Asians are still thought of as sneaky and a whole slew of other conflicting stereotypes and not being interred in internment camps isn't exactly a high bar to set. The elimination of Jim Crow doesn't mean that racism is over.[/QUOTE]
Racism doesn't have to be over, for it to be overcome, if despite some people having racists view, people form all races have equal opportunity than it has been overcome
[quote name='dohdough']
Disaggregate that income data by gender and education and Asian males are only doing slightly better with post graduate education and the spread with white males is less than 5%. [/QUOTE]
Why don't you disaggregate it more to 1st generation vs 2nd generation?

[quote name='dohdough']
Affirmative action isn't meant to "fix" racism and never was. You're absolutely correct in thinking that it is a move to make places more diverse, but it isn't as simple and cynical as you make it sound. If we didn't have affirmative action, even those middle and upper class people of color wouldn't have had the kind of access that they currently do. Don't think for a second that we still don't need a program like affirmative action because those that already have limited access will see even more limited access.[/QUOTE]
In places where racial affirmative action is banned it has been replace by economic affirmative action, which not only produce racial, economic, and cultural diversity. Those that had limited access gained more access.

[quote name='dohdough']
Could a rich guy from Africa NEVER experience racism in the US? Could a South Korean NEVER experience racism in the US? Racism happens specifically because of the way a person looks and to think that money makes you exempt is beyond stupid. I mean

, how the hell do you think racism works?[/QUOTE]
By that standard everyone faces racism. If you are going to use a real standard, what opportunists does a rich African lose from his race?


[quote name='dohdough']
The fact of the matter is that we DON'T have a system that effectively helps people screwed over by society. A large enough part of our society and the power elite, prefer to keep certain segments of our society, especially the most vulnerable parts of it, down.[/QUOTE]
So rather than acknowledge a problem, we should institute a system that tries to hide it?


[quote name='dohdough']
Except that you're completely wrong. Look up the stats.[/QUOTE]
I did, second generation out earns firsts generation by a sizable margin.
This is the only online stat I could find.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn_population/cb10-159.html


[quote name='dohdough']
Women making more money in porn and strip clubs doesn't mean that there is a negligible gap.Again, look up the stats. [/QUOTE]
Actually women tend to earn more in many fields of engineering and services.

[quote name='dohdough']
"Career oriented" is a sloppy

ing term to be using in this conversation too. How the

do you even quantify that?[/QUOTE]
Surveys, or looking at married people who left the work force to take of kids vs those who don't, is it really that hard for you?

[quote name='dohdough']
Given your data, I'd say that society is harsher on homeless men and in the justice system. Judging from your posts in this thread, you'd say that more men are homeless and/or criminals.[/QUOTE]
1. There are more homeless men than women. What does that have to do with the point?

2. You Really think my whole explanation is that there are more male criminals than female? I'd say the exact opposite of the point I was making?



[quote name='dohdough']
Unlike you, I'm coming at these issues looking at the systems; not the individuals.[/QUOTE]
The only system you seem to believe in is if their is a disparity than it must be discrimination.

Unlike you I'm interested in why there are disparities.
[quote name='dohdough']
This is funny as shit coming from you. I don't think you really have an idea of what those terms mean in relation to what we're talking about. I don't know if it's because english is a secondary language for you or that you can't write for shit.[/QUOTE]
It's funny that you are criticizing someone else's "english". What kind of person draws a conclusion about somebody's language ability based on typos?
I can't help but notice that rather than respond to my point.
Rather than ask yourself the question "if are society is so male biased why are men more likely to be homeless?", "why is the justice system different?",
you decided to go ad hominem.

[quote name='dohdough']
I sincerely hope it's the first because I'm losing my patience.[/QUOTE]
What patience? You seem far more interested in insults than discussion, and whenever any facts come up that fly in the face of your world view you go off on some tangent. You've practically admitted that you have no interest in understanding others.

Spoiler

I already know you plan to respond to the above comment with something along the line of "I understand you, you are stupid". If you lack the self control to necessary to be respectful at least try to be creative.

 

[dohdough]

Goddamn, you're ing ignorant as all hell...

[quote name='itachiitachi']Knowing more(or thinking you do) makes being disrespectful and close minded ok?[/QUOTE]
I've forgotten more than you've ever known about racism and you've clearly demonstrated that you don't have the knowledge to discuss the complexities of it. You whine like a child about semantics because you don't even understand the underlying concepts of the terminology you use and again, I'm going to show you how little you truly understand.

If your measure of racism is how many people have racists beliefs then there will always be some amount of racism.
If your measure of racism is being a certain race helping or hurting your opportunists than that is something that can be practically eliminated.

For some reason you have decided to hinge your whole argument on the first definition even though the 2nd definition is the one that is relevant.

They're both relevant and can't exist without another especially in the modern day US. You can't remove all context from how racism exists in the US and assume that different racial groups experience racism the same way or were treated the same while saying one group "overcame" it and others didn't. Your analysis of my argument and racism, in general, are woefully superficial.

There are loads of seemingly non-racist sentiment that has a foundation in racist attitudes and racism does not require hate, but the implied inferiority of non-white groups. Holding up Asians as model minorities is racist in nature because it serves the narrative of the inferiority of other racial groups as well as a way to deny resources to that group. The fact that some Asians "made it" doesn't mean that they've "overcome" racism as a group when most still face serious discrimination. Would you say black people overcame racism because Obama got elected president or that any black kid could be president because he was elected? Of course not because that would be so stupid as to not need an explanation.

It's not my fault language is mutable and the terms are used interchangeably, and it's not my fault that rather than figuring out which one I meant by context, or asking for clarification you decided to go of on semantical tangent.

It IS your fault because the terms are NOT interchangeable in the way you used it in that sentence as it means a VERY specific thing. When you say there are more Asians entering college than there are Asian Americans in high school, it means that there are more foreign born Asians entering college than US born Asians in high school. The two terms have very distinct meaning in that context and like I said, it was my fault for thinking you knew what you were talking about. You also dropped that line without any explanation or context. When I say Asian, I imply Asian Americans and am consistent with my usage. If I said that there were more Africans entering college than there are African Americans in high school, how the would you interpret that?

1. Please show me where I ever said "Asians are grossly overrepresented".
2. I already gave you the source.

Well why the did you post that statistic when it implies that they are grossly overrepresented and keep defending it instead of clarifying? How many times have I addressed it since you brought it up? GTFO with that bullshit.

Racism doesn't have to be over, for it to be overcome, if despite some people having racists view, people form all races have equal opportunity than it has been overcome

What the mother??? Asians haven't even come close to overcoming racism according to your own goddamn metric! How many Asian leading men are there in Hollywood? How many CEO's that are members of the Fortune 500 are Asian? How many goddamn Asians are in the US Congress? Gangnam Style being played on the radio doesn't mean that Asians have overcome racism when most talented artists can't get any exposure.

Why don't you disaggregate it more to 1st generation vs 2nd generation?

I did. You're just too dumb to figure out how.

In places where racial affirmative action is banned it has been replace by economic affirmative action, which not only produce racial, economic, and cultural diversity. Those that had limited access gained more access.

Bull-ing-shit. Most studies conclude that non-white enrollments tend to drop as a percentage of the student body and graduation rates drop as well, of which both statistics get worse as you move up the chain to more selective schools. States that have affirmative action bans have also seen a drop in graduate programs. The fact that the UC system has an Asian "problem" is not emblematic of the most likely nationwide trend if affirmative action was banned in the US for college admissions.

By that standard everyone faces racism. If you are going to use a real standard, what opportunists does a rich African lose from his race?

Are you seriously implying that a rich black man can't experience racism in the US? And yes, black is accurate because racism tends to happen before someone even opens their mouth. The social construct of "black" is well defined. You don't have to say anything to be followed around a store as if you might be a thief or be pulled over for Driving While Black.

So rather than acknowledge a problem, we should institute a system that tries to hide it?

What the ? Are you for real? Did you NOT see the kind of crazy that came out of the Republican presidential primaries? How the hell would we institute a program that more effectively lifts more people out of poverty if we're had a hard enough problem getting people increased access to healthcare?

And affirmative action doesn't hide the problem and acknowledges it directly because socio-economic mobility has hit the non-white population the hardest. It's a special program because most of the programs we've had has either excluded them and/or not sufficient to address the needs of those groups. How many times do I have to tell you the purpose of affirmative action works until it sinks into your thick skull?

I did, second generation out earns firsts generation by a sizable margin.
This is the only online stat I could find.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn_population/cb10-159.html

So.ing.what. This refutes my point about kids with educated parents having better outcomes how?

Actually women tend to earn more in many fields of engineering and services.

Are you shitting me? STEM has been one of the worse fields for women in terms of wage, advancement, and professional climate since forever. Even then, that does not refute my point about wage disparity as an overall demographic. You need to learn what an outlier is.

Surveys, or looking at married people who left the work force to take of kids vs those who don't, is it really that hard for you?

It must be too hard because because your assertion that there's not only parity, but implied disparity in which women make more overall is complete bullshit. If that was reality, why the would "equal pay for equal work" be such a huge campaign slogan for the past few months and why would we need the Ledbetter Act?

1. There are more homeless men than women. What does that have to do with the point?

2. You Really think my whole explanation is that there are more male criminals than female? I'd say the exact opposite of the point I was making?

, do you even realize how dumb #1 is in relation to your point about me being intellectually incurious and having selection bias? Do you even know what those terms mean?

The only system you seem to believe in is if their is a disparity than it must be discrimination.

Unlike you I'm interested in why there are disparities.

Did you not understand what I said? Cause that's what it looks like.

It's funny that you are criticizing someone else's "english". What kind of person draws a conclusion about somebody's language ability based on typos?
I can't help but notice that rather than respond to my point.

I can forgive typos and I make them myself, but my posts aren't riddled with them, nor are my points poorly written. Not only do you have typos, but your posts show an overall lack of effort both in composition and in content. Frankly, I find it more disrespectful than the insults I'm leveling at you. But since you put up the dick fingers around "english," are you implying that there's something wrong with my writing?

Rather than ask yourself the question "if are society is so male biased why are men more likely to be homeless?", "why is the justice system different?",
you decided to go ad hominem.

Are you implying that having more homeless men than women means that we don't live in a patriarchy? Cause if you are, you're damn right I'm going to call you a dumb mothering .

What patience? You seem far more interested in insults than discussion, and whenever any facts come up that fly in the face of your world view you go off on some tangent. You've practically admitted that you have no interest in understanding others.

Spoiler

I already know you plan to respond to the above comment with something along the line of "I understand you, you are stupid". If you lack the self control to necessary to be respectful at least try to be creative.

WHAT ING FACTS? Every reputable study done for the last 20+ years in the social sciences refutes your conclusions. All your conclusions revolve around outliers and no amount of "facts" change that.

Just ing put me on ignore and tell me to off, so we can be done with this. You haven't contributed anything of value.

 

[Thekrakrabbit]

Holy quotes!

 

[itachiitachi]

[quote name='dohdough']
They're both relevant and can't exist without another especially in the modern day US. You can't remove all context from how racism exists in the US and assume that different racial groups experience racism the same way or were treated the same while saying one group "overcame" it and others didn't. Your analysis of my argument and racism, in general, are woefully superficial..[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you are unaware that overcoming something does not mean you have to destroy it.

[quote name='dohdough']
There are loads of seemingly non-racist sentiment that has a foundation in racist attitudes and racism does not require hate, but the implied inferiority of non-white groups. Holding up Asians as model minorities is racist in nature because it serves the narrative of the inferiority of other racial groups as well as a way to deny resources to that group. The fact that some Asians "made it" doesn't mean that they've "overcome" racism as a group when most still face serious discrimination. [/QUOTE]
Well I'm referring to the sub groups of Asian who have made it. Nowhere did I argue that recourses should be denied to minorities, just that they should be distributed more efficiently.


[quote name='dohdough']Would you say black people overcame racism because Obama got elected president or that any black kid could be president because he was elected? Of course not because that would be so stupid as to not need an explanation.[/QUOTE]
No, you would say Obama overcame racism to become president.

[quote name='dohdough']
It IS your fault because the terms are NOT interchangeable in the way you used it in that sentence as it means a VERY specific thing. When you say there are more Asians entering college than there are Asian Americans in high school, it means that there are more foreign born Asians entering college than US born Asians in high school. The two terms have very distinct meaning in that context and like I said, it was my fault for thinking you knew what you were talking about. You also dropped that line without any explanation or context. When I say Asian, I imply Asian Americans and am consistent with my usage. If I said that there were more Africans entering college than there are African Americans in high school, how the

would you interpret that?[/QUOTE]
When I said Asian I also implied Asian American, why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[quote name='dohdough']
Well why the

did you post that statistic when it implies that they are grossly overrepresented and keep defending it instead of clarifying? How many times have I addressed it since you brought it up? GTFO with that bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Stating that the percentage of Asians in college is greater that then percentage of the Asian population does not imply that they are "grossly over represented". I don't know why you feel the need label my fact with a hyperbolic value judgment.

[quote name='dohdough']
What the mother

??? Asians haven't even come close to overcoming racism according to your own goddamn metric! How many Asian leading men are there in Hollywood? How many CEO's that are members of the Fortune 500 are Asian? How many goddamn Asians are in the US Congress? Gangnam Style being played on the radio doesn't mean that Asians have overcome racism when most talented artists can't get any exposure.[/QUOTE]
The answers to those question depend on 1. How many Asians pursue carriers in Politics, congress, or as CEO's and if those numbers are affected by pressure from their community or outside their community. 2. How does the average Asian in those field compare to the average member of those fields.


[quote name='dohdough']
I did. You're just too dumb to figure out how. [/QUOTE]
Which is why you decided to post an insult rather than contribute something of value?

[quote name='dohdough']
Bull-

ing-shit. Most studies conclude that non-white enrollments tend to drop as a percentage of the student body and graduation rates drop as well, of which both statistics get worse as you move up the chain to more selective schools. States that have affirmative action bans have also seen a drop in graduate programs. The fact that the UC system has an Asian "problem" is not emblematic of the most likely nationwide trend if affirmative action was banned in the US for college admissions.[/QUOTE]
Graduation rate for at risk minorities increase after banning of affirmative action.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18523

[quote name='dohdough']
Are you seriously implying that a rich black man can't experience racism in the US? And yes, black is accurate because racism tends to happen before someone even opens their mouth. The social construct of "black" is well defined. You don't have to say anything to be followed around a store as if you might be a thief or be pulled over for Driving While Black. [/QUOTE]
I'm saying he is unlikely to miss out on opportunities.


[quote name='dohdough']
What the

? Are you for real? Did you NOT see the kind of crazy that came out of the Republican presidential primaries? How the hell would we institute a program that more effectively lifts more people out of poverty if we're had a hard enough problem getting people increased access to healthcare?[/QUOTE]
Such problems have already been implemented. National partisan extremisms has nothing to do with what measure states are allowed to take.

[quote name='dohdough']
And affirmative action doesn't hide the problem and acknowledges it directly because socio-economic mobility has hit the non-white population the hardest.[/QUOTE]
Which is why it helps the minorities with the least socio-economic mobility the least?


[quote name='dohdough']
It's a special program because most of the programs we've had has either excluded them and/or not sufficient to address the needs of those groups. How many times do I have to tell you the purpose of affirmative action works until it sinks into your thick skull?[/QUOTE]
Because repeating something makes it true? How about some data showing improved socio-economic mobility for those benefiting from normal affirmative action vs those benefiting from economical affirmative action .



[quote name='dohdough']
So.

ing.what. This refutes my point about kids with educated parents having better outcomes how? [/QUOTE]
It demonstrates my point that second generation immigrants earn more, than first generation immigrants.
[quote name='dohdough']
Are you shitting me? STEM has been one of the worse fields for women in terms of wage, advancement, and professional climate since forever. Even then, that does not refute my point about wage disparity as an overall demographic. You need to learn what an outlier is.[/QUOTE]
You need to learn to not straw man, I never said outliers represented the whole group, I was just pointing out that they existed despite your implied assertions otherwise.

[quote name='dohdough']
It must be too hard because because your assertion that there's not only parity, but implied disparity in which women make more overall is complete bullshit. If that was reality, why the

would "equal pay for equal work" be such a huge campaign slogan for the past few months and why would we need the Ledbetter Act?[/QUOTE]
Is it surprising that groups care more about what helps them, than what is fair or true?
Remember the shit storm over that penny arcade "rape comic", how do you think feminist would react to someone who publish such data? High profile people have lost their jobs for less.

[quote name='dohdough']

, do you even realize how dumb #1 is in relation to your point about me being intellectually incurious and having selection bias? Do you even know what those terms mean? [/QUOTE]
Again an insult rather than answering the question.


[quote name='dohdough']
Did you not understand what I said? Cause that's what it looks like.
[/QUOTE]
What you said is different from what you do.

[quote name='dohdough']
I can forgive typos and I make them myself, but my posts aren't riddled with them, nor are my points poorly written. Not only do you have typos, but your posts show an overall lack of effort both in composition and in content. Frankly, I find it more disrespectful than the insults I'm leveling at you. But since you put up the dick fingers around "english," are you implying that there's something wrong with my writing?[/QUOTE]
You didn't capitalize a proper noun. You have also made multiple typos in this post as well.

[quote name='dohdough']
Are you implying that having more homeless men than women means that we don't live in a patriarchy? Cause if you are, you're damn right I'm going to call you a dumb mother

ing

. [/QUOTE]
I'm asking if we live in a society that favors men so much, then why are more men homeless?
Why do you continually avoid the question rather than answer it?

[quote name='dohdough']
WHAT ING FACTS? Every reputable study done for the last 20+ years in the social sciences refutes your conclusions. All your conclusions revolve around outliers and no amount of "facts" change that.[/QUOTE]

More homeless men than women, percentage of Asians in college vs population, 1st generation pay vs 2nd generation pay, ect...
Do you even now what my conclusion is?


[quote name='dohdough']
Just

ing put me on ignore and tell me to

off, so we can be done with this. You haven't contributed anything of value.[/QUOTE]
Funny being I'm the only one who has provided links and stats.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='itachiitachi']Perhaps you are unaware that overcoming something does not mean you have to destroy it.

Well I'm referring to the sub groups of Asian who have made it. Nowhere did I argue that recourses should be denied to minorities, just that they should be distributed more efficiently.

No, you would say Obama overcame racism to become president.[/QUOTE]
If Obama isn't representative of all black people, then those Asians that "overcame" racism don't represent all Asians as a group.

When I said Asian I also implied Asian American, why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Look. I'm telling you for the nth time that the way you worded it specifically means something other than what you "implied." Be pissed at yourself for being careless. Be clear or be gone.

Stating that the percentage of Asians in college is greater that then percentage of the Asian population does not imply that they are "grossly over represented". I don't know why you feel the need label my fact with a hyperbolic value judgment.

That is not your original "fact" and this is maybe the 5th time you've mentioned something of this nature in reference to me stating that they're not grossly overrepresented in higher ed. If you agree with me, then drop it. If you don't, then make your ing point instead of having me play guessing games because I'm tired of your passive aggressive bullshit.

The answers to those question depend on 1. How many Asians pursue carriers in Politics, congress, or as CEO's and if those numbers are affected by pressure from their community or outside their community. 2. How does the average Asian in those field compare to the average member of those fields.

The answers to those questions are that there are no Asian leading men in Hollywood, 9 CEO's in the Fortune 500, and 13 members in both houses of Congress. Again, if those people "overcame" racism and they are outliers, then Asians, as a group, cannot have overcome racism.

Which is why you decided to post an insult rather than contribute something of value?

I've already said many times that outcomes are determined more by the socio-economic status of parents rather than merely being generational. What you're asserting is completely at odds with the trends of socio-economic mobility of the US. Stating a fact without any explanation is meaningless and looks like your m.o.

Graduation rate for at risk minorities increase after banning of affirmative action.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18523

The UC system is not representative of the US.

http://dailycollegian.com/2010/02/0...ial-impact-of-eliminating-affirmative-action/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/...-affirmative-action-bans-graduate-enrollments

I'm saying he is unlikely to miss out on opportunities.

And people of color, especially black and Latinos, were discriminated against by being given sub-prime mortgages despite qualifying for prime rates. Is not getting a low interest loan not missing an opportunity?

There was a study done several years ago regarding housing discrimination that showed that people with ethnic names were either flat out ignored or being directed towards ethnic enclaves despite being able to afford more affluent and white areas. Is not being able to live where one wants not a missed opportunity if one can afford it?

Such problems have already been implemented. National partisan extremisms has nothing to do with what measure states are allowed to take.

What the mother are you talking about? At least a third of the states are actively trying to tear apart their social programs and you're trying to tell me that states can do whatever the they want as if partisan extremism we see on the national level doesn't exist on the state level?

A system is not a program, so stop mixing up the terms and stop trying to use terms to sound smart because you look like you don't know a goddamned thing.

Which is why it helps the minorities with the least socio-economic mobility the least?

Because repeating something makes it true? How about some data showing improved socio-economic mobility for those benefiting from normal affirmative action vs those benefiting from economical affirmative action.

Looks like I'm just going to keep repeating it because it IS true. Affirmative action is a program specifically targeted towards hiring practices and admissions in higher ed for people of color. That's it and as basic as I can make it. All your hemming and hawing about it not being a program that addresses all the social inequities of people of color is just wasted air if you can't understand what affirmative action is specifically instituted to address.

"Economic affirmative action" exists as tax subsidies, food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, heathcare subsidies, loan subsidies, grants, and a whole mess of other things that again, aren't adequate enough or weren't given to address the needs of communities of color. Affirmative action is a goddamn bandaid, so stop acting like it is or should be a program to address every single problem experienced by (poor) people of color.

It demonstrates my point that second generation immigrants earn more, than first generation immigrants.

First off, what the is a second generation immigrant? Secondly, your point still doesn't refute mine, so why the are you treating it like it does? And thirdly, stop using terms incorrectly because it's annoying as to see you butcher them.

You need to learn to not straw man, I never said outliers represented the whole group, I was just pointing out that they existed despite your implied assertions otherwise.

That entire sentence is a goddamn strawman. You're (misre)presenting outliers as if they're significant and that their mere existence makes them statistically significant. I'm not even close to saying that they don't exist. So ing what if women make more money in porn than men? Does that mean as a group, there isn't wage disparity between the sexes?

This is also the third time I've literally said that some women make more than men, which is the exact opposite of what you think I'm asserting.

Is it surprising that groups care more about what helps them, than what is fair or true?
Remember the shit storm over that penny arcade "rape comic", how do you think feminist would react to someone who publish such data? High profile people have lost their jobs for less.

Yeah, the ing Economist has a feminist agenda!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/focus-3

And the WSJ!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/04/gender-wage-gap-may-be-smaller-than-many-think/

And even the BLS!

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm

You wouldn't know "fair and true" if it was curbstomping you.

Again an insult rather than answering the question.

What you said is different from what you do.

I DID answer it. The insult was for you not understanding it.

First you asked me why there were more homeless and incarcerated men than women, and when I sarcastically gave your interpretation, you ing said that there were more homeless men than women as if it was a goddamn explanation! Like seriously???

You didn't capitalize a proper noun. You have also made multiple typos in this post as well.

The lower case "e" in "english" was intentional and rhetorical just like how I use a lower case "c" in "christian." But I challenge you to run that post through a goddamn spell checker to see how numerous they are. Here's a hint: they're not. If you want me to start pointing out every single error though, I can certainly start if you insist on picking on minutiae.

I'm asking if we live in a society that favors men so much, then why are more men homeless?
Why do you continually avoid the question rather than answer it?

Because you're asking a loaded ing question that implies that society is not biased in favor of men. And for the record, I already answered it. Hell, you don't even answer your own goddamn questions! Turning a question into a statement isn't a ing answer.

More homeless men than women, percentage of Asians in college vs population, 1st generation pay vs 2nd generation pay, ect...
Do you even now what my conclusion is?

It'd surprise me if it wasn't your question in the form of an answer. You've done this numerous times in numerous posts. But I have a crazy ing idea, just make your ing point. I know you have difficulty understanding, so "make your ing point" means plainly state your conclusions.

Funny being I'm the only one who has provided links and stats.

Yeah, but I'm not the one strawman-ing, making false equivalencies, misusing terms, answering with reworded questions, using circular logic, and concern trolling amongst a few other things. One of your biggest offenses is high word count with low content. How the does that even happen unless you're a special kind of idiot?

 

[cancerman1120]

This thread has taken on epic proportions.

 

[EdRyder]

Part of this whole discussion really sticks in my craw : That Men are more likely to be homeless than women is presented as a fact , but the reasons why are never explained.
1 , Its a indisputable fact that Women represent the highest percentage in poverty between the genders. They're more at risk for homelessness than men.
2. The reason why men make up the brunt of the homeless population can be explained in several factors. Men are more likely to be veterans. Men are the gender thats unlikely to seek help for substance abuse or mental health issues. Men are more likely to be felons.
And lastly , Women are more likely to engage in survival sex for housing

 

[Temporaryscars]

A little belated, but happy Thanksgiving vs. forum!

 

[itachiitachi]

[quote name='dohdough']If Obama isn't representative of all black people, then those Asians that "overcame" racism don't represent all Asians as a group. [/QUOTE]
Which is why I specified sub groups like Japanese Americans.



[quote name='dohdough']
Look. I'm telling you for the nth time that the way you worded it specifically means something other than what you "implied." Be pissed at yourself for being careless. Be clear or be gone. [/QUOTE]
No you just want to go of into semantic wonderland and are pissed I won't go with you.

[quote name='dohdough']
That is not your original "fact" and this is maybe the 5th time you've mentioned something of this nature in reference to me stating that they're not grossly overrepresented in higher ed. If you agree with me, then drop it. If you don't, then make your

ing point instead of having me play guessing games because I'm tired of your passive aggressive bullshit. [/QUOTE]
My point is the percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population.


[quote name='dohdough']
The answers to those questions are that there are no Asian leading men in Hollywood, 9 CEO's in the Fortune 500, and 13 members in both houses of Congress. Again, if those people "overcame" racism and they are outliers, then Asians, as a group, cannot have overcome racism .[/QUOTE]
How does that answer what percentage of Asians peruse a career in politic?

[quote name='dohdough']
I've already said many times that outcomes are determined more by the socio-economic status of parents rather than merely being generational. What you're asserting is completely at odds with the trends of socio-economic mobility of the US. Stating a fact without any explanation is meaningless and looks like your m.o..[/QUOTE]
That's theory that can be drawn from the data, but for children to out earn their parents by 30% is extreme. Especially considering the parents are of low-middle socio-economic status.

[quote name='dohdough']
The UC system is not representative of the US.

http://dailycollegian.com/2010/02/0...ial-impact-of-eliminating-affirmative-action/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/...-affirmative-action-bans-graduate-enrollments.[/QUOTE]
Neither of those dispute the point that minorities had higher graduation rates with out affirmative actions.
If you look at colleges with affirmative actions the more emphasis placed on race the lower the graduation rates.
All those show is that schools with affirmative action have more students from at risk minorities than schools that don't, which is a point that no one is arguing.

[quote name='dohdough']
And people of color, especially black and Latinos, were discriminated against by being given sub-prime mortgages despite qualifying for prime rates. Is not getting a low interest loan not missing an opportunity?

There was a study done several years ago regarding housing discrimination that showed that people with ethnic names were either flat out ignored or being directed towards ethnic enclaves despite being able to afford more affluent and white areas. Is not being able to live where one wants not a missed opportunity if one can afford it? [/QUOTE]
So are you saying a rich black man can't get a good loan or live where he wants?
[quote name='dohdough']
What the mother

are you talking about? At least a third of the states are actively trying to tear apart their social programs and you're trying to tell me that states can do whatever the

they want as if partisan extremism we see on the national level doesn't exist on the state level?

A system is not a program, so stop mixing up the terms and stop trying to use terms to sound smart because you look like you don't know a goddamned thing. [/QUOTE]
1. Similar measures have already been taken some states, so I'm don't see how anyone can argue that such measures are impossible to implement.
2. Yes states can do what they want, look how many legalized gay marriage, which is far more controversial than helping poor people.

[quote name='dohdough']
Looks like I'm just going to keep repeating it because it IS true. Affirmative action is a program specifically targeted towards hiring practices and admissions in higher ed for people of color. That's it and as basic as I can make it. All your hemming and hawing about it not being a program that addresses all the social inequities of people of color is just wasted air if you can't understand what affirmative action is specifically instituted to address. [/QUOTE]
You said before affirmative action was meant to help with social economic mobility, but affirmative disproportionality help people with parents who have high social-economic status(the most important thing according to you) instead of helping the ones who are capable but have parents with low social-economic status.


[quote name='dohdough']
"Economic affirmative action" exists as tax subsidies, food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, heathcare subsidies, loan subsidies, grants, and a whole mess of other things that again, aren't adequate enough or weren't given to address the needs of communities of color. Affirmative action is a goddamn bandaid, so stop acting like it is or should be a program to address every single problem experienced by (poor) people of color. [/QUOTE]
If affirmative action can be changed to help with economic mobility why not do that?

[quote name='dohdough']
First off, what the

is a second generation immigrant? [/QUOTE]
The descendant of a fist generation immigrant.


[quote name='dohdough']


Secondly, your point still doesn't refute mine, so why the

are you treating it like it does? And thirdly, stop using terms incorrectly because it's annoying as

to see you butcher them. [/QUOTE]
The data shows the second generation earning much more despite similar education levels, which would suggest the pay difference is due to adapting to the culture.



[quote name='dohdough']
That entire sentence is a goddamn strawman. You're (misre)presenting outliers as if they're significant and that their mere existence makes them statistically significant. I'm not even close to saying that they don't exist. So

ing what if women make more money in porn than men? Does that mean as a group, there isn't wage disparity between the sexes?

This is also the third time I've literally said that some women make more than men, which is the exact opposite of what you think I'm asserting. [/QUOTE]

Really, in which part of that sentence was I misrepresenting your argument?

See, right there you are stawmanning, show me where I said that outliers where statistically significant .
You implied that the only way a women could earn more than a man was in a field such as porn, which you did again here. I simply pointed out there are more technical fields where women earn more than men.

Saying "some women earn more than some men" is not the same as in some fields requiring advanced education women earn more than men"



[quote name='dohdough']
Yeah, the

ing Economist has a feminist agenda! [/QUOTE]
How does special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably = " Economist has a feminist agenda"?



[quote name='dohdough']
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/focus-3

And the WSJ!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/04/gender-wage-gap-may-be-smaller-than-many-think/

And even the BLS!

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm

You wouldn't know "fair and true" if it was curbstomping you. [/QUOTE]
An article on a website is not the same as publishing new research data.

but since you brought it up how do you refute the finding that.

“Economists Eric Solberg and Teresa Laughlin applied an index of total compensation, which accounts for both wages and benefits, to analyze how these benefits would affect the gender gap. They found a gender gap in wages of approximately 13%. But when they considered total compensation, the gender gap dropped to 3.6%,” the authors write.

[quote name='dohdough']
I DID answer it. The insult was for you not understanding it.

First you asked me why there were more homeless and incarcerated men than women, and when I sarcastically gave your interpretation, you

ing said that there were more homeless men than women as if it was a goddamn explanation! Like seriously??? [/QUOTE]
Your answer was the justice system was harder on men, which makes little sense for the homeless question. Nor did you answer why the justice system was harder on men than women.

[quote name='dohdough']
The lower case "e" in "english" was intentional and rhetorical just like how I use a lower case "c" in "christian." But I challenge you to run that post through a goddamn spell checker to see how numerous they are. Here's a hint: they're not. If you want me to start pointing out every single error though, I can certainly start if you insist on picking on minutiae. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who started the nit picking for not apparent reason and now you're throwing a fit because it's been pointed out you make mistakes also? By the way there are at least 5 mistakes in this post of yours.
[quote name='dohdough']
Because you're asking a loaded

ing question that implies that society is not biased in favor of men. And for the record, I already answered it. Hell, you don't even answer your own goddamn questions! Turning a question into a statement isn't a

ing answer. [/QUOTE]
In order to be a loaded question there would have to be a false assumption, unless you believe that either "men are favored in our society" or "more men are homeless" are false, then it was not a loaded question.

You answered why more men are in jail, but not why more men are homeless.

[quote name='dohdough']
It'd surprise me if it wasn't your question in the form of an answer. You've done this numerous times in numerous posts. But I have a crazy

ing idea, just make your

ing point. I know you have difficulty understanding, so "make your

ing point" means plainly state your conclusions. ?[/QUOTE]
It's called the Socratic method, it's great for pointing out contradictions in people's views. The interesting thing is how hard you are fighting to avoid answering the questions.
[quote name='dohdough']

Yeah, but I'm not the one strawman-ing, making false equivalencies, misusing terms, answering with reworded questions, using circular logic, and concern trolling amongst a few other things. One of your biggest offenses is high word count with low content. How the

does that even happen unless you're a special kind of idiot?[/QUOTE]

Examples of you strawmanning:
1. Special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably -> Economist has a feminist agenda
2. Percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population. -> Asian grossly overrepresented
3. Exceptions exist -> Outliers are statistically significant.

Examples of your false equivalencies,
Political gridlock on national level = political gridlock on the state level.
Disproportionality = racism.
Problems of rich minorities = problems of poor minorities.
Terms you misused.
Loaded question, overcome and circular logic.

There are a lot more than that, but I'll leave it there for now.




[quote name='EdRyder']Part of this whole discussion really sticks in my craw : That Men are more likely to be homeless than women is presented as a fact , but the reasons why are never explained.
1 , Its a indisputable fact that Women represent the highest percentage in poverty between the genders. They're more at risk for homelessness than men.
2. The reason why men make up the brunt of the homeless population can be explained in several factors. Men are more likely to be veterans. Men are the gender thats unlikely to seek help for substance abuse or mental health issues. Men are more likely to be felons.
And lastly , Women are more likely to engage in survival sex for housing[/QUOTE]
Look someone gave an answer, would be so hard to do dohdough?

In addition to those factor's I'd add that, men are more likely to take risks, difference in typical social circles (small and tight knit, vs large and loose), greater genetic variance in males.
Also psychopaths are more likely to be felons and men are much more likely to be psychopaths.

My points with this are
1. That pinning an explanation of disproportionality on some form of discrimination is simply a convenience to not look at the problem in more details.

2. That many of those risk factor also have positive sides, large lose social circles makes it easier to get jobs, being a veteran(higher rank the better) or being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company. Variability, risk taking/willingness to break laws are believed to useful traits from employment especially higher paying jobs, though I don't know of any thorough testing of the links.

3. Many of the correlations are untested, rely on a sexual biased to begin with or fall into sexual stereotypes. Though I'm sure it would hold up I've seen no research on it to demonstrate the disproportionality has nothing to due with discrimination, which in itself seems to demonstrate that society only values certain types of men.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='itachiitachi']Which is why I specified sub groups like Japanese Americans.[/QUOTE]
Explain why other Asian ethnic groups and nationalities haven't "overcome" racism then.

]No you just want to go of into semantic wonderland and are pissed I won't go with you.

My point is the percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population.

Words have meanings especially since you're punching above your intellectual body weight in attempting to engage in a deeper discussion. Language matters and your new point is completely different from your original point, of which you've changed 3 times already. Do you need me to start finding your quotes for you too?

How does that answer what percentage of Asians peruse a career in politic?

It doesn't because that wasn't my original question. Are you the only one that can ask questions here? Do I have to answer all your questions while you absolutely refuse to answer mine and refuse state your own conclusions?

That's theory that can be drawn from the data, but for children to out earn their parents by 30% is extreme. Especially considering the parents are of low-middle socio-economic status.

Kids of immigrants tend to earn more than their parents because?

Neither of those dispute the point that minorities had higher graduation rates with out affirmative actions.
If you look at colleges with affirmative actions the more emphasis placed on race the lower the graduation rates.
All those show is that schools with affirmative action have more students from at risk minorities than schools that don't, which is a point that no one is arguing.

Actually, that was exactly the point when YOU specifically said that STUDENTS OF COLOR SEE INCREASED ACCESS ON THIS VERY ING GODDAMN PAGE.

The UC system is NOT representative of the US, so why the are you treating it like it's the ing baseline by repeatedly parroting studies pointing to it?

So are you saying a rich black man can't get a good loan or live where he wants?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Since you seem to not catch sarcasm, I was being sarcastic. At no point did I say that it was impossible, but that there are still societal road blocks regardless of how much money one has.

1. Similar measures have already been taken some states, so I'm don't see how anyone can argue that such measures are impossible to implement.
2. Yes states can do what they want, look how many legalized gay marriage, which is far more controversial than helping poor people.

What programs are you ing talking about? And how are programs that are meant to more effectively help poor people of color going to be implemented when a majority of states aren't even remotely interested in giving LGBT's equal rights under the law? You think that you can just throw away the reality of the political landscape just because it sounds good in your head?

You said before affirmative action was meant to help with social economic mobility, but affirmative disproportionality help people with parents who have high social-economic status(the most important thing according to you) instead of helping the ones who are capable but have parents with low social-economic status.

I said that affirmative action is meant to help with socio-economic mobility. You're the one that asserts that it only helps those higher on the socio-economic ladder, not me.

If affirmative action can be changed to help with economic mobility why not do that?

And here we come full circle. Like I already said, society is not really interested in helping them.

The descendant of a fist generation immigrant.

Then they wouldn't be a second generation immigrant, you dumb ass.

The data shows the second generation earning much more despite similar education levels, which would suggest the pay difference is due to adapting to the culture.

Hmmm...it's almost as if you're suggesting that there's very little difference in earning potential between someone that didn't graduate highschool and someone that did, but more a factor of culture? I don't think you really understand what you read in that abstract.

Really, in which part of that sentence was I misrepresenting your argument?

How about the next bolded statement you made...

See, right there you are stawmanning, show me where I said that outliers where statistically significant .
You implied that the only way a women could earn more than a man was in a field such as porn, which you did again here. I simply pointed out there are more technical fields where women earn more than men.

Saying "some women earn more than some men" is not the same as in some fields requiring advanced education women earn more than men"

So you didn't say that there isn't a gender gap in pay and that women actually get paid more than men in some fields as if that's the actual trend of pay in terms of gender AND race?

How does special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably = " Economist has a feminist agenda"?

You're the one that ing suggested it, you goddamn loon! ON THIS VERY GODDAMN PAGE.

An article on a website is not the same as publishing new research data.

Yet abstracts are sooo much better.

but since you brought it up how do you refute the finding that.

Why the would I need to refute it when YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THAT THERE IS NO PAY GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN!

Your answer was the justice system was harder on men, which makes little sense for the homeless question. Nor did you answer why the justice system was harder on men than women.

The original question was whether or not those statistics indicated a societal bias against men. I specifically said that only against homeless men and (men) in the justice system. Reading comprehension is not your strong point. Perhaps it's something you should work on.

You are the one who started the nit picking for not apparent reason and now you're throwing a fit because it's been pointed out you make mistakes also? By the way there are at least 5 mistakes in this post of yours.

I explained the reasons. You're making clumsy and futile attempts to make yourself sound smarter than you are and the more you stumble around with bigger words and concepts, the more you show how little you actually know about anything. If it's a language barrier, I wouldn't care about taking the time to disseminate it for you, but if it's just because you're a dumbshit that doesn't realize how dumb they are and refuse to learn, then I'm going to tell you how dumb you are.

In order to be a loaded question there would have to be a false assumption, unless you believe that either "men are favored in our society" or "more men are homeless" are false, then it was not a loaded question.

What.the.. Are you saying that we live in a matriarchal society? I mean you already said that women tend to get paid more than men. You might as well spill it.

And yes, your question was a loaded piece of shit.

You answered why more men are in jail, but not why more men are homeless.

It's called the Socratic method, it's great for pointing out contradictions in people's views. The interesting thing is how hard you are fighting to avoid answering the questions.

That's what you call what you're doing? Cause you're doing a piss poor job of it and haven't revealed any contradictions. Maybe if you kept track of what you were saying instead of merely being contrarian, you'd notice how you've been arguing with yourself with your questions. At first, I thought I was imagining it because there hasn't been someone that stupid or as big of a troll in a long time, but once we got a few posts deeper, we can all see that I wasn't.

Examples of you strawmanning:
1. Special interest groups suppressing studies and findings that they view unfavorably -> Economist has a feminist agenda
2. Percentage of "Asian Americans" in college is larger than percentage of "Asian Americas" in the population. -> Asian grossly overrepresented
3. Exceptions exist -> Outliers are statistically significant.

Examples of your false equivalencies,
Political gridlock on national level = political gridlock on the state level.
Disproportionality = racism.
Problems of rich minorities = problems of poor minorities.
Terms you misused.
Loaded question, overcome and circular logic.

There are a lot more than that, but I'll leave it there for now.

I'd like see specific examples and explanations of how I misused terms and used circular logic. You can also point out those 5 errors as well. I could use a joke.

If you understood what you were reading and writing while keeping track of it, you'd see how your list is literally the ramblings of an insane person. And since I'm starting to get the sense of there being a deeper problem with you, I'm going to pull away from this tete-a-tete after this post. So unless you start giving something of substance, I'm going to end with this:

Look someone gave an answer, would be so hard to do dohdough?

In addition to those factor's I'd add that, men are more likely to take risks, difference in typical social circles (small and tight knit, vs large and loose), greater genetic variance in males.
Also psychopaths are more likely to be felons and men are much more likely to be psychopaths.

My points with this are
1. That pinning an explanation of disproportionality on some form of discrimination is simply a convenience to not look at the problem in more details.

2. That many of those risk factor also have positive sides, large lose social circles makes it easier to get jobs, being a veteran(higher rank the better) or being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company. Variability, risk taking/willingness to break laws are believed to useful traits from employment especially higher paying jobs, though I don't know of any thorough testing of the links.

3. Many of the correlations are untested, rely on a sexual biased to begin with or fall into sexual stereotypes. Though I'm sure it would hold up I've seen no research on it to demonstrate the disproportionality has nothing to due with discrimination, which in itself seems to demonstrate that society only values certain types of men.

LOLZ

 

[EdRyder]

Seriously. That whole response was astonishingly stupid. If Veteran males make up one of the largest groups in the homeless population , how in the are you equating it with any sort of positive position?

"being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company" Is the lolz quote of the century.

"society only values certain types of men"

Apparently , the psychopaths,...

You're out of your depth buddy. The fact that you even asked was a signal. Next time, bother to find out why. You know , that thing people do when they're interested in a topic

 

[itachiitachi]

[quote name='EdRyder']Seriously. That whole response was astonishingly stupid. If Veteran males make up one of the largest groups in the homeless population , how in the are you equating it with any sort of positive position?

"being a psychopath makes you more likely get a leadership positions in a company" Is the lolz quote of the century.

"society only values certain types of men"

Apparently , the psychopaths,...

You're out of your depth buddy. The fact that you even asked was a signal. Next time, bother to find out why. You know , that thing people do when they're interested in a topic[/QUOTE]
1. 8% of CEOs are veterans(officers) v.s. 3%(officers) of the population.
2. 4% of tested CEOs turned out to be psychopaths, v.s. 1% of the general population.
Both of those look like positives(for the veterans and psychos) to me.



@dogh

If you want to continue talking when you get back show which part of "If society favor men then why are more me homeless?" is a false, or admit you where wrong about labeling it a loaded question.