Representative Ilhan Omar: This Will Not Be The Country Of White People.

Aug 29, 2018
940
1,177
235
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Only in white nations has the notion of liberal western society florished. Every other society in the world today is an authoritarian nightmare that no supporter of liberal democracy would willingly subject themselves to.

Name a single 1st world nation not born of European stock, or being formed by the USA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpartanN92

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Given the medical horrors of the Japanese performed on POWs and Chinese during WW2, which make Josef Mengele look like a Boyscout, I think a legitimate argument for glassing Japan could have been made in 1945.

Thankfully we didn't have the capacity.
Yeah, totally, white people had a real good human rights record during the WW2 era, thanks to all our western values. That's a really insightful point.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365
Given the medical horrors of the Japanese performed on POWs and Chinese during WW2, which make Josef Mengele look like a Boyscout, I think a legitimate argument for glassing Japan could have been made in 1945.

Thankfully we didn't have the capacity.
Thankfully we weren't inhuman monsters you mean. 2 nukes dropped on civilian populations was enough nuclear horror for the rest of human existence in my opinion. "Glassing" an entire country? Thats unspeakable.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,520
3,981
495
Can you tell me where I am wrong in what I said? Or are we just throwing insults like children?
You've already been told, you already know, and you're just too morally self-righteous to realize you'll be left behind in the moral crusade, given a long enough timeline.

You've sold yourself out, you've sold your ancestors out, you've sold civilization out because you endlessly seek to play judge and executioner to great men and women you don't even stand ankle high to, in hope to address the lack of meaning in your own life. You've got nothing, so you stand on the civilization they built and waggle your finger at them like a little old lady, hoping others might be fooled into thinking your righteousness is something to be respected. It's not. Its hollow and sad.

Yes, we've made mistakes, we 're making mistakes, and will always make mistakes. But these men you're so quick to deride as devoid of virtue created a society capable of self correction, of growth. One built upon principles of liberty that spread like wild fire, creating the most free and successful society this world has ever known. But you're too busy pissing on their graves with the aftermath of your soy mocha latte, typing on a luxury device to care. Fuck 'em, right? You run from the light of liberty like a coward.

They'll come for you too, eventually. You donut.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Thankfully we weren't inhuman monsters you mean. 2 nukes dropped on civilian populations was enough nuclear horror for the rest of human existence in my opinion. "Glassing" an entire country? Thats unspeakable.
Yeah, if they were civilized like us they would have just had a couple of genocides. You know, like gentlemen.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Nobody_Important
Aug 29, 2018
940
1,177
235
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Thankfully we weren't inhuman monsters you mean. 2 nukes dropped on civilian populations was enough nuclear horror for the rest of human existence in my opinion. "Glassing" an entire country? Thats unspeakable.

Now we have Gaffers Stanning for the Imperial Japanese. Anybody taking gentleman's wagers for when the Commies start extolling the virtues of Stalin's Ukranian genocide?
 
  • LOL
Reactions: SpartanN92
Oct 26, 2018
2,468
1,816
240
Given the medical horrors of the Japanese performed on POWs and Chinese during WW2, which make Josef Mengele look like a Boyscout, I think a legitimate argument for glassing Japan could have been made in 1945.

Thankfully we didn't have the capacity.
Everyone knows Japan did a lot of horrid shit during the WWII era. Not only were they on Germany's side trying to take down the allies, but ya, lots of weird invasions of other Asian countries and bio-shit they did for research and torture.

But it goes to show humans are forgiving. That was 70 years ago. After Japan got their asses nuked into submission, they totally changed. A big focus on education, industry and no more fucking around.

And look how it turned out. Success.

When was the last time Japan was seen in a negative light? Probably lingering WWII aftertastes from war vets circa 1960.

Same goes for Germany. How many people stand against Germans when they when full-ape shit in WW1 and WWII? Not anymore. People love Germans.

Turn yourself around and strive for good, and people will forget and forgive. Keep acting like an ass, and it sticks.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365

Now we have Gaffers Stanning for the Imperial Japanese. Anybody taking gentleman's wagers for when the Commies start extolling the virtues of Stalin's Ukranian genocide?
I'm not "stanning for the Imperial Japanese" genius. I am against the use of nuclear weapons against a civilian population.


I didn't realize that was a shocking stance to have on Gaf.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
ONE example of this, please. Stop just saying shit you can't substantiate. I have never ONCE assigned value to a person's argument over another because of their minority status.


Again, you don't know what intersectionality is.
All of your posts in this thread, you fucking moron. This thread is about the latest in a long list of anti-Semitic and anti-white sentiments from Omar and yet you somehow spin it into a poor, downtrodden minority advocating for equality for her virtuous-by-default identity group. You and I will never find common ground here because you have swallowed the interesectional oppression narrative whole. It is an immutable axiom of your world view.
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,468
1,816
240
I said it somewhere in this forum one time.... I forget when or where, but if there's one thing I know it's that anti-Semitic remarks seem to get brushed aside, compared to a negative remark about a minority by a politician (let's say something bad about a Black person.)

1. The Jewish community doesn't really care and let's it slide...... "who cares, let those idiots complain!"

2. Anti-bigots some reason love criticizing Jews.... "You Jews have too much money! Gimme some of it!"

3. Anti-bigots don't have the balls to call out someone who makes remarks about Jews, even though it's not right..... "I know it's not right but you know..... uhhhhh..... we got to stick together as liberal lefties and hope everyone hates Jews so we all get their cash!"

But for all you Jewish people out, I'll say it again. Who cares and let them mope around and whine. Just keep doing what you're doing and let all those angry minimum wage earning jobbers cry. Everyone knows Jews got decimated in WWII and get a bad rap from many other groups...... and it's all due to jealousy where they keep failing no matter how many handouts they get. And if you really want to piss them off, flash some cash or a new BMW and they'll really get red-faced. lol

Living in the Toronto area, I've never met a poor Jewish person with a shit job. So something's gotta be going right.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
All of your posts in this thread, you fucking moron.
Cool, find ONE, and quote me where I justify what she says by virtue of her minorty status rather than the content of what she's saying.

You have a lot to choose from, apparently. Shouldn't be hard to find one and quote me, since I'm so stupid and all.
 
Aug 29, 2018
940
1,177
235
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
You were talking about "glassing" the whole country with nuclear weapons. That is what I am talking about. That is fucking unspeakable levels of evil in my opinion.
It's an objectively good thing that Japan surrendered, for their own sake. Everybody knows now that the US didn't have the capacity to produce more than the 2 bombs in 08/45, but give it half a year and we could have burned the island to the ground.

Do you care that we killed more civillians in the firebombing of both Dresden and Tokyo than were killed in Hiroshima?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
Cool, find ONE, and quote me where I justify what she says by virtue of her minorty status rather than the content of what she's saying.

You have a lot to choose from, apparently. Shouldn't be hard to find one and quote me, since I'm so stupid and all.
Your first post:

Dear Stupids,

Did any of you actually watch the clip? She's just saying that this country doesn't belong to any one group, it's a diverse nation and we need to co-exist.

She is not saying anything anti-white, she is saying this isn't an ethnostate that belongs to white people where the needs of minorities can be ignored or repressed.

Conservatives get so fucking triggered any time any person of color mentions race in any context. Get a grip, people.
You ignored all the context of her past statements and interpreted her new statement as what you wanted it to be rather than what it was. She was painting whites as an oppressive class that need to be brought down so that others may rise up. You ignore that because you're a brainwashed intersectional ideologue who believes in the oppressor-oppressed dynamic. You share her goals but you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit it, so you just gaslight, distort and deflect. Take your own advice and fuck off.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Your first post:



You ignored all the context of her past statements and interpreted her new statement as what you wanted it to be rather than what it was. She was painting whites as an oppressive class that need to be brought down so that others may rise up. You ignore that because you're a brainwashed intersectional ideologue who believes in the oppressor-oppressed dynamic. You share her goals but you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit it, so you just gaslight, distort and deflect. Take your own advice and fuck off.
So I evaluated the substance of what she said based on its merits, irrespective of her race, or your particular vendettas against her (which I disagree with but have zero interest in litigating just to make a point about this quote)

And somehow that means I am an "intersectionalist" moron who is charmed by her placement in the oppression olympics.

You couldn't form an argument with a gun to your head, dude. I gave you a chance.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
So I evaluated the substance of what she said based on its merits, irrespective of her race, or your particular vendettas against her (which I disagree with but have zero interest in litigating just to make a point about this quote)

And somehow that means I am an "intersectionalist" moron who is charmed by her placement in the oppression olympics.

You couldn't form an argument with a gun to your head, dude. I gave you a chance.
No, you didn't. You claim you did, but it's obvious to anyone familiar with your backwards ideology exactly what you're doing.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
No, you didn't. You claim you did, but it's obvious to anyone familiar with your backwards ideology exactly what you're doing.
The "ideology" you're describing is a made up thing. It's just a bullshit excuse people use to keep from understanding the other side. Intersectionalism is a thing, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Anyway, look, I'll offer this as an olive branch, because I think we can agree on it: There's way too much energy expended on broadly "speaking out" against racism, often wholly divorced from meaningful discussions of policies that might actually make an impact, and that's probably the case here. These discussions can come off like empty virtue signalling because there's nothing that comes from them. They aren't wrong but they aren't especially useful either.

It's also better to have conversations about specific policies, because we can talk about those in terms of tangible effects, rather than apocolyptic hyperbole like "overthrowing the system." When someone chants "Black Lives Matter" half the people out there just bristle or say "But All lives matter," but if you want to have a conversation about instituting community oversight panels into police policy, as some cities have done, you can have a real conversation and people won't lose their shit so much. People don't take policy personally, but they do take identity personally, which is why people can get real fucking triggered when you make it about identity.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
The "ideology" you're describing is a made up thing. It's just a bullshit excuse people use to keep from understanding the other side. Intersectionalism is a thing, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Anyway, look, I'll offer this as an olive branch, because I think we can agree on it: There's way too much energy expended on broadly "speaking out" against racism, often wholly divorced from meaningful discussions of policies that might actually make an impact, and that's probably the case here. These discussions can come off like empty virtue signalling because there's nothing that comes from them. They aren't wrong but they aren't useful either.

It's also better to have conversations about specific policies, because we can talk about those in terms of tangible effects, rather than apocolyptic hyperbole like "overthrowing the system." When someone chants "Black Lives Matter" half the people out there just bristle or say "But All lives matter," but if you want to have a conversation about instituting more community oversight into police policy, as some cities have done, you can have a real conversation and people won't lose their shit so much.
If you know this, do it. Don't handwave away identity-based rhetoric intended to bring down a perceived oppressor class rather than lift a legitimately oppressed class up then tell me I'm being unreasonable for criticising it.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
If you know this, do it. Don't handwave away identity-based rhetoric intended to bring down a perceived oppressor class rather than lift a legitimately oppressed class up then tell me I'm being unreasonable for criticising it.
Because I think that's really overstating it, too. It's neither of those things. It's a banal, but fair point, perfectly correct, but perfectly boring and pointless.

This isn't the controversy you think it is. It isn't an attack on white people, or an effort to overthrow the oppressor class. That doesn't mean I think it's heroic, either. It's just a woman stating the obvious and getting applause. It's fine.
 
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2018
940
1,177
235
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
The "ideology" you're describing is a made up thing. It's just a bullshit excuse people use to keep from understanding the other side. Intersectionalism is a thing, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Anyway, look, I'll offer this as an olive branch, because I think we can agree on it: There's way too much energy expended on broadly "speaking out" against racism, often wholly divorced from meaningful discussions of policies that might actually make an impact, and that's probably the case here. These discussions can come off like empty virtue signalling because there's nothing that comes from them. They aren't wrong but they aren't especially useful either.

It's also better to have conversations about specific policies, because we can talk about those in terms of tangible effects, rather than apocolyptic hyperbole like "overthrowing the system." When someone chants "Black Lives Matter" half the people out there just bristle or say "But All lives matter," but if you want to have a conversation about instituting community oversight panels into police policy, as some cities have done, you can have a real conversation and people won't lose their shit so much. People don't take policy personally, but they do take identity personally, which is why people can get real fucking triggered when you make it about identity.
I would love to have a conversation about FBI statistics, and how to lower crime rates across the board.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
I would love to have a conversation about FBI statistics, and how to lower crime rates across the board.
I bet you would, because focusing on small segments of the population (like, say, violent criminals) proportional to each other can dramatically exaggerate discrepancies in ways that a foolish person might misinterpret, and it's a good excuse to be reductive about complex issues that simply can't be easily quantified.

Likewise, I'd like to talk about implicit bias studies, on studies that show the role a teacher's race plays in the attainment of minority students, on the role of racial bias in policing and criminal justice....

But guess what? You and I aren't going to settle the matter of racism here tonight. So just use your big white brain, get a good job, move into a gated community, and do you. It's a free country.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>
Jan 18, 2019
249
361
270
Only in white nations has the notion of liberal western society florished.
Based on how it's progressing, I'd say there's something very, very wrong with liberal western society at its core.

So just use your big white brain, get a good job, move into a gated community, and do you. It's a free country.
Finish high school. Don't commit violent crime. Raise your kids. Guess what? You solved generational poverty. You're welcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

John Lee Packard

Gold Member
Jan 25, 2018
4,026
5,191
385
29
Southeastern USA
Her problem is saying "white people" and not "only white people"

America has never in it's history been a country of only white people, but the fact that she just says "white people" is very telling.

Shit's going to phenomenally ugly if sanity isn't restored to American politics and culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stickkidsam

Bill O'Rights

Seldom posts. Always delivers.
Staff Member
Dec 5, 2017
225
798
325
Morning morning everyone!


This is one of several threads we're tracking - Sometimes because of reports, sometimes just to give a barometer of how things are going community wise. So I think it's important to realise any point you bring into a topic like this is fair game to be contested or challenged - whichever side of the fence you are siding with. However, if you do choose to pick up/correct a tangential sub point (which may be inaccurate), you're also expected to engage with the wider topic and not avoid the opening question or topic because it doesn't 'suit' you.


What we're noticing is that most derails are linked to cross thread personal battles, or from people sitting in the background and choosing to enter the thread to only police certain aspects without offering their own insight or countering the overarching thread topic. This is not specific to politics, but this board tends to be a bit more divisive on a personal level, without the abstraction of video games.


The only way to manage this is to reply ban people who we can see are not willing to address the wider issue around the debate is framed, much as hecklers are ejected in similar circumstances. Despite what people like to say, most of the people in here are able to engage in good spirits and manage the volatility themselves. Going forward we'd expect that if you feel strongly enough to enter a thread to specifically pick apart a specific sub point, then you would also be willing to examine, address and justify your position with regard to the main topic. If you feel that you'd be retreading old ground or that you can't be bothered repeating your stance, then you'd be expected to show reservation from derailing a topic in the same vein you show contempt for needing to assert your views again. Similarly, if someone does enter a thread with the specific intent to focus very narrowly on a 'pickup point' you're free to address it or ask that the main points are addressed first in the spirit of goodwill and honest debate.


We feel this is a common sense approach and we're not trigger happy with bans/thread bans unless there is prolonged and persistent cases that catch our eye. A lot of reports are done in the heat of the moment and we don't want to create a feedback loop of mod punishment, because usually most of these things only escalate to a point before people gather themselves. So, just take this as a polite request to maybe think twice or adjust certain tendencies and see if your experience improves over the next couple of weeks.


As you know the platform 2.1 update went in recently which was a pre-req for some of the more community based updates that are going to follow which will probably help with some of these issues, not just from a politics perspective but also the bleed of platform wars etc. Certainly after the excitement of E3 and the hype builds for the new platform releases I think we'll all need something or we'll go insane!


So no action at the moment, just a gentle request to maybe reflect on how you wish to engage in these type of debates going forward


 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,222
582
950
Her problem is saying "white people" and not "only white people"

America has never in it's history been a country of only white people, but the fact that she just says "white people" is very telling.

Shit's going to phenomenally ugly if sanity isn't restored to American politics and culture.
Who was originally allowed to vote in America?

Perhaps the original restrictions on who could decide the future of the country were not put in place because the founding fathers were racist and sexist jerks.
 

Enygger_Tzu

Member
Jul 7, 2018
1,589
1,555
255
Who was originally allowed to vote in America?

Perhaps the original restrictions on who could decide the future of the country were not put in place because the founding fathers were racist and sexist jerks.
If you feel this country does not have your best interest in mind, you are more than free to seek your luck in other countries.

I know myself would leave in a place I would believe I was undesired.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Finish high school. Don't commit violent crime. Raise your kids. Guess what? You solved generational poverty. You're welcome.
Behold, a grown man speaking to an entire race of millions as a single, misbehaving child.

Once again, conservatives are unable to process macro-level issues. They only think of things in individual terms. It's really fascinating to me how consistent this rule is.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

Schrödinger's cat

Gold Member
Dec 15, 2011
2,775
5,172
645
They only think of things in individual terms.
You're an individual.
You have agency and accountability.
If your mentality is so deeply entrenched in blaming [label] for whatever situation you find yourself in, then you just another wannabe victim.

People who genuinely want to change, or better their lives manage it. Everywhere. Every day.
People who want favours and handouts whilst they sit around complaining that the world isn't treating themselves well enough are committed to failure.

And I note the label you jumped to in your final sentence. Which shows everyone exactly how broken your logic is in the face of reality.
Feel free to dig your hole deeper, but remember it's you that's digging the hole for yourself - not [label].
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
Behold, a grown man speaking to an entire race of millions as a single, misbehaving child.

Once again, conservatives are unable to process macro-level issues. They only think of things in individual terms. It's really fascinating to me how consistent this rule is.
In spite of his tag, he did not bring race into it — you did. He simply stated the conditions for group-level cultural success. You keep casting aspersions at people who you assume to be conservatives while missing the point that group-level success is built from the bottom-up through cumulative individual success, not enforced from the top-down. Macro-level success is the output, not the input. People who could only think in terms of group identity caused all of the social disasters of the 20th century.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N0c

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
You're an individual.
You have agency and accountability.
If your mentality is so deeply entrenched in blaming [label] for whatever situation you find yourself in, then you just another wannabe victim.
You're kind of making my point here. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the macro/micro argument and you've somehow made this about an individual. Yes, I am an individual, and you should treat the individuals you encounter as such, and hold them accountable for their decisions. This makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense to raise your kids that way.

But to talk about a group of millions of people as if they're an individual is just delusional. One can't define public policy based on an individual's story. We look at macro-level indicators, statistics, trends, and the way policy influences those things.

So, let me use this metaphor to explain:

You have two groups given a test to run a course in under 5 minutes: Group A's course is shorter and has fewer obstacles, so Group A succeeds at twice the rate of Group B.

Now plenty of people in Group B do succeed, and if you're coaching someone in Group B, it's perfectly reasonable to give them advice on how to beat the course, or to tell another individual why they failed. The course is beatable, and it's reasonable to hold an individual responsible for beating it.

But if the designers of the course want to fix the discrepancy, the only way to do that is to bring the courses into alignment. As long as one group is handicapped, that group's rate of success will be lower. It doesn't make sense to ONLY see this problem in terms of one hypothetical individual in either course.

Conversations about an individual or about a group are both valid, but applying individualist logic to macro-level problems is not.

You follow?
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
In spite of his tag, he did not bring race into it — you did. He simply stated the conditions for group-level cultural success.
No, he stated the conditions for individual success as if they were the conditions for group success, which is a logical fallacy that I've discussed at length.
You keep casting aspersions at people who you assume to be conservatives while missing the point that group-level success is built from the bottom-up through cumulative individual success, not enforced from the top-down. Macro-level success is the output, not the input. People who could only think in terms of group identity caused all of the social disasters of the 20th century.
See the analogy in my post to SC above. Macro-level trends are influenced from the top-down, not the bottom up, and that's not political philosophy, it's irrefutable facts. Rugged individualism has never succeeded.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
It's fucking fascinating to me that even after spelling this out, you still think this is about me. Or any one person. You're making my point.

Yes, I am an individual, and you should treat the individuals you encounter as such, and hold them accountable for their decisions. This makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense to raise your kids that ways.

But to talk about a group of millions of people as if they're an individual is just delusional. One can't define public policy based on an individual's story. We look at macro-level indicators, statistics, trends, and the way policy influences those things.

So, let me use this metaphor to explain:

You have two groups given a test to run a course in under 5 minutes: Group A's course is shorter and has fewer obstacles, so Group A succeeds at twice the rate of Group B.

Now plenty of people in Group B do succeed, and if you're coaching someone in Group B, it's perfectly reasonable to give them advice on how to beat the course, or to tell another individual why they failed. The course is beatable.

But if the designers of the course want to fix the discrepancy, they need to bring the courses into alignment. As long as one group is handicapped, that group's rate of success will be lower. It doesn't make sense to ONLY see this problem in terms of coaching.

You follow?
Your argument can be distilled down to lowering the bar to meet the lowest common denominator rather than lifting up the lowest common denominator to meet the bar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torrent of Pork

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
No, he stated the conditions for individual success as if they were the conditions for group success, which is a logical fallacy that I've discussed at length.

See the analogy in my post to SC above.
Discussing at length means nothing when you’re completely wrong. You’re tinkering with the wrong end of the system and you have to be quite ignorant of history to think it’s a good idea. I bet you think the solution to the gender pay gap is to pay women more huh?
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Your argument can be distilled down to lowering the bar to meet the lowest common denominator rather than lifting up the lowest common denominator to meet the bar.
Yes, exactly. Removing barriers to success encourages success, it turns out. Are you disagreeing with this?

"Leveling the playing field" is probably a better idiom than "lowering the bar."
I bet you think the solution to the gender pay gap is to pay women more huh?
No, I'm actually not an idiot. BUT I do want to run with this for a minute so I can make a point. I want you to tell me how you would fix it.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
No, I'm actually not an idiot. BUT I do want to run with this for a minute so I can make a point. I want you to tell me how you would fix it.
Bingo. Gotcha.

You assume that group-level disparities are inherently wrong and require fixing irrespective of individual-level inputs.

This exemplifies what I have been talking about. You are capable of thinking only in terms of group identity. I’m done engaging with you after this post because I believe you to be ideologically broken.

For the record, the gender pay gap does not require a “fix” because it is primarily a reflection of individual choice and any group-level “fix” would offload the risk and responsibility from the individual who is the one in control. It is an output of the system, and we don’t tinker with outputs (equality of outcome); we tinker with inputs to establish equality of opportunity.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: bucyou

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
It is an output of the system, and we don’t tinker with outputs (equality of outcome); we tinker with inputs to establish equality of opportunity.
Now, I 100% agree with this sentence, BUT I think it exposes a serious problem with the rest of your argument.

A couple posts up, I defined a hypothetical scenario of two courses that I defined in the problem as being unequal.

I said that making the courses equal would lower the level of discrepancy between the groups. You told me that this approach was wrong. You specifcially advocated for the unequal opportunity, on the basis that the people on the more difficult course could still succeed if we "uplifted them" (somehow). So this is an inherent contradiction with your conclusion above.

And the reason for that contradiction is simple. You've simply gotten the whole thing backwards: INDIVIDUALS are the OUTPUT of the SYSTEM (policy), not the other way around. Opportunity is systemic, Success is individual.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Everyone is individual.
Everyone has agency.
Everyone has accountability.

The only reason to reject this is in the desire to be a victim.
Advocating for public policy that removes barriers to success is not a rejection of individual responsibility or agency, now is it? Improving the system is not the same as being a victim, now is it?
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>