ebfe

Not skin color, but race, yes. We already know that there are genes that make certain races predisposed to certain types of behavior. [1] How do we know that no similar genes exist that influence creditworthy behavior?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

>Because we know it's not causal.

How do we know that?

That's patently not true. You're far more likely to be harmed than, say, women or Asians, though the latter are oppressed.

>There were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong..., but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now.

In what world does this author live?

The commenter your responding to is most likely using "gender" to refer to the concept you would describe as "sex". That is, the biological characteristic of being male or female rather than a grammatical concept.

Housekeeping tends to be something only the woman cares about, though. Do I deserve sympathy for all the unpaid work I put in managing our fantasy football team?

At least at my school, fraternities and sororities are based on sex- they couldn't care less about your gender.

A non-sexist guide to interacting with the opposite sex would, by definition, be useless.

Have we ruled out the possibility that African-Americans disproportionately engage in the actions we consider an acceptable reason for deadly force (aiming a gun at, charging towards, etc. police officers)?

For every Muslim immigrant who is a tax-paying engineer, there are a hundred who lack any sort of skill and will spend their entire life dependent on costly social programs. In Germany, for example, the average cost per refugee is 12,000 euros per year.

There's simply no reason to bring in populations that require more money to support than they contribute.

What is irrational about blocking Muslim immigration? I could understand an argument that it's mean, racist, or a few other negative things, but from the position of a non-Muslim what about it is irrational?

Isn't this to be expected, given the heritability of IQ?

If that's what they meant though, then affirmative action (universities are clearly an institution) would be racist. So would minority business initiatives organized by the government.

I don't think they consider those things racist though, so that can't be their definition.

The first study confounds the issues of race and class. Emily is not the white equivalent to Lakisha, Brandi is.

Isn't this a clear cut example of linguistic prescriptivism? The vast majority of people do not use the word to mean that.

As another poster pointed out, red tribe conservatives are not the ones saying that Indian/Chinese-Americans are no longer a minority.

The only people who consider Indian/Chinese-Americans "no longer a minority" are the same ones who complain about them being whitewashed.

Right but his point is that those things are problems because they suck in absolute terms, not relative ones. Turning the whole world into a Syria-esque battlefield should not be considered a success, despite the fact that it would lower inequality. Similar, if the mechanisms that eliminate guinea-worm come so at the cost of improving other people's lives even more than the Guineans, we should not oppose that even though it increases inequality. What matters is our absolute quality of life rather than our relative one, and as such inequality is not the metric we should use to identify problems.

Why do marketers choose to make their advertisements loud and obtrusive, even though consumers say they'd prefer for advertisements to be quiet and out of sight?

An article telling men to be less aggressive considers telling someone they're too aggressive to be a form of sexism.

Money, without a doubt. I wouldn't do a day of work in my life if it didn't carry personal gain.

Hundreds of millions of people believe that producing iPhones is a form of doing good in society.

Which banker should have gone to jail, and for breaking what law?

>there are people literally born into a situation that they have no control over

And similarly, Omniusaspirer (along with every other person) was literally born into a situation that he had no control over. So you can't make any judgements about his character, right?

Surely you see the difference between helping the poor vs. taking other people's money and using part of it to help the poor.

Right. So the fact that the Angry White Woman doesn't get called out for raging much of the time, while the man does, is an example of female privilege. Right?

Ok, let's carry this logic- the same disparity exists between men and women. Would you describe women who don't feel safe around their visibly angry coworkers as "dipshits", and dismiss this anger as venting? This must be an example of female privilege, right?

The goal isn't diversity, though. The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy.

They didn't compare the two genders. The mixed group they tested was exactly what you described- accepting anyone who meets exceeds the minimum standards. The result of which, as it turns out, is a unit that is weaker, slower, less effective, and more likely to be injured than one comprised of only men.

>"Reasonable discourse" doesn't start with denying that racism exists in the United States.

Would you mind quoting the part of his post where he says that racism doesn't exist?

He's quoting an actual person. It's the first response to the tweet.