Hodad

That's not an explanation, and this topic has nothing to do with political blaming. There are myriad reasons and contributors for the gap in infant mortality. All of it really comes back to education, money and opportunity--from both directions. The patients are more likely to lack those things, and the lack of those things means that there are fewer doctors (and other healthcare providers) in those communities, and indeed, Blacks are dramatically underrepresented in the medical field. ^^ An example of the feedback loops that make systemic racism difficult to overcome. And again, I don't "hate" myself because there is injustice in the world, nor do I expect anyone else to. I'm not sure why folks on the right say that, but it's just a straw man you've set up to swing at. Rather than hating yourself, what I'd like is for you to look around and acknowledge the disparities and injustices and think about what ways we can address them. A just society is the goal, no? Where any baby born, no matter the skin color, runs the same race to the best of their ability. No head starts. No undue burdens. Now if we want to pivot to politics, I think there actually is a lot of anxiety and insecurity among white GOP voters. Again, not universal, but they tend to be less educated and I think more disposed toward feeling economically vulnerable. There is a undercurrent of fear. They view a loss of privilege and a fair playing field as a threat to their status. Their self interest is greater than their interest in a just society. They want their head start because they are afraid they may "lose" without it. And some of them very well might. But it's not a zero-sum game and doesn't have to be viewed that way. With the systems as they are, we are wasting an enormous amount of human potential.

No indeed they wouldn't like losing those bases. A lot of them are hugely dependent on that federal spending (mostly subsidized by high-GDP states). I think there are 4 or 5 bases in Tuberville's "moocher" state of Alabama.

I believe they call it "The Kraken," as dubbed by disgraced lunatic Trump attorney Sidney Powell. Who later went on to unsuccessfully defend her behavior by admitting that she was lying about election fraud and then claiming that "No Reasonable Person Would Conclude That [Her] Statements Were Truly Statements of Fact." She's batshit crazy. But she's not wrong about those who believed her.

Yeah, as it turns out, those insurers,with money on the line, have actuaries who are pretty farking good at math. The climate deniers are not great at science or math, but they are passionately dogmatic. I'm sure it all balances out.?

Do you not know what a list is? I did, indeed, list multiple examples. Here it is again: "Simply by being born white your odds in life are better. You're more likely to be born to wealthier parents, to more educated parents, in better neighborhoods with better schools and in a cohort of similarly advantaged kids. You'd be less likely to face racism--particularly meaningful racism. You'd be less likely to face prejudice and discrimination." It literally starts before birth. Black infant mortality is more than double that of whites. One of the resume examples: "companies are more than twice as likely to call minority applicants for interviews if they submit whitened resumes than candidates who reveal their race." The weirdest thing about this conversation--and many others like it--is that it has to be had at all. Like there are apparently droves of white people roaming around America totally ignorant of the advantages they enjoy--when it's so damn pervasive that it's actually harder to find an example in which it doesn't exist. Like, "prove to me the sky is blue!" Bias is that "whiter-sounding" resumes get more interview calls. White privilege is never having to wonder whether they didn't call you because of your name or LinkedIn photo.

1. I listed a half dozen examples in the thought experiment. Those are all literally true. It's like saying men are physically stronger than women. It doesn't mean that every man is stronger than every woman, but in totality it's undeniably true. In the United States, white children, from the moment of birth and every moment onward, have socially constructed advantages over Blacks--or any other racial group. If you had truly identical twins and waved a magic wand over one of them to change their skin color, the white twin would get the benefit of the doubt almost every time. -- They've literally done this experiment at scale, sending identical resumes in for jobs, one with a traditionally Anglo name and one with a "Black-sounding" name and the latter got 50% fewer responses. Although that's improved a lot in the last 20 years, there's still a gap. 2. I've been pretty clear about this. Invididual whites aren't cheating. But whites have written the rules of the game and, sometimes consciously and often subconsciously, we've invented a game in which we always--all else being equal--have an advantage. 3. I made no reference to "whites only" organizations, so no idea what you're on about. 4. You didn't actually get to choose. That's just the experiment. You were simply blessed with comparative advantages by the nature of your birth. That should strike you as unfair. Which is the point of the experiment. If there are clear advantages to choosing one race over another then it's obvious that the society is unfairly constructed. If and when it doesn't matter or the choice is a tossup, then you'll know that we've built a just society. I have zero problem with my skin color. Skin color isn't the problem. A society in which skin color has a massive influence on opportunity is, however, problematic. I think you missed the point.

1. Yes, whites have an advantage in nearly every aspect of American life. That's what privilege is. We make the rules, we own the power and, even when well meaning, through ignorance or bias (conscious or subconscious) build a society that reflects and serves our needs first and foremost. There are mountains of research to validate this in specific instances, but it should be pretty obvious if you stop to think about it. 2. That's a pretty silly reading of that analogy. It doesn't mean that individual whites are cheaters. It means there are advantages built in to the "race" we all run. I've never cheated at anything, but I certainly am aware of (many/most) of the advantages that I've enjoyed in this society simply because of the color of my skin. 3. You're incorrect. Again, lots of data to back it up. Diverse organizations consistently outperform non-diverse organizations. A diverse memeplex is like a diverse gene complex. Diversity supports faster adaptation and evolution. Contrast that with inbreeding. Or for a simpler analogy, a football team doesn't become the great by drafting "the best athlete on the board." They become great by drafting a mix of complementary talent, deliberately filling in the gaps. -- The point being, diversity is inherently advantageous in teams of all sorts and it shows up in performance metrics. Try a little Rawlsian thought experiment. Imagine that you were sentient entity, waiting to be born. You will be born somewhere in the United States, but you don't know where. You don't know who your parents will be, where they live, how much money they have, how educated they are or anything else about them. You don't know how smart you'll be in corporeal form, or how athletic, or good looking or anything else. You DO get to choose the race of your parents. What would you choose? Is there any sliver of doubt that being born white vastly increases your odds of an easy life and faster path to success within your potential? Simply by being born white your odds in life are better. You're more likely to be born to wealthier parents, to more educated parents, in better neighborhoods with better schools and in a cohort of similarly advantaged kids. You'd be less likely to face racism--particularly meaningful racism. You'd be less likely to face prejudice and discrimination. If you honestly think ^^all of that (and more) doesn't constitute a head start, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Yeah, Republicunts would surely prefer that all people watch their PR network on FOX. ^^Do these silly name games seem clever you you? Really? That's pretty sad.

Yeah, I don't get it either, but he frequently rails against sodomy and in support of anti-sodomy laws

He doesn't even like blowjobs, so it's not a big surprise that he's anti-sex. There are asexual people in the world. ?‍♀️

It seems that in your view any enforcement of the law against a politician is inherently "politically motivated." Which seems to me to be a tremendously lazy analysis. These people are not meant to be above the law.

He's clearly been kicked off of many, many forums. For some reason this forum seems to have abandoned all content moderation. Usually this is out of some misplaced ideas about "free speech" -- or a very lazy interpretation of the matter. Content moderation isn't antagonistic to a free exchange of ideas. It's what makes such an exchange possible. Like janitors who take out the trash, without content moderators forums get so shitty and disgusting that people who actually wish to exchange ideas will simply leave and the place will die.

Sigh. Of course not.

You don't have to go anywhere crazy--well, NY Post is pretty kooky. Most outlets are not going to post the screenshot to avoid giving the original piece a larger platform. But this is a ridiculous conversation. Really.

Hard to see a hint of anything with your head buried in the sand. What of global surface temps? What of global ocean temps? What of sea ice? The "hacks" at NASA are out to get you too. They can land a man on the moon and measure the mass of a black hole millions of light years away, but they can't properly work a thermometer? Record temps are barely news now that every year is one of the hottest on record.

That's flat Earth thinking. What you see out your window is a very small, simple picture. Whereas a massive amount of data shows conclusively that the planet is warming. You, personally, can't see cancer cells forming in the lungs of a smoker, but the data in the bloodwork sounds the alarm before imaging can detect a mass. Honestly, the scientific understanding of the universe is composed almost entirely of observations that you, personally, cannot see or understand without significant study. But rejecting this bit of strongly supported science has become an article of faith. You should ask yourself why. It's like if you were to go see 10 doctors and nine of them tell you your cholesterol is dangerously high. The 10th, who has a side-hustle selling double-breaded deep-fried cheeseburgers tells you there's nothing to worry about. There's no rational reason to believe doctor #10, but you manage to rationalize doing so because you love cheeseburgers. There are two problems with that example. The first is the the scientific consensus is much stronger than that. The second is that in that scenario, your foolishness is only hurting yourself.

A guy who brings his kid to antagonize and shame other people who are exercising their rights is sad about being antagonized and shamed in front of his kids? It's time to call the irony police!

Not from a goddamn YouTube video. Poll, after poll, after poll. There is not a major scientific body on the planet that rejects anthropogenic global warming. You can find an individual crackpot or Big Oil shill, here or there, but the consensus among scientists is absolutely overwhelming. And companies like Exxon have known for decades. We have seen this story play out over and over again--tobacco and sugar most obviously. Independent research with no profit motive identifies a harm and the companies selling the stuff mount a disinformation campaign that easily fools the credulous among us and retards the political will to act. And now it's a point of political tribalism on the right to dogmatically reject science. Damn the elites, and their fancy education! The scientists of the world are not trolling you. They're not doing this for fun. They're not suffering from mass delusion. Everybody would love it if the carbohydron age could go on endlessly with no harm done. It simply isn't true.

Dude, you're a sucker for internet rumors. There is no known patient zero. The vaccine continues to be safe. Unlike the other two, the GoF claim is, at least, rooted in something real that you are misrepresenting. But mostly it seems you simply reject actual science in favor of random shit on the internet.

Again, you discount actual science in favor of internet rumors and speculation. How does this seem like a reasonable way to conduct your life, simply disregarding all expertise?

Based on what? All three cases are an overwhelming-- nearly unanimous --consensus of scientists in their respective fields telling you about things you can't see and that you aren't capable of investigating on your own. So, rationally, why do you believe just 2 of 3? Are you flipping a coin?

Sure. And smoking doesn't cause cancer. And sugar isn't really linked to diabetes. Pretty much anything you can't see or understand it's a case of all the scientists being out to get you. So pretty much everything.

Super argument. ? Those silly intellectuals wasting all their time crafting thoughtful rebuttals are simply fools. A plain 'ol "Nuh-uh," is apparently sufficient. Still not sure why you posted an article that neatly eviscerates your entire worldview of conservative politics and casts it as a pivot to statism.

Clearly, Brooks does not agree, at least with the latter.

Boy, that's not a flattering look for you guys. Poor David Brooks has been forced into the role of a cultural anthropologist, dutifully and clinically documenting the collapse of his once-loved society into an insane shadow of itself.