Featured Post

Sabotage is All They Have Left on the Left

Like a retreating occupation army, the Democrats and their enablers seek to destroy all before the advancing liberating forces can use it. ...

Monday, March 4, 2019

Progracism

This will be short as I need to start working on my taxes (UGH!) This is more of a thinking aloud piece, you know, just sorta wondering . . . .

Let me start with what I have stated on many occasions: I am bored by and outright detest conversations, debates, arguments, etc., about race. Race certainly competes for the title of the world's most boring and, simultaneously, dangerous topic.

No good at all can come of arguing over whether one race is "better" than another, or that one race or another is the devil incarnate. You get nowhere; everybody ends up angry; and violence lurks and, quite often, emerges. I, therefore, revile those who make a living from race-baiting and race-slanging, e.g., the KKK, the Nazis, the Black Panthers, the SPLC, and--the topic of this little post--the increasingly loud progressive racists who dominate the West's social and legacy media, public bureaucracies, entertainment business, educational institutions, and, increasingly, the private corporate world.

We are told that "diversity is our strength." Not much further explanation is offered except that such "diversity" only applies to matters of race and gender. Diversity of opinion, especially on college campuses and in the media, is not sought--no, just diversity of superficial characteristics. Why? Not clear, really.

We are told on the one hand that men and women are equal in capabilities, and that skin color or ethnicity--however defined--does not determine the talent level of an individual. If that's so, for example, and we have a firm building a bridge across a river, it should make no difference whether we take on white or black engineers. We should look for whomever is the best at the job for what we pay. But, then the prog argument gets even more murky: it seems that, yes, well, after all, men and women are somehow different, that blacks and whites have different approaches to problems and tasks; that it is this difference that makes our enterprise, whatever it is, better. Really? So does a black engineer calculate load limits for a bridge differently than does a white one? Does 1+1 mean something different for a woman than for a man? If it does, then we as bridge builders are entitled--are we not?--to discriminate on the basis of race and gender . . .

But then we also are told there is no gender and no race, that male and female, black and white are just "social constructs," except when demanding reparations for past injustices . . . it's all too bewildering, which is exactly what the progs want.

73 comments:

  1. The leftist needs the racial/sexual differences to create sets of people. Then they can rank them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ranking of people by skin color and sexual differences started long before any policies you think of as leftist were conceived in anyone's mind.

      Delete
    2. The leftist are the folks who insist that we all keep practicing it.
      I have come to realize that creating sets of people and treating them differently because of what set they are in is wrong. It is the antithesis of fairness and equality. "Diversity" is not a strength. It is nothing more than a extension of the participation trophy combined with nepotism.

      Delete
    3. The leftist are the folks who insist that we all keep practicing it.

      In reality, they point out how it (ranking, or more generally discrimination) is, and has been, continually practiced unofficially even when officially sanctioned.

      I have come to realize that creating sets of people and treating them differently because of what set they are in is wrong. It is the antithesis of fairness and equality.

      Treating people according to their circumstances and situations is the antithesis of fairness and equality?

      "Diversity" is not a strength. It is nothing more than a extension of the participation trophy combined with nepotism.

      Diversity can help with some things more than others. If you want to market to mean and women, it helps to have men and women pitch some of the ideas. If you want to improve pedestrian traffic, you need to get pedestrians involved.

      Delete
    4. Thought crime is a better way of saying this. It's funny how the left eschews Christianity, but lifts dogma from the religion to create their own. The idea of built in discrimination is the same as the Christian belief in original sin. We carry the sin of Adam and Eve's transgressions in the Garden of Eden simply because we are descendants of them. Now in modern times we now all carry the sin of discrimination because of the practices of the Democrats in America. You folks can go around flagellating yourself for your ancestral sins, but I am not playing.

      To expand on Lewis's original point. What difference does it make if a black, or a woman computes the maximum loading of a bridge? It doesn't. But, it does matter if the engineer computing that loading doesn't fully understand what their job is, and they were placed into the position because of diversity, and they produce incorrect loading and the bridge collapses. That matters.

      Delete
    5. Ignoring the reality of the problem is an even better way of saying it. Discrimination is real, persistent, effective, measurable, and taught to us from before we are even verbal. Very few people give a rat's ass about ancestral discrimination; it's the both discrimination in the here and now, and lingering effects of that discrimination in the past, which are the problems.

      If it doesn't matter to you whether a black person or a woman computes the maximal load of a bridge, then why do you have your feathers ruffled over diversity?

      Delete
    6. 'real', 'persistent', 'effective', maybe... measurable.. no... systemic.. no... taught to 'us' before we are even verbal? no.

      The *only* sense in which that makes any sense, is that yes, when bipedal humanoids raised among bipedal humanoids suddenly encounter *tripedal* humanoids, there will be surprise and many related reactions.
      Similarly, those who grow up in certain areas will or won't react in certain ways to the introduction of new people.
      This isn't news, isn't dysfunctional, and doesn't 'need to be fixed'.

      There *may* be *some* areas of the country in which racism is pervasive and problematic. But instead of attempting to deal with that issue, the progressives wish to spread the problem to the whole country.

      Romneycare drew great ire until it became Obamacare. The democrats have always been at war with Eastasia.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. 'real', 'persistent', 'effective', maybe... measurable.. no... systemic.. no... taught to 'us' before we are even verbal? no.

      It gets measured on a regular basis by any number of researchers. It's taught by the system (the media, police, etc.), going back to the images on TV, in toys, and in picture books (before we are verbal). In some ways, it's even gotten worse than since we were kids.

      It's more than surprise. There are a lot of expectations that get set about the metaphorical tripedal people before you encounter one, and confirmation bias acts powerfully.

      If you can name a major city where white flight never happened, then we can talk about how there is an area of the country with no racism.

      Romneycare drew great ire until it became Obamacare.

      Then it drew even more ire from Republicans, including Romney.

      Delete
    8. It's being 'measured' in the sense that the humanities need to pretend at quantitative literacy. Measuring electrons is something one can do without bias, but even then, the intent of the researcher *can* get in the way.
      When you talk about 'measuring racism', you're talking about measurements by people who have a political agenda. Then they don the invisible mantle of pseudoscience.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    9. reader #1482,

      That you think you can measure electrons without introducing a bias reflects a lack of understanding of physics. Every measurement interferes with the subject being measured.

      That you think every person who measures social phenomenon, like racism, has a political goal in mind is equally ignorant.

      Individual studies can always be criticized and improved upon. Dismissing an entire field of study is lazy, self-serving, and not worthy of serious consideration.

      Delete
  2. How about this, the civilization that white people built is suited for white people. The civilization that blacks built, with a multi 1,000 year head start I'll add, was suited for them.

    Further I'm seeing all of "traffic" going one way these days.

    You can call that racist, I don't care. All I know is that both races would be better off without any interference from the other.

    Both races are going to have horrible problems, we are after all human beings, but why make it worse?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about this, the civilization that white people built is suited for white people. The civilization that blacks built, with a multi 1,000 year head start I'll add, was suited for them.

      Since the American civilization was built by both white and black people, should it not adjust itself to be suited for both?

      Delete
    2. The black people you speak of were no more than tools in building this country

      BC

      Delete
    3. BC,

      Are you saying the work of laborers is not meaningful?

      Delete
  3. Very timely:
    https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/how-animal-farm-playing-out-democrat-party

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel ya Whitey!
      “Ocasio-Cortez aka [“Occluded Cortex”], who now calls herself the “boss” in the matter of the porcine revolutionary leader “Napoleon” in Orwell’s Animal Farm, now claims that she is taking names and is making a “list” of counterrevolutionary “moderate” progressives (think of the ostracized “Snowball” of Animal Farm) who do unmentionable things like voting not to allow illegal aliens to purchase guns.
      . . .
      Or put another way, when no one is revolutionary enough, the revolutionary auditors end up ridiculous in their zeal for power and celebrity—sort of like Orwell’s radical pigs finally prancing about on two legs and feasting on silver, sort of like Jussie Smollett leveraging the ultimate state of victimhood for a better deal on “Empire.” ~~VDH

      Ah Yes, the usual product, One- Browed, Two- Leg-ed Dancing Pigs, drunk with the Lefty vision of Power Politics & Animal Husbandry: dissed-stinkly-written on the Broad’s side of the Barn~~~

      On Watch~~~
      “Let’s Roll”

      Delete
    2. whitewall,

      So, if the progressives allow other progressives to marginalize certain people (say, ignoring the TERFs), they are hypocrites, but if they call out their fellow progressives, they are not united enough. Guess there's no winning that game. Perhaps it's not worth the effort to live up the ideals of Hansen at all.

      Delete
  4. Not much further explanation is offered except that such "diversity" only applies to matters of race and gender.

    This has not been my experience at all. In the diversity training I have experienced, we talked about the diversity in having early risers and late risers, quick actors and deliberative thinkers, and several other factors. Depending on the workplace and the boss, any of these can be seen as negative or positive, but all provide distinct outlooks, skills, etc.

    I agree that in calculating load limits for a bridge, people will mostly do it the same way (frankly, the actual calculation would be done by a computer). However, in the design of the bridge, choosing the location, selecting the materials, etc. (the rel engineering work), there are going to be different ways to look at the approaches, the costs, the traffic flow, etc. Since a bridge is something for people to use, bringing in the experiences of different kinds of people you hope will use it will help you build better bridges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In every diversity training class, I've been in, whether it's in the public sector or private sector, it's always about race and gender. What you have stated has nothing to do with race or gender so I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the piece. The writer is simply saying that a black person doesn't do math any differently than a white person, so why does it matter? Why must we have FORCED DIVERSTIY. Why is "DIVERSITY OUR STRENGTH"? Why would an all white crew of engineers be weaker than a multi-enthnic crew? When we say Diversity, it is meant in the way that the progs mean diversity, which is just people who look differently, but do not think differently. They just want an army of people who all look different but think the same (aka NPCs).

      Delete
    2. The writer is simply saying that a black person doesn't do math any differently than a white person, so why does it matter? ... Why would an all white crew of engineers be weaker than a multi-enthnic crew?

      I feel like I already answered this question in the second paragraph of the comment to which you replied. In particular, I find it disappointing you reduce engineer to calculators.

      When we say Diversity, it is meant in the way that the progs mean diversity, which is just people who look differently, but do not think differently.

      Doesn't sound like any of the progressives I read. Most discuss the need for differing opinions besides their own.

      Delete
    3. Just about every prog politicians and Media personality loves to brag about how "diverse" their staff is and/or they love to criticize how not "diverse" their opponents staff is. How many times, during the Clinton campaign, did we hear that the economy needs a "woman's touch"? Her whole campaign was all about how it was a "woman's turn". I don't know what progs your reading but all the MSM progs and politicians refer to diversity as in race and gender.

      Delete
    4. I don't know what progs your reading but all the MSM progs and politicians refer to diversity as in race and gender.

      I would expect that the people who work for politicians tend, for the most part, to support the same things as the politicians support. So, if you were limiting your comment of "people who look differently, but do not think differently" to refer to hiring by politicians, I would agree that is likely the case.

      On this site I regularly see, for example, university professors described as progressives, and in that group I generally see a call out for different viewpoints, as opposed to a single viewpoint.

      Delete
    5. Political activities on university campuses were generally banned prior to the 1960s. That initial infection has grown to cause 'consensus' to be more important than empiricism. Humanities departments now wield equal or more power than hard science departments, despite a lack of empirical rigor amongst almost all of their disciplines.

      There's nothing wrong with universities that making them places of dedicated research again can't fix. Students and professors should leave their politics in the parking lot. (No, this isn't going to happen, it would be the death of the 'professional student body', but it *would* solve the issue.)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    6. Humanities departments now wield equal or more power than hard science departments, despite a lack of empirical rigor amongst almost all of their disciplines.

      Humanities only have the power due to the support of the faculty in the more scientific departments. The science departments are the ones bringing in the grant money, and money always talks loudest. They are the departments in the news, because no one wants to read about discoveries in Hox genes or better-made alloys when they can read about drama and conflict.

      Delete
    7. I believe your characterization was true 30-40 years ago.
      Not sure if you followed the case of that med student ejected from a private medical school recently for questioning the hypothesis of microaggressions? It was all well and legal, yet completely political and unfair.
      Yes, the student was being a bit of a butt, but that's no excuse for shutting down a career without academic or clear professional failings.
      The guy most *definitely* had a set of political views which conflicted with those of the board which ejected him.
      It's a pretty crazy listen to see how cowed all the board members are by each other. Feels like listening to a dystopian fiction of 30-40 years ago.
      These people are just nuts.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. reader #1482,

      I had not heard of this case. Do you mean this one?

      https://cloverchronicle.com/2018/12/29/university-of-virginia-med-student-receives-1-year-suspension-after-microaggressions-lecture/

      From initial complaint, he was extremely disrespectful, condescending, and unprofessional to the speaker, interrupted her, ignored requests to let other students speak, and was aggressive and hostile. If he's that unwilling to listen to a fellow medical professional, how much to you trust in his ability to listen to patients?

      Then, as a follow up, he does something that makes the school get a restraining order on him.

      By the way, these doctors are part of the more scientific fields you mentioned earlier.

      Delete
    9. I listened to the presentation and subsequent hearing. He was quite respectful. He *did* point out that the entirety of the cited evidence was anecdotal, which did upset people.
      He was as contentious as people are supposed to be able to be in science.
      No profanity, no refusal to stop speaking.

      The intolerance is quite obvious in the following hearing, but it's not on that guy's side. He was being adversarial.

      I would have no problem with a similar person treating my presentation or hearing the same way.

      Again, I'm not saying anything *illegal* is happening to this guy, it's just one example highlighting the shift of the mantra from "Agree to disagree" to "Agree to agree" in universities. The university can no longer accept argument and has gone to the point of banning conflict as a result.

      And watch the next conservative come to Berkley:
      Administration: "Sorry students, there's just nothing we can do. We allow politics on campus, so we have to be viewpoint neutral by the Constitution.... unless... of course... there's an imminent threat of violence *cough* *cough* *wink* *wink*.."
      Administration: "Oh my! There are threats now! It's too dangerous! We need to shut down this talk! We *never* could have expected this. We're *sooo* disappointed."

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    10. He *did* point out that the entirety of the cited evidence was anecdotal, which did upset people.
      He was as contentious as people are supposed to be able to be in science.
      No profanity, no refusal to stop speaking.


      I just listened to it. He said the speaker discussed anecdotes during her speech, and the moderator responded that there were several citations in the literature.

      Claiming that a person's life works amounts to a collection of anecdotes, when citations have been offered, goes a little beyond just being contentious.

      He did refuse the first request to stop speaking, continuing on after an answer.

      Finally, while neither of us could see it, the moderator specifically pointed out his body language during the questioning, which can explain why audience members found him more hostile than listening to the recording alone.

      Then, he later goes on to make people feel threatened enough they take out a restraining order.

      Delete
  5. Years ago, I attended a company management training course in which one of our outside speakers was a psychology prof of Jungian persuasion. He asserted that people of different personality types really do have different perspectives, and if you yield to the temptation to hire people like you, then you will all have the same blind spots and happily walk off the edge of the cliff together. (He was talking about personality factors such as introversion vs extroversion, theoretical attitude vs focus on the tangible, etc)

    I think there is much truth in that view, and have always tried to bear it in mind when hiring people. But that's not the kind of 'diversity' that seems to be emphasized in 95% of the diversity programs going on today. Focus on the kind of thing One Brow mentioned (early risers vs late risers, etc) is I believe pretty uncommon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "does a black engineer calculate load limits for a bridge, differently"
    No but the problem with this statement is that for practical purposes black engineers do not exist. I agree that racial discussions as they are currently framed are extremely tiresome. Whites have largely forgone tribal identity politics (and been strongly encouraged to do so by several well meaning quarters) for last several generations. That was fine when we were 85-90% majority. But we increasing find ourselves a declawed cat in the identity-ridden politics of today. Recently the baby born tipped >50% non-white. Add open borders and we rapidly (dizzyingly so) becoming a minority which is one thing, but also a "hated* minority. The reflexive anti-white hatred is becoming hard to ignore. i would like to chum the waters with a few facts which are no longer entertained in polite society. Feel free to point out factual errors. Average IQs of whites, african americans, ashkenazi jewish, east asian and Sub-Saharan blacks is: ~ 100, 85, 110, 105 and 70. The military considers a individual with below 80 IQ as untrainable. IQ is our best predictor of life outcomes and correlates strongly with general competence. It is arguable and controversial how much of IQ is due to nature(genetics) versus nurture (enviroment), but the these numbers are largely agreed upon.

    Whites form high-trust, and from my perspective, pleasant cultures. Some of the others, again from my perspective, do not. I also like the diversity within the white tribe. Whites can have blond black, brown even red hair. Blue, green, grey, brown eyes. Everybody else is stuck with brown/black hair and eyes. I think it is inevitable that whites will get more tribal and begin to assert their collective interests. What the hell, very other group does, and good for them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Average IQs of whites, african americans, ashkenazi jewish, east asian and Sub-Saharan blacks is: ~ 100, 85, 110, 105 and 70. The military considers a individual with below 80 IQ as untrainable.

    So, you would say 37% of African-Americansare effectively untrainable? Only someone with highly limited exposure to African-Americans would believe something to blatantly stupid. Even worse, it would be 74% of sub-Saharan blacks. What seems more likely: that 74% of the population of the Central African Republic can not be meaningfully trained, or that poverty and lack of opportunity limit their ability to reach their potential?

    Whites form high-trust, and from my perspective, pleasant cultures. Some of the others, again from my perspective, do not.

    My experience is the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not saying that, the military is saying that. Anyone with an IQ lower than 80 requires too many resources to train. If Sub-saharan Africans, on average, are lower than 80, then yes, they are untrainable. You can deny IQ all you want but there is, most certainly, a direct correlation between average IQ and how developed a nation is.

      Delete
    2. You can deny IQ all you want but there is, most certainly, a direct correlation between average IQ and how developed a nation is.

      Yes, that was exactly my point. The correlation to IQ is with how developed the nation is.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Back in the Gilded Age, immigration inspectors found that an overly large percentage of "Russian" immigrants were "feeble-minded". Those "Russian" immigrants were Ashkenazi Jews, whose chief problem was they couldn't, at that point, read Roman letter (using instead the Hebrew alphabet to write Yiddish). Yet, somehow, their descendants are leaders in knowledge industries.

      Delete
    5. M Simon,

      Thank you for those links. They are such excellent examples of how to do statistics badly, that I might think they were intended to be satire. Unfortunately, I know that is not true. When racists want to convince themselves that their racism is justified, they mangle science and/or statistics, just like any flat-earther would.

      Delete
    6. IQ is a measurement designed to make the psychologists who build the test feel smart.
      If I were in charge of building such a test, I don't think I could resist the temptation either.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  8. Trump ought to insist the diversity and inclusion be requirements in any new treaties with China, Russia, Iran or the Norks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Whites form high-trust...pleasant cultures" - SidV

    "My experience is the opposite" - 1-LowBrow IQ <80

    Suspicions confirmed!, my low functioning confused imbecile!
    Although, the State of FL would have recognized you as 'Trainable MR- mentally retarded'. That meant you could go wee wee and #2 all by yourself, BUT would need supervision wiping-up - sort of how you oftentimes smell around these Halls - tis such a shame they closed down Sunland Centers, I would have written you a glowing referral for admission.
    On Watch~~~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, aren't you just too nice!

      Delete
    2. Ha!
      If you want nice,
      go hang out in the
      Russian Tea Room, and
      don't open your mouth,
      you always put both feet in.
      OW~~~
      HAFND

      Delete
    3. On Watch~~~,

      Why would I go anywhere else, when you are so nice to me right here?

      I hope you are not confusing "nice" and "pleasant".

      Delete
    4. Daddy one Brow said:
      "Why would I go anywhere else"...

      To feed your rugrats, it's lunchtime Brow-less!
      OW~~~

      Delete
    5. My youngest rug rat is 15, and doesn't need me to butter his bread. Guess your stuck with me.

      Delete
    6. That's one glimmer of hope, liberals reproduce at an alarmingly low rate. Perhaps you are the exception onebrow, but please do not let that spread! :)


      - reader #1482

      Delete
  10. Just to throw more fuel on the fire. From MIT no less.

    How Persecution Made J*ws Smarter
    http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am grateful for your posts and the thoughtful comments of your readers. You and your readers comments inspire me to remember that common sense exists outside the Beltway and beyond the reach of left wing propaganda outlets.
    Of course, this is why Trump triumphed during the last election. Working & thinking people weren't going to vote for the lies anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Like the North Koreans, the democrats have a Songbun system

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah~~So you get permissio from the honor~rabble... She, who is annotated The Grand High BOSS over all lower life forms? THE '0' THE '1' whose head is so~so~~far~~up her Occupied/ Cortex! SPEAK NOW Glassshopper! WE HAVE WAYS TO MAKE YOU SING-SUNG!

      "...Songbun system as a “tool of oppression used by a single individual to further his gain.” This was a reference to Kim Il-sung who in the 1950s began implementing Songbun as party policy. As a result of this, Collins explained that Songbun remains “above [North Korea’s] constitution,” adding that since 1973 the elite have refined how to use it as a “tool of oppression.” He then proceeded to describe the social system in greater detail, noting that the system “is designed to make sure that those who are deemed trustworthy get what is best… [and] whatever is left over trickles down.” Collins continued to illustrate this by showing how Songbun permeates almost every aspect of a North Korean’s life including housing, food rations, employment, and clothing."

      ~~OWch~~
      ```where the cold wind blows```

      Delete
    2. hadn't read about the Songbun system before.. I knew there was "terrifying stuff" over in NK, but didn't see analysis that's been done of the mechanics there. thanks much Mr. Watch.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  13. I feel genuine sympathy for Diplomad. He posts that he is tired of racial debates and his knucklehead readership start a virtual race war in the comments section, ha. Accordingly i will stop with this:
    https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2018/05/14/eric-lander-apologizes-for-toasting-jim-watson/
    It is liberal sophisticated biomedical science blog that give grant writing advice. James watson, the double helix guy and noble prize laureate was recently destroyed (de-person-ed, fired and symbolically tared feathered etc) for expressing views similar to those above. Please note that ol Sid is trolling comments to the best of his meager abilities. My point. i don't thing you civilians have any idea how crazy and dangerous these issues have become within the .mil and .edu arenas. If they can take down JWatson for lord's sake...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well lets be honest now Sid, the old bastid was overdue for a shellacking -- long before he re-opined on the mental capabilities of our dark-skinned Bros & Sisis!

      His unforgiveable sin was ripping off the "double-helix" conceptual form from Roz Franklin, who received zilch and a foot-note, followed by premature death from exposure to X-Y-or-Z rays trying to capture the elusive genetic structure. Watson, on the other hand had a long celebrated life, before the revelation of what a cheap-trick he actually was! Real Americans don't care much for bullies or thieves! IMHO
      On Watch~~~

      Delete
    2. well i will concede he was off-putting in the extreme. read his biography, he comes across as a flake imo. nonetheless watching the Lilliputians gleefully tear down a 90 yr old man filled me with revulsion. Certainly the cowards were nowhere to be found when he was at the height of his powers and controlled all the funding in the area. I don't think Roz's contribution was conceptual. She had the actual data (xray cystalography?) that suggested a helix but couldn't make head or tails of it cuz she didn't have the other puzzle pieces. I could be wrong:(

      Delete
    3. She [R. Franklin] had the actual data (xray cystalography?) that suggested a helix but couldn't make head or tails of it cuz she didn't have the other puzzle pieces.

      Close to the facts Sid, but Watson, Crick et al didn't have what was probably the most important puzzle piece, the double helix imagery that Franklin through deadly lab experimentation revealed. The way I understand the events of that time. The Watson group had been unable to demonstrate fully how the genetic structure worked. Franklin's images were a double helix breakthrough, the molecular biological framework on which Watson & Co. were to affix their DNA hypothesis. The Franklin Biography by Brenda Maddox is a short book, worth a read on the subject.

      Agree the New Greens, Blacks, n' Browns are out there hunting-up targets for their Racist bullets and bombs 24/7 -- young or old. Watson as a Science Lab Director knows that the kind of rhetorical science he was disseminating was going to draw DemoProg fire, especially in New Yawk or on the Islant! Maybe it was his intention to stir it up - at 90 I suspect certain personalities are looking to leave their opinions for posterity, whether they're popular or poppycock.

      I liked Watson's son Rufus' statement to the press, but I couldn't find it again to quote, went something like: 'Dad's not a racist he just has a narrow interpretation of modern genetics. Anyhow Dad is out of it, and in a sanitarium since he was hit by an automobile recently.

      Maybe we should all start to give some thought to 'Force Protection' for GOP Grandpa's and Kids with Red Hats!?
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
  14. I read this blog post and yeah, I agree... the first rule of Race Club is that there is no talking about Race Club. Fnord.
    Find a specific injustice being done. Fix injustice where it's at. Trying to solve everything at this high level through macro-policies is for lazy people.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yo, One Brow?

    I noted above a, oh I'll call it a OB Wisdomism. Might you expand on this, "Since a bridge is something for people to use, bringing in the experiences of different kinds of people you hope will use it will help you build better bridges."?

    It may be true my 'experience of a bridge' is severely limited as compared to your's being is mine is that a bridge is something to get over stuff by. Most usually a water obstacle in my neck of the woods but I have been places where railroad tracks, other roadways, tarpits, and unstable earths have been bridged; still the 'over stuff' part seems generally to hold.

    I admit to some degree of exclusionary bias seeing as how I'm not so inclusive, diversitywise (as perhaps One Brow that's what you mean) to include 'bridge' in the senses of perhaps guitars and dentistry) but I expect you'll be along shortly to help me see my shortsightedness/shortcomings.

    I yield - One Brow you have the podium.

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It may be true my 'experience of a bridge' is severely limited as compared to your's being is mine is that a bridge is something to get over stuff by.

      I agree. The job of the engineer is to make your experience in getting stuff over whatever as easy as possible, so that when you do the getting stuff over action, it causes as little inconvenience as can be managed. So, how should ythey best go about it? That's why I put in:

      However, in the design of the bridge, choosing the location, selecting the materials, etc. (the rel (sic) engineering work), there are going to be different ways to look at the approaches, the costs, the traffic flow, etc.

      I live next to the Mississippi, and cross it to go to work most days. I have several bridges to choose from, and a couple of them have multiple entrances points. All of them were designed by engineers, and in some cases more than others, engineers who gave a thought to how the bridges were going to be used and by whom. There's a reason the two-lane (one in each direction) MLK bridge carries more traffic than the four-lane Eads bridge.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for you deigning One Brow,

      "There's a reason the two-lane (one in each direction) MLK bridge carries more traffic than the four-lane Eads bridge."

      I'd rather enjoyed your supplying the reason rather than me having to get onto my, what I'll call "presuming track" but since you didn't I will and you can come back and further my edification as you're inclined.

      Luckily in one way for me I'm familiar with both and something about being the one (Eads) was using "the best" 19th century *needs advancements* while the other (MLK) enjoying 20th, I presume diversity of experience wasn't so much considered as was the requirements of an advancing society?

      Long as the society remained tribal, and was going to always remain, having no bridge at all across the Big Muddy I suspect, the "diversity of experience" would have expressed itself as the preference, no?

      But society did advance, it advanced so much that it recognized just getting a transcontinental railroad across without having to depend on say, pontoon bridges wasn't gonna cut it hence, a two lane bridge (pontoon bridging's *resonance* not being such a good option when travel both-ways was gonna take place) would be perfectly fine.

      But then society advanced some more and with the development of the interstate highway system it dawned on the individuals experiencing that if only two lanes bridging was gonna be available then bottlenecks (not to mention outright stoppages) would inevitably result. Further hence, four-lanes bridging.

      (Smack myself about the forehead One Brow - had you not pointed out for me to consider "There's a reason" it would never have occurred to me that more goods and people can get over a four-lane bridge than a two-lane. Bounteous thankee-kindleys!)

      Still though the basic proposition you've pointed to "the experiences of different kinds of people" hasn't been so much shown to be advantageous in any way rather the opposite.

      Your example One Brow only illumines to me the common experiential that people prefer to cross rivers without the inconvenience of getting their feet wet.

      JK



      Delete
    3. JK,

      You seem to have misunderstood. The Eads bridge, with four lanes, has less traffic than the MLK, with two lanes. If you like, I can go into the details of why. It has to do with entrance points, traffic patterns, etc. The stuff you need an engineer to evaluate.

      Delete
    4. Oh no One Brow what we're having here is sort of a Cool Hand Luke non-conversation.

      The Eads, is it not, 19th century planning, the MLK 20th century?

      Rather like, if you will, increasing the rate of internet traffic without increasing the diameter of the conductor owing to, advancement of gate-way technology?

      Let's go back to the suggestion of your's I asked about above:

      "Since a bridge is something for people to use, bringing in the experiences of different kinds of people you hope will use it will help you build better bridges."

      Do you suppose different kinds of people needed to be consulted or just one kind?

      (Kind n. class, sort, variety.)

      JK

      Delete
    5. JK,

      Do you suppose different kinds of people needed to be consulted or just one kind?

      Do you suppose different kinds of people will use this bridge, or just one kind? For example, "kind" here might be a commuter who drive 40 miles every day before crossing the bridge versus a local person whose house is going to be 5 minutes away. Don't you think all of these people need to be considered?

      Delete
  16. In order to stay in control of dictating the rules, no one can know what the current set of rules are. Otherwise, the rules could be debated and challenged rationally. Hence, the goalposts cannot be static, or even visible in broad daylight. It’s by Prog design. No one can find a specific injustice, because the definition of injustice is constantly changing. See Smollet, Hayden Williams, Rep. Omar...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no doubt... what was that state which was banned from hosting any public events whatsoever because it didn't want middle aged men perving on young girls in the bathroom?
      punishment over a non-specific 'injustice' right there.
      "I feel hurt because I might have wanted to do what was banned!"

      I'm approaching my 6 month 'no news' chip... and I encourage it in everybody (except our Dear Dip)... What've I missed? technically 'everything' but in actuality 'nothing of value'. I think I could sum it up as "Donald Trump sparks faux outrage by liberals ad nauseum."

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Deprivation is GREAT Therapy #1482! ~~~ My annual escape from the everyday reality of the nitwits, included a week off the grid on a walk-about along the Olde Florida coast! No amenities other than a backpack of chow pup tent, and a bar of soap! After a day or two I found myself unable to stay awake after sundown or asleep after sunrise! The wind waves sun rain and fresh air scraped off the crusty veneer of "civilized" society. I followed the route of the Barefoot Mailman, occasionally talking to folks along the way who wanted to speak~~~

      When I got back home I was a changed man! I flipped on the tube and was transfixed by the color of the content, interpersonal relationships with family became almost spiritual (at least for the following week)- all that, without even a toke along the way, although I did have few words with ODIN~~~ Today, I'm anxiously awaiting the signs of Spring to signal my annual retreat, not very unlike the signal I get to hibernate in the Winter~~~ recently had an opportunity to attend a Regenerative Medicine lecture by A sweet lady physiologist, 30years into her research on circadian rhythms in rats, and higher order mammals, like me(I think)~~~ Now that I know what I was escaping from, just taking a break from the over-stim of modern socialist society, I understand your methodology!

      As to your self-cure, sounds like NO News is better than FAKE News! As they say(learned scholars), All things in Moderate portions, even Moderate portions!
      SKOAL! & Welcome Back!
      On Watch~~~

      Delete
    3. Aye... sounds like a dream... amazingly, and quite disappointingly to Mr. Schrodinger, the world does continue to evolve without my observation.
      I do make an exception for Mr. Dip's dear blog here, but that is just about it, and only because I have read it for so long and it's been so smut-free.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  17. No one can find a specific injustice, because the definition of injustice is constantly changing.

    Honestly, you pretty much have to blind yourself to miss them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More people should *miss* them... instead, we get The Army Of Facebook Outrage roaming around weighing in on matters after a 20 second judgement. It's the liberal way: Judge, then look, then move on.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  18. I must urge you all to read Spandrell's enormously insightful three-part essay on Bioleninism. Part One is here, with links to the rest.

    ReplyDelete