The Politics Thread 4

[That]

"I think admissions officers should make decisions based on a holistic picture of the candidate's background"
"Oh yeah? CHOOSE FROM THESE FOUR DUMB MADE-UP EDGE CASE OPTIONS I DESCRIBED IN A FEW WORDS EACH BEREFT OF ANY CONTEXT"

You sure showed me Hexx, well played as always.

[Hexx]

"I think admissions officers should make decisions based on a holistic picture of the candidate's background"
"Oh yeah? CHOOSE FROM THESE FOUR DUMB MADE-UP EDGE CASE OPTIONS I DESCRIBED IN A FEW WORDS EACH BEREFT OF ANY CONTEXT"

You sure showed me Hexx, well played as always.

Well aren't you a little grumpus today?

I asked because of your unnecessary inclusion to the earlier discussion (note: your "holistic" contexting came in later when challenged) directly contradicted the message you were trying to convey and I copied your **deep breath** 'made up edge case options [you] described in a few words'. I mean you get that you could replace "Four" with "Two" and it's pretty much the exact same exercise you asked right*? Approach you on the basis you introduced! How dare I??

You're struggling because you've backed yourself into the position of trying to reconcile the two positions "We should make decisions based on a fuller understanding on their situation" and "I used those terms so people would make assumptions about their situation." I found the dichotomy amusing - I actually thought your answer would be along the lines of "Gosh those things can sneak up inadvertently on you, can't they lol ?". No need to be such an arse about it.

(Edit: *Actually that's not true. Mine an open question. Yours was presented to lead to a statement of 'fact'. "She is" I mean that's what triggered me. "A poor black state school student that gets 95% across all her exams is (my emphasis) way, way smarter than a rich white Etonian that gets 96% across all his exams". Do you really not see a problem with presenting that as a statement of fact? Particularly when placed next to arguing people should take a "holistic understanding" of situatiions? Really? You don't see poor language and presentation that? I mean even "nearly all of the time she is" or similar wouldn't have been an issue - but to be that definitive seems....counter the message you're trying to say elsewhere? I agree with the underlying message (and I'd go further. Who cares? The results are close enough and black/women/poor are under represented, and plurality of life experience in a field can be enriching)...but that certainty really really irked.

[That]

You're projecting super hard. Why ask me to elaborate on what I meant by using a phrase at all if you're not going to accept the explanation?

The difference between what I was doing with my example and what you're doing, is that I presented the most obvious possible example of where 'positive discrimination' would produce a better outcome, whereas you are trying to make light of the process based on edge cases where the 'discriminants' conflict. Your mistake is not realising that I was never arguing for a robotic rules-based system.

[Hexx]

I was never arguing for a robotic rules-based system.

.

Except you were arguing something black/white. That's what I was pointing out to you (and I've edited in above sorry, and no where near those words - certainly not robotic rules based). You weren't even talking about outcomes.

Do you agree that a poor black state school student that gets 95% across all her exams is way, way smarter than a rich white Etonian that gets 96% across all his exams? Because she is

That to me is the problem. I'd have had no issue with "Because she probably is" or "because she almost certainly is" (Although I think there's not need to bring sex into into, or race). Or("Who cares. About 1% difference in scores the world needs more variety in views points"...but "Because she is". Eurgh

I'm all for positive discrimination (and "holistic understanding" to help apply it where needed). But (perhaps it's because you had in mind your hypothetical examples) what you wrote first didn't reflect that.

You didn't write it as "black"being an indicator of disadvantage, your wrote it as though black being proof (or to put more provocatively to try and show a point...you used black as a synonym for disadvantage)

And that's just clumsy (and again counter to what you said later) [To be absolutely clear I think it was inadvertent and nothing was meant by it, and the section above this presents it way more provocatively than need to try and illustrate etc - but I still think it was very very poorly written]

[Hexx]

I was never arguing for a robotic rules-based system.

.

Except you were arguing something black/white. That's what I was pointing out to you (and I've edited in above sorry, and no where near those words - certainly not robotic rules based). You weren't even talking about outcomes.

Do you agree that a poor black state school student that gets 95% across all her exams is way, way smarter than a rich white Etonian that gets 96% across all his exams? Because she is

That to me is the problem. I'd have had no issue with "Because she probably is" or "because she almost certainly is" (Although I think there's not need to bring sex into into, or race). Or("Who cares. About 1% difference in scores the world needs more variety in views points"...but "Because she is". Eurgh

I'm all for positive discrimination (and "holistic understanding" to help apply it where needed). But (perhaps it's because you had in mind your hypothetical examples) what you wrote first didn't reflect that.

You didn't write it as "black"being an indicator of disadvantage, your wrote it as though black being proof (or to put more provocatively to try and show a point...you used black as a synonym for disadvantage)

And that's just clumsy (and again counter to what you said later) [To be absolutely clear I think it was inadvertent and nothing was meant by it, and the section I wrote above this presents it way more provocatively than need to try and illustrate etc - but I still think it was very very poorly written]

I mean all I was trying to point out that you'd effectively said these two things next to each other

Karl 1: "The black kid from a poor school is smarter than the a white kid from a good school with the same results"
Karl 2: "We should look into detail about people's situation (qualitative and quantitative) before making a judgement"

Can you at least seem the contrast there? Karl 2 is great. Karl 2 is dandy. More people should be like Karl 2. Karl 1 though...(And he's probably right...but...only very likely to be. It's that 'IS' man. Hate it )

[That]

Okay Hexx. "In any realistic scenarios I can think of, in my field," a poor state school girl would "be likely to face significant barriers compared with" a rich private school boy to achieve similar exam scores at A2. If she were of an ethnic minority, "I would also seriously factor in possible effects of racism or cultural differences" when comparing their scores.

Do you feel better now?

[Hexx]

And don’t do it again!

[NickSCFC]

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/femail/artic ... endum.html

[Hexx]

Jesus

[Rex Kramer]

I'd say he's 9/10ths of the problem Hexx.

[Moggy]

UKIP banana split in “definitely not racist” shocker.

twitter.com/goddersbloom/status/998592528000737282

[Hexx]

Jesus strawberry float

[Jenuall]

What the strawberry float? The racists really just don't give a gooseberry fool about hiding their feelings any more do they?

[Squinty]

So I hear you're a racist now General.

[Vermilion]

Although i'm sure many of you will recoil in horror and turn to stone upon glancing at the source of this article, the following column regarding air pollution is actually pretty decent...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6363250/b ... -wheezing/

Wood burners have popped up all over the place around here recently, and there has been a significant drop in air quality as a result.

It's about time someone highlighted the issue as i really can't stand the things.

[Winckle]

Although i'm sure many of you will recoil in horror and turn to stone upon glancing at the source of this article, the following column regarding air pollution is actually pretty decent...

https://www.thes*n.co.uk/news/6363250/b ... -wheezing/

Wood burners have popped up all over the place around here recently, and there has been a significant drop in air quality as a result.

It's about time someone highlighted the issue as i really can't stand the things.

Don't click that link.

[That]

I'm interested in what exactly appealed to Vermilion about that article. Was it the sneering at "eco-freaks" and "climate change fanatics"? The flowing, eloquent prose and nuanced consideration of the racist bigot Rod Liddle? The thumbnail of a hungover holidaymaker's bum in the sidebar?

Energy policy is complex, far-reaching, and the best course of action is (and should be!) constantly under review. But that doesn't make for a good premise for a histrionic article about enviroMENTAL cuckflakes, I guess?

[Winckle]

Reactionaries gonna be reactionary.

[NickSCFC]

twitter.com/goddersbloom/status/999658334579056641

That profile pic, so much gammon, delicious

[Hexx]

The thing about Gammons?....They're always salty. [ -> , I'm too lazy to find the .gif]