Posts Made By: Greg Shaffer

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg:

I don't believe that you or Rich have disputed that blacks and women are underrepresented in the geosciences, relative to population numbers of course, but also relative to black and woman representation in other science and engineering disciplines.  If you dispute this basic premise, please let me know.

If not, Then I am sure that we could come up with some reasons, maybe compelling innocuous reasons, why this disparity may exist.  Reasons other than subtle historical bias against blacks and women.  Personally, I think that subtle historical bias against blacks and women is a real and important part of the answer to the question of, "why are blacks and women are underrepresented in the geosciences?"  Maybe not the only reason, but an important one.   

Along comes a black woman working in this field.  Her perspective is valuable even if her examples are not overly compelling (as James pointed out pretty well).  Rather than try to appreciate her perspective and broader meaning, and rather than considering her actual point, Rich and the Beacon (and to a lesser extent you) go straight to mocking her, as if subtle bias in the geosciences is not and never was a thing.  As if the possibility of racial or gender bias in this field is so far beyond rational discussion as to be properly subject to ridicule. 

Agree with her or not, she has experiences that are valid to this discussion.  Jim

You are correct but I will speak only for myself, I dont dispute blacks are under represented in Geo Sciences. As Rich pointed out were it following the population it would be around 1 in 10 and I am sure it is quite a bit less than that. 1 in 50? Less? Who knows....but a lot less. 

That said, the paper she wrote tries to assign the blame for that to racism using systemic and critical race theory which is a pile of bull shit..... I dont doubt there may be some small portion of racism there but trying to claim it is the root cause is ridiculous. Simply put the primary cause is likely as simple as the field does not hold enough interest when the bulk of the population we are talking about grew up in inner city environments.

No desire here to appreciate the perspective of someone who obviously buys into "Racism is the cause" of all our problems. I have not mocked her......I just think she is playing the race baiting game that is so popular with the left. I have seen racism, I grew up with it in my face everyday. Anyone who buys into racism being as prevalent as it was 30 to 50 years ago is an idiot, even 20 years ago...... There is less racism present today by FAR than any time in our country's history yet the left wants to make everything about racism. It simply isnt. Of course the media plays its part as well in pushing it because it sells. Racism is dying.....let it die, but of course it sells so politicians feed it as well as the media......

Well it certainly didnt take long for Rich to get you guys falling all over yourselves and frothing at the mouth again......LOL

While I appreciate your concessions that I have made a few good points James I can tell you one thing we appear to drastically differ on regarding the woman and her "scientific" paper.

The way I see it she used her status and position to wrongly attribute racism as the primary cause of the lack of interest of minorities in Geo Sciences with NO supporting justifications. She tried to use critical race theory to build a case for it.....just because that theory is all the rage right now doesnt excuse the ridiculous claims she made in doing so.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Actually, Greg, most rational people would read this thread and conclude that the only person angry and exhibiting rage was Rich. It is always interesting though how our biases impact how we perceive others.

Yep...the facts I see here is Rich has stated fact after fact and asked for anyone to show how they arent. So far all anyone has done is display anger and resentment at being questioned. Pretty much the norm in other words

Of course obviously the conclusion is I am not rational LOL.....

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg:

I see your quotes around the word "science."    I think we agree that her article was obviously much more of an opinion piece than any attempt at science. The Beacon more or less paints this as a research article published in a prestigious journal, as this characterization advances their narrative. 

The article was labeled as a "perspective" though, so I think the audience was warned that this was her opinion, not science.  The nature of the article (opinion v. science) may be one reason for why we approach the article and view the content so differently.  Jim

Looks amazingly like a "peer reviewed" article published by a "scientific" journal to me.....it is presented as such but I agree with the characterization "opinion piece" whole heartedly. I briefly looked and may indeed have missed it but I did not see any statement that characterized it as a "perspective".

Originally Posted by James Brown

p.s.  This is not technically true.  She footnotes other works from people researching racism in the geosciences.  We don't need to get into it, unless you want to, I am sure you will find fault with her sources if we dig into them.  But she does indeed have supporting justification cited in her article.  

Jim

I didnt review ALL the supporting footnotes but the ones I did check offered no more proof than she did. More than plenty of supposition without hard facts though.....

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"And whether we choose to engage his walls of blabber and obfuscation has nothing to do with the fact that he was wrong about the farm-aid bill and entirely bought into the misinformation and propaganda that the DailyWire peddles routinely."
And that's where both Rich and subsequently Greg get their "facts" from when they state they presented "the facts"...

Lets just deal with ONE of the points Rich used.....You used the democrat lie of a party swap to avoid the democrats racism guilt. Rich challenged you to list the names of the swappers.....it is a matter of record. Its been several years since I looked but as I recall 2 or 3 guys changed parties back then. Your party has been lying about it for decades though and you personally have voiced it several times on this forum....

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

You fell for the straw man. This topic is about the misleading Daily Wire article about the Farm Aid bill that Davis swallowed hook, line, and sinker. James correctly explained the bill and its faults.  So instead of admitting his mistake, Davis brings up the KKK, Jim Crow, party switching, and a bunch of other crap that has nothing to do with the topic. Classic straw man.

No I didnt.... I addressed ONE thing that Lacey brought into the conversation with this  "Not the least of which is that you miss that the Democratic party underwent a dramatic change after the Civil War."

He then continued to expand on that lie which is easily debunked by checking the records......There was no "party swap" or mass exodus from the Dems to the Reps. Yet it is a lie repeated often and loudly from the left when called on their historically bad record on racism. Lacey has made that argument several times on this forum and it is still a lie lol

Unless you are claiming Lacey is the straw man in this one which in that case we agree

Originally Posted by Edmond Beaudoin

Okay, if I am seeing all the ads, I guess that frequency that ads are posted is very low. Like maybe 2-3 a day? Like for today I'm only seeing 2 ads, one at 1:08PM and one at 3:45PM in the "Astromart Classifieds" category. Can you confirm?

Thanks, Ed

I cant ever recall a time when there were only 2 or 3 new ads in a day here.....the popular categories all have 1 or more new ads per day and there are close to a dozen popular ones......

Originally Posted by James Lacey

No, there was, and it's easy to see if you look at electoral maps over time. For yourself, you can see the South shift from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican starting around the beginning of the civil-rights era. I'm not sure why you and Rich get hung up on the "name them then!" canard. Have you never heard of the Dixiecrats for example?

Sure you do.....because we know you cant. Sorry that frustrates you lol