Posts Made By: Richard Davis

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

I cant believe you would buy into the theory as you appear to be doing. I did review the paper before making the decision to call it bullshit. The Free Beacon article was not all that far off the mark. The actual paper has a few legitimate points IMHO. But it appears to be long on supposition and short on hard data. In other words they used a few salient points to construct a pile of ridiculous BS pushing critical race theory without hard data to back up their suppositions. Not exactly a new thing LOL.....

No Greg, you're correct.  This research paper claiming that Geo Science is racist is complete BS.  The problem for you is that you think and have a brain that can recognize utter garbage masquerading as scholarship.  JB and RK are simply impressed with anyone who has a PhD after their name.

They don't reason, they believe as so many on the left do, that if one has a "title" that sounds impressive, then they must automatically have some sort of expertise on the subject.  

I like you, read the "scientific" article which amounted to a bunch of HS.  The very first supportive document (#1 in the footnotes) used to backup their pseudoscientific assertions began with the incredibly impressive evidence that 90% of all PhDs were awarded to "white people" as the "scientific" article claimed, which of course could only mean that the GeoSciences are Implicitly racist.  Nothing else of evidence was provided to back up the assertion.  It was pretty much just that and only that.  

Here was the 2nd paragraph (of the footnoted article):  "The geosciences are among the least diverse science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields in the United States, with almost 90% of doctoral degrees awarded to White people1. And racial diversity in PhD-level Earth scientists has not improved over the past four decades, with faculty of colour holding only 3.8% of tenured or tenure track positions in the top 100 geoscience departments2. The less diverse a field, the less welcoming it is to minorities, and the more prevalent implicit biases become. Combined with structural and social factors, the relative homogeneity in geoscience reinforces the dominant culture. As a result, women3, people from sexual and gender minorities4, and Black and Hispanic people5 all leave the field at higher rates than the average student or practitioner".

Oh, so since 90% of the PhDs are awarded to "white people'.... well then, that certainly is cocksure evidence that the GeoSciences are 'racist'.

Yes, yes, of course that's it.  The field isn't diverse, and therefore it must then be "unwelcoming" to minorities, which of course leads to the Logical conclusion (NOT) that there are "implicit biases" in said science.  

Yeah, that's some real "scholarship" there isn't it!   LOL  

BTW Greg, you may have noticed that the 2nd link that JB put forth was the academic credentials of the author the article.

Is that supposed to impress us?  She's got a piece of paper behind her name that indicates that some other academicians awarded her a PhD, therefore her logic is beyond reproach?? 

Sorry, that garners zero weight in my book, especially since her PhD is in Geology.  So then that makes her an expert in the psychological aspects of the subject of racism in Geo Sciences?  Not hardly. 

Being that the left has become (well they always were) the party of racism and racists, is it no surprise that a 3rd judge recently struck down the racist farm aid program that Joe Biden put in place. 

Hopefully, all of the Racist, Fascist, Marxist agendas that define the left will get reversed as they should. 

The Marxist Democrats are truly the party of racism, from their days of their Ku Klux Klan to their Jim Crow laws, to their racist farm aid programs. 

They are now and always have been the disgrace of this nation, with their Anti-Semitic "Squad House Members", AOC, Rashida Talib, and the despicable Ilhan Omar, who should have been rebuked by her party, but instead was propped up by the disgusting Nancy Pelosi. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-third-judge-strikes-down-bidens-racist-farm-aid-program-that-excludes-whites

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Welcome back Rich!! 

Gonna be some some disappointed liberals whining shortly LOL.....

Hi Greg.  Thanks! Glad to be back.  After reading the utter nonsense that has been posted here by those on the left for the last several months, I just thought I'd add my 2 cents now and then.  

Probably won't be chiming in too often but we'll see how it goes. 

I think we're in the fight of our lives in this country today politically.  

This reaction by JB towards your posting was very telling of his mindset:  "the Free Beacon headlines and analysis totally and irresponsibly distort the article and the author's message".

I would simply ask, where did the Free Beacon totally distort her article and her message?  

I actually had to reread JB's response to you and wonder to myself "was JB making a joke to you"?  

I mean to say his assertions about the Free Beacon "totally distorting the article and the author's message" belies any semblance of logic and reason whatsoever.  

The Free Beacon article was short, concise, and spot on.  They used the very words of the author's drivel "scholarship" and commented upon it, so I'd just like to know, how exactly is that "total distortion of her message".  

The only distortion I noticed, was his reaction to your posting, claiming that you bought into the spin of the Free Beacon.   

In fact his response and reaction are evidence that he's apparently just another gullible Republican, buying into the utter garbage of the WOKE left.

Maybe his attack on your posting, is evidence that he's now a proud member of that group.

Whatever the reason is, that's pretty sad commentary on his part.  

Greg, have a great day!  

Originally Posted by Steven Moore

Wow Welcome Back Richard! I agree with Greg!

Hi Steve.  Thanks!

I agree with Greg as well.

It appears that we now have WOKE Republicans on the forum who are now happy to buy into the left's complete BS hook, line, and sinker.

Pathetic as it is, they are just another tool of the left to promulgate the garbage of the left to the rest of society.

I hope we save this Republic because those on the left are the most dangerous threat to our nation.

And that garbage bit of scholarship JB linked, claiming this:

Background

Racism thrives in geoscience1. Geoscience organizations function alongside the same racist ideologies and practices shaping society.


is now teaching the children and young adults of this nation. 

Karl Marx said it well:  “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions.”

Yep, give them the children and they will mold their minds into good little servants of the state.  

Reminds me of Mao's China.

Their mission is to infiltrate the minds of the kids with their cancerous message of hate and division.  

The Marxist Democrats of today are the cancer of society.  

Scary stuff.

We need to beat them back with everything we have.  

Originally Posted by James Brown

The Beacon took one quote about the rock hammer out of context and built a false narrative that the article is about, "A group of scientists say black Americans are scared to use hammers needed for geology because of fear they will be killed by police."  The article was actually about a black immigrant's experiences with subtle racism and bias in an industry she knows well.  I think we ought to try to understand her position (not mock it as the Beacon does) even if we do not agree.  Hers is a valid and informative point of view.

Jim 

Hi Jim,  I completely disagree.

You say that the article from the Beacon took the hammer quote out of context.

It appears to me that you're reverting to the leftist's tired and worn out excuse that they use whenever they are stuck defending complete and utter idiocy by employing the phrase"taking out of context..."

Since you now are using that cop out above, please inform me and explain what she is implying in this portion of her scholarly work:

"Historically, access has been limited to mostly able-bodied, white, cisgender, heterosexual men. As the geosciences strive to be more accessible, the community must recognize that BIPOC and other marginalized geoscientists are not always safe in geoscience spaces. For example, holding objects (e.g., a rock hammer) has been viewed as “suspicious” and, continues to be, used as a reason to call the police on Black people, which can lead to the death of Black individuals, entirely because of racial profiling and an unjustified fear of Black people."

Please address her assertion that "marginalized geoscientists are not always safe in geoscience spaces"

What is the "context" of her assertion there?  

She then goes on to actually provide an example of just exactly WHY the "marginalized scientist" may not or doesn't "feel safe in geoscience spaces".  

It appears to me that she says " holding objects (e.g., a rock hammer) has been viewed as “suspicious” and, continues to be, used as a reason to call the police on Black people, which can lead to the death of Black individuals"

I mean to say that one has to be some sort of psychotic mental case to make a correlation between "holding a rock hammer", HER words and then coming to her bizarre conclusions above.

If you are on board with that psychotically freakish "analysis" that holding a rock hammer somehow instills fear of the black individual to correlate "suspicion" with a reason to call police on a black person, then I'd submit you're as loony as she is.  

My take on her assertion is that she equates a rock hammer with the idea that some potential geologist who is black, might perhaps make a connection with police ending up killing blacks if they hold a weapon, therefore there is some sort of deep-seated anxiety that holding a rock hammer would instill in a minority, a thought which then causes the black student not to want to enter the field of anthropology or geology.

I'd submit that is some convoluted, delusional, lunatic reasoning.  

And why do I have that take on her article??  Because in the paragraph I noted, she says "for example".  

The entire article and her premise is utterly asinine, without any merit in factuality, and not worth the paper it is written upon.  

I've always said that anyone can find racism anywhere, even under a rock (no pun intended) if they want a reason to find racism.

Her paper is the perfect example of that.

You're free to defend any stupidity that another person utters regardless of, or should I say due to their degrees hanging on a wall.  If you want to give her "scholarly work" merit, that's your prerogative of course.  

I'll choose instead to call it out for what it is, asinine moronic WOKE garbage coming from the left. 

P.S. If she wasn't implying that using a rock hammer instills a fear in the black individual due to their apparently innate belief that holding a weapon might lead to their death, then why in the world would she even mention that?  In other words, what is the point of that entire paragraph in her article, if it wasn't to imply that blacks could be afraid of using a rock hammer and FEAR DEATH as SHE stated?  

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg:

Your perspective is presented much more fairly than the Beacon's.   I too doubt that overt racism drives the overwhelming whiteness of geology.  I totally accept that geosciences is a non-diverse field though.  The subtle historical and regional underpinnings of this easily demonstrated relative minority underrepresentation  are worth discussing, and the author's perspective is particularly relevant.  A lot more relevant than my perspective for instance.   

As you note, the Beacon exists to push an agenda.  No worries there - in my opinion they over did it in this case, by a lot.  Jim

Ok, then provide the evidence that they overdid it, by a lot, as you claim.  

Other than the rock hammer example, you've provided nothing else to support your assertions about the Free Beacon, and so you might want to consider that the author was the one who brought up the whole idiotic subject of blacks correlating rock hammers with weapons and that police shoot black people who use weapons, with her implication that fear of using a rock hammer is a reason that so few blacks go into the field of geology.  

Can you provide any other evidence to prove how they (the Free Beacon) "overdid it, by a LOT"?  

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg:

Your perspective is presented much more fairly than the Beacon's.   I too doubt that overt racism drives the overwhelming whiteness of geology.  I totally accept that geosciences is a non-diverse field though.  The subtle historical and regional underpinnings of this easily demonstrated relative minority underrepresentation  are worth discussing, and the author's perspective is particularly relevant.  A lot more relevant than my perspective for instance.   

As you note, the Beacon exists to push an agenda.  No worries there - in my opinion they over did it in this case, by a lot.  Jim

Oh, and the author herself does NOT have an agenda to push?

Are you that blind to it?  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Funny how bias influences perspectives when viewing the same material..... The bottom line is the article proposes that racism is the reason there are little other than white people in the Geo Science field. If you agree with that then there is little hope for you lol. She took a simple fact and constructed a ridiculous premise around it using the current critical race theory being pushed by the left...... I admit the news piece was fed by bias as well since it highlights one ridiculous claim in the paper to make hay with. That said the paper earned my title for it......using supposition and almost nothing in the way of proofs besides a biased perspective.....

After careful analysis, I've come to the conclusion that your header "Dumbest thing on the net today", is spot on in its labeling.  

The article written by Dr. Ali is so completely asinine that it deserves no merit whatsoever.  

I say that because when someone postulates an idiotic supposition and then uses the most convoluted reasoning to come to their wanted outcome, that use of stupidity and nonsense casts doubt on their entire premise and their scholarship, and should be called out for the psuedoscience that it is. 

I.e. what I mean is that she's made a preconceived notion that GeoSciences are racist, therefore she must prove her statement, and as such has jumped through hoops and distorted evidence to support her nonsensical pre-determined conclusions.  

It is becoming more and more a sad day for truth and knowledge when this kind of garbage coming out of academia influences their methods and their teachings.  

Pretty sad.  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's in the article, if you take the time to to read it and try to understand what she is saying:

Access implies that individuals can obtain the resources they need to safely pursue their science endeavors; regardless of location, instrumentation, site accessibility, and their identity. Historically, access has been limited to mostly able-bodied, white, cisgender, heterosexual men. As the geosciences strive to be more accessible, the community must recognize that BIPOC and other marginalized geoscientists are not always safe in geoscience spaces.

What are geoscience spaces? Well, I'm sure geoscientists do a lot of their fieldwork in remote locations, but I'm equally sure they do a lot in urban settings. Think urban fracking and drilling. Her point is that a POC walking around swinging a hammer is much more likely to be viewed suspiciously and ultimately harassed. I'm confident what she is saying is true. Why? Because it's true for all kinds of activities and spaces. There are too many cases to list where POC engage in regular activity for a white person in a public area, yet they are viewed suspiciously and harassed.

When and where are geologists 'walking down the street swinging a hammer', not in the area of the geology being performed?

Provide an example please to support your assertion.  

Are there a lot of police officers on site in fracking areas, and drilling areas?

Where exactly does Urban Fracking occur? 

Downtown LA?  

Where does urban drilling occur?

Downtown Philadelphia?  

To say that your argument above is 'weak' is insulting to, and doing a disservice to 'weak arguments'.

Your suppositions are beyond absurd. 

P.S. what I have read about regarding fracking in Texas is that drilling and fracking are encroaching on certain areas, however it isn't in Downtown Dallas or in highly congested home developments. 

I travel to Arvada, Colo. near Denver quite often and the influx of homes and housing developments has inundated the former farmlands in that area.

There are a few holdouts of those who have large plots of land within these communities who apparently won't sell their homes to the developers, however I don't believe that any company would frack there without having the entire area cordoned off and fenced to keep individuals out.

To imagine that someone walking around on the site, inside the fence, carrying a rock hammer would be 'harassed' by the police as you claim, strikes me as illogical and not likely to occur.  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

It's not the "positions" that are ridiculous, it's the utter futility of you being impervious to logic, reasoning and understanding that is ridiculous and of course, you did disappoint in failing to do so again and again... 

Great, inform us oh great oracle of the logic that supports the absurd Idea that GeoScience is racist.