What I don't understand are the people who say things like "political correctness is killing us" as if being a dick and offending/marginalizing people is some sort of cornerstone of our society. Why not try to be a respectful human being?

Because it's not really anyone's place to dictate what is and isn't acceptable to say and think.

There's a stark difference between going up to a black person and yelling nigger in their face or just simply harassing them for being black, and saying black people are subordinate to whites. The latter is a legitimately disgusting thing to say, yes, but your best tool for combating that kind of speech is open discourse and mockery, not by shutting down what they have to say.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/goldsmiths-union-insists-it-isnt-racist-or-sexist-after-their-diversity-officer-banned-white-people-10200703.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/16/uc-teaching-faculty-members-not-to-criticize-race-based-affirmative-action-call-america-melting-pot-and-more/
http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Interrupt_Microaggressions.pdf

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 16, 2015, 06:50:27 PM

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 05:33:49 PM

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 16, 2015, 12:40:45 PM

See, I don't really buy into this self flagellation meme that white people should all be compensatory towards blacks because they happened to be enslaved some 300 odd years ago. No contemporary African American has ever been afflicted by institutionalized slavery, nor do I believe there is some kind of embedded oppression within society disadvantaging them. The playing fields have, by and large, been pretty much levelled for blacks sans maybe the judicial system.

I fail to see why we should start treating them like infants with no agency, and then setting them up to be discriminated within the work force. It's counter-productive at best, and damaging to both blacks and the people who have actually worked hard for their desired professions.

Do you believe that, in this case, blacks and whites occupy the same socioeconomic brackets/distributions? If not, why do you think they do not?

Obviously not, but giving blacks a hall pass through life without the proper tools isn't going to alleviate that.

It's hardly a hallpass

Setting the bar lower than other people are expected to pass on the basis of skin colour? That is a hall pass if I ever saw one.

smash that mufckn like button

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 16, 2015, 03:34:04 AM

Dude, you don't need really academic studies to demonstrate that AA at face value is simply just positive discrimination in favour of blacks. It's such a patently patronising outlook to have on minorities, and is only setting them up for failure by setting standards at such ridiculously low levels. If you genuinely believe all races are equal, then you should subscribe to the notion that they should not receive arbitrary privileges simply because of a demographic they belong to.

If you're still not convinced then Affirmative Action Around The World by economist Thomas Sowell is a fantastic academic paper debunking myriad myths surrounding AA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_World
http://www.economist.com/node/2765848

Positive discrimination is a valid way of putting it, yes. I disagree that it is patronizing though. I view it as a realistic response to the fact that history has been unkind to them. They are not inherently worse than anyone, but our society and history has put them at a major disadvantage. I believe that the races are equally well off so long as all else is equal, which has never been the case. AA is merely another attempt at bringing the current state of things closer to such an ideal.

You believe they are setting the standards too low; that might not be something I disagree with.

Thanks for linking something substantive though. Looks like a long one, I'll have to find time to read it later. Can't view the economist link though; I'm getting a paywall. Fuck that.

See, I don't really buy into this self flagellation meme that white people should all be compensatory towards blacks because they happened to be enslaved some 300 odd years ago. No contemporary African American has ever been afflicted by institutionalized slavery, nor do I believe there is some kind of embedded oppression within society disadvantaging them. The playing fields have, by and large, been pretty much levelled for blacks sans maybe the judicial system.

I fail to see why we should start treating them like infants with no agency, and then setting them up to be discriminated within the work force. It's counter-productive at best, and damaging to both blacks and the people who have actually worked hard for their desired professions.

Darts.

>structured arguments
>/b/

/b/ is like the entry level board for summerfags who think they're edgy by browsing 4chan. It's nothing but shitposting.

capeshit market crash when?

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 15, 2015, 08:26:49 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 15, 2015, 08:25:20 AM

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 15, 2015, 08:24:32 AM

Here's a thought Verb, would you be comfortable giving me the passwords to your Sep7 and email accounts? After all, if you have no problem abdicating your privacy to the state, then you should have no problem abdicating your privacy to me.

You have nothing to hide, after all, right?

I'd have no problem with that at all, no. I'd need a good reason, though.

I want to see if you really do believe any of this anti natalist crap.

PM me your details when your ready.

Actually, no, I'd be against that--because you could read the PMs that I've received.

That crosses a line, because now you're invading other people's privacy, as well.

So... on second thought, no, I'd be against that.
But only because it imposes on other people who might not agree with me.

So I guess privacy is important then.

Here's a thought Verb, would you be comfortable giving me the passwords to your Sep7 and email accounts? After all, if you have no problem abdicating your privacy to the state, then you should have no problem abdicating your privacy to me.

You have nothing to hide, after all, right?

>even adequate women are proven to weaken cohesion
To which I pointed out that it was because many of the women failed to pull their weight in situations, which means that testing had failed to weed out candidates, and that these women were not actually adequate for the job in the first place. If a woman can pull her weight, you have to give a reason to disallow her.

Which has already been explicitly outlined if you had even bothered to listen. Women have substantially less muscle and bone mass as well as significantly disadvantaged aerobic capabilities to their male counterparts. This is a proven biological, incontestable fact, even for those who can pass the military guidelines that males are also required to pass. Like fuck sake, what do you not understand?

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada398256
Combat isn't just the ability to meet physical demands. Cohesion requires the unit to maintain morale under significant waves of destruction, and it has been demonstrated time and time again that the introduction of women under combat situations has demonstrably effected the unit's capacity to facilitate that cohesiveness, regardless of said women's physiological capabilities.

>psychological factors
Inconclusive and based in hypothesis rather than theory. Positing that background "social influences" are more powerful and dangerous than emotional bonds made between friends is so ripe ridiculous it doesn't need refuting

"The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lt Dave Grossman is a reputable academic paper on this issue and is far from being an inconclusive hypothesis. I suggest you read it since I'm clearly not getting through to you.

The IDF has faced innumerable issues in regards to gender integration within extreme combat situations, and is anything but a social issue. Men's innate biological imperatives to protect the female has resulted in the IDF's inability to competently control their combat unit's cohesion. This is not even up for debate at this point.

You do nothing but look at aggregates to justify an absolute position.

Please by all means, give me a genuine counterpoint to these sources that isn't just a half assed 'women should be in the infantry because it's unfair' cop out of an answer.

I've already addressed your point on a female candidates' potential to pass military guidelines, and it's still not a justifiable reason for women integrated infantry units because as was aforementioned for the eleventy billionth time, the presence of a woman bears adverse effects on the units overall operational activity, and thus endangers lives. It is undoubtedly discriminatory, but ultimately just.

>Women have a lower mean accuracy than men.
So fucking what?

Because it helps to you know, be able to shoot at your targets as efficiently as possible.

Women at the higher end of their spectrum may reach or even outperform men at the lower end of the men's spectrum. Those women who perform at or better than the levels of men have no reason to be disallowed.

I suppose I'm willing to entertain the possibility of a women only comprised infantry unit, but as you said, they are outliers that are so far and few between I doubt there would be a significant pool of them for the military to utilize.

There's also the issue of rape, and Islamist combatants utter refusal to surrender to women in a combat situation. How exactly do you propose we confront that?

How much more do I have to keep ignoring your argument?

Thanks for being honest at least.

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 04:09:17 PM

Oh wow two isolated cases that still don't debunk the fact that women inevitably affect the unit cohesion. MY ARGUMENT IS SHATTERED!1!1

It's not "fact" because of the myriad of issues surrounding women entering. The "facts" you cited were situations where the system failed to weed out incapable candidates. They in no way make statements about how women innately destroy units, they illustrate that weak people destroy units, and women are not innately weak. Most are by large margins, but there will be outliers who are not, and barring them from service despite being free from the reasons most are rejected, is just ignorant discrimination.

For the millionth time, you have yet to address the psychological affects on unit cohesion when women are introduced into combat roles.

When you stop misrepresenting my arguments and actually address what I'm saying, I'll be here.

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 14, 2015, 03:54:10 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 14, 2015, 02:55:33 PM

Quote

It doesn't matter if she meets the grade. Even women who pass the relevant tests (which are usually lowered)

That means the problems lie with the tests allowing unfit candidates in.

Even fit female candidates have shown a propensity to be incapable of meeting the physically demanding aspects of infantry like men can.

Even if they ticked every conceivable box there's still biological aptitudes that we simply cannot get away from, such as female bone density that renders women more likely to sustain injury.

According to Army Times, the two women who passed Ranger School weren't given any preferential treatment nor lowered standards. Sure, it wasn't on one attempt, but they passed with other recycled male recruits. Ranger School is one of the military's most physically demanding schools.

Those two women shattered your argument to dust.

So long as the standards are kept the same, and they aren't shown preferential treatment, then there is no reason at all for their segregation.

As for other militaries, Isreal would like a word with you about the combat effectiveness of women. No one questions the IDF's military effectiveness

Oh wow two isolated cases that still don't debunk the fact that women inevitably affect unit cohesion. MY ARGUMENT IS SHATTERED!1!1

Dude, IDF is not an apt example. Gender integration in close combat situations was disbanded in 1948 due to myriad problems units were facing in regards to organizational bonding. I think there's like one specialized task force Israel allows for women to enter, and even then it's still heavily skewed towards men.

Indeed.