An example of institutional racism/discrimination:

5%? I think that's far lower than would win in a court of law, especially without something to explain the 5% as linked to racial considerations.

About 1000 blacks were killed by cops last year, and I don't need to find the data in order to conclude the number of cop-black interactions far exceeded 20,000.

Yet I'm told cops killing black people is an example of systemic racism; but this isn't?
 
About 1000 blacks were killed by cops last year, and I don't need to find the data in order to conclude the number of cop-black interactions far exceeded 20,000.

Yet I'm told cops killing black people is an example of systemic racism; but this isn't?

I don't think I told you that. Perhaps you're confusing my point on the larger issue of general policing and it's interaction with the black community.

And you're misunderstanding the difference between intent and effect. Legally, effect doesn't mean intent. If you're going to conclude intent from effect, you usually need a larger effect. Obviously, intent speaks for itself, if you've got documented intent then that's all you need..
 
5%? I think that's far lower than would win in a court of law, especially without something to explain the 5% as linked to racial considerations.

I don't think so (though I don't know anything about law), it is a statistically significant percentage. I mean, you're defending the 1/20 seats that were given on racial bias.

How the fuck is that not discrimination? How does this represent "equality".
 
I've posted this link before, but it in fact deserves a thread of its own. "Visible Minority" in Canada and how it affects hiring practices:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_minority

See how the above works in conjunction with the Employment Equity Act:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada)

The United Nations deemed the Visible Minority act as racist but it still is used.

When one combines the above with immigration revisions, Canada's European Caucasions (oldest community outside of aboriginals) are being clearly handicapped in employment practices. Even Arabic caucasians are not considered visible minorities. Further to this, European Caucasians are significant minorities (often resident European Caucasians are in Old Age Homes skewing stats) in many of Canada's cities (usually suburbs of the biggest cities) - basically the visible minority representation is based on the whole of the country (all rural and small cities included) and isn't based on the large city centres.

I wish I could post better on this (am on my phone and super busy), so if anyone has the time and energy feel free.

It's funny that in Toronto the visible "minority" is actually the majority.
 
I don't think so (though I don't know anything about law), it is a statistically significant percentage. I mean, you're defending the 1/20 seats that were given on racial bias.

How the fuck is that not discrimination? How does this represent "equality".

But you don't know that they were given on racial bias. You just know that 5% is more than expected. You need to rule out other possible causes...such as legacies or children of donors or family of faculty...and then you can conclude that the 5% is racial.

That's why you usually see a larger effect. So large that there's no other rational explanation except racial bias.
 
I don't think I told you that. Perhaps you're confusing my point on the larger issue of general policing and it's interaction with the black community.

I never said I was told by you. But if someone believes blacks killed by cops is due to systemic racism, they'd have to conclude we're seeing systemic racism in medical school admissions, too. The rate of discrimination is much higher.
 
I never said I was told by you. But if someone believes blacks killed by cops is due to systemic racism, they'd have to conclude we're seeing systemic racism in medical school admissions, too. The rate of discrimination is much higher.

Someone believing it doesn't make it true. In either case.
 
It's funny that in Toronto the visible "minority" is actually the majority.

Exactly. The link talks about Vancouver (and its suburbs) as well. As I said earlier, the sparce European population in many cities is actually quite invisible and residing primarily in hospitals and old age homes.

I noticed that the judge who instituted one of these acts is a Jewess who immigrated in the 50s. I'm usually pro Jew but I am really skeptical as to what is going on with the multicultural push. The one link said by 2031 Canada will be 33% a visible minority country made up largely of Asian (western too - ie Arabic) peoples. With most grouping in cities and cities garnering more seats in the HOC, a quick overthrow of Canada is in the works it feels like.
 
Last edited:
But that's not what he concluded. His written conclusion drawn from the data is that only 5% of the seats went to URM with lower MCAT/GPA combinations than their white or Asian counterparts. That's what he wrote, it's not my opinion.

Are you arguing with his conclusion?

Quote the exact phase you are basing your argument from. Just for clarity.
 
I don't think I told you that. Perhaps you're confusing my point on the larger issue of general policing and it's interaction with the black community.

And you're misunderstanding the difference between intent and effect. Legally, effect doesn't mean intent. If you're going to conclude intent from effect, you usually need a larger effect. Obviously, intent speaks for itself, if you've got documented intent then that's all you need..

I'm confused here. Are you saying the cops intended to kill minorities or that is an effect?

Or are you saying that the intent of the data posted above is racial bias or is that an effect?
 
Quote the exact phase you are basing your argument from. Just for clarity.

I quoted his section title: Are underrepresented in medicine (URM) applicants with less-competitive stats taking large numbers of slots from overrepresented in medicine (ORM) applicants?

My emphasis added.

And here's his conclusion: ...there are approximately 956 seats (5.1% of total accepted students) given to URMs above what would be expected.
 
I quoted his section title: Are underrepresented in medicine (URM) applicants with less-competitive stats taking large numbers of slots from overrepresented in medicine (ORM) applicants?

My emphasis added.

And here's his conclusion: ...there are approximately 956 seats (5.1% of total accepted students) given to URMs above what would be expected.

So your argument is that 5.1% is not statistically significant?
 
Exactly. The link talks about Vancouver (and its suburbs) as well

I find the whole thing offensive. I don't like when I'm asked what my ethnicity is. What does it matter? And what if my appearance doesn't match my ethnicity?

Everyone should just shut up about race. This new generation simply can't cope with the idea that people of other races should be treated as people first, not given special treatment. It's offensive.
 
I'm confused here. Are you saying the cops intended to kill minorities or that is an effect?

Or are you saying that the intent of the data posted above is racial bias or is that an effect?

I'm not saying either. I'm saying that there might be systemic racism in how policing is undertaken but that is completely separate from whether or not the deaths are an example of systemic racism as well. The deaths might be proportionate to the level of police interaction. So while the level of interaction might be excessive, the deaths themselves wouldn't be.
 
So your argument is that 5.1% is not statistically significant?

It's not enough that I would immediately conclude racial bias without ruling out other data. You're talking about less than 1000 seats so things like legacies, donors, and family of faculty can have a large effect.

You're looking at the number and claiming that there is no other possible explanation. That's where I'm disagreeing with you. The person who put together that data also didn't go down that road, the tone of his post was that he didn't find the number significant.
 
I find the whole thing offensive. I don't like when I'm asked what my ethnicity is. What does it matter? And what if my appearance doesn't match my ethnicity?

Everyone should just shut up about race. This new generation simply can't cope with the idea that people of other races should be treated as people first, not given special treatment. It's offensive.

It is inherently discriminatory, and completely undermines "not by the color of his skin, but by the content of their character", to quote MLK.
 
I find the whole thing offensive. I don't like when I'm asked what my ethnicity is. What does it matter? And what if my appearance doesn't match my ethnicity?

Everyone should just shut up about race. This new generation simply can't cope with the idea that people of other races should be treated as people first, not given special treatment. It's offensive.

I accidentally posted that short and completed my thought in an edit. Anyway, I agree with you.
 
It's not enough that I would immediately conclude racial bias without ruling out other data. You're talking about less than 1000 seats so things like legacies, donors, and family of faculty can have a large effect.

You're looking at the number and claiming that there is no other possible explanation. That's where I'm disagreeing with you. The person who put together that data also didn't go down that road, the tone of his post was that he didn't find the number significant.

So would you concede the same could be argued by deaths of minorities by cops?

For example, racism can't be concluded.
 
So would you concede the same could be argued by deaths of minorities by cops?

I've never argued otherwise. I don't need to concede something that I already typed before you asked.
 
Back
Top