
Dahobbs
-
Posts
17863 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Dahobbs
-
-
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
Interdasting. Doesn't create a bright-line rule, but the fair use evaluation seems a bit off.
Actually, I think I like the outcome as fair use is a pretty fact-intensive inquiry.
What strikes me as a bit odd or off is the calling of another commercial computer program a "transformative use." Usually, that tends to mean some form of artistic transformation or from a "serious work" (Orbison's Pretty Woman) into a parody (2 Live Crews).
Compare the recent 2nd Circuit ruling that Warhol's "transformation" of Prince portraits was not transformative. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2021/03/30/understanding-the-andy-warhol-ruling/
Under this ruling, "normal" use an an API, which doesn't attempt to replace the underlying program, wouldn't be actionable.
Also, Thomas' dissent is surprisingly sane for him. Somehow, Clarence seems to "get" IP cases to a larger extent than you would think.
I think finding yourself on the Alito and Thomas side of an argument is ample reason to reconsider pretty much everything.
N.B. not meant as an insult toward you at all. Just seeing those two both dissent makes me feel confident that the right outcome was reached.
-
2
-
-
And I'm now officially among the counted. Dose #1 of Pfizer this morning. So far, no ill effects. Dose #2 scheduled for April 26 at 9:03 am. Thank you Memorial Hermann.
-
5
-
-
27 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:
Is there a way to prevent Alzheimer’s?
I assume preventing/delaying Alzheimer's related deaths is easier, which is what I was referring to.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Post Oak said:
I'm actually surprised by that. That jump in deaths from diabetes and alzheimer's is sad though and I assume related to difficulties getting medical treatment.
-
22 minutes ago, Macklemore said:
If I was leading the GOP, I would target my ammunition at the teachers’ unions and go full bore on them. No one is on their side - liberals are as frustrated as those of us on the right. Demonizing teachers is a path to the holy grail - federal legislation disbanding all public sector unions and true school choice for the kids suffering from the teachers’ union leeches. The fallback, which would be a major victory, would be an end to defined benefit plans for the public sector. It’s time for the golden parachutes to end and the public sector to have 401Ks like the rest of us. Watch white suburban women and culturally liberal urban professionals along with blacks and Latinos who bore the brunt of inner city school cultures vote Republican in droves.
Wow...
-
19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
And you weren't making one of those "snarky, no need to comment comments " ?
Again, did you take "sugared up rascal" to be a serious insult? It definitely wasn't intended that way. Snarky, sure. But also light hearted. Just a strange thing to take seriously.
-
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
In the spirit of Easter, I hope a large rock covering a tomb rolls over your fucking foot.
What a randomly fucked up comment after I made a joke with another poster. Were you that offended by being associated with a "sugared up rascal?"
-
5 minutes ago, Nivek said:
Time for me to deal with sugared up rascals.
Isn't that what you've been doing in this thread?
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, workswithseed said:
Didn't mean to bring you in, but oh well.
I'd be okay to never have people go back to socialized schools.
I'm sorry schooling failed you.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Message Board User said:
It's not my job to make your smarter or more knowledgeable. There is ample evidence out there that schools are safe - go find it yourself. Is the risk Zero? Of course not. But you are an emotional child completely untethered to reality if Zero risk is the goal.
If you still believe that schools are a main source of spread after a year, there's nothing that will convince you and others on Team Apocolypse otherwise.
In the meantime, kids (primarily minority kids in the big cities) will continue to languish without any learning for no reason while wealthy kids enjoy private schools, charter schools, learning pods, and uninterrupted internet access. Sounds pretty systemically racist to me.
I didn't say I believed that. In fact, I said I could be convinced the fear is irrational based on existing evidence. Although, saying school's aren't source of substantial spread doesn't mean that the teachers of those schools arent subject to an elevated risk. And it certainly doesn't make it an ulterior or wrongful motive.
1 hour ago, 52-80 said:Overt racism should be rightly be publicized and squashed. (Being in a mixed-race marriage and as an ethnic minority in every country we’ve lived, we’re not un-attuned to this stuff?).
In cases of overwhelmingly color-blind processes (e.g. mortgage lending), if you (the royal you) insist on ascribing race to differences in outcome, then perhaps you need to look in the mirror...I'm not ascribing race to anything. I'm pointing at the objective fact that after controlling for other factors, race is still associated with a differential in treatment. I'm sorry that upsets you. It should. It sucks. Let's fix it.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Message Board User said:
Because they (the teachers union) don't want to go back to work, so they come up with any excuse to keep schools closed.
And why don't they want to go to work? Is it, and I'm just spitballing here, because they are afraid of getting sick during a fucking pandemic? How in the blue fuck is that an ulterior motive? Maybe you could convince me that it is irrational (or at least not rational based on current evidence). But it still isn't an "ulterior" or wrongful motive. What is wrongful is attempt to cast it as such. So go fuck yourself.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, 52-80 said:
Everyone recognizes explicit, overt, historical discrimination. And it having tapering effects to present day. But to amplify that and use as a license to demonize everything everywhere with tenuous rationale, is tiresome, maybe even dangerous.
We have in this thread: all police are racists, housing is racist, lending is racist. Elsewhere, fight songs are racists. And no, there is no nuance accompanying any of those claims. What else can we castigate tomorrow?If you’re into pro-CJ reform, I’m all for it. Along with drug legalization, raised social nets, abortion, etc. In fact most of this site is for all that? But if you (not you, but certainly others) want to blame every goddamn incident and every outcome on racism....pure hogwash.
It isn't an attack. Stop thinking of it as "castigating" anyone. It is a description of a process. No one is being demonized as racist in relation to systemic racism. You're reacting emotionally because of the term "racism." Stop doing that and just listen/read what people are saying.
Now, separately, overt racism does still exist. When it occurs, it should be pointed out and derided, including by you. If you (the royal you) feel attacked when an actual racist is called racist, then perhaps you need to take a long look in the mirror.
-
6 minutes ago, Message Board User said:
All this talk about systemic and institutional racism and you people (yeah I said you people) are missing the most systemically racist policy that has been implemented in the last 50 years, considering how sheer number (millions) of individuals who are directly affected and their vulnerability (children).
"Virtual schooling"
To bring this around to the original topic of the thread, I'd be curious if the teenage girls who committed this horrible act had spent a single millisecond in a classroom or learning virtually. They, like so many other predominately minority kids, were put behind the 8 ball due to a lie (that schools are unsafe) perpetrated by people who should know better or who do know better but won't say so because of ulterior motives. It should come as no surprise that DC and Maryland (home to some of the largest percentages of minority kids) have some of the lowest, if not lowest, rates of in-person schooling.
A few months ago I heard Covid 19 described as the "Pandemic of Privilege" and that is 100% spot-on. These mitigation strategies (most of which turned out to be useless) primarily affected poor people and people of color. To me, that is a textbook definition of systemic racism and it's still being perpetuated.
You're not wrong that actions taken to lessen the toll of the pandemic are hurting the lower economic rungs more. And you're not wrong that it in turn disproportionality affects minority and thus is a further example of how systemic racism can be self-perpetuating without any racist intent. But your attempt to cast pandemic control measures as being the result of ulterior motives is as pathetic as it is misguided. What exactly is the "ulterior motive?" Bonus points: explain why that motive would still exist AFTER the most recent election and change in power. Actually, don't, take it to another thread as this one is wonky enough already.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, 52-80 said:
Why would you think I attach myself to any accusation? I’m not a lender. Moreover, deducing from your previous posts, we’re likely even the same (minority) race.
I do find it extremely lazy and banal this tactic of crying wolf everywhere and which way, without an any substance. It’s hand-wavey. And then using the blame-cannon to blast lending as racist, it’s disingenuous.
Again, systemic racism is not about racists. Read Brisket's post above. It is about the remnants of past racism, both physical and psychological. For instance, studies show that people with black sounding names will be rated lower than the same applicant with a whiter sounding name. And it isn't because the people doing the rating are purposefully discriminating. If you've ever walked down the street and felt that twinge of heightned awareness of threat when a blackman passes, then you know exactly what I am talking about. It develops in the subconscious from years of messaging and images, from seeing blacks connected with gang violence and drugs. It becomes a self perpetuating cycle, with no conscious awareness needed by anyone. Once you're aware of it, it can be counteracted. But, the first step is recgonization.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, 52-80 said:
Go on, give your take on the motivation, cause, and solution to this system.
If I’m a credit card issuer, mortgage lender, etc, I’m after risk-adjusted profit and couldn’t give a damn if your skin is charcoal black or milk white. I want (or, rather, the computer model) your income, assets, outstanding loans, employment profile, credit score, etc. You keep your Pantone shade to yourself.Will guess you’re gonna construct a 20 layered onion of multigenerational multi factorial complex of discrimination....and if so, how is that an indictment of the lending system, and what do you propose to do about it other than throw a terse accusation?
That's your problem. You think discussing a problem is an "terse accusation" aimed at you. It isn't. Systemic racism isn't generally about overt or even conscious racism. No one person is at fault. You aren't being accused of doing anything wrong. But, the fact remains that problem exists and has an observable effect on society. The first step to addressing the problem is recognizing it. I've discussed earlier that part of the solution is criminal justice reform, particularly avoiding the creation another generation if black children without available father figures. I don't know enough about the lending system to know what specific aspects of that system need reform, if any.
-
4
-
-
20 hours ago, RPM said:
How about this?
Solicitation of a 2 year-old? Beyond the horrifying aspects of it, I'm perplexed by what that even means in practical terms.
-
4 minutes ago, Cousin Strawberry said:
So I was thinking about players that burned out at Texas and Cohl Walla came to mind. I did a google search and found this article.
https://dailytimes.com/promotions/article_8b441ea8-2d89-11e8-8c47-cf123724629b.html
Was Cohl Walla really an All-American as a freshman?
Yeah, that is name I hadn't heard in awhile. He was really good as freshman.
-
3 hours ago, 52-80 said:
The irony here is that you just illustrated systemic racism without realizing it.
2 hours ago, Kyle said:That's actually a really prescient point that illustrates how the "systematic racism" / "white supremacy" canard completely distracted from the actual issue.
Query, who brought it up first? Was the very people complaining that "systemic" racism is thing? In fact, wasn't bitching about the concept of systemic racism essentially the point of this thread? It seems to me like we are right on topic.
-
1 hour ago, GringoSalado said:
Is Institutional Racism a synonym now for Systemic Racism? Then why the new term?
Also, I don't think, and never stated, the article I cited is inconsistent with your (expert) opinion. Who are you arguing with?
I agree it is observed through outcomes. I guess we're making progress.
I don't know the full history of the terms. I believe they are just two different ways of expressing the same concept that have evolved in the literature. They are generally understood to be synonyms, although one could argue that systemic racism is a slightly broader expression than institutional racism.
As to your second point, you said: "I was only talking about "Systemic Racism" as it is used today, I'm not talking about "discrimination," "racism," "bias", "racial disparity" "statistically significant" etc. or whether any of those things are real, measurable, or do exist."
I understood this to mean that you think "systemic racism" is somehow distinct from the "racial disparity" and the "statistically significant" differences in outcomes based on race that I discussed. It is not distinct. It is all one topic. Systemic racism is the mechanism of action, statistically significant outcomes or "racial disparity" are the results of that mechanism.
You also said: "I'm only talking about the usage of that one term, your posts in response have covered lots of other topics, that was confusing to me as my post was specific, but I guess too short or ambiguous."
Again, I took that to mean that you thought I was talking about topics other than systemic racism. I was not.
Finally, you said: "My interpretation of the meaning of "Systemic Racism" isn't any more "made up" than yours. My first google result is this article"
You then quoted the article. I read that to mean that you believed the article presented a different interpretation of systemic racism than the one I provided you. It did not, it was completely consistent with what I was saying.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, GringoSalado said:
Genuinely sorry for the confusion, I'm only talking about the usage of that one term, your posts in response have covered lots of other topics, that was confusing to me as my post was specific, but I guess too short or ambiguous.
Now that you appear to have addressed my argument, I respoind:
My interpretation of the meaning of "Systemic Racism" isn't any more "made up" than yours. My first google result is this article:
https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878
How do you solve something that is invisible, and only defined by the outcome? The next para from above link talks about disparate outcomes in health care, and says that is Systemic Racism. So my working definition is that any system that produces disparate outcomes can be so described. But all systems will have disparate outcomes.
Your confusion is in thinking that (1) the article you cited is inconsistent with the definition I've provided, and (2) that the information and studies I've provided are on other topics. Systemic/Institutional racism is observed through outcomes. When we say outcomes, we mean the statistically significant differences in outcomes after controlling for other variables besides race. I've been specifically addressing systemic racism in the judicial system, but you can see similar effects in other areas of life (e.g., employment).
-
2 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:
You are amazingly obtuse, but a genuine thanks for the effort and links. I was only talking about "Systemic Racism" as it is used today, I'm not talking about "discrimination," "racism," "bias", "racial disparity" "statistically significant" etc. or whether any of those things are real, measurable, or do exist.
I gave you a definition and explained how the discriminatory effect is determined. Are you looking for a link that explicitly rejects you're made up interpretation of what systemic racism is? I've given you my understanding of the term and provided scholarly articles addressing that interpretation. I really don't know what else you'd want.
-
3 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:
Thanks?
You asked for sources. I posted many on this thread, literally on the previous page. I don' t understand why you're participating if you can't be bothered look a few posts up. Anyway, see the the citations and links below.
On 3/31/2021 at 4:58 PM, Dahobbs said:Are you asking for a definition? Here is wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
In the US, a specific example would be the criminal justice system which disproportionality incarcerates black men and gives them more severe sentences than their white counterparts.
On 3/31/2021 at 5:17 PM, TwiceHorn said:Go to that blog, and put "racial disparity" in the search box on the middle left and you will come up with a couple of dozen references to statistical and other reports of disparate bad outcomes for minorities in the federal and state justice systems.
On 3/31/2021 at 5:24 PM, Dahobbs said:I don't know what you consider reasonable, but from the wiki link:
- "Although approximately two-thirds of crack cocaine users are whites or Hispanic people (reported past-year use in 2013 of 0.8%, 0.3%, and 0.1% for Black, white, and Hispanic, respectively),[59] a large percentage of people convicted of possession of crack cocaine in federal courts in 1994 were Black people. In 1994, 86.3% of the defendants convicted of crack cocaine possession were Black people while 10.3% were whites and 5.2% were Hispanic people. In the state of California, 38% of people halted by police officers in Los Angeles were Black people, despite accounting for only 9% of the population.[74] In Washington D.C Black people make up 46% of the population but composed 72% of the people stopped even though the contraband hit rates between the two races are not statistically significant.[75] In Boston, Blacks made up 64% of those stopped despite making up only 24% of the population, even after controlling for alleged gang involvement and prior arrest records Blacks were more likely to experience repeat police encounters and to be frisked or searched during an encounter.[76] In Illinois minority drivers are stopped 1.5 more times than White drivers and latino drivers are nearly 2 times more likely to be subjected to dog sniff searches than White people but are found with contraband 1.6 times less.[77]"
- "A Stanford University study that analyzed 93 million traffic stops in the United States revealed that African Americans are twenty percent more likely to be stopped despite being less likely to be in possession of contraband compared to White people.[73]"
- "A Harvard University study[78] found that in Massachusetts' criminal justice system minorities face greater risk to be represented across all parts of the criminal justice system in excess of their proportion of the population in that state. The likelihood that they will get arrested and convicted due to drug or weapons charges is eight times greater than whites. Black people were found to receive average sentences that were 238 days longer for the same offences and Latino people 178 days longer. "
On 3/31/2021 at 10:06 PM, Dahobbs said:Here are some more:
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2413&context=articles
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23366801?seq=1
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208129.pdf
https://news.gsu.edu/research-magazine/spring2020/incarceration
-
2
-
8 hours ago, GringoSalado said:
Ahh, statistically significant. I honestly did not know that. Got a source for that?
edit: "Statistically significant, based solely on race" is a def. I'm 100% behind, I just don't think that is what Systemic Racism means or how it is used today.
I've literally posted a half dozen studies in this thread that found statistically significant differences in sentencing after controlling for as many other factors as possible.
Ive also posted a definition for systemic racism, but I'll do so again since you don't seem to understand the concept:
"Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues. Institutional racism can have harmful effects on people, especially on students in school where it is prominent.[1]
The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[3]
Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]"
We measure the discriminatory effect by looking for statistically significant differences in outcome after controlling for other variables.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:
i am actually somewhat seriously considering a yeehaw texas republican run for office, say house or whatever and then doing a full heel turn immediately and caucusing with democrats.
Goddamn that would be funny.
17 minutes ago, YChang said:I'll chip in a few dollars to get your war chest started!
You have my sword!
-
1
-
Washington DC Carjacking Teenage Girls
in Cloak Room
Posted
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that objective evidence indicates white kids would be treated worse in similar circumstances? What the fuck drugs have you been taking?