3 ms·

However let's say the figure is 50%. Does the argument still follow? At what % would we inevitably be forced to pay attention? For instance, would anyone want t

by vixen99 10y ago

However let's say the figure is 50%. Does the argument still follow? At what % would we inevitably be forced to pay attention? For instance, would anyone want to increase the chance of a violent encounter occurring in their workplace. Fortunately we can relax because these supposed assumptions currently belong in fairy land. 'Popularist'. Isn't it better to spell out what is meant here rather than use a word often by elites (self selected smaller powerful groups) to refer to any democratic decision of which the elite does not approve? It's one of those rolling stone expressions that saves its users time and effort by carrying with it a boat-load of subtext.

peteretep 10y ago
> 'Popularist'. Isn't it better to spell out what is > meant here You're welcome to substitute the word "facile" if you've imbued "popularist" with too much meaning.
- vixen99 10y ago
  That's much better! Of course I don't matter a jot but many folk who do (some EU leaders for instance) evidently believe 'populist' (as a word of derision - your implication, surely?) is indeed imbued with rich meaning of the kind they would prefer not to to spell out since their argument would then fall to bits.
peteretep 10y ago
> However let's say the figure is 50%. It's not. > Does the argument still follow? Yes. Given two people with similar academic achievements and no history of violence, discriminating between them is ridiculous. Treating individuals different based solely on their skin colour would still have no scientific or logical basis, as you'll still have many many stupid and violent green skinners, and peaceful and intelligent blue skinners. All that the "studies" will do is discourage natural bigots from looking at the traits of an individual. > At what % would we inevitably be forced to pay > attention? At the point where you could reliably extrapolate about a given individual based on their skin colour more accurately than you could based on their personal history to date.

by vixen99 10y ago

peteretep 10y ago

> 'Popularist'. Isn't it better to spell out what is > meant here You're welcome to substitute the word "facile" if you've imbued "popularist" with too much meaning.

vixen99 10y ago
That's much better! Of course I don't matter a jot but many folk who do (some EU leaders for instance) evidently believe 'populist' (as a word of derision - your implication, surely?) is indeed imbued with rich meaning of the kind they would prefer not to to spell out since their argument would then fall to bits.

peteretep 10y ago

> However let's say the figure is 50%. It's not. > Does the argument still follow? Yes. Given two people with similar academic achievements and no history of violence, discriminating between them is ridiculous. Treating individuals different based solely on their skin colour would still have no scientific or logical basis, as you'll still have many many stupid and violent green skinners, and peaceful and intelligent blue skinners. All that the "studies" will do is discourage natural bigots from looking at the traits of an individual. > At what % would we inevitably be forced to pay > attention? At the point where you could reliably extrapolate about a given individual based on their skin colour more accurately than you could based on their personal history to date.