4 ms·

I've yet to meet any of these mythical post racial liberals. And your own sources disprove your claim. Black women earn more than white women. At best you're s

• tylerhou 9y ago
  > I've yet to meet any of these mythical post racial liberals. It seems that you are one, since you're claiming that class matters more than race. I.e. you claim that race doesn't matter very much, which suggests that you are post-racial. > Black women earn more than white women. At best you're showing that sexism matters more than racism. But it's only sexism when it happens to women, just like it's only racism when it happens to blacks. If the issue was purely of sexism you'd see white males and black males with the same socioeconomic backgrounds have equivalent social mobility because "race doesn't matter". But article [1] refutes that with a chart that clearly shows a huge difference in social mobility between white males and black males of the same background. Sexism is when men aren't paid the same amount as women. That's not the same as a trend between males that shows differences in pay which disappears when looking at women. In other words, people are less racist towards black women compared to black men. That's a problem with racism, not sexism (unless you're suggesting that we should be more racist towards black women so that we aren't as sexist towards black men). > anyone who claims race trumps class has not been paying attention: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833.. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833.... This article doesn't support your point. In particular, it supports a claim that mortality rates are rising for middle class white males because their prosperity has decreased in the last few years. It doesn't even control for background. That is different from my point, which says that when controlling for background, race affects socioeconomic mobility. In fact, your sources support my claim. The NPR article mentions how middle class blacks haven't felt an increase in mortality rates. That suggests that there's something different about people from different races - maybe that middle class blacks barely had an increase in prosperity to begin with.
  • zeth___ 9y ago
    I am a socialist, not a liberal. As for the controls in your article it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women. That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor. Unless you want to explain how the US is racist towards white women and black men? But not white men and black women.
    • tylerhou 9y ago
      > I am a socialist, not a liberal. Potato, potahto. > it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women. No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races. > That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor. No. Maybe black men are often profiled as criminals or untrustworthy, but the same is not true for black women. That alone would still be evidence of racism - just not as much towards black women. To prove that class is the only effect and not some other factor like race you'd have to show that, controlling for class, outcomes are equal. But these articles do control for class and find that outcomes are drastically different. This must mean that class is not the only driver of outcome. It's possible that the real reason isn't because of race - maybe it's actually because every black male in the country for some reason keeps having their memory corrupted by random cosmic rays. But it's still abundantly clear that there's something else contributing to outcomes besides class, and the most obvious (and most likely) is race. In any case, your original contention (that class is the only driver) still falls.
      • zeth___ 9y ago
        >Potato, potahto. Oh good. When do we get google nationalized? And a wealth tax? And when do we close the stock markets? Also when do the trials for crimes against the people start, we'll only need to arrest 95% of all politicians. And of course we will be disbanding the mercenary army and replacing it with a conscription army where everyone has to spend 3-5 years. There's a few hundred more things that need to be done. But since all liberals are socialists we shouldn't have a problem with any of them. >No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races. You have variables race and gender, the variables can take on two values each. The claim is that race is more important than gender. Call it the function f that maps race r ={w,b} and gender g = {m,f} to an arbitrary value: f : r,g -> R. Since we can just look at the values from the graph we can see that the outcome function f has the following property: f(b,m) < f(f,w) < f(f,b) < f(m,w) So the suggestion that race is the primary cause of worse outcomes is clearly wrong since black women are better off than white women and black men. Similarly the idea that sexism is the cause is also wrong since black men are worse off than every body and white men are better off than everybody. So you can either admit that race and sexism have no explanative power and accept the fact that class is the predominant factor with some interesting but ultimately trivial second order effects, or you can start doing gender studies and talk about the white male patriarchy and how it keeps everyone down. I'm guessing you'll pick the second since it helps the capitalists stay in power and you have been exposed to their propaganda you whole life.