Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

jt512 said:
If you think that, then you are a moron. I know many highly acclaimed scientists, including at least one Nobel Laureate, who voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro.

Anyone who supports the explicitly anti-science Trump administration - for whatever reason - has zero credibility when it comes to opining on the validity of scientific studies, or really anything.

Voting to kill children with preventable diseases is kind of a credibility destroyer.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
Don't know if you've noticed, but he's fired a lot people. Race has nothing to to with it.
Click to expand...

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he’s overwhelming replacing the people he’s fired with unqualified, incompetent white people.

If you’ve got a theory for why all these unqualified, incompetent white people keep getting these jobs they didn’t earn, feel free to share.
 
Trausti said:
Again, anyone who supports "men can have babies" has zero credbility. That's how this works, right?
Click to expand...

Now all you have to do is find someone who claimed that or expressed support for that as a political platform and you’ll have yourself quite the devastating zinger.
 
jt512 said:
We might be living in a simulation.
Click to expand...
We might.

Sometimes people lie about who they really voted for in order to avoid conflict. They will state that they support a candidate, yet secretly vote against them because nobody will ever know. The entire point of a secret ballot is that nobody knows how you vote.

Just because someone told you they voted one way doesn't mean that they actually did. And I don't care if they're an esteemed scientist or a Nobel prize winner - as though that somehow makes them a paragon of truth. People lie, especially there are consequences for not doing so.
 
If the question at hand is about whether some anonymous scientist voted Republican - it's pretty much a given that there are MAGA scientists. I'm not sure why that's even worth questioning. Of course there are. Much like there were Nazi scientists, despite somewhat similar attitudes towards science there.

Overall, scientists overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party - likely something like 9 to 1 on a quick check (because, simply speakingly, Republicans have been increasingly hostile to science, intellectuals, and so on), but, due to the sheer force of numbers, that certainly does leave leeway to seize onto outliers. That tendency to seize onto outliers is reasonably likely to make the outliers more likely to be "prestigious" for that matter, as right-wingers seek to parade them and give them personal incentives to say the things they they want claimed.

Going a bit further, I have a Tea Party friend who is a good chemist. He fairly certainly voted for Trump. His opinions on stuff outside of chemistry are often impacted by such bastions of credibility as Zerohedge, though, and he seems to consistently regurgitate right-wing BS that falls apart when subjected to even superficial real scrutiny. That includes more general science related claims, unfortunately, which very much does impact his overall credibility. Is he anti-science? Both yes and no for different inflections. On the one hand, he likes chemistry! On the other, he chose the path of sabotaging science in general and has often pushed fallacies that undermine science.
 
jt512 said:
If you think that, then you are a moron. I know many highly acclaimed scientists, including at least one Nobel Laureate, who voted for Trump.
Click to expand...
Having a Nobel Prize doesn't grant someone authority outside their field of expertise. Pauling was famously a crank, for example. They might have voted for Trump but if they are still happy with his letting RFK run amok, they are against very basic science. It literally doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that vaccination is beneficial to public health.
 
jimbob said:
Having a Nobel Prize doesn't grant someone authority outside their field of expertise. Pauling was famously a crank, for example. They might have voted for Trump but if they are still happy with his letting RFK run amok, they are against very basic science. It literally doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that vaccination is beneficial to public health.
Click to expand...
I doubt they are happy about RFK. Regardless, all but one of the scientists I am talking about are quantum chemists. They do science that is more fundamental than you can imagine. They’re all funded by NSF, DoE, and NIH. They are most certainly not against basic science.
 
jt512 said:
I doubt they are happy about RFK. Regardless, all but one of the scientists I am talking about are quantum chemists. They do science that is more fundamental than you can imagine. They’re all funded by NSF, DoE, and NIH. They are most certainly not against basic science.
Click to expand...

They are looking at fundamental chemistry. And it's very impressive. But that doesn't translate to other fields.
 
jt512 said:
I doubt they are happy about RFK. Regardless, all but one of the scientists I am talking about are quantum chemists. They do science that is more fundamental than you can imagine. They’re all were funded by NSF, DoE, and NIH. They are most certainly not against basic science.
Click to expand...
Fixed it for you.
 
jt512 said:
I doubt they are happy about RFK. Regardless, all but one of the scientists I am talking about are quantum chemists. They do science that is more fundamental than you can imagine. They’re all funded by NSF, DoE, and NIH. They are most certainly not against basic science.
Click to expand...

“I doubt they are happy with RFK” is a nonsensical thing to say about someone who voted to put him in charge of public health. Clearly, they were “happy” enough with him to do that.

And I’m not sure what you mean when you say that they’re “not against basic science” other than as a tacit admission that they are against some science.

Support for an anti-science administration is itself anti-science, plain and simple.
 
jt512 said:
They could show that they were better qualified for the job than the person who got it; that, statistically, the company's hiring evidenced racial discrimination; or that there was evidence, such as email communications (which can be subpoenaed), that they were not hired because of their race, just to name three possibilities that come immediately to mind.

Also, as I have stated before, I really wonder whether the totality of the evidence you mention really shows what you say it shows. The reason I question it is that people who cling to the claim that there is bias against women in academic STEM positions, a body of evidence that I am familiar with, are always citing evidence from similarly designed CV studies. It turns out, however, that there was ever only one such study that showed anti-female bias. That study was old and small. Every subsequent study, all of which were larger, actually showed that the bias was in favor of women.
Click to expand...
Studies/articles/reports that are commonly quoted:

The Resume Bias: How Names and Ethnicity Influence Employment Opportunities​

www.kcl.ac.uk

The Resume Bias: How Names and Ethnicity Influence Employment Opportunities

Explore the largest study on resume bias, with 12,000+ applications to 4,000+ jobs. Discover insights on name and ethnic discrimination in employment.
www.kcl.ac.uk


Ethnic minorities more likely to be unemployed because employers reject applications from ‘non-white’ names​



The Racialization of Muslim-Sounding Names
 
arthwollipot said:
Really?

How about if that racist employer is known to hold a grudge, and knows other racist employers with similar views, and you are desperate for a job so that you can feed your family and suddenly nobody's willing to employ you?

There are lots of reasons why illegal conduct are never brought to justice. By some estimates 63% of violent crimes occurring in the US resulted in no arrests, no charges, and no referrals for prosecution. If that's the rate for violent crimes, what do you think the rate is for white-collar crime?

Say you're a black man in a small town in Alabama. You have proof that an employer did not employ you because you are black. Who do you take that to? Your white sheriff? Your white DA? Your white mayor? You've been wrongfully accused of crimes before. Do you think you'll get a fair hearing? Do you have confidence in the US justice system?

If you say you do, you're either lying or hopelessly naive. The justice system in the US sucks, especially if you're a member of a minority.
Click to expand...
You're working from an outdated 1950s caricature. Small towns in the south tend to have a lower proportion of black people than cities and larger metropolitan areas. Additionally, there's a lower propensity for racism throughout the south than there is in the Northeast or the Northwest, with New Jersey being the worst.


Most Racist States 2025

worldpopulationreview.com worldpopulationreview.com

California is more racist than Alabama.
 
That's a pretty dubious methodology, since it's highly dependent on law enforcement agencies participating in the reporting process.
 
An example of an alternative and likely much more trustworthy indicator for racist against African American attitudes, because it's honestly outright baffling to even try to invoke what Emily's Cat just invoked as if it meant what was claimed, if one's not immersed in an alternative fantasy worldview -

This map shows where Americans are doing the most Google searches for the n-word

On this map, the red areas represent places where “area racism” as measured by Google searches for the n-word was highest (more than half a standard deviation about the mean), and the green areas are where it was the lowest.
Next, researchers took their measurements of area racism for each media market and compared them with the mortality rates of black people from 2004 to 2009, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, for the same areas.
The result: a strong association between an area’s level of racism and mortality of African Americans. The areas that ranked high on racism, with scores one standard deviation about the country’s average, had an 8 percent increase in mortality rates. “This effect estimate amounts to over 30,000 deaths among Blacks annually nationwide,” Chae said in a press release about the study.
After they controlled for other factors, like education and wealth, the association was not as strong, but it still remained, especially with deaths caused by cancer, heart disease, and stroke.
Researchers also controlled for white mortality rates. “By doing this, we are showing that it [area racism] is not only associated with the Black mortality rate, but also the excess Black mortality rate relative to Whites,” Chae explained.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he’s overwhelming replacing the people he’s fired with unqualified, incompetent white people.

If you’ve got a theory for why all these unqualified, incompetent white people keep getting these jobs they didn’t earn, feel free to share.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you're new to American politics, but merit very rarely applies to political appointees. Pete Buttigeg - Secretary of Transportation??? Jennifer Granholm - Secretary of Energy??? And let's not forget: "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie."
 
johnny karate said:
Now all you have to do is find someone who claimed that or expressed support for that as a political platform and you’ll have yourself quite the devastating zinger.
Click to expand...
When did I ever express an anti-vax opinion on this forum?
 
Aridas said:
An example of an alternative and likely much more trustworthy indicator for racist against African American attitudes, because it's honestly outright baffling to even try to invoke what Emily's Cat just invoked as if it meant what was claimed, if one's not immersed in an alternative fantasy worldview -

This map shows where Americans are doing the most Google searches for the n-word
Click to expand...
This is silly. Is there a name where a "study" is done where the goal is simply to cobble together spurious data to advance a political talking point? It assumes that a search for the N-word is a proxy for racism; but there is no telling the race of the person doing the search nor the purpose of the search. Indeed, by this metric there is no anti-Black racism in Arizona. And it states that the "racist" search areas are associated wtih increased Black mortality - but mortality from what? If this is the strength of the evidence for racism, then we can be satisfied that there is little actual racism at all.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
This is silly. Is there a name where a "study" is done where the goal is simply to cobble together spurious data to advance a political talking point? It assumes that a search for the N-word is a proxy for racism; but there is no telling the race of the person doing the search nor the purpose of the search. Indeed, by this metric there is no anti-Black racism in Arizona. And it states that the "racist" search areas are associated wtih increased Black mortality - but mortality from what? If this is the strength of the evidence for racism, then we can be satisfied that there is little actual racism at all.
Click to expand...
If this is the strength of your attempted rebuttal, it can safely be ignored. Maybe take better stock of what's actually in play before you try something next time? By your mention of Arizona, you seem to have glanced at the article, but clearly, you didn't read for comprehension at all.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
An example of an alternative and likely much more trustworthy indicator for racist against African American attitudes, because it's honestly outright baffling to even try to invoke what Emily's Cat just invoked as if it meant what was claimed, if one's not immersed in an alternative fantasy worldview -

This map shows where Americans are doing the most Google searches for the n-word
Click to expand...

Apparently people googling racial slurs causes cancer, heart disease, and stroke?
After they controlled for other factors, like education and wealth, the association was not as strong, but it still remained, especially with deaths caused by cancer, heart disease, and stroke.
Click to expand...

I'll reiterate that in all my years posting here, the only people I've ever seen actually post racial slurs have been self-styled progressives who insist that other people are racists. Aside from one 80+ year old curmudgeon in FL about two decades ago, the only people I've ever heard use the term in real life were all black. I'm not convinced that google searches for slurs are indicative of what you think they're indicative of.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Apparently people googling racial slurs causes cancer, heart disease, and stroke?
Click to expand...
You could at least read the abstract.

Emily's Cat said:
I'll reiterate that in all my years posting here, the only people I've ever seen actually post racial slurs have been self-styled progressives who insist that other people are racists. Aside from one 80+ year old curmudgeon in FL about two decades ago, the only people I've ever heard use the term in real life were all black. I'm not convinced that google searches for slurs are indicative of what you think they're indicative of.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the authors would agree that it's an imperfect proxy, but this doesn't really make sense as an interpretation. If this were the case, we'd expect search results to be concentrated in areas with high black populations. They aren't.

These results are largely congruent with other studies that have used other proxies (eg, this one).
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Apparently people googling racial slurs causes cancer, heart disease, and stroke?
Click to expand...

Not a claim made or even remotely implied. Congratulations on yet another self-inflicted wound to your credibility.

Emily's Cat said:
I'll reiterate that in all my years posting here, the only people I've ever seen actually post racial slurs have been self-styled progressives who insist that other people are racists. Aside from one 80+ year old curmudgeon in FL about two decades ago, the only people I've ever heard use the term in real life were all black. I'm not convinced that google searches for slurs are indicative of what you think they're indicative of.
Click to expand...

I can say that my real life experience may be quite different from yours, then. Some of my Republican friends are rather pointedly racists, though, on top of things like having a penchant for wearing Confederate Flag hoodies. I also happen to be around red areas on that map, though, and my personal experience isn't really out of line with it.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
I doubt they are happy about RFK. Regardless, all but one of the scientists I am talking about are quantum chemists. They do science that is more fundamental than you can imagine. They’re all funded by NSF, DoE, and NIH. They are most certainly not against basic science.
Click to expand...
ponderingturtle said:
Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...
Bad guess. They continue to be funded by NSF, DoE, and NIH.
 
jt512 said:
I doubt they are happy about RFK. Regardless, all but one of the scientists I am talking about are quantum chemists. They do science that is more fundamental than you can imagine. They’re all funded by NSF, DoE, and NIH. They are most certainly not against basic science.
Click to expand...
Are any of them creationists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom