General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
<< < (204/222) > >>
coppice:

--- Quote from: tggzzz on May 16, 2023, 10:07:12 pm ---I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.

--- End quote ---
Odd example to choose, as most aspects of leadership have quite a bit of research data to support or shoot them down. I can't quote any off hand, but I remember seeing multiple papers on this particular topic. Being taller correlates quite well with being smarter. The reasons aren't well understood, but that is well supported by research. So, when you look at other factors in leadership you need to allow for that, and try to isolate whether it is tallness in itself leading to leadership success. There is research which looks specifically at whether people are more likely to obey someone taller, regardless of more meaningful qualities of leadership, which finds they actually are.
abeyer:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on May 18, 2023, 07:24:21 pm ---You're talking about bias, which is different.

--- End quote ---

Is it? The lack of a single well-defined meaning of the terms we're using is part of the barrier to ever reaching any common understanding here. That's certainly one possible interpretation, but lacking said definition, my default interpretation of the word would tend to consider common widely-held biases to be a "systemic" factor, too.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on May 18, 2023, 07:24:21 pm ---Examples of this were Nazi Germany and South Africa under Apartheid.

--- End quote ---

...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago. So there are certainly people living today (and likely even posters on this board) whose ability and decisions in buying property were directly or indirectly impacted by this. Given that a significant percentage of growth in personal wealth in the US over the last 50 years has been in real estate ownership, it seems disingenuous to completely discount that.
coppice:

--- Quote from: abeyer on May 18, 2023, 10:05:35 pm ---...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago.

--- End quote ---
I often see redlining laws described as race based, but everything I've actually read about them says they were affluence based. They affected broke people of all races, and the US has a lot of broke white people.
abeyer:

--- Quote from: coppice on May 18, 2023, 10:11:27 pm ---
--- Quote from: abeyer on May 18, 2023, 10:05:35 pm ---...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago.

--- End quote ---
I often see redlining laws described as race based, but everything I've actually read about them says they were affluence based. They affected broke people of all races, and the US has a lot of broke white people.

--- End quote ---

They were both, and more, religion was another popular one, and I'm sure there were others... Redlining wasn't only race-based, but it certainly included race, and more so the farther back you go. More recent laws were less explicitly race-based in their language, but no less so in their intent, in many cases. And it's still largely socially acceptable now when you talk about affluence... there are communities today with property covenants that legally forbid selling land for less than some minimum price.
james_s:

--- Quote from: abeyer on May 18, 2023, 10:05:35 pm ---...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago. So there are certainly people living today (and likely even posters on this board) whose ability and decisions in buying property were directly or indirectly impacted by this. Given that a significant percentage of growth in personal wealth in the US over the last 50 years has been in real estate ownership, it seems disingenuous to completely discount that.

--- End quote ---

There is no denying that blacks and various other groups have experienced some pretty horrible treatment in the USA, slavery is one example, the treatment of the Irish and the Chinese immigrants back in the 1800's is another, one of the more recent atrocities was pushing everyone of Japanese descent into relocation camps during WWII, and redlining was absolutely a thing that did at times directly involve race. But as you said, this was abolished half a century ago, well before I was even born and it is not fair to blame me in any way for things people that look like me did before I came into the world. A lot of people have been screwed over the years and got the short end of the stick, at times this affected some groups more than others but there is no group that has never been affected. Bottom line is life isn't fair, sometimes people get cancer or some rare disease and die, sometimes even kids. There is no possible way to make life fair, and treating some groups unfairly today to make up for some other unfairness in the past is just going to create more problems. It is virtually impossible to take any given individual and calculate a real world value on the impact of all past discrimination and unfair treatment toward them. What we CAN do is strive to not discriminate NOW, and to do everything possible to ensure equality of opportunity, for everyone.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod