FAA Diversity: For anybody in denial.....

[Soul_Controller]

It becomes a DEI issue when even local leadership is afraid to apply the same standards to people because their skin color or sex is different.

Yeah but that's just short hand for mediocre white supes being mediocre at their jobs and being afraid to sign their name to something that would require their work be questioned. But no one ever questions how a guy that can't properly document a dev got his job.

 

[ATCNOMAD]

Listen up jack. I'm fed up with the malarkey.

People who support these programs believe the following:

There are systemic barriers to those in certain groups in this country. Those groups include minorities and women. They also include financially disadvantaged families. These groups all tend to receive LESS opportunities than the historical majority (white males). In addition, non-white and non-male groups have faced significant discrimination in the workplace and community involvement.

The people who support these programs also believe the following:

That we should try to help the disadvantaged groups by giving them more opportunities to succeed. This comes in many different forms - targeted job solicitations, groups/clubs that support awareness and unity, loan programs, etc.

If you're upset that able-bodied white males aren't getting access to the same programs, then you're missing the point in the first place. These people already have an advantage because they are (on average) living through a much different experience. The financial support, social networks, housing, education, policing, and general safety of the white-male community puts one in a better starting position for life.

Some white people get upset because they think that acknowledging that racism exists implies that they are the responsible party. Society isn't trying to hold you accountable for the sins of the past. The attempt being made is an acknowledgement that we are not all starting in the same place, or even traversing the same world. Even so, we should all be given a chance to succeed.

You can say "what about" to individual scenarios but laws are written to help society as a whole and these programs address the overall trends in our country.

To answer your question: Able bodied white males already enjoy special privileges in this country. If you think otherwise it's because you haven't looked at any available information outside of your OANN/mewsmaxxx bubble.

Thanks you for explaining what I've been trying to explain, but in a much much smarter and more articulate way. Salute.

 

[PooseMaGoose]

Thanks you for explaining what I've been trying to explain, but in a much much smarter and more articulate way. Salute.

Listen up jack. I'm fed up with the malarkey.

People who support these programs believe the following:

There are systemic barriers to those in certain groups in this country. Those groups include minorities and women. They also include financially disadvantaged families. These groups all tend to receive LESS opportunities than the historical majority (white males). In addition, non-white and non-male groups have faced significant discrimination in the workplace and community involvement.

The people who support these programs also believe the following:

That we should try to help the disadvantaged groups by giving them more opportunities to succeed. This comes in many different forms - targeted job solicitations, groups/clubs that support awareness and unity, loan programs, etc.

If you're upset that able-bodied white males aren't getting access to the same programs, then you're missing the point in the first place. These people already have an advantage because they are (on average) living through a much different experience. The financial support, social networks, housing, education, policing, and general safety of the white-male community puts one in a better starting position for life.

Some white people get upset because they think that acknowledging that racism exists implies that they are the responsible party. Society isn't trying to hold you accountable for the sins of the past. The attempt being made is an acknowledgement that we are not all starting in the same place, or even traversing the same world. Even so, we should all be given a chance to succeed.

You can say "what about" to individual scenarios but laws are written to help society as a whole and these programs address the overall trends in our country.

To answer your question: Able bodied white males already enjoy special privileges in this country. If you think otherwise it's because you haven't looked at any available information outside of your OANN/mewsmaxxx bubble.

Sys-tem-ic: denoting relation to a system as a whole as opposed to a particular part.

So in our context, that means law, regulation, overarching policy.

Name one systemic barrier that exists today that limits somebody based on being a minority or a woman. Not something from 70 years ago, not a disparity in numbers… an actual barrier that specifically limits women or minorities from accomplishing what white men can.

Go.

 

[dingalings99]

Would you rather live in a small town where 1% of people get murdered or a city .01% that's the difference. Note the city has 300 murders and the small town has 30

Yes I understand this thanks but how is this sampling from 2 populations used in the poverty line stats? I only saw 17% blacks 8% whites below the line as the stat there is no equivalent differentiation between a small town or a city in that stat and im assuming it's based off of the entire country so why wouldnt the total numbers based off the country be important

 

[AB19]

Yes I understand this thanks but how is this sampling from 2 populations used in the poverty line stats? I only saw 17% blacks 8% whites below the line as the stat there is no equivalent differentiation between a small town or a city in that stat and im assuming it's based off of the entire country so why wouldnt the total numbers based off the country be important

If you can't see the correlation then you should consider enrolling in statistics

Sys-tem-ic: denoting relation to a system as a whole as opposed to a particular part.

So in our context, that means law, regulation, overarching policy.

Name one systemic barrier that exists today that limits somebody based on being a minority or a woman. Not something from 70 years ago, not a disparity in numbers… an actual barrier that specifically limits women or minorities from accomplishing what white men can.

Go.

Racism and sexism doesn't exist everyone it was made illegal therefore it doesn't happen and also if you give other people something I was born with that's discrimination

 

[dingalings99]

If you can't see the correlation then you should consider enrolling in statistics

Sorry the FAA doesn't pay me enough for that can you just explain it or explain why per capita data is always better than raw data

 

[AB19]

Sorry the FAA doesn't pay me enough for that can you just explain it or explain why per capita data is always better than raw data

You don't understand why something that happens per person is a better representation than whole numbers?

 

[dingalings99]

You don't understand why something that happens per person is a better representation than whole numbers?

No I don't, explain how the per capita data of 17% blacks and 8% whites are below the poverty line means that this is more unfair for blacks than whites when more whites are living in poverty than blacks

If you're just gonna insult me and base your conclusions on trust me bro then fine

 

[Soul_Controller]

Sys-tem-ic: denoting relation to a system as a whole as opposed to a particular part.

So in our context, that means law, regulation, overarching policy.

Name one systemic barrier that exists today that limits somebody based on being a minority or a woman. Not something from 70 years ago, not a disparity in numbers… an actual barrier that specifically limits women or minorities from accomplishing what white men can.

Go.

It doesn't work like that.

They systemic issue is racism, not a particular "barrier." Racism is what prevents minorities form accomplishing what white men can.

The easiest example is the death penalty. The death penalty applies equally to all people so the policy itself isn't racist. But black people that commit capital murder are more likely to get the death penalty than white people that commit capital murder. As long as humans are in charge, fair systems won't always be applied fairly.

 

[ATCNOMAD]

No I don't, explain how the per capita data of 17% blacks and 8% whites are below the poverty line means that this is more unfair for blacks than whites when more whites are living in poverty than blacks

If you're just gonna insult me and base your conclusions on trust me bro then fine

I already told you lol

No I don't, explain how the per capita data of 17% blacks and 8% whites are below the poverty line means that this is more unfair for blacks than whites when more whites are living in poverty than blacks

If you're just gonna insult me and base your conclusions on trust me bro then fine

It's a better understanding of how each individual shares in aggregated figures accounting for population size and wealth distribution. To put it simple, another way of saying "per person"

 

[AB19]

No I don't, explain how the per capita data of 17% blacks and 8% whites are below the poverty line means that this is more unfair for blacks than whites when more whites are living in poverty than blacks

If you're just gonna insult me and base your conclusions on trust me bro then fine

There is no trust me bro, per capital is what the average person is, or do you not think it's a problem that blacks suffer poverty at over twice the rate

 

[dingalings99]

It's a better understanding of how each individual shares in aggregated figures accounting for population size and wealth distribution. To put it simple, another way of saying "per person"

Lets consider a fictional country ABC

The population of the country is 1000

There's 10 purple people in the country, accounting for 1% of the population. Of those 10, 5 of them are below the poverty line. 50% of purples in ABC per capita are below the poverty line do i have it right?

The other 990 are green, and of that 990, 396 or 40% of them are below the poverty line. 40% of greens in ABC per capita are below the poverty line

So you're telling me the per capita description here is a demonstrably true statistic that purples have it worse in ABC than greens, and that the fact that 5 purples below the poverty line out of 1000 citizens vs 396 greens means nothing, because 50% > 40% ?

 

[AB19]

Lets consider a fictional country ABC

The population of the country is 1000

There's 10 purple people in the country, accounting for 1% of the population. Of those 10, 5 of them are below the poverty line. 50% of purples in ABC per capita are below the poverty line do i have it right?

The other 990 are green, and of that 990, 396 or 40% of them are below the poverty line. 40% of greens in ABC per capita are below the poverty line

So you're telling me the per capita description here is a demonstrably true statistic that purples have it worse in ABC than greens, and that the fact that 5 purples below the poverty line out of 1000 citizens vs 396 greens means nothing, because 50% > 40% ?

Five isnt a high enough number to be significant in statistics, neither is ten. You clearly just don't think it's an issue that blacks suffer poverty at double the rate of whites because there's more white people so that must be bad

 

[ATCNOMAD]

Lets consider a fictional country ABC

The population of the country is 1000

There's 10 purple people in the country, accounting for 1% of the population. Of those 10, 5 of them are below the poverty line. 50% of purples in ABC per capita are below the poverty line do i have it right?

The other 990 are green, and of that 990, 396 or 40% of them are below the poverty line. 40% of greens in ABC per capita are below the poverty line

So you're telling me the per capita description here is a demonstrably true statistic that purples have it worse in ABC than greens, and that the fact that 5 purples below the poverty line out of 1000 citizens vs 396 greens means nothing, because 50% > 40% ?

That's an EXTREMELY low sample size. But if you want to be technical yes. In ABC if you are purple you have a 50% chance of being below the poverty line. If you are green you have a 40% chance of being below the poverty line. So being purple is worse because your odds of poverty is higher. That's exactly how averages work and how per capita works. 1% is a very low example and is rarely used. But that's how it work. 50%>40%. It's very surprising that this is new information for you that needs explaining lol.

Five isnt a high enough number to be significant in statistics, neither is ten. You clearly just don't think it's an issue that blacks suffer poverty at double the rate of whites because there's more white people so that must be bad

I think he's trolling us lol

 

[dingalings99]

That's an EXTREMELY low sample size. But if you want to be technical yes. In ABC if you are purple you have a 50% chance of being below the poverty line. If you are green you have a 40% chance of being below the poverty line. So being purple is worse because your odds of poverty is higher. That's exactly how averages work and how per capita works. 1% is a very low example and is rarely used. But that's how it work. 50%>40%. It's very surprising that this is new information for you that needs explaining lol.

okay great thank you, so my point was at what point does the size of a population begin to be statistically significant? i am looking for a hard rule otherwise this starts to become extremely subjective as opposed to an objective fact due to how you presented this concept in the very beginning

i take it from your views right now that the sample size and population of people in the us and whatever the stats were means that you think the population size is statistically significant enough, but unless i am mistaken, that is just your opinion and is subjective that while blacks have a higher rate of poverty per capita than whites, that somehow this invalidates the surplus of 7 million whites that are in poverty than blacks - and you are contending that this is the case because per capita statistics objectively show:

"It's a better understanding of how each individual shares in aggregated figures accounting for population size and wealth distribution. To put it simple, another way of saying "per person"

whatever it is that you said, except that the "better understanding" you claim that is derived from per capita statistics is in fact not objective but it depends on the population size, which there is no hard rule for

does that make sense?? i am trying to see things from your pov but i am not seeing any attempt to see it from mine

lol and i got the other guy just devolving into race baiting and ad hominem pretty typical of someone who doesnt fully understand a concept and gets mad that they cant explain it

 

[ATCNOMAD]

okay great thank you, so my point was at what point does the size of a population begin to be statistically significant? i am looking for a hard rule otherwise this starts to become extremely subjective as opposed to an objective fact due to how you presented this concept in the very beginning

i take it from your views right now that the sample size and population of people in the us and whatever the stats were means that you think the population size is statistically significant enough, but unless i am mistaken, that is just your opinion and is subjective that while blacks have a higher rate of poverty per capita than whites, that somehow this invalidates the surplus of 7 million whites that are in poverty than blacks - and you are contending that this is the case because per capita statistics objectively show:

"It's a better understanding of how each individual shares in aggregated figures accounting for population size and wealth distribution. To put it simple, another way of saying "per person"

whatever it is that you said, except that the "better understanding" you claim that is derived from per capita statistics is in fact not objective but it depends on the population size, which there is no hard rule for

does that make sense?? i am trying to see things from your pov but i am not seeing any attempt to see it from mine

lol and i got the other guy just devolving into race baiting and ad hominem pretty typical of someone who doesnt fully understand a concept and gets mad that they cant explain it

Because it's about per person. It's that simple. It's a representation of how it is or how the odds are for each individual person. There is no better way to use an example than to use per person. That's why it's used for literally everything lol. I'm really having a hard time believing you aren't just screwing with me at this point lol

 

[PooseMaGoose]

It doesn't work like that.

They systemic issue is racism, not a particular "barrier." Racism is what prevents minorities form accomplishing what white men can.

The easiest example is the death penalty. The death penalty applies equally to all people so the policy itself isn't racist. But black people that commit capital murder are more likely to get the death penalty than white people that commit capital murder. As long as humans are in charge, fair systems won't always be applied fairly.

So I asked for a systemic barrier in place today that limits somebody based on race or sex… and your answer is some bullshit about how black murderers get harsher punishments than white murderers.

Damn.. that TOTALLY explains why minorities and women are underrepresented in some career fields but not others. Wow.

Ladies and gentlemen take note. This is exactly how to provide a vague boogeyman answer that completely dodges the question of specificity thus enabling and encouraging an entire group of people to abandon all consequences and accountability for the direction of their lives.

I asked for just one specific example of systemic barriers preventing minorities and women from accomplishing what anybody else can do…. And your answer was “some individuals are racist.”

Look up the word systemic. After you’ve done that, bask in the knowledge that you aren’t helping a single person by giving them a vague generalized excuse for which they can blame their own failures on ESPECIALLY because we cannot control what other individuals think.

Remember the incredibly horrible racism, forced labor, and internment camps that Asians had to endure in this country’s history? Yeah.. after it ended, they didn’t spend the next 70 years blaming people with other skin colors for all their problems, committing record crime, and sucking the welfare system dry.. They kept the family unit strong, worked hard, and now are the most successful group of people in this country on the basis of wealth, lack of broken families, lack of drug use, lack of crime… we don’t talk about “Asian privilege” though. Maybe it’s because they generally make good decisions and take ownership of their results.

Perhaps the people that think they have it so bad because of some vague imagined idea of racism and systemic barriers would be better off if they took some responsibility, fixed their behaviors, and held each other accountable within their communities..

You’ve backed tens of millions of people into a corner of which there is no escape because their actions don’t matter apparently. If the barrier is simply the racism of some other individuals despite equal rights under the law, you’ve given minorities one option:

Victimhood. Congrats.

 

[ATCNOMAD]

okay great thank you, so my point was at what point does the size of a population begin to be statistically significant? i am looking for a hard rule otherwise this starts to become extremely subjective as opposed to an objective fact due to how you presented this concept in the very beginning

i take it from your views right now that the sample size and population of people in the us and whatever the stats were means that you think the population size is statistically significant enough, but unless i am mistaken, that is just your opinion and is subjective that while blacks have a higher rate of poverty per capita than whites, that somehow this invalidates the surplus of 7 million whites that are in poverty than blacks - and you are contending that this is the case because per capita statistics objectively show:

"It's a better understanding of how each individual shares in aggregated figures accounting for population size and wealth distribution. To put it simple, another way of saying "per person"

whatever it is that you said, except that the "better understanding" you claim that is derived from per capita statistics is in fact not objective but it depends on the population size, which there is no hard rule for

does that make sense?? i am trying to see things from your pov but i am not seeing any attempt to see it from mine

lol and i got the other guy just devolving into race baiting and ad hominem pretty typical of someone who doesnt fully understand a concept and gets mad that they cant explain it

If your argument is sample size being large enough to matter vs too small to matter, that is subjective, you are right. I guess the question then becomes is the sample size important enough to care about. If the sample size is big enough for it to be worth caring about. Well in America not just the black community but every race is important enough. America doesn't throw away or forget about any race of the American people for any reason at all. Definitely not because they simply don't have enough representation. So if every race counts in America the 17% is a part of that.

 

[dingalings99]

Because it's about per person. It's that simple. It's a representation of how it is or how the odds are for each individual person. There is no better way to use an example than to use per person. That's why it's used for literally everything lol. I'm really having a hard time believing you aren't just screwing with me at this point lol

ok so are you saying that if you are black in america then there is a 17% chance that you are under the poverty line whereas if you are white there is an 8% chance and that is why we need DEI, and thats due to what you think is XYZ which is another can of worms

and you agreed in my example where i grossly skewed the numbers to make the point that there are situations where per capita statistics can be misleading or invalid. but in this case, you are saying that the sample size of the us population is enough that the per capita statistic is valid enough to overcome that there are 7 million more people in one group vs another?

if thats accurate then i just dont agree with that view sorry man thanks for trying to explain it

 

[ATCNOMAD]

Sys-tem-ic: denoting relation to a system as a whole as opposed to a particular part.

So in our context, that means law, regulation, overarching policy.

Name one systemic barrier that exists today that limits somebody based on being a minority or a woman. Not something from 70 years ago, not a disparity in numbers… an actual barrier that specifically limits women or minorities from accomplishing what white men can.

Go.

But you can't just look at right now. If you don't understand that the past matters then this debate will never end. People who believe the past doesn't matter are at an impasse with people who believe the past does matter. It's a fundamental difference of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. Difference opinions is why voting is a thing.