US Air Force removes lessons on black WWII pilots from training

[Donal]

I see you're already aware that this has been reversed. But you may still not understand what probably happened here.

Right-wingers are stupid and reactionary. They have no idea how their fake thought guy "act now, apologize never" approach does far more damage and expense than they claim they are stopping.

No one has to work hard to make the Orange Rapist and Drunky McPunchwife look bad.

 

[plague311]

I'm not really interested in debating your perception of Trump. I'll just note that you seem to be drawing conclusions about other things based on your perception of Trump himself. This is probably not the best way to evaluate policy.

Right? What kind of fool would base their perception of policy on the personality of the individual making the policy? That would be asinine.

 

[Ziggurat]

The reason for DEI is that the playing field isn't level.

Sure, but that's primarily because of economics, not race or sex. A focus on race or sex won't fix that. A focus on race and sex isn't fixing that.

The primary metric used to claim that the playing field isn't level is "disparate impact", and disparate impact is a bull ◊◊◊◊ measurement.

DEI delivers equity, not equality.

You're half right. DEI tries to deliver equity, but it doesn't even do that very well.

Did you know, for example, that Nigerian Americans are on average wealthier than white Americans? Does DEI take this into account and favor whites over Nigerian Americans? Or poor blacks from Detroit over rich Nigerians? Does DEI favor whites from a poor Appalachian background over blacks from Martha's Vineyard? Nope. DEI attempts at equity are shallow and superficial at best.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right? What kind of fool would base their perception of policy on the personality of the individual making the policy? That would be asinine.

It is indeed asinine to evaluate an action based on the person doing it rather than the action itself.

 

[plague311]

It is indeed asinine to evaluate an action based on the person doing it rather than the action itself.

No, it's not. It's literally called ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ motive. Perhaps you're new here, but you can tell a lot about the action by the motive. As in, what's the end game they're trying to get to and how does said action further that goal?

Did someone put their disingenuous hat on today? You're kind of on a roll with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's not. It's literally called ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ motive. Perhaps you're new here, but you can tell a lot about the action by the motive.

Except even the motives here are presumed.

You're fighting awfully hard to avoid evaluating the actions themselves. And yet you accuse me of disingenuity?

 

[plague311]

Except even the motives here are presumed.

You're fighting awfully hard to avoid evaluating the actions themselves. And yet you accuse me of disingenuity?

You're implying the motives are presumed when we've got a lengthy background of Trump to know what his motives are and you're being disingenuous by pretending you don't know what his motives are. Which is fine, knock yourself out but you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're implying the motives are presumed when we've got a lengthy background of Trump to know what his motives are and you're being disingenuous by pretending you don't know what his motives are. Which is fine, knock yourself out but you're not fooling anyone.

Sure, sure. Orange man bad, we all know the drill. And still nothing to address the actions themselves. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[plague311]

Sure, sure. Orange man bad, we all know the drill. And still nothing to address the actions themselves. Curiouser and curiouser.

You keep saying this but they've been addressed. Rolling back all the DEI ◊◊◊◊ is petty, stupid and you avoiding the fact that there is no level playing field stops the conversation dead. You're not arguing in good faith. It's the same dumb ◊◊◊◊ as saying "There ain't no racism cause we dun had a black President". It doesn't reflect reality and the only purpose it serves is for you to do this same song and dance you're doing here.

Like I said, keep going if it makes you happy but no one is fooled by it. You're putting on an act for yourself and yourself only.

 

[Donal]

Sure, but that's primarily because of economics, not race or sex.

Are we going to pretend these factors aren't related?

A focus on race or sex won't fix that. A focus on race and sex isn't fixing that.

Focusing on a deciding factor will not help resolve an issue?

The primary metric used to claim that the playing field isn't level is "disparate impact", and disparate impact is a bull ◊◊◊◊ measurement.

Ya, "how icky it makes me feel" is the deciding metric.

You're half right. DEI tries to deliver equity, but it doesn't even do that very well.

Ya, generally these corporate initiatives are more PR than anything. But, they aren't some kind of death to freedom or communist take over.

Did you know, for example, that Nigerian Americans are on average wealthier than white Americans?

Did you know 30% of Nigerian immigrants and their children have post-graduate degrees. Could it be the families that immigrate to the US from Nigeria were already wealthy and connected? Could it be that most immigrants who come to the US, irrespective of the country, already have education, work experience, and/or a support network when they arrive?

Does DEI take this into account and favor whites over Nigerian Americans?

How about comparing whites at the same economic and educational level?

Or poor blacks from Detroit over rich Nigerians? Does DEI favor whites from a poor Appalachian background over blacks from Martha's Vineyard? Nope. DEI attempts at equity are shallow and superficial at best.

Ya, the bottom 1% of whites don't have as much as the top 1% of blacks! In fact, it's because of all the blacks that the bottom 1% of whites are so poor!

How about asking the bottom 1% of whites if they would prefer being the top 1% of blacks?

Also, a common right-winger trick is to proclaim that a certain program or policy did not solve every problem said right-winger claims it was supposed to solve, said program or policy is a failure.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are we going to pretend these factors aren't related?

They are correlated. I'm not sure what you mean by "related". But even that correlation isn't as simple as DEI would have you believe. As I've pointed out, Nigerian Americans on average earn more money than white Americans.

Ya, "how icky it makes me feel" is the deciding metric.

That's basically what "disparate impact" is. You don't like the outcome. Never mind whether what actually caused it, blame it on racism or sexism. Even if the reason for it is personal choice.

How about we use actual racial discrimination as our metric?

Ya, generally these corporate initiatives are more PR than anything. But, they aren't some kind of death to freedom or communist take over.

And anything short of that can't be bad? Yeah, no.

Did you know 30% of Nigerian immigrants and their children have post-graduate degrees. Could it be the families that immigrate to the US from Nigeria were already wealthy and connected?

It could indeed. Welcome to the realization that things other than race can be more important determinants of economic success than race.

Ya, the bottom 1% of whites don't have as much as the top 1% of blacks!

Indeed. And yet, DEI treats the bottom 1% of whites as if they were the same as the top 1% of whites, and the top 1% of blacks as if they were the same as the bottom 1% of blacks.

Also, a common right-winger trick is to proclaim that a certain program or policy did not solve every problem said right-winger claims it was supposed to solve, said program or policy is a failure.

What problem has DEI solved?

 

[Ziggurat]

You keep saying this but they've been addressed. Rolling back all the DEI ◊◊◊◊ is petty, stupid and you avoiding the fact that there is no level playing field stops the conversation dead. You're not arguing in good faith. It's the same dumb ◊◊◊◊ as saying "There ain't no racism cause we dun had a black President". It doesn't reflect reality and the only purpose it serves is for you to do this same song and dance you're doing here.

Oh, I never said there was no racism. But on the macro level, current-day racism isn't a primary driver of economic inequality. And you can't fix the problems of racism with more racism. Nor will straw manning me somehow make your own arguments better.

 

[Donal]

They are correlated. I'm not sure what you mean by "related". But even that correlation isn't as simple as DEI would have you believe. As I've pointed out, Nigerian Americans on average earn more money than white Americans.

And as I pointed out, there could be more factors you are ignoring.

That's basically what "disparate impact" is. You don't like the outcome. Never mind whether what actually caused it, blame it on racism or sexism. Even if the reason for it is personal choice.

You're asserting that racism and sexism don't play a role

How about we use actual racial discrimination as our metric?

Because you will dismiss any and all studies?

And anything short of that can't be bad? Yeah, no.

I still have no idea what the actual objection is other than "it hurts my feelings".

It could indeed. Welcome to the realization that things other than race can be more important determinants of economic success than race.

But, racism would explain the economic disparities.

Indeed. And yet, DEI treats the bottom 1% of whites as if they were the same as the top 1% of whites, and the top 1% of blacks as if they were the same as the bottom 1% of blacks.

It does no such thing.

What problem has DEI solved?

Well, I keep looking for ways to make right-wingers cry. It works pretty well for that. Then again, a lot of things seem to do that.

 

[Vixen]

Sure, but that's primarily because of economics, not race or sex. A focus on race or sex won't fix that. A focus on race and sex isn't fixing that.

The primary metric used to claim that the playing field isn't level is "disparate impact", and disparate impact is a bull ◊◊◊◊ measurement.

You're half right. DEI tries to deliver equity, but it doesn't even do that very well.

Did you know, for example, that Nigerian Americans are on average wealthier than white Americans? Does DEI take this into account and favor whites over Nigerian Americans? Or poor blacks from Detroit over rich Nigerians? Does DEI favor whites from a poor Appalachian background over blacks from Martha's Vineyard? Nope. DEI attempts at equity are shallow and superficial at best.

Shocking logical fallacy there, of the false analogy. The number of wealthy Nigerian Americans (relatively recent arrivals) is minuscule compared to the millions African-Americans who have been there for hundreds of years, possibly longer than some European Americans. The wealthy Nigerians aren't going to be looking for entry level opportunities for a start. And so what if they benefit from DEI, given the likely high level of discrimination they face in the job and political market? It doesn't render the benefits of DEI null and void.

 

[dudalb]

How can it be illegal if the President has ordered it in his position as President, the SCOTUS has made it clear that the President officially doing something makes it legal. Never mind the "and whose army"?

That is not what the Scotus said. Things are bad enough without exnggeration.
The us is not a Dictatoship quite yet.

 

[Vixen]

They are correlated. I'm not sure what you mean by "related". But even that correlation isn't as simple as DEI would have you believe. As I've pointed out, Nigerian Americans on average earn more money than white Americans.

That's basically what "disparate impact" is. You don't like the outcome. Never mind whether what actually caused it, blame it on racism or sexism. Even if the reason for it is personal choice.

How about we use actual racial discrimination as our metric?

And anything short of that can't be bad? Yeah, no.

It could indeed. Welcome to the realization that things other than race can be more important determinants of economic success than race.

Indeed. And yet, DEI treats the bottom 1% of whites as if they were the same as the top 1% of whites, and the top 1% of blacks as if they were the same as the bottom 1% of blacks.

What problem has DEI solved?

Now you are employing the Half-Truth logic fallacy. Try dealing with the majority populations instead of the 1% outliers. In any normal population distribution there will of course be 1% outliers that fall outside the norm.

Let's talk about the norm.

 

[Ziggurat]

And as I pointed out, there could be more factors you are ignoring.

Do you think that changes anything? No, it doesn't. More factors being involved doesn't weaken my argument, it weakens the case for DEI, because DEI doesn't consider all those other factors.

You're asserting that racism and sexism don't play a role

They may play a small role. They don't play a large role. Not today, not in the US.

Because you will dismiss any and all studies?

How do you know? You haven't presented a single study. But if you present a bad study (of which there are many), then yeah, I'll dismiss it.

I still have no idea what the actual objection is other than "it hurts my feelings".

What, "racial discrimination is bad and we shouldn't do it" isn't enough of an objection?

But, racism would explain the economic disparities.

No, it wouldn't. Because again, Nigerian Americans. But that's hardly the only evidence. You know what's a FAR better predictor for economic success or failure than race? Whether you come from a single-mother home. That applies to blacks AND whites.

It does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

Well, I keep looking for ways to make right-wingers cry. It works pretty well for that. Then again, a lot of things seem to do that.

Of course. I'm not surprised that this is actually more important to you than helping lift up the poor.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, I never said there was no racism. But on the macro level, current-day racism isn't a primary driver of economic inequality. And you can't fix the problems of racism with more racism. Nor will straw manning me somehow make your own arguments better.

What are you talking about? This is desperate debating. The Tuskegee Airmen who trained at Alabama were forced to start their own battalion because they were excluded from the mainstream Airforce. They went on to be the pilots most in demand to escort carriers across to Europe. Their achievement is truly amazing. There is NOTHING racist about recognising their contribution - or sexist that of the women pilots who also had to be best of the best to even step inside a plane - the reason they had to have 'special treatment' as you call it is because they were excluded from the usual routes to their chosen career.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now you are employing the Half-Truth logic fallacy. Try dealing with the majority populations instead of the 1% outliers. In any normal population distribution there will of course be 1% outliers that fall outside the norm.

Let's talk about the norm.

Do you have an actual point to make? Please, make it. If there's something you think I'm not addressing that should be addressed, then address it. You don't need to wait for me.

 

[Ziggurat]

What are you talking about? This is desperate debating. The Tuskegee Airmen who trained at Alabama were forced to start their own battalion because they were excluded from the mainstream Airforce. They went on to be the pilots most in demand to escort carriers across to Europe. Their achievement is truly amazing. There is NOTHING racist about recognising their contribution - or sexist that of the women pilots who also had to be best of the best to even step inside a plane - the reason they had to have 'special treatment' as you call it is because they were excluded from the usual routes to their chosen career.

You seem to have missed the fact that I said "current-day racism". I put that qualifier in there for a reason, because in the past racism really was a major impediment. I've never denied that. But the impediments that kept the Tuskegee Airmen from joining regular units doesn't exist anymore. The US military desegregated a long, long time ago.

And that desegregation wasn't DEI. Recognizing their accomplishments and the unfairness they faced isn't DEI. And removing them from training videos isn't required by the elimination of DEI. Which is why Hegseth immediately reversed the unwarranted decision to remove that material from training. That initial removal is part of a malicious compliance trend which we will no doubt see more of, which activists are in fact calling for, as an effort to oppose Trump.