Mostly democratic city mayors, and city councils. DAs haven't helped with the free for all/not pressing felony charges for theft under 1K in cities like San FranciscoErm, which party do you think slashed police numbers and budgets?
Mostly democratic city mayors, and city councils. DAs haven't helped with the free for all/not pressing felony charges for theft under 1K in cities like San FranciscoErm, which party do you think slashed police numbers and budgets?
IIRC something similar was in the OkCupid user data blog some years (maybe even a decade now) ago and it showed men still pursue (send messages to) women closer to their own age, though still a few years younger. I might have thought about that statistic so much to become a living example and never send likes to Tinder profiles of under 25s, even though they are the most attractive. I mean, it's useless anyway.I remember a study in which participants were asked about the age of people they found most attractive, and what it basically found was that, on average, the women in the sample tend to rate men of similar age to themselves as most attractive. Men, on the other hand, always rated the youngest available category of women (18-21) as most attractive regardless of their own age.
Of course, we shouldn't take this at face value, because these people were being asked to pick from a selection of abstract numbers and because they are self-reporting they might not be entirely honest.
C'mon, really? The only reason some middle-aged women are attractive is that they've retained youthfulness in their looks. Though now that I think about it it's not entirely fair to say that, as some have an attractive personality too. It's not a saving grace for anybody.But then we also grow up and mature: now I'd happily say there are lots of extremely good looking 40-something and 50-something women.
It's a lifestyle / life situation thing, right? When I was a teen I couldn't relate to 30-year-olds because I was young and nowadays it's for other reasons.And to be fair, when I was under 20, the idea of having sex with a 30+-year-old woman was kinda weird (they're like, ancient).
Did you haver a minor stroke and completely miss the part where Baffle was talking about UK policing? Yes? No? 'MURICA!'?Mostly democratic city mayors, and city councils. DAs haven't helped with the free for all/not pressing felony charges for theft under 1K in cities like San Francisco
Uhh, that's mostly because any amount of theft under $950 in California is, definitionally, *not a felony*. Like, by law it's a misdemeanor. Any DA trying to charge people who steal under $950 with felony theft would be wildly negligent and/or incompetentMostly democratic city mayors, and city councils. DAs haven't helped with the free for all/not pressing felony charges for theft under 1K in cities like San Francisco
Look. You don't need to repeat yourself at all. I'd much rather you didn't-- because what you're repeating is completely irrelevant and missing the point.I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself (frankly, I'm surprised I have the stamina to repeat it yet again), but to say this (again), that there's been demographic mixing/diveristy of people throughout history is a red herring in the context of the 20th and 21st centuries. And harmoniousness is hardly "extra criteria" when said mixing of prior millennia was often through invasion, as opposed to the immigration of the modern day.
Indeed. And nobody equated the Great Migrations with modern diverse society.Even by that, very few people would equate voting of the late 19th/early 20th centuries with voting of ages prior.
NOBODY COMPARED THEM. NOT IN SCOPE, OR NATURE, OR ANYTHING ELSE. Can you please acknowledge that, rather than just repeating that bollocks over and over?Yes, you pointed it out, and I pointed out it was a disingenuous comparison. Similar to voting, it's silly to bring up prior voting systems and put them in the same context as the late 19th/early 20th centuries, where you start to get universal sufferage. The Athenians had democracy of a sort for instance, but democracy in the sense that, among other things, slaves couldn't vote. It's not really democracy as we'd call it in the modern context.
Equity doesn't require people to be disadvantaged.The wheelchair access isn't a good example of equity, because the people who don't need wheelchairs aren't disadvantaged by the presence of a ramp.
Still not going to address the actual argument, then? I used the same logical process to arrive at those examples as you used to arrive at yours.As for the equality examples you posted, I have no problem believing you wrote them in jest, but a lot of them are similar to arguments that are actually made, so even if you didn't intend Poe's law, it still applies.
So you just want to use the term "equity" to refer to the worst examples of stuff you don't like, and exclude examples of stuff that's innocuous.This is borderline motte-and-bailey.
I've given you examples of equity. I didn't implement these examples, nor call them examples of equity, but they have been implemented, and done so in the name of equity. If all equity was was wheelchair access or cheaper student tickets, almost no-one would have a problem with it. But the examples given are examples of equity. If there's a nicer, cuddlier version of equity. If there's a new word for the examples of equity cited ("equinimity?"), we can start discussing equinimity and leave equity to the side, but until then, we're left discussing equity, because the things discussed have been called equity, done in the name of equity, and have been contrasted with equality.
None of these are examples of people basing their thought process on the fact that they can personally get away from criminals so they don't care about anyone else.The Emerging Movement for Police and Prison Abolition
Mariame Kaba, a New York City-based activist and organizer, is at the center of an effort to “build up another world.”www.newyorker.com
Opinion | Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police (Published 2020)
Because reform won’t happen.www.nytimes.com
Police abolition movement - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You're all over the place here.Look. You don't need to repeat yourself at all. I'd much rather you didn't-- because what you're repeating is completely irrelevant and missing the point.
You say it's a "red herring", but you're the one who brought it up. You say they're not 'extra criteria', and then talk about how the early migrations weren't like the ones of the present day... which is an extra criteria, because originally you said nothing whatsoever about the nature of the demographic mixing. You just said it didn't happen. At all.
Indeed. And nobody equated the Great Migrations with modern diverse society.
To quote your own words:NOBODY COMPARED THEM. NOT IN SCOPE, OR NATURE, OR ANYTHING ELSE. Can you please acknowledge that, rather than just repeating that bollocks over and over?
Again, you brought voting into this (see post 6011). This being in the context of trying to draw parallels between the Great Migrations and mass migration of the last century or so.It would be factually inaccurate to say voting was modern to the 1900s. Saying that voting is older wouldn't be "comparing" or "equating" the older forms with the modern ones. It would just be correct. And it's adding extra criteria to say those older forms aren't like modern democracy, because that wasn't the damn original statement, which just concerned voting in any form.
I don't even know what argument you're making at this point, it's been all over the place. Somehow, we've gone from equity, to diversity, to democracy.Still not going to address the actual argument, then? I used the same logical process to arrive at those examples as you used to arrive at yours.
Same way that you use equity to only refer to the most inocuous examples and exclude the negative ones?So you just want to use the term "equity" to refer to the worst examples of stuff you don't like, and exclude examples of stuff that's innocuous.
And yet, equity results in just that, as the examples cited have demonstrated.Equity doesn't require people to be disadvantaged.
Actually, the point of those links was to demonstrate the example of a police abolition movement, as opposed to the police reform movement, since there was already debate in the thread as to the two approaches.None of these are examples of people basing their thought process on the fact that they can personally get away from criminals so they don't care about anyone else.
Oh then the conservatives.Did you haver a minor stroke and completely miss the part where Baffle was talking about UK policing? Yes? No? 'MURICA!'?
I disagree if you steal 10 times, and get caught. You should go to jail.Uhh, that's mostly because any amount of theft under $950 in California is, definitionally, *not a felony*. Like, by law it's a misdemeanor. Any DA trying to charge people who steal under $950 with felony theft would be wildly negligent and/or incompetent
I don't care if you disagree, it's the literal lawI disagree if you steal 10 times, and get caught. You should go to jail.
Maybe for progressive DAs who think they know everything.Gergar knows more about what the law should be than the people who make the laws and enforce them.
Edit: And for the record, "three strikes" laws are some of the worst deterrents out there.
Do ‘three-strikes laws’ prevent violent crime?
A killing rampage in Memphis that left four people dead has sparked calls for three-strikes laws to be put into place.www.newsnationnow.com
Maybe for progressive DAs who think they know everything.
You brought up diversity. You did not say "diversity in a comparable form to today". You just said diversity, a term which encompasses any form of demographic mixing/coexistence, whether its comparable to today's form or not.You're all over the place here.
You brought up Great Migrations in post 5990. I didn't. The only reason we're talking about Great Migrations at all is because you inserted it into the conversation, trying to equate it with "diversity" as the concept is currently applied.
So all I can say (again) is that discussing stuff like Great Migrations is irrelevant to the subject of diversity in the 20th/21st centuries. You're trying to claim that these massive differences in time scale and context are simply "extra criteria."
That quote literally just says it's an example of diversity. It in no way draws an equivalence between that form and the form we have today.To quote your own words:
Diversity is not a "new phenomenon"; mixing of people from very different demographics has taken place since the Great Migrations.
So yes, you're drawing an equivalance between these things.
Yes, I brought up voting, as an analogy. I pointed out that if someone said voting existed prior to 1900, that sentence is 1) factually correct and 2) in no way, shape, or form drawing an equivalence between older forms of voting and modern democracy.Again, you brought voting into this (see post 6011). This being in the context of trying to draw parallels between the Great Migrations and mass migration of the last century or so.
Yet, you still act as if deliterious examples automatically tarnish non-deleterious instances.I don't even know what argument you're making at this point, it's been all over the place. Somehow, we've gone from equity, to diversity, to democracy.
If your argument is that not every piece of equity is deliterious, yes, that's already been stated in this thread. You can look up post 5965 to see that.
Nope, this is a lie. The term encompasses perfectly fine policies as well as some more contentious ones. You're the only one acting as if the entire concept is affected by specific, individual approaches within it.Same way that you use equity to only refer to the most inocuous examples and exclude the negative ones?
"Wheelchair ramps do not disadvantage people" [...] "Equity results in people being disadvantaged" [...] "Wheelchair ramps fall under equity".And yet, equity results in just that, as the examples cited have demonstrated.
Yes, wheelchair ramps would technically fall under equity, but they're a mile removed from the equity that's actually been discussed up to this point. No-one blinks an eye at the existence of wheelchair ramps. If, on the other hand, DIE statements by themselves are enough to disqualify candiates, most people would blink, and have.
Then why did you post them in response to a section of my post which wasn't anything to do with that?Actually, the point of those links was to demonstrate the example of a police abolition movement, as opposed to the police reform movement, since there was already debate in the thread as to the two approaches.
I shouldn't have to, for the reasons I've given.You brought up diversity. You did not say "diversity in a comparable form to today".
Yes, but we're not discussing the history of diversity across human existence, are we?You just said diversity, a term which encompasses any form of demographic mixing/coexistence, whether its comparable to today's form or not.
Then why bring it up? There's a clear context in this thread. Again, if you want to discuss diversity over the last 300,000 years, then do it in its own thread. Even if you didn't literally equate it, that's the implication, because otherwise, it's a non sequitur.I inserted the Great Migrations as an example of demographics mixing. I DID NOT "equate it with diversity as the concept is currently applied"-- this is a lie.
It very literally does. You're equating the diversity of human history with diversity as it's currently understood/practiced today. Which, I might remind you, started off in the context of diversity, inclusion, and equity. We've gone from DIE statements to the entire history of humanity. If you don't see how this is concept creep, then I can't help you.That quote literally just says it's an example of diversity. It in no way draws an equivalence between that form and the form we have today.
Except by that analogy, if we're specifically discussing cars and trains, it's silly to bring up carts and wagons, unless we were discussing transport in its totality.Yes, I brought up voting, as an analogy. I pointed out that if someone said voting existed prior to 1900, that sentence is 1) factually correct and 2) in no way, shape, or form drawing an equivalence between older forms of voting and modern democracy.
You seemingly believe that if something can be said to exist a long time ago, it must therefore be equivalent to modern forms. Transport existed millenia ago? Oh, so I must be saying simple carts are equivalent to trains and automobiles!
Well, no, because no-one has an issue with wheelchair ramps or whatnot. The issues of equity are in the areas I've cited. No-one, not on this thread, or any link, has mentioned wheelchairs. The actual controversy about equity is where forced outcomes are sought after, regardless of whatever deleterious effects might prevent themselves. AA, cancelling of advanced classes, etc.Yet, you still act as if deliterious examples automatically tarnish non-deleterious instances.
Again, look at the history of this thread. This started off with DIE statements, now we're discussing wheelchairs.Nope, this is a lie. The term encompasses perfectly fine policies as well as some more contentious ones. You're the only one acting as if the entire concept is affected by specific, individual approaches within it.
Those aren't contradictory statements. If I said wheelchair ramps disadvantage people, that would be false. If I say equity disadvantages people, that would be true, through the examples given."Wheelchair ramps do not disadvantage people" [...] "Equity results in people being disadvantaged" [...] "Wheelchair ramps fall under equity".
You're contradicting your own post, within the same paragraph, to try to maintain this broad brush condemnation.
It's extremely rich to accuse me of going off-topic when every tangent on the DIE topic has been introduced by you. We've gone from diversity to Great Migrations, from equity to wheelchair ramps, to, um, cars.Then why did you post them in response to a section of my post which wasn't anything to do with that?
When that distinction makes the difference between something factually wrong and something factually right, yes, you should have to.I shouldn't have to, for the reasons I've given.
As soon as someone makes a claim about something not existing long ago (as you did), then that necessarily expands the conversation to include what things were like a long time ago.Yes, but we're not discussing the history of diversity across human existence, are we?
I brought it up because you said something factually incorrect. If someone said transport is a 1900s invention, and I said it's actually been around for millenia, it would be a bizarre defence to say "well, the context of the thread is modern stuff so obviously I meant modern forms of transport!"Then why bring it up? There's a clear context in this thread. Again, if you want to discuss diversity over the last 300,000 years, then do it in its own thread. Even if you didn't literally equate it, that's the implication, because otherwise, it's a non sequitur.
This is a lie. Saying that two things qualify as examples of X doesn't mean those two things are equal in any other ways.It very literally does. You're equating the diversity of human history with diversity as it's currently understood/practiced today.
So to get this straight: you think it would be perfectly reasonable and correct to state that "transport is less than 2 centuries old"? Because the surrounding context is about modern stuff and thus we should all just assume that when you say "transport" you actually mean specific modern forms?Except by that analogy, if we're specifically discussing cars and trains, it's silly to bring up carts and wagons, unless we were discussing transport in its totality.
EXACTLY. But you haven't been saying "equity in these areas is contentious". You've been saying equity itself, and DEI, are contentious in themselves. That necessarily includes the innocuous and harmless stuff alongside the rest. This has been exactly my point from the start.Well, no, because no-one has an issue with wheelchair ramps or whatnot. The issues of equity are in the areas I've cited. No-one, not on this thread, or any link, has mentioned wheelchairs.
Funny how a discussion about DEI, which encompasses equity, can lead to discussing examples of equity! How odd!Again, look at the history of this thread. This started off with DIE statements, now we're discussing wheelchairs.
I had no interest in discussing wheelchairs, you brought them up. No-one has an issue with wheelchairs.
It would be true to say equity CAN disadvantage people. But to say it necessarily disadvantages people, you must believe that any examples that qualify as equity must also disadvantage people. And that is mutually contradictory with your acknowledgement that wheelchair accessibility doesn't disadvantage anybody.Those aren't contradictory statements. If I said wheelchair ramps disadvantage people, that would be false. If I say equity disadvantages people, that would be true, through the examples given.
If you condemn equity as a whole, then you're condemning all implementations and forms. And that's what you've been doing: rather than condemn specific instances, you've been condemning the entire principle.I've given examples of equity in practice (y'know, the equity that was originally being discussed), I've given examples of how it disadvantage people, and now we have...wheelchairs. As if wheelchair ramps in of themselves somehow negate every issue with equity. No-one is discussing wheelchairs. No-one is suggesting that equity requirements in higher ed are relevant to wheelchairs. The only reason we're discussing wheelchairs is that you've inserted them into the topic, as if to say "well if you're fine with wheelchairs, equity's great, right?"
One can make the point that some societies have a problem in terms of putting people in prison who would be better off not in prison, and not sticking some people in prison long enough. In terms of the latter, repeat recidivists are an obvious problem, and long jail sentences have merit simply to stop them inevitably committing crime because they have no will or desire to stop.I disagree if you steal 10 times, and get caught. You should go to jail.
I may have implied three strikes, but I am personally not in favor of it. I am in favor of the fact that oftentimes a small sample size of say 327 people in NYC commit most of the thefts and get rearrested the most. I am in favor of ten strikes. For example, if I retake a test 10 times and don't get at least a B it is my fault. If I make a mistake 1-2 times sure I may just not get it, but ten times, really.One can make the point that some societies have a problem in terms of putting people in prison who would be better off not in prison, and not sticking some people in prison long enough. In terms of the latter, repeat recidivists are an obvious problem, and long jail sentences have merit simply to stop them inevitably committing crime because they have no will or desire to stop.
However, a "three strikes" rule can be extraordinarily crude and injust. I don't think there's much use chucking a lot of drug users in jail for 30 years just for possession / use. They need a rehab program. Many petty crimes might be better dealt with by rehabilitation, or their crimes can of course be a factor of a deeply substandard social and economic milieu, and without tackling the wider societal problems many, many people will always be desperate enough to commit crime. I would prefer a more, perhaps, sophisticated mechanism to determine who society really needs to be protected from with lengthy jail sentences.