The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

[lilpixieofterror]

One would think, after closely and actively reading my posts, that I spent a lot of time specifically outlining how I was not arguing and did not need to argue that online real estate listers were engaged in racial discrimination.

Maybe folks need to spend more time considering what they and others are arguing and less time projecting their biases as labels on others.

--Sam

Arguing with Sam:

Me: “Water is obviously wet.”

Sam: “It’s possible that water is not wet.”

Me: “Do you have any evidence that water is not wet?”

Sam: “You need to actively read my post because I never said water is not wet.”

Me: “So why are you arguing that it’s possible that water isn’t wet? Just stick your hand in a glass of water a few times and see if it ever comes back not wet.”

Sam: “That’s not science, do you have and studies that show that water is wet?”

Me: “Why do you need studies for such an easy experiment? Simply have you and some friends stick your hands in water and see if they come back as anything, but wet.”

Sam: “You need to actively read my post because I never said water is not wet.”

Me: “So why do you keep arguing for the possibility that water isn’t wet when there’s no evidence to support the possibility that water isn’t wet?”

Sam: “I never said that water isn’t wet, you need to spend more time considering what I said and less time projecting your bias labels on others.”

This the fruitless endeavor of arguing with Sam. I’m going to do something more fruitful, like nail jello to a wall.

[oxmixmudd]

That's what Cain said when he tried to deflect suspicion away from the fact that he murdered his brother. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

Yes you are.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Yes you are.

Jim

[Sparko]

One would think, after closely and actively reading my posts, that I spent a lot of time specifically outlining how I was not arguing and did not need to argue that online real estate listers were engaged in racial discrimination.

Maybe folks need to spend more time considering what they and others are arguing and less time projecting their biases as labels on others.

--Sam

Great! Then we all agree it isn't happening.

[Sparko]

Arguing with Sam:

Me: “Water is obviously wet.”

Sam: “It’s possible that water is not wet.”

Me: “Do you have any evidence that water is not wet?”

Sam: “You need to actively read my post because I never said water is not wet.”

Me: “So why are you arguing that it’s possible that water isn’t wet? Just stick your hand in a glass of water a few times and see if it ever comes back not wet.”

Sam: “That’s not science, do you have and studies that show that water is wet?”

Me: “Why do you need studies for such an easy experiment? Simply have you and some friends stick your hands in water and see if they come back as anything, but wet.”

Sam: “You need to actively read my post because I never said water is not wet.”

Me: “So why do you keep arguing for the possibility that water isn’t wet when there’s no evidence to support the possibility that water isn’t wet?”

Sam: “I never said that water isn’t wet, you need to spend more time considering what I said and less time projecting your bias labels on others.”

This the fruitless endeavor of arguing with Sam. I’m going to do something more fruitful, like nail jello to a wall.

^ That.

[Mountain Man]

Meanwhile, black unemployment falls to a record low 5.5% thanks to Trump's economic policy.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...ted-in-august/

[Sparko]

Meanwhile, black unemployment falls to a record low 5.5% thanks to Trump's economic policy.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...ted-in-august/

Probably only because he is secretly murdering all of the unemployed blacks.

[Sam]

^ That.

Would be more useful for you to go back and restate the argument that was made instead of joining in with the trolling.

"Online real estate listings eliminate the opportunity for racial bias in the housing market" does not appear to me to be equivalent to "Water is wet". Nor, I think, would it be considered such by any reasonable person

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Would be more useful for you to go back and restate the argument that was made instead of joining in with the trolling.

"Online real estate listings eliminate the opportunity for racial bias in the housing market" does not appear to me to be equivalent to "Water is wet". Nor, I think, would it be considered such by any reasonable person

--Sam

It’s because there’s no evidence to prove otherwise and it’s completely pointless to even bother reasoning with you. It’s a much better use of my time to use sarcasm and humor to point out your insanity. Especially since my point is that it’s virtually impossible to hide listings and keep certain people from seeing these listings with modern search tools, not that it’s impossible for racism to slip in at another point. You can’t even get what I said right either.

[Sparko]

Would be more useful for you to go back and restate the argument that was made instead of joining in with the trolling.

"Online real estate listings eliminate the opportunity for racial bias in the housing market" does not appear to me to be equivalent to "Water is wet". Nor, I think, would it be considered such by any reasonable person

--Sam

I think she did an excellent job of explaining your debate techniques and summarizing the last several pages in a humorous manner. Even to your dismissal of the 'testing' of the premise that you keep saying you never claimed.

[oxmixmudd]

Would be more useful for you to go back and restate the argument that was made instead of joining in with the trolling.

"Online real estate listings eliminate the opportunity for racial bias in the housing market" does not appear to me to be equivalent to "Water is wet". Nor, I think, would it be considered such by any reasonable person

--Sam

I would agree with you there. Pix made an unsustainable statement which you reasonably challenged. But the original assertion (of hers) has been lost and you're argument has been twisted over the course of the discussion into you claiming you have proof there IS racial bias in the algorithms used by real estate companies. You didn't, and you can take heart in that reasonable people capable of reading from beginning to end understand the difference.

Jim

[Sparko]

I would agree with you there. Pix made an unsustainable statement which you reasonably challenged. But the original assertion (of hers) has been lost and you're argument has been twisted over the course of the discussion into you claiming you have proof there IS racial bias in the algorithms used by real estate companies. You didn't, and you can take heart in that reasonable people capable of reading from beginning to end understand the difference.

Jim

We never said he claimed to have proof of racial bias in the algorithms used by real estate companies. A little active reading would show you that.

[lilpixieofterror]

I would agree with you there. Pix made an unsustainable statement which you reasonably challenged. But the original assertion (of hers) has been lost and you're argument has been twisted over the course of the discussion into you claiming you have proof there IS racial bias in the algorithms used by real estate companies. You didn't, and you can take heart in that reasonable people capable of reading from beginning to end understand the difference.

Jim

Than simply do an experiment and see if the search results change, depending on the computer or phone you use. See I’ve moved over a dozen times and most of my friends have too. I’ve helped many people find houses and apartments by using online search guides and you know what? Whenever we use my phone, computer, work computer, their phone, their computer, etc... the search results match. I have yet to see the search results on a black airman’s phone look any different than on mine. It’s almost as if you two are jumping to conclusions and trying to fill in the gaps between: “some AI’s return racist results” and “Zillow uses AI” to string together the two statements without ever showing that the search AI’s, of a peculiar company, are racist. Funny, I thought jumping to conclusions wasn’t science. So much for that.

[Sam]

I think she did an excellent job of explaining your debate techniques and summarizing the last several pages in a humorous manner. Even to your dismissal of the 'testing' of the premise that you keep saying you never claimed.

Since it's relevant again, one of my favorite memories on this site is when I introduced a longitudinal study showing that children of same-sex parents fared as well or better in development as children of opposite-sex parents. You and Cow Poke misunderstood how the study was using the term "birth parents" and spent several pages arguing that the study was invalid because how the study defined and used the terms for its purpose (by including children who were adopted into a family when they were under a year old) wasn't the "right" way to define the term.

It was similarly exhausting but illuminating at the time.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Pix made an unsustainable statement which you reasonably challenged.

Suppose you had this exchange with someone:

You: "I'm not a racist."
Other person: "But it's possible that you are a racist."

Would you really consider that a reasonable challenge to your statement?