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

[Mountain Man]

Even today, if you go to most universities you'll see many various ethnic groups willingly segregating themselves

You'll even find student run organizations within schools that cater exclusively to a particular demographic (so long as they're not white, because that'd be racist).

[Sparko]

Now you're playing the twisting game on me. I never said nor have I assumed that the real estate sites are racist. I've only said that it is possible for bias to exist in the search algorithms, both explicit and implicit.

Do you understand the difference between

1) Real estate searches are biased demographically

and

2) It is possible for Real estate searches to contain biases both explicit and implicit.

They are not even remotely the same thing Sparko. But 2) does serve as a sufficient rebuttal for the claim that "internet searches eliminate the possibility of racial bias".


The only claim I ever responded to was the claim that the use of web searches eliminated the possibility of racial bias. And yet, here you are, waltzing off implying I'm assuming they are biased. Imagine that, not only is my observation that you twisted Sam's point correct, here you are in the span of just a few posts twisting my statements in the very same way.




Jim

If it is just a mental exercise in what is possible, then why spend 20 pages arguing with us saying it is not happening?

I will take this as an admission that neither you nor Sam believe that there is any racial bias in Real Estate search engines, and no actual indications that there even might be any. Thank you.

[Bill the Cat]

Closing out my interest in this thread, I would be totally in favor of substantial, directed public investment in historically minority-segregated neighborhoods, with strict regulations in place to ensure that the added value goes to the minority homeowners. Or some form of mass reparations so that most, if not all, historically discriminated-against families and communities can increase the quality and worth of their neighborhoods or relocate.

But the people who just want to ignore generations of discrimination and illicit theft of property and wealth, under the guise that everything today is "fixed", are perpetuating a deeply immoral and, indeed, unsustainable system.

--Sam

My God, you are ignorant...

[lilpixieofterror]

Closing out my interest in this thread, I would be totally in favor of substantial, directed public investment in historically minority-segregated neighborhoods, with strict regulations in place to ensure that the added value goes to the minority homeowners. Or some form of mass reparations so that most, if not all, historically discriminated-against families and communities can increase the quality and worth of their neighborhoods or relocate.

But the people who just want to ignore generations of discrimination and illicit theft of property and wealth, under the guise that everything today is "fixed", are perpetuating a deeply immoral and, indeed, unsustainable system.

--Sam

It’s not ‘ignoring it’ as we’ve spent money like it’s water and it doesn’t seem to work, so the solution is do the same thing again and hope for different results. How well is that plan working? Handing out billions of dollars isn’t going to fix a thing.

[lilpixieofterror]

My God, you are ignorant...

1 trillion dollars spent, in 50 years, and little has changed. Obviously, we need to spend more until the problem is solved.

[Sam]

My God, you are ignorant...

Don't take the Lord's name in vain.

[Charles]

My God, you are ignorant...

So, in one sentence you manage to take the Lords name in vain and at the same time go for a personal attack instead of staying on topic. Why not just give us your good reasons and stay on topic?

[Mountain Man]

Don't take the Lord's name in vain.

That's not what it actually means to take the Lord's name in vain. It means to call yourself a Christian while living in disobedience. That is you are taking on the Lord's name as your identity in vain.

[Bill the Cat]

Don't take the Lord's name in vain.

I didn't. You aparently don't know what THAT means either....

[Sparko]

So, in one sentence you manage to take the Lords name in vain and at the same time go for a personal attack instead of staying on topic. Why not just give us your good reasons and stay on topic?

Yeah jump on that bandwagon, chuck!

[Charles]

That's not what it actually means to take the Lord's name in vain. It means to call yourself a Christian while living in disobedience. That is you are taking on the Lord's name as your identity in vain.

That is a very narrow interpretation. On christianity.com they have got an interesting article called What does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? in which the following statements are made:

So it doesn't just refer to a certain tone of voice or a certain use of the word. It's dealing with God and speaking of God in a way that empties him of his significance.

This includes both throw-away words—like "God!" or "Jesus!"—as well as speaking about him in trifling and flippant ways.

So I think taking the Lord's name in vain is more than "O my God!" or "Jesus Christ!" It is that plus more.

To that I will add my own observation that it is interesting to note that the word "God" is used by BTC in this way and the main concern for some posters who call themselves Christians seems not to be on the holiness of the name but rather on defining a way out of the problem for BTC.

[Zymologist]

That's not what it actually means to take the Lord's name in vain. It means to call yourself a Christian while living in disobedience. That is you are taking on the Lord's name as your identity in vain.

Yeah, in no other context would the phrase "take someone's name" mean "speak someone's name."

[Charles]

Yeah, in no other context would the phrase "take someone's name" mean "speak someone's name."

That reminded me of this one:

Of all the synonyms associated with the taking of God’s name in vain, the one most closely identified is blaspheme. Some others include curse, abuse, profane, desecrate and revile. The bottom line is still the bottom line: God is making it very clear that blasphemy is the use of His name in any way other than to glorify Him alone! This means we can blaspheme by speaking God’s name irreverently and by using God’s name unlovingly. https://billygraham.org/decision-mag...-name-in-vain/

[Sam]

Yeah, in no other context would the phrase "take someone's name" mean "speak someone's name."

To not speak the name of the Lord in vain is to not use God's name in empty speech. Don't swear to God flippantly, do not speak of God flippantly, do not use God's name flippantly as an exclamation or exasperation.

To do so is profanity, for it takes what is holy and makes it vulgar.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

That is a very narrow interpretation. On christianity.com they have got an interesting article called What does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? in which the following statements are made:





To that I will add my own observation that it is interesting to note that the word "God" is used by BTC in this way and the main concern for some posters who call themselves Christians seems not to be on the holiness of the name but rather on defining a way out of the problem for BTC.

Christianity.com is incorrect. The immediately preceding context is about obeying God's commands.

Sorry, but cafeteria interpretations never stand up to scrutiny.