***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Can't take anyone seriously who has a disdain for colleges, much less well respected ones like Harvard
 
Last edited:
Just like tweets and comments about Chelsea, The Bush twins, and the Obama girls, were utterly disgusting, so are these.

He is a child, he should be exempt form attacks.

You want to make a joke about him being bored at his dad's events, fine. But some folk are crossing the line.
 
Ben Roethlisberger said:
 
Based Jesus said:
Your name wouldnt happen to be Jordan Peterson would it?
Click to expand...
if you are asking if i agree with peterson on the topic of sjw's, the answer is yes. I'm inclined to side with truth over ideologies.
Click to expand...
I figured from the way you were regurgitating his words.

Funny thing about ideologies, anyone can have them and confirmation bias only strengthens them.

Being a conservative doesn't make one any less of an ideologue than a liberal.

It's why two different people can have two different "truths".
 
I think it depends on what the comment is about Baron.
Calling him school shooter or a future rapist is definitely crossing the line though.

Only tweet I liked was the one where Mark Sessler said that Baron just wants to go back home and play candy crush :lol:
 
Attacking the kid is way over the line. I'm guessing he has already had a hard time in real life interactions.

He does not need a bunch of people relentlessly attacking him online on top of that. He's just a kid.

Edit: I would disagree with attacking Melania too based on my impressions of her. I could be wrong but I always get the impression she'd much rather not be involved in any of this but is kinda forced to do so.
 
Last edited:
none of this family wanted this :lol:

they were already living better than they are now
 
Last edited:
Even though Trump deserves every bit of it, it's gotta be rough for the kid to see his father attacked and hated from so many different angles
 
Based Jesus said:
Funny thing about ideologies, anyone can have them and confirmation bias only strengthens them.
Being a conservative doesn't make one any less of an ideologue than a liberal.
It's why two different people can have two different "truths".
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't side with the left or the right. I believe truth to be somewhere in the middle.
 
Ben Roethlisberger said:
Based Jesus said:
Funny thing about ideologies, anyone can have them and confirmation bias only strengthens them.
Being a conservative doesn't make one any less of an ideologue than a liberal.
It's why two different people can have two different "truths".
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't side with the left or the right. I believe truth to be somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

Truth is wherever you find it.
 
Ben Roethlisberger said:
 
Based Jesus said:
Funny thing about ideologies, anyone can have them and confirmation bias only strengthens them.
Being a conservative doesn't make one any less of an ideologue than a liberal.
It's why two different people can have two different "truths".
Click to expand...
Which is why I don't side with the left or the right. I believe truth to be somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
You say this.....AFTER parroting conservative talkpoints and refusing to acknowledge the evidence Rusty presented to you.

For a man trying to find the truth "somewhere in the middle" it's odd that you wouldn't look at the other end to find out where the middle is exactly.
 
RustyShackleford said:
I'm not proving your point. What I am saying is going over your head.

One last time, maybe you will get it this time:

Economist have looked at this for years, there is even a econometric technique specially for investigating discrimination, most research have found

Men and women, with same level of education, same level of experience, same hours worked, same field, same job, same age, same other major demographics accounted for, the women STILL MAKE LESS. There is a wage gap that is unexplainable.

-The other point was that men and women work in different ways. Men are free to work more in the labor market, because women do more with the child and taking care of the household. This work in uncompensated. If men where forced to do more work in the home them men's wages would decrease, women would be free to work more in the labor market and their wages would increase, and the gap would close

That is partly driven by the fact experience in a field is gaining human capital. A women might now have the baseline experience to get a raise because she dropped out of the labor market to have a kid.

You can say "well that is her choice, why should she be compensated". Which might sound find, but it is stupid, because if women stopped having babies, its would put a time bomb on our economy. You need population growth to drive GDP growth. This is a major issue in Germany and Japan. Germany is trying its hardest to fix it with immigration, Japan is stupidly let its economy hollow with not growth. Women bare the cost disproportionately for something everyone benefits from, and they are not fairly compensated for that.

If men don't want to pay them more, then damb well do more house work.

I worked as a researcher doing work with discrimination in the labor market. I don't have an opinion because I read some liberal magazines or watch MSNBC. I read economics papers, I need the math, I say through the classes and did decompositions myself.

So please, miss me with your bull **** that I am somehow indoctrinated into having this opinion. I try my best to understand the issue.

You don't
Click to expand...

So if there is an unexplainable gap, how do you end up at a discriminatory explanation then?

The reason why men don't stay at home and nurture is because men are not nurturing by nature. If you forced men to stay at home so women could go into the workforce both parties would be extremely unhappy. There's actual scientific evidence that proves this to be undeniably true.

So men and women basically do what they are designed to do. I see no problem with that.

And I whole heartedly agree that house work should be split between spouses. Its what my wife and I try to practice daily.
 
Ben Roethlisberger said:
RustyShackleford said:
I'm not proving your point. What I am saying is going over your head.

One last time, maybe you will get it this time:

Economist have looked at this for years, there is even a econometric technique specially for investigating discrimination, most research have found

Men and women, with same level of education, same level of experience, same hours worked, same field, same job, same age, same other major demographics accounted for, the women STILL MAKE LESS. There is a wage gap that is unexplainable.

-The other point was that men and women work in different ways. Men are free to work more in the labor market, because women do more with the child and taking care of the household. This work in uncompensated. If men where forced to do more work in the home them men's wages would decrease, women would be free to work more in the labor market and their wages would increase, and the gap would close

That is partly driven by the fact experience in a field is gaining human capital. A women might now have the baseline experience to get a raise because she dropped out of the labor market to have a kid.

You can say "well that is her choice, why should she be compensated". Which might sound find, but it is stupid, because if women stopped having babies, its would put a time bomb on our economy. You need population growth to drive GDP growth. This is a major issue in Germany and Japan. Germany is trying its hardest to fix it with immigration, Japan is stupidly let its economy hollow with not growth. Women bare the cost disproportionately for something everyone benefits from, and they are not fairly compensated for that.

If men don't want to pay them more, then damb well do more house work.

I worked as a researcher doing work with discrimination in the labor market. I don't have an opinion because I read some liberal magazines or watch MSNBC. I read economics papers, I need the math, I say through the classes and did decompositions myself.

So please, miss me with your bull **** that I am somehow indoctrinated into having this opinion. I try my best to understand the issue.

You don't
Click to expand...

So if there is an unexplainable gap, how do you end up at a discriminatory explanation then?

The reason why men don't stay at home and nurture is because men are not nurturing by nature. If you forced men to stay at home so women could go into the workforce both parties would be extremely unhappy. There's actual scientific evidence that proves this to be undeniably true.

So men and women basically do what they are designed to do. I see no problem with that.

And I whole heartedly agree that house work should be split between spouses. Its what my wife and I try to practice daily.
Click to expand...

700


I don't even know where to start
 
Last edited:
Ben Roethlisberger said:
Start by answering the question:

So if there is an unexplainable gap, how do you end up at a discriminatory explanation then?
Click to expand...

-First off, because it literally fits the definition of discrimination that labor economist use.

Getting unfair treatment in the labor market (this time through wages) because of a specific characteristic (your sex). This is exactly what the statistical models look for

-Second off, If you're exactly the same as another person, except for one thing, yet you get different outcomes from people, what other logical explanation is there for the unequal outcome? KEEP IN MINE, ALL KNOWN LOGICAL EXPLANATION HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR (especially the ones you brought up with the links). There is literally nothing else people that think of to explain the remaining gap. The bias is someone's heart can't be measured accurately, and it can't be standardized across different groups.

Sureeeee it could be something else, and economist measure there writing to reflection that (because people come up with new variables all the time), but no one has been able to find that something else. People that claim they can are just being intellectually dishonest because their argument has already been addressed, or they are operating under a different set of assumptions.

-Unexplained means not explainable by something observable. You don't know if people are racist, or sexist, just by just looking at them (there are signals though). You know only if they explicitly do something racist, or people's actions cause unequal outcomes for a certain group and those are measurable over time. We are in the latter situation

-------The other stuff I'm not going to address because it was a shallow deflection of my point. I was not advocating for anything, I was just saying how a certain policy would effect the wage gap. To explain how the household division of labor drives certain outcomes. You chose to argument against implementing it, instead of what the policy might expose/ regarding the wage gap.

And it is funny you making a sweeping judgment about men and women, then turn around and use anecdotal evidence that runs counter to the sweeping judgment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
74
Views
7K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom