ignored my argument, just as expected wrote:
Also a white hobbyjogger wrote:
Oh, give me a break. You must be aware of the disagreement regarding the underlying assumptions made with your “abstract rhetorical thinking”. More specifically, Right wingers refuse to understand and accept the deep seated systemic racism in the USA that has excluded primarily black and Hispanic folks from having the same access to opportunity and capital that white folks have had. Thus, when those minority groups display what the right calls “victim mentality” they actually have a point based on historical, economic, and political facts. White folks—in gereral—do not have a valid point / argument in this regard.
Of course, most of us realize, that RWNJs and white nationalists reject these facts and thus use invalid comparisons via so-called “abstract rhetorical thinking”.
A more mainstream “light” version of your line of thinking is embodied in the Bush-ism “soft racism of low expectations “ which is just a more moderate way for the majority population to ignore the fact that the crimes and policies of the RECENT past are responsible for the vast majority of the inequities seen between white folks and non-white folks in the US.
In general, as stated above, conservatives reject these type of accurate historical fact based arguements / comparisons out of hand and instead try and argue that non-whites are simply “lazy”, “not taking responsibility for their actions”, or—most disgusting of all—that non-whites are somehow inferior to whites.
The only point I was making was a very narrow and simple challenge to the idea from the NYT author that it is a problem if one group of people disproportionately participate in a hobby. In challenging the NYT author's idea (that too many white people running is a problem) I'm making a very simple statement about logic. You failed to address that simple argument, just as I predicted. Instead, you ranted on about systemic racism and historical oppression. I was just making a simple point, and you were not able to grasp it. Plain and simple.
Here is where my thinking is maybe different from yours; I don't think disproportionate participation in a hobby is a problem, or evidence of discrimination. I don't assume that disparities = discrimination. For example, most people who wear kilts are Scottish. Is this a problem? Of course not. Also, 90% of tornadoes in the whole world happen in North America. Is this a result of discrimination? Of course not. The simple truth is that not every disparity is by default a bad thing, and not every disparity is due to discrimination.
I do not assume that all sociological disparities are both a problem, AND the result of discrimination. Correlation does not equal causation. It's absurd to assume hobby jogging participation is somehow related to system racism and historical oppression. Can you see how this oppression narrative paints everything it sees, rendering you unable to understand simple logical statement? But if you fall for this oppression narrative then of course you can't see it. To the jaundiced eye, everything is jaundiced.
btw, don't bother pointing out that the my tornado example is a non-sociological disparity and so does not apply. I used a natural disparity on purpose to help you see the logic of the argument because I know that your mind would automatically interpret any sociological disparity as evidence of discrimination. Others have pointed out the disparity of more Blacks in the NBA, and you were not able to grasp the argument. You only apply the disparity = discrimination concept when the minority group has less. When the situation is reversed, and the minority group seems to have more of the desired thing than the majority group, then it's not at all hard for you to see that there is no discrimination involved in that is causing the disparity.
And lastly, I know most of my arguments are completely beyond you, I'm just writing for other observers of this thread.
Keep it up bro and to the other logical dudes of letsrun. This type of elite level logician stuff is half the reason I come to this forum.