Posts Made By: Richard Davis

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg:

Your perspective is presented much more fairly than the Beacon's.   I too doubt that overt racism drives the overwhelming whiteness of geology.  I totally accept that geosciences is a non-diverse field though.  The subtle historical and regional underpinnings of this easily demonstrated relative minority underrepresentation  are worth discussing, and the author's perspective is particularly relevant.  A lot more relevant than my perspective for instance.   

As you note, the Beacon exists to push an agenda.  No worries there - in my opinion they over did it in this case, by a lot.  Jim

Ok, then provide the evidence that they overdid it, by a lot, as you claim.  

Other than the rock hammer example, you've provided nothing else to support your assertions about the Free Beacon, and so you might want to consider that the author was the one who brought up the whole idiotic subject of blacks correlating rock hammers with weapons and that police shoot black people who use weapons, with her implication that fear of using a rock hammer is a reason that so few blacks go into the field of geology.  

Can you provide any other evidence to prove how they (the Free Beacon) "overdid it, by a LOT"?  

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Greg:

Your perspective is presented much more fairly than the Beacon's.   I too doubt that overt racism drives the overwhelming whiteness of geology.  I totally accept that geosciences is a non-diverse field though.  The subtle historical and regional underpinnings of this easily demonstrated relative minority underrepresentation  are worth discussing, and the author's perspective is particularly relevant.  A lot more relevant than my perspective for instance.   

As you note, the Beacon exists to push an agenda.  No worries there - in my opinion they over did it in this case, by a lot.  Jim

Oh, and the author herself does NOT have an agenda to push?

Are you that blind to it?  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Funny how bias influences perspectives when viewing the same material..... The bottom line is the article proposes that racism is the reason there are little other than white people in the Geo Science field. If you agree with that then there is little hope for you lol. She took a simple fact and constructed a ridiculous premise around it using the current critical race theory being pushed by the left...... I admit the news piece was fed by bias as well since it highlights one ridiculous claim in the paper to make hay with. That said the paper earned my title for it......using supposition and almost nothing in the way of proofs besides a biased perspective.....

After careful analysis, I've come to the conclusion that your header "Dumbest thing on the net today", is spot on in its labeling.  

The article written by Dr. Ali is so completely asinine that it deserves no merit whatsoever.  

I say that because when someone postulates an idiotic supposition and then uses the most convoluted reasoning to come to their wanted outcome, that use of stupidity and nonsense casts doubt on their entire premise and their scholarship, and should be called out for the psuedoscience that it is. 

I.e. what I mean is that she's made a preconceived notion that GeoSciences are racist, therefore she must prove her statement, and as such has jumped through hoops and distorted evidence to support her nonsensical pre-determined conclusions.  

It is becoming more and more a sad day for truth and knowledge when this kind of garbage coming out of academia influences their methods and their teachings.  

Pretty sad.  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's in the article, if you take the time to to read it and try to understand what she is saying:

Access implies that individuals can obtain the resources they need to safely pursue their science endeavors; regardless of location, instrumentation, site accessibility, and their identity. Historically, access has been limited to mostly able-bodied, white, cisgender, heterosexual men. As the geosciences strive to be more accessible, the community must recognize that BIPOC and other marginalized geoscientists are not always safe in geoscience spaces.

What are geoscience spaces? Well, I'm sure geoscientists do a lot of their fieldwork in remote locations, but I'm equally sure they do a lot in urban settings. Think urban fracking and drilling. Her point is that a POC walking around swinging a hammer is much more likely to be viewed suspiciously and ultimately harassed. I'm confident what she is saying is true. Why? Because it's true for all kinds of activities and spaces. There are too many cases to list where POC engage in regular activity for a white person in a public area, yet they are viewed suspiciously and harassed.

When and where are geologists 'walking down the street swinging a hammer', not in the area of the geology being performed?

Provide an example please to support your assertion.  

Are there a lot of police officers on site in fracking areas, and drilling areas?

Where exactly does Urban Fracking occur? 

Downtown LA?  

Where does urban drilling occur?

Downtown Philadelphia?  

To say that your argument above is 'weak' is insulting to, and doing a disservice to 'weak arguments'.

Your suppositions are beyond absurd. 

P.S. what I have read about regarding fracking in Texas is that drilling and fracking are encroaching on certain areas, however it isn't in Downtown Dallas or in highly congested home developments. 

I travel to Arvada, Colo. near Denver quite often and the influx of homes and housing developments has inundated the former farmlands in that area.

There are a few holdouts of those who have large plots of land within these communities who apparently won't sell their homes to the developers, however I don't believe that any company would frack there without having the entire area cordoned off and fenced to keep individuals out.

To imagine that someone walking around on the site, inside the fence, carrying a rock hammer would be 'harassed' by the police as you claim, strikes me as illogical and not likely to occur.  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

It's not the "positions" that are ridiculous, it's the utter futility of you being impervious to logic, reasoning and understanding that is ridiculous and of course, you did disappoint in failing to do so again and again... 

Great, inform us oh great oracle of the logic that supports the absurd Idea that GeoScience is racist.  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

You're mistaken. There is a site not even 1/2 mile from my house. At the height of urban drilling and fracking, they were everywhere. Regardless, as usual, you are missing the point entirely. The more significant point is that POC is often viewed suspiciously and harassed for things wholly considered normal if a white person is doing them.

Not missing any point.

I asked for evidence of your absurd assertions.  Your words mean nothing, and your assertions mean nothing.  

Show me a photo of fracking near your house, whereby police are roaming, looking for black men swinging rock hammers.

Show me an oil worker swinging a rock hammer walking down the street.

You can't, because like all leftists you simply state things without evidence.  

Sorry, your accusations are absurd and further they provide no evidence that GeoScience is racist.  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I don't have to show you any of that to understand the author's point. As usual, you are being intentionally stubborn and choosing to miss the author's point entirely. Honestly, I didn't think it was a great point or example on her part either, but I don't feel the need to ignore or misrepresent what she said intentionally. The more interesting question here is why do you feel threatened by her article, and why do you and the right-wing outrage fever swamp find it necessary to attack and misrepresent her? In the case of the right-wing outrage fever swamp, well, that's what they do. They manufacture things for right-wingers to be outraged about so that they can monetize their websites and social media. In your case, I guess you will have to figure out for yourself why you feel threatened by a black woman in science pointing out that there is racism in her field. By the way, anyone who has worked in science and engineering disciplines can tell you that of course there is misogyny and racism in the fields of discipline. It's been the case for centuries. This is not even the slightest bit controversial.

As I stated, I'm not missing any point.

Her statements and yours are typical leftist drivel. 

Furthermore, what makes you think anything she stated as threatening to me, or that I took it as such?  I am simply tired of the BS coming from the WOKE left, those like yourself, and every other leftist who finds racism, homophobia, transgenderphobia, and any other ism or phobia, everywhere and anywhere, and then using it to promote your Marxist agendas and the rest of your pseudoscientific garbage in all facets of life.  

And also, nobody here attacked her, we challenged her idiotic ideas, and I didn't misrepresent anything about her.  

She, the intellectually magnificent scholar made asinine statements and assertions she and her cohorts couldn't back up with statistics, data, or any other scientific method.

She was the one who came up with this maniacal idea that somehow when a black man sees a rock hammer, it stirs some sort of fear in him, such that he correlates holding a rock hammer with a weapon and as such has a panic attack that the police may shoot him, which is part of the reasoning as to why so few black individuals are entering the science of geology.

What a crock of crap that is!  

Those weren't my ideas, that crazy loon postulated those ideas, and if that wasn't what she was implying, then you explain this crap that she wrote:

"Historically, access has been limited to mostly able-bodied, white, cisgender, heterosexual men. As the geosciences strive to be more accessible, the community must recognize that BIPOC and other marginalized geoscientists are not always safe in geoscience spaces. For example, holding objects (e.g., a rock hammer) has been viewed as “suspicious” and, continues to be, used as a reason to call the police on Black people, which can lead to the death of Black individuals, entirely because of racial profiling and an unjustified fear of Black people."

So then explain to me her example that the thought of holding a rock hammer by a black person or POC as you seem to want to refer to people, is enough to make said person drum up thoughts of being killed by police?

That is utter lunacy.  

And let me just assure you that the color of her skin is meaningless to me and isn't threatening in the least, let alone her gender. 

Also, know this, your goading isn't going to work and those accusations on your part simply make you look stupid for bringing them up.  Your accusations of misogyny and racism are all you ever have when trying to debate an issue.  It is pretty pathetic at this point.  

You've always had a chip on your shoulder which is probably why you complain about white privilege all the time and play the race card at every turn just like other leftists?  

Get over it. Nobody cares one way or another that you're black.  The color of one's skin doesn't matter one iota even though it is the crutch you grab onto at every turn.   

We're not stupid out here to your leftist methods and propaganda.  

And lastly, let me address your LOL statement here:   "They manufacture things for right-wingers to be outraged about"

Really?  The right manufactures issues?  That's pretty funny considering that the left is outraged at everything in life and manufactures psuedo issues everywhere they go in order to politicize said issues.  

That is the story of the left, everything is a problem for them.  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

As I said, I didn't think her example was particularly compelling. Heck, it's even possible she was speaking figuratively. But again, her more significant point is that POC are often viewed suspiciously in situations where white people would not be. This supposition is not controversial since there are too many real-world examples of its actual occurrence. She is saying this is one source of racial bias in geosciences. Honestly, I doubt that kind of bias contributes significantly to racial disparity in geosciences. The traditional sources are gender and racial socialization, unequal access, job segregation, and so forth and so on. She touches on all of these sources, too, if you RTFA.

Actually James, I can dispute that with Data.  As far as Police shootings goes, it is interesting that Police are no more likely to act with Deadly force when the perp is a minority, than they are when a perp is not a minority. 

Did you know that?  It doesn't matter though, because facts are irrelevant to those like you.  It strikes me that you act with emotion rather than reasoning in most instances.

Well, here is an NPR report that you'll probably find to be disturbing, but hey you might want to read it without your regular bias.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745731839/new-study-says-white-police-officers-are-not-more-likely-to-shoot-minority-suspe

I'm a bit disappointed James, because I thought you might have some new material, but it looks as if you are still stuck on the race and the misogyny card.  

So let me ask you this, if things are so racist when it comes to GeoSciences, how on Earth did she get a PhD and how did she obtain her job at the University?  

Hmmm... that's odd.

Must be something to go through life with such a warped view of everything.  

Oh, and i did RTFA, not once but twice.. 

Originally Posted by James Brown

No one, not even you Rich, can possibly fail to see that the Free Beacon manufactures issues for the right to be outraged about.  

Jim

Well Jim, if you don't think that the original article is "manufactured" by Dr. Ali to support and promote her agenda of the left, and to promote the nonsense of Critical Race theory, then I guess there's no reason to waste my time answering your question.  

Funny how when the left, everywhere and most certainly in Academic circles manufactures issues like the idea that blacks are underrepresented in the Geo Science field, you seem to miss that agenda push by them.  

Do you really think that there is some sort of 'crisis' whereby blacks and other minorities are so underrepresented in the area of GeoSciences, that it requires study to be made?

And what is the point of the study?  It seems obvious to me.  

Has it ever crossed your mind that blacks make up 13% of society and so if there was close to perfect parity between the numbers of minorities in Geo Sciences and the population, we might see 1 more black per every 10 whites who enter the field?  

Did it ever occur to you to check out the percentage of blacks in STEM college courses?

Could there be a correlation there?  

As Thomas Sowell has pointed out many times, there is a correlation between the number of hours of Homework that school students spend on homework every night and the demographics.  

Since Asian parents stress the importance of education on their children, Asian students spend an average of 11.8 hours per week on homework.  Whites spend 8 hours per week, while black students spend only 6.3 hours per week.

Do you think that factors into the equation, or is everything simply Racist? 

P.S. Those numbers I put forth above, came from a 1986 study. 

So then, do you think black students are doing MORE homework today vs. the number of hours being done by Asians or LESS homework today?  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

And you can't ever seem to stop playing the what-about-ism card. This is just one of the many reasons it's impossible to have any rational discourse with you. You constantly engage in intellectual dishonesty like this. Believe it or not, Richard, it is possible that the Beacon manufactures outrage, and that the author of the article made some not so compelling arguments, and that the left has its own outrage machine problem. All of these can be true simultaneously, and even if the left does sometimes manufacture outrage, it in no way detracts from the point that the Beacon definitely was in this case.

If you can't handle the truth James that falls on your head.

I've asked a number of direct questions, which of course you ignore, because you can't answer them, or the true answers would destroy your argument.

The left sometimes "manufactures" outrage?

Donald Trump was a stooge for Putin:  22 months long.  Total LIE  

The Republican party is attempting 2021 Jim Crow in the idea that they want to have accuracy in voting in Georgia and of course blacks are too stupid according to the left to be able to use a photocopier to copy their driver's licenses.  According to Kamala Harris, it is "nearly impossible" for Rural voters to be able to prove their identity at the polling places:  Total LIE.

The police officer who died at the capitol on Jan 6 was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher and that killed him.  Complete fabricated LIE by the left and CNN especially, to stoke outrage.  The officer died of a stroke the night after the Jan 6 riot.  Medical examiner confirmed it

5 people were Killed at the Capitol on Jan 6: Complete and utter LIE.  5 people died.  The only person killed by someone was the Trump supporter, Ashli Babbit who was shot in the face by a Capitol police officer.  

One man had a heart attack, another had a stroke, and one died of a drug overdose.  

There was no Murder committed by Trump supporters, but hey CNN doesn't care.  They promoted all those lies above.  

Those are just the ones off the top of my head.  Would you like a list of BS coming from the left, used to stoke outrage among their pinheaded followers?  

What is funny is that you ignore the manufactured outrage by the author of the article claiming racism in the field of Geo Sciences, then you chastise the Free Beacon for calling them out on their BS.  

Not a surprise.