Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Forty Two » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:04 pm

JimC wrote:All 42 needs to do is to watch all the episodes of "Yes Minister" and Yes Prime Minister"... :tea:
Too late. I'm a big fan of British comedy.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Seabass » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:10 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Forty Two wrote:One Wyoming vote is not worth three California votes.
Yes it is.
Isn't, because we don't have direct national elections for the President. We have state election that elect electors to go vote for the President. So, a vote in Wyoming counts as 1 in that regard, and a vote in california counts as 1. Wyoming has 3 votes and California has like 55 (I didn't look it up, so I might be off a couple either way). So, Wyoming has more votes than it would have if its votes were only allocated based on population, that's true. But, that's different than one person's vote in Wyoming being worth more than in California.
My god, man. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I've seen arguments in favor of the electoral college, but never one this stupid. All you're doing is ignoring what happens after the vote gets to the electors. Your argument would be analogous to someone defending a crooked charity by arguing, "you're not actually giving money directly to the people who need it, but to a charity, so in that sense, your entire donation is going exactly to the right place".

Yes, we vote through a proxy. The distortion happens after the proxy, not before it.

I'm going to link to a couple articles. These links aren't for you, since you are clearly a lost cause; they're for others who may be interested in how our electoral college distorts the vote.

How Powerful Is Your Vote? When it comes to voting, not all states are created equal.

The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it’s going to get worse.
Seabass wrote:
We don't have a national popular election for the President. The States vote for the President via the electoral college. That's not unjust.

It's no more unjust than Parliamentary systems where the Parliament (legislature) chooses the head of government without any popular vote at all.
In Parliamentary systems, it is understood that people vote for a party, not a person. You are comparing apples with oranges.
In our system, it's understood that people vote for electors, and that states have a number of electors equal to their Congressman and Senators.
No it isn't. When Americans go to the voting booth to vote for president, we fill in a bubble next to a presidential candidate's name, not an elector's name.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Forty Two » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:15 pm

Seabass wrote:
Rum wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Indeed, those are all fair points.

I would add that your parliamentary system splits the system into two main parts, not three. You have your legislature and "government" (enforcement/executive) together. In the US, the legislature (parliament/congress) are separated from the "government" (executive/enforcement of the laws). So, your ministries answer to Parliament, and our equivalent of your ministries are the various executive branch departments, and they answer to the President.

So, that major structural difference provides some justification for the difference in the elections. In the US, we do directly elect our representatives in Congress. But, if we were to do it like the Brits, then we'd have Congress voting on the President, in which case Trump would also have won, because the Republicans control the House of Representatives.
This goes some way to explaining how your President can 'shut down' government when the budget isn't to his satisfaction. That seems to me to be a recipe for instability. The thought of our Prime Minister 'shutting down' our civil service here is inconceivable.
The president can't shut down the government. Congress can, by choosing not to pass a budget. And yes, it is a recipe for instability.

And of course only the Republicans do it, because they are a party of extremists and sociopaths whose raison d'etre is to turn the US into a third-world theocracy.
This is a partisan view of it, and not really in accord with reality. It's not just the legislature involved in shutdowns, first of all. Second off, up until the 1995 shutdown, the Democrats controlled congress during all previous ones, not Republicans.

In 1995, there was an issue of funding, but the Republicans had passed a budget which Bill Clinton then vetoed, and the Republicans didn't control congress enough to overturn his veto so the shutdown was as a result of Presidential veto and Democrat unwillingness to agree to the budget of the majority Republicans.

In 2013, the Republicans had passed a budget in the House, but it went up against a competing budget in the Democrat controlled Senate. So, the deadlock was not exclusively becasue the Republicans would not agree to the Democrat Senate bill, it was also because the Democrats in the Senate would not agree to the Republican bill originating in the House. Since the Origination Clause specifies bills raising revenue must originate in the House, the fact that the Senate would not agree to the House bill really means that it was the Senate who would not agree, and they took their demands to the mat, resulting in the government shutdown.

That being said, it can likewise be said that the Republicans could have agreed with the Democrats instead of letting the government shut down, so they, too, were responsible. The end result is that the shut down was a result of a game of political chicken between two competing political factions neither of whom caved in before the shutdown.

Moreover, the shutdowns are not actually shutdowns but "funding gaps" which result in SOME furlough of SOME non-essential workers. So, it's nothing to get in a twist about.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73016
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by JimC » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:09 am

Rum wrote:
JimC wrote:Just because it's "the system" doesn't mean that it passes the fairness test from a neutral observer. You have a president elected with significantly less votes than his opponent. No amount of hand-waving about "the system" takes away from such a result being a travesty of democracy.
Well it is when we don't get the result we want..

I'm not aware of a system that is truly democratic when you have multiple political parties involved and block voting of one kind or another. Even PR results in some strange arrangements with minority groups effectively holding the dominant party to ransom to get their agenda on the table.
The fact that other democratic systems have imperfections is not a reason to forgo criticism of a clear anomaly in the US, let alone the gerrymandering that is much more dominant in their corrupt party politics than occasional examples elsewhere...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:17 am

Forty Two wrote: ..I was responding to the accusation that I only think the EC is fair because of Trump.
What accusation?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73016
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by JimC » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:05 am

Didn't you know that we're all out to get him?

:hehe:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:34 am

His mind is hyper-partisan. He just can't compute that others aren't as partisan like him.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:02 pm

JimC wrote:
Rum wrote:
JimC wrote:Just because it's "the system" doesn't mean that it passes the fairness test from a neutral observer. You have a president elected with significantly less votes than his opponent. No amount of hand-waving about "the system" takes away from such a result being a travesty of democracy.
Well it is when we don't get the result we want..

I'm not aware of a system that is truly democratic when you have multiple political parties involved and block voting of one kind or another. Even PR results in some strange arrangements with minority groups effectively holding the dominant party to ransom to get their agenda on the table.
The fact that other democratic systems have imperfections is not a reason to forgo criticism of a clear anomaly in the US, let alone the gerrymandering that is much more dominant in their corrupt party politics than occasional examples elsewhere...
Criticism is fair, but it should come from a position of knowledge and understanding and not cliche. Most commentary on the EC here is from a position of ignorance, and a myopic view that whatever system exists elsewhere are superior. The commentary tends to be emotional and moralistic, rather than a critical analysis of the systems and how they work, and why they were created the way they are.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Seabass » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:07 pm

Forty Two wrote:Criticism is fair, but it should come from a position of knowledge and understanding and not cliche. Most commentary on the EC here is from a position of ignorance, and a myopic view that whatever system exists elsewhere are superior. The commentary tends to be emotional and moralistic, rather than a critical analysis of the systems and how they work, and why they were created the way they are.
Nonsense. Superior systems can and do exist elsewhere. Your defense of the EC boils down to "the system is fair by virtue of it being the system".
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Hermit » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:08 pm

Seabass wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Criticism is fair, but it should come from a position of knowledge and understanding and not cliche. Most commentary on the EC here is from a position of ignorance, and a myopic view that whatever system exists elsewhere are superior. The commentary tends to be emotional and moralistic, rather than a critical analysis of the systems and how they work, and why they were created the way they are.
Nonsense. Superior systems can and do exist elsewhere. Your defense of the EC boils down to "the system is fair by virtue of it being the system".
Oh, come on, Seabass. There is nothing emotional or myopic about praising a system where 46.4% of the voters deliver 56.9% of the electors to the loser of the popular vote while 48.5% nets the winner 43.1%. Forty Two is arguing from a position of knowledge and understanding of democracy.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Forty Two » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:03 pm

Maybe superior systems do exist elsewhere. A claim of superiority, though, requires analysis of the competing systems and criteria to measure their quality. If you'd like to do so, feel free.

That being said, I did not claim superiority on the part of the EC. Such claims of superiority are coming, as usual, from those in the so-called civilized world. You think your systems are superior. Fine.

What I argued was quite different - that it was not "unfair." And, it isn't unfair. It's a fair system under a federal, constitutionally limited republic. Our head of government is elected by an electoral college according to a vote OF THE STATES and it has always been that way. The states are not constitutionally required to hold a popular vote, and can, in theory, decide their vote by a vote of state legislatures (for example).

In Parliamentary systems, you elect your head of government not by a vote of the people at all, who have no say in who becomes PM. The members of parliament choose the PM, irrespective of the will of the people. If you'd like to make a case for the "superiority" of that system, then feel free.

To me, a discussion of which is superior and which inferior is just a pissing contest of no value, and probably it's borne of a desire by certain people to believe that they are more enlightened and smarter than the great unwashed in the awful, terrible, no good United States. Ptthu! Everyone there all stupid and fat and racist. Nothing good ever came from there.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by laklak » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:47 pm

Yep. THe reason I have a Korean phone, TV, and refrigerator, a Jap truck, a Chinese air conditioner is because higher math perpetuates white privilege.

Waaaiiiit a minute, something's not right here....
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Seabass » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:50 pm

Forty Two wrote:Maybe superior systems do exist elsewhere. A claim of superiority, though, requires analysis of the competing systems and criteria to measure their quality. If you'd like to do so, feel free.

That being said, I did not claim superiority on the part of the EC. Such claims of superiority are coming, as usual, from those in the so-called civilized world. You think your systems are superior. Fine.

What I argued was quite different - that it was not "unfair." And, it isn't unfair. It's a fair system under a federal, constitutionally limited republic. Our head of government is elected by an electoral college according to a vote OF THE STATES and it has always been that way. The states are not constitutionally required to hold a popular vote, and can, in theory, decide their vote by a vote of state legislatures (for example).

In Parliamentary systems, you elect your head of government not by a vote of the people at all, who have no say in who becomes PM. The members of parliament choose the PM, irrespective of the will of the people. If you'd like to make a case for the "superiority" of that system, then feel free.

To me, a discussion of which is superior and which inferior is just a pissing contest of no value, and probably it's borne of a desire by certain people to believe that they are more enlightened and smarter than the great unwashed in the awful, terrible, no good United States. Ptthu! Everyone there all stupid and fat and racist. Nothing good ever came from there.
Okay, here's my analysis:
Candidate A gets x number of votes. Candidate B gets fewer votes but wins.
Conclusion: Man, that's fucked up. I mean really, really, royally fucked up.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Hermit » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:58 am

Forty Two wrote:What I argued was quite different - that it was not "unfair." And, it isn't unfair. It's a fair system under a federal, constitutionally limited republic.
You do realise that you just confirmed Seabass's observation that "Your defense of the EC boils down to "the system is fair by virtue of it being the system"", don't you? It can of course be argued that your federal, constitutionally limited republic works exactly as designed (though it can quite convincingly be argued that the Electoral College utterly failed to do what it was designed to do by the Founding Fathers (pbut) in the last election), but from the democratic principle of one vote, one value it is far from fair.
Forty Two wrote:In Parliamentary systems, you elect your head of government not by a vote of the people at all, who have no say in who becomes PM. The members of parliament choose the PM, irrespective of the will of the people.
Our head of government is elected by the representatives the majority of people has voted for. The winner takes all system pertaining to your Electoral College makes no pretension to such proportionality. Not that I regard the Australian system as flawless. The upper house is not determined by one vote, one value. Each state gets to determine the same number of senators, regardless of the size of its population.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

Post by Forty Two » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:09 pm

Seabass wrote: Okay, here's my analysis:
Candidate A gets x number of votes. Candidate B gets fewer votes but wins.
Conclusion: Man, that's fucked up. I mean really, really, royally fucked up.
Only if the system is based on national majority vote to begin with.

If, for example, it's based on a vote of the legislature, irrespective of popular vote, then you have a system where the vote of the people is not even part of the equation. I.e., it seems that based on your view, we could make it "fair" by eliminating the popular vote count completely, and just letting the House of Representatives choose based on who has the most seats. Would that be fucked up, too?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests