What discrimination is and isn’t

I concluded my post on haters with a reference to “affirmative action lending”. When you throw around a term like that, some people tend to misunderstand it. To be perfectly clear: if members of a certain group, but not members of a comparison group, were refused a mortgage no matter what, it would be a case of discrimination. On the other hand, if a bank has certain standards for loans, which take your monthly salary into account, the discrimination charge does not necessarily apply just because a certain group doesn’t do well economically.

Let’s say you have a group called X, who tend to do very poorly in life. A very large part of them makes considerably less than average, and quite a few live off welfare, while hustling on the side to make a few extra bucks. However, a small subgroup of X does very well. They may earn advanced degrees in real subjects, get good jobs, and do a lot better than the average Joe. If said bank would deny mortgage applications to all members of X, including the economically successful ones, this might be a case of discrimination. To be sure, we would need to look at how the bank acts when approached by members of other groups. Without wanting to be exhaustive, let’s look at a few examples: If there are more losers in group X than in group Y, but all losers are sent away, it is not discrimination just because there are more losers in X than Y. If all winners in group X and Y get their mortgage application approved, it is likewise not discrimination, just because there are more winners in Y than X.

The same principle applies elsewhere, too. However, leftist idiots are quick to scream “discrimination!” whenever there is an alleged group-preference. They seem to be unable to accept that people are inherently different. For instance, they don’t like the IQ concept either. In fact, for them standardized tests are discriminatory because their outcomes reveal differences of intellectual ability both between groups and among members of any given group. This is obviously not politically correct, so those tests are labelled “biased” or “racist”. If intellectual ability was randomly distributed among people, regardless of race, then each group would have the same percentage of morons and geniuses, and everything in between. Yet, as this is not what we see, the obvious conclusion is to reject the leftist hypothesis.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below, but keep the comment policy in mind.
Please support my work with a donation; your contribution is greatly appreciated! If you need further advice, then get my books or arrange a Skype or email consultation.

21 thoughts on “What discrimination is and isn’t

  1. Aaron, are you willing to admit that you might be wrong about this? There doesn’t seem to be much invitation for debate in your pseudo-intellectual hate speech.

    Your general train of thought seems to be so skewed by your own confirmation bias that it’s truly painful to read this drivel. This has nothing to do with your political connotations since the only one bringing them up repeatedly is you (by asserting the group you DON’T want us to identify you with).

    There’s no validity whatsoever to a loaded statement such as “leftist hypothesis”.

    It’s either a hypothesis or not.

    Or even “leftist idiots”.

    They can be idiots even if they’re not leftists.

    And probably even you will admit that all leftists are certainly not idiots. They may be in some areas though.

    Are all non-leftists absolved from idiocy?

    And if one is an idiot, is this an absolute trait that covers all abilities?

    Perhaps your are a God who is a genius in every area. In that case, I would swallow all my words.

    Aaron, are you an idiot sometimes? Ever??

    1. 1) The “leftist hypothesis” refers to the position that there are no differences between people. You will predominantly find that claim in the political Left.

      2) Someone who makes an idiotic statement can safely be called an idiot. Idiots on the left are leftist idiots. For instance, take the “open border” lunatics.

      3) Pick a statement I make, and try to refute it, instead of attacking me. If my positions are so “idiotic”, it should be easy to do, right?

    1. I skimmed that post. Considering that she uses “critiqued” when “criticized” would have been the correct choice, I can easily see why she is not being taken seriously in academia. This is followed by two sentences starting with “The professor”. Afterwards, she wrongly uses the verb “to hurt” twice in a row. Frankly, just looking at what she produces on her blog, it doesn’t take much to develop a bias against her. She is out of place at university, and so are countless other morons like her.

  2. then is the solution automatic transfer payments from high IQ ppl to lower IQ ppl?
    higher taxes for smarter people? to make society fairer

    1. That’s how society already works, as a significant amount of your taxes end up as welfare in the pockets of the underclass.

  3. This is the irony where leftists are Extremely anti-science.

    Its funny because religion came up with the concept “created equal in gods image”. That’s a religious idea, not a natural or scientific one.

    These same leftists pride themselves on mocking the religious for denying evolution… Yet they themselves are the biggest denialists.

    The whole freaking point of evolution is that we have variations. Biological variations that compete with each other so the better adapted ones win out. That’s natural selection 101.

    Yet these same leftists deny any biological variations among humans. (Outside of cosmetic variation). Apparently natural selection doesn’t apply to humans.

    Not only is this anti-science, it is also again reminiscent of religions which put humans as distinct from animals.

    These people are truly grandmasters of living with cognitive dissonance.

    1. The problem is that the underclass is outbreeding the few productive members of society. Besides, what is fair about someone working for a living and effectively financing a bunch of low-IQ fuckups with his taxes?

    2. So what’s the solution?
      I’d say let’s be pragmatic and forbid voting for anyone who his on the payroll of the state and by anyone who is on social welfare. Privatize health care and pension and just give some rough guidance on education and then privatize it, too.
      People talk about conflict of interest in finance, but I hear no one talking about conflict of interest when it comes to government dependent individuals voting for a bigger government in order to live off a big government. Fuck me is this a huge mental jerk-off.
      And let’s not start about the whole idea of pension. The biggest pyramid scheme ever, Madoff is a joke compared to this shit. Everyone for himself.

    3. That’s roughly my idea as well. Tie voting to taxation, based on tiers. If you don’t make money in the private sector, you don’t get to vote. Period. In fact, I think that we would be infinitely better off under a wise emperor than under a bunch of castrated career politicians. Imagine the European countries were ruled by people who owned a significant amount of land or stocks. Do you think they would readily let in a million or more of the rabble of the world? Yet, if you are a ruling leftie, you get “feels” fantasizing about the marvels of multiculturalism, and open the borders.

      We would also need to find a way of dealing with the underclass. Just consider that there are people who have been living off welfare in the third or forth generation! That we allow such scum to sit on their asses all day long and breed boggles my mind. Prison and forced hard physical labor would be a good first step.

    4. I totally agree with you that we would be bettet off with a wise ruler at the top.
      Stop this wannabe democratic shit. Either direct democracy like here in Switzerland (I wish there were stricter rules though) or an empire witha ruler who has balls. And fuck this European Uniin while we’re at it. Let some nationalism rise already, what’s so bad about it to be proud of your country?
      Zherinovsky has a great spech for that:
      https://youtu.be/VqfvjbR9B70
      Relevat part starts at around 1:10, if you don’t want to watch it all, although I highly recommend it.

  4. @Sleazy

    Weren’t you more on the left before? I remember you talking about Hollande and France and Die Linke in Germany.

    I used to be more on the left as well but I’ve changed as well, so I’m curious what triggered you.

    I can follow you’re sentiments when it comes to taxation. You hear all this talk about solidarity but sometimes you get the feeling that the more irresponsible you are, the more tax benefits you receive.

    I remember a case about a single mom (has had one abortion as well), receives tax cuts, alimony, receives a social loan. All of these benefits, paid by my tax money, as if life isn’t expensive for me.

    And so it goes on….

    1. My perception shifted dramatically when I realized how many billions of Euros are literally being wasted on the unproductive underclass. It’s mind-bogging that if you don’t give a fuck, decide to go on welfare, find some crack whores to pump out kids for you, you’ll end up having more money in the pocket than the average schmuck who goes to work every day. Our governments literally pay people to sit on their fat asses and get wasted from noon, or whenever they get up, until the early morning hours. They also pay Mohammed and Ali to build bombs. I wouldn’t be quite so offended by “distributive justice” if I had the impression that I got something — anything, really — in return for my taxes.

  5. “The “leftist hypothesis” refers to the position that there are no differences between people. You will predominantly find that claim in the political Left.”

    Whether it’s on the left or right is irrelevant. If you wanna talk about refuting ideas, you have an interesting way of criticising them yourself by painting them with your confirmation biases. Just shows poor thinking on your part. You are trying to make claims but you actually don’t say anything resembling a sound argument. That said, you actually seem perfectly capable of doing so, I just don’t know why you don’t.

    If you don’t know what that is, read about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    “Someone who makes an idiotic statement can safely be called an idiot.”

    No Aaron, the proposition you present does not resolve logically to the conclusion that follows. A lot of smart people can make idiotic statements and do idiotic things (for example making false accusations regarding the idiocy of others) but that doesn’t mean they are an idiot forever and ever. Maybe they just made a mistake or were high?

    “Idiots on the left are leftist idiots. For instance, take the “open border” lunatics.”

    Again, you could easily elaborate on your interpretation of the open border ideas, instead you bring a new label to the table: lunatics. I guess you imply that lunatics are a certain subset of leftist idiots.

    “Pick a statement I make, and try to refute it, instead of attacking me.”

    That’s the only reason I keep coming back here. I have not attacked you yet. But I thank you for the compliment if you feel I have done so.

    “If my positions are so “idiotic”, it should be easy to do, right?”

    You are once again making false claims. I have not called you an idiot. Not once. And I don’t think you are an idiot, on the contrary. That said, you do occasionally say some very idiotic things as do most of us (leftist or not, which neither of us seems to be).

    1. Idiotic ideas that are primarily promoted by the idiotic left are idiotic leftist ideas, and not just idiotic ideas. There is really no need to argue with idiots. In that regard, I greatly enjoyed the somewhat elite education I was fortunate to receive, as a majority of my professors would simply not engage with idiots, while at lesser schools apparently every opinion was deemed equally valuable. Engaging the political left on an intellectual level is as fruitless as trying to explain to a moron that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

  6. “Idiotic ideas that are primarily promoted by the idiotic left are idiotic leftist ideas, and not just idiotic ideas.”

    Your intellectual credibility just went out the window with that one.

    “I greatly enjoyed the somewhat elite education I was fortunate to receive”

    I’m guessing it was some bullshit economics degree (which is probably the most pathetic field of all as it provides absolutely zero social contribution).

    I’m done here. Happy Halloween.

    Regards,
    The Non-Leftist Idiot

  7. Aaron, you’ve really become a bitter and hardened person. You are not happy.

    As for “productive” members of society vs unproductive scum, you might want to challenge your assumptions. Only about 3% of the work force is employed producing essentials needed for survial – everyone else is doing some kind of bullshit unneeded work, and entire sectors ate dominated by grifters, rent seekets, scammers, or entertainers.

    The “system” owns all the land and resources and tells me what limited options I have if I want to survive – and I don’t like those options, it tries to convincee I am a pice of shot for not being “productive” (i.e not produce entertainer or other bullshit. We’re not talking food here) and not selling my life to their agenda.

    Brainwashing, anyone? Not falling for it.

    So even a “fair” version of the system is rigged – but wait, it’s even more rigged in favor of the elite one percent who most times “contribute” less than the rank and file.

    And their brainwashing has clearly gotten you – hopefully just a phase.

    1. I am, as a matter of fact, an extremely happy person. You would be surprised if you met me in real life.

      I do agree that most jobs are bullshit jobs. Yet, there are a lot more useful jobs for society than those related to food production.

  8. “Imagine the European countries were ruled by people who owned a significant amount of land or stocks”. We do not have to imagine it, we can just read a history book. Most countries went from feudalism to some type of monarchy, and the franchise was limited. Anyhow, the US is pretty close to a plutocracy where the opinions of around two thirds of population have absolutely no impact. If you compare public opinion to what is actually on the political agenda this would become pretty clear. The US also has the lowest social mobility and income equality in the developed world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *