Paul Sperry wrote:Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database
A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.
Housing database
The granddaddy of them all is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development rolled out earlier this month to racially balance the nation, ZIP code by ZIP code. It will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups — white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino — and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances.
The agency proposes using nonwhite populations of 50% or higher as the threshold for classifying segregated areas.
Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.
HUD plans to drill down to an even more granular level, detailing the proximity of black residents to transportation sites, good schools, parks and even supermarkets. If the agency’s social engineers rule the distance between blacks and these suburban “amenities” is too far, municipalities must find ways to close the gap or forfeit federal grant money and face possible lawsuits for housing discrimination.
Civil-rights groups will have access to the agency’s sophisticated mapping software, and will participate in city plans to re-engineer neighborhoods under new community outreach requirements.
“By opening this data to everybody, everyone in a community can weigh in,” Obama said. “If you want affordable housing nearby, now you’ll have the data you need to make your case.”
Mortgage database
Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially balancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores and employment records.
Mortgage contracts won’t be the only financial records vacuumed up by the database. According to federal documents, the repository will include “all credit lines,” from credit cards to student loans to car loans — anything reported to credit bureaus. This is even more information than the IRS collects.
The FHFA will also pry into your personal assets and debts and whether you have any bankruptcies. The agency even wants to know the square footage and lot size of your home, as well as your interest rate.
FHFA will share the info with Obama’s brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which acts more like a civil-rights agency, aggressively investigating lenders for racial bias.
The FHFA has offered no clear explanation as to why the government wants to sweep up so much sensitive information on Americans, other than stating it’s for “research” and “policymaking.”
However, CFPB Director Richard Cordray was more forthcoming, explaining in a recent talk to the radical California-based Greenlining Institute: “We will be better able to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns.”
Credit database
CFPB is separately amassing a database to monitor ordinary citizens’ credit-card transactions. It hopes to vacuum up some 900 million credit-card accounts — all sorted by race — representing roughly 85% of the US credit-card market. Why? To sniff out “disparities” in interest rates, charge-offs and collections.
Employment database
CFPB also just finalized a rule requiring all regulated banks to report data on minority hiring to an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. It will collect reams of employment data, broken down by race, to police diversity on Wall Street as part of yet another fishing expedition.
School database
Through its mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection project, the Education Department is gathering information on student suspensions and expulsions, by race, from every public school district in the country. Districts that show disparities in discipline will be targeted for reform.
Those that don’t comply will be punished. Several already have been forced to revise their discipline policies, which has led to violent disruptions in classrooms.
Obama’s educrats want to know how many blacks versus whites are enrolled in gifted-and-talented and advanced placement classes.
Schools that show blacks and Latinos under-enrolled in such curricula, to an undefined “statistically significant degree,” could open themselves up to investigation and lawsuits by the department’s Civil Rights Office.
Count on a flood of private lawsuits to piggyback federal discrimination claims, as civil-rights lawyers use the new federal discipline data in their legal strategies against the supposedly racist US school system.
Even if no one has complained about discrimination, even if there is no other evidence of racism, the numbers themselves will “prove” that things are unfair.
Such databases have never before existed. Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.
The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.
I'm not entirely convinced this is an issue of privacy, at least not all of it. This only seems to be collecting statistical data from schools and banks, and only those that are federally regulated. As such, the government does have the right to impose various restrictions on those organizations. Calling this "Orwellian" seems biased on the part of the article.
Second, collecting racial data based on location is something the census is already supposed to do, and the US census is mandatory, so the argument that this is an issue of privacy, again, seems slanted. Also, coming from Atlanta, which is pretty segregated in certain areas, this data could actually be extremely useful. The main reason public transportation is so terrible in Atlanta is because a lot of the WASPs are afraid minorities will take said transport to affluent neighborhoods to commit crime, and as such, they petition against it. This data could be an excellent way to open the gate to better public transportation in Atlanta, and less segregation in city districts.
I will admit the credit card database does seem like an intrusion of privacy. Without a warrant, the government has no right to know what I'm purchasing. They should instead be monitoring the bank that issues the card, not the individual's purchases. And if the card is being issued by a private organization, the government would again need a warrant or audit to get that data. I'd rather keep my purchase history of exorbitantly priced miniatures to myself, thank you very much.
Am I understanding it correct in that they are going to start prosecuting random banks and schools etc for not meeting race quotas? So they'll claim moral superiority while doing absolutely nothing to address the problems, all while making a buck off fines too?
No. From what I can understand, this will just be a tool, to potentially show where laws or systems which should be affecting everyone equally are in fact affecting people very unequally.
It seems like this will be of most use in civil court, where people might finally have some statistical data to show that discrimination may exist (intentionally or otherwise), rather than just anecdotal evidence on both sides.
I'm often very skeptical about the government's ability to accomplish complicated tasks. However, sitting quietly in a room, counting numbers and then publishing them online to be used as a resource for smaller courts? Seems like the perfect use of federal time.
Would you be so dismissive were it a Republican President making such a database (or any database) to give to right-wing special interest/advocacy groups like the NRA or Focus on the Family? Or legal groups working to defeat left-wing policies in the US?
Would you be so dismissive were it a Republican President making such a database (or any database) to give to right-wing special interest/advocacy groups like the NRA or Focus on the Family? Or legal groups working to defeat left-wing policies in the US?
It's called the census. Collects all kind of data which is all available to the public via simple to use online databases. I used them when I did research in my public health projects and epidemiology projects.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: and not just race. I can figure out what kind of education people in my neighborhood have, their income, family size. Whenever I get up in the morning I can simply log on and decide what kind of warfare (class/race/income) I want to wage whenever I go on Tumblr that day.
It is also includes a pervasive reduction in access to credit, education, healthcare, employment, housing etc etc.
Unless one is able to measure and show statistically that discrimination is taking place, it is very difficult to put in place policies to redress discrimination.
IMHO this article is on that spectrum of opinion that has Obama down as some sort of 'Other' at war with 'True' America. And it is utter tosh.
Oh no, America might become slightly more conscious of its terrible relationship with race.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Describing data collection which takes a view to highlighting descrimination on the grounds of race as 'Orwellian' is the bit that disturbs me here.
I thought the reason minorities are poor is because of the poverty cycle? They are more likely to rake up debt they cannot afford, drop out of school and usually spend most of their money on useless things. This is not just something I see in minorities here nor is it the norm for all (usually asians are very wealthy here for example) but in all poor people I know.
My friend for example, earns not much less than I do but despite me telling him not too he spends his money every week, then complains he cannot afford things.
While this may not be the case for all poor people usually I think those who feel like they suffer can, with few changes in their life, really improve their financial position and oppression seems to pay no part in it except what they tell themselves.
Students for example, tend to complain about how much education costs and the cost to live in cities for university. But then you see them flock to bars, clubs and cafes and spend their money stupidly. Much of their issues with money could be made much easier if they simply used their brains.
Unless I am wrong, I feel like many people are a product of their decisions rather than societal oppression. While I don't live in the USA I have a feeling many of the people who are poor are poor through poor money habits.
In my opinion the solution is to teach kids at school how to manage money and make the most of it. Try and counter them learning from their parents on bad money habits.
Swastakowey wrote: I thought the reason minorities are poor is because of the poverty cycle? They are more likely to rake up debt they cannot afford, drop out of school and usually spend most of their money on useless things. This is not just something I see in minorities here nor is it the norm for all (usually asians are very wealthy here for example) but in all poor people I know.
My friend for example, earns not much less than I do but despite me telling him not too he spends his money every week, then complains he cannot afford things.
While this may not be the case for all poor people usually I think those who feel like they suffer can, with few changes in their life, really improve their financial position and oppression seems to pay no part in it except what they tell themselves.
Students for example, tend to complain about how much education costs and the cost to live in cities for university. But then you see them flock to bars, clubs and cafes and spend their money stupidly. Much of their issues with money could be made much easier if they simply used their brains.
Unless I am wrong, I feel like many people are a product of their decisions rather than societal oppression. While I don't live in the USA I have a feeling many of the people who are poor are poor through poor money habits.
In my opinion the solution is to teach kids at school how to manage money and make the most of it. Try and counter them learning from their parents on bad money habits.
A somewhat superficial analysis of the situation, but a common one because it places most of the blame on the individual. The idea of data gathering like that which is talked about in the OP is to expose any potential hidden mechanisms by which societal systems might might create poverty traps.
Anecdotally, I lived in council housing in England right up until I went to university, and I didn't see any of the frivolous spending which people are quick to charge the poor with.
See the "Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness".
In Men At Arms, Terry Pratchett wrote:The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This applies to plenty of things - poor people can't get access to good credit, so they are forced to rely on things like payday loans. Or have to have prepayment meters for electricity, which often charge a much higher rate than ordinary billing methods. Or being forced out of city centres by rising property values and rents, and then having to spend a large proportion of their income on transportation
Moving the goalposts somewhat, really rich people pay hardly any tax because they can afford to hire accountants to look for the loopholes; something the vast majority can't afford, so we end up paying 20% or more in income tax.
In President Obama's defense, he really needs this information to properly deploy his Jade Helm 15 UN troops on their mission of taking guns away from Republicans and condemning them to FEMA camps where they will be converted them to Allah, and their children given to gay couples.
You have no idea how much background data it takes just to know how much chemtrails to buy, let alone where to spray it.
Through its mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection project, the Education Department is gathering information on student suspensions and expulsions, by race, from every public school district in the country. Districts that show disparities in discipline will be targeted for reform.
This will very likely end up with kids not being punished when they should be (we see it already). That leaves real discipline problems and detracts from the education kids get.
Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.
Forcing the building of subsidized housing in reasonably affluent areas is going to have a big effect on property values. When your suddenly underwater on your mortgage or the equity in your home turns to gak that has major consequences. I really don't find anything 'fair' in that.
'Relocating' people is generally not a good idea. The relocation of Katrina victims to Houston is a good example of what you get. Add in the lack of corresponding plan to handle the depopulated areas and you end up with more wastelands like you see in some parts of Detroit.
And finally, where do the funds for the data collection and analysis come from? Is that REALLY an effective use of scarce tax dollars at this point?
I think recent illuminati studies have demonstrated a racial component when it comes to metabolizing chem trails, so you really need that info so that you can adjust the composition of the mix you are using.
A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be his unprecedented collection of recipes for Americans. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “deliciousness.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s chef's are furiously mining data on new dishes, recipes, snacks, restaurants, greasy spoons, even how their kids are fed in school — all to document “deliciousness” between minorities and whites.
This Childs-style recipes includes a vast and permanent network of ingredients, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” on: schools not giving enough potato salad to minorities; schools that suspend too many cooks; cities that don’t offer enough side dishes and other foods for anyone; and employers who turn down lunch to save time.
Big Brother Barack wants the salad recipe operational before he leaves office, and much of the ingredients will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and foodie activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “stove top vs mashed potatoes” and “eat yer greens,” even if no other evidence of broccoli discrimination exists.
The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-food infrastructure perpetually fed by yummy data that will outlast his administration.
Would you be so dismissive were it a Republican President making such a database (or any database) to give to right-wing special interest/advocacy groups like the NRA or Focus on the Family? Or legal groups working to defeat left-wing policies in the US?
Ouze wrote: In President Obama's defense, he really needs this information to properly deploy his Jade Helm 15 UN troops on their mission of taking guns away from Republicans and condemning them to FEMA camps where they will be converted them to Allah, and their children given to gay couples.
You have no idea how much background data it takes just to know how much chemtrails to buy, let alone where to spray it.
Does anyone else think that this will be quite useless in some areas? When they build government housing next to a wealthy neighborhood, they're just going to move. It's already happened in Memphis over the past several decades. The majority of the white working population lives in Mississippi and commutes.
Why am I not surprised that people do not understand Foundational Changes, or Structural Changes to address a problem, and instead focus only upon ephemeral, or sophomoric ideas regarding Structural and Foundational issues surrounding race, or economics?
A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.
The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.
Truly, B. HUSSEIN Obama is history's greatest monster.
People with brains understand that gentrification is evil when it negatively impacts specific groups.
If you're a rich white guy making 150K a year, a couple apartments in your neighborhood being turned into subsidized housing has no effect on you or the $2200 a month condo you're renting. Whereas the dude who makes $20,000 a year is screwed when the property values of his neighborhood get jacked up by gentrification and his $1000 a month rent goes up to $1650.
As someone who lives in the San Francisco bay area, I see this first hand every day. I grew up in San Francisco- it's my home- but unless I become a Google employee or find some equally high-paying career, I'm literally going to be forced to move away if/when something happens to my Mom and the house we're renting. The cost of living is simply too high for me to afford with my job.
It isn't even just people with crappy jobs, too. Something like 80% of City employees live outside of the city. Electricians making $50/hour can barely afford to live here. Thanks, tech-boom.
Actually it would make his condo less desirable. The deflation of local property values will hurt local homeowners and cause local business to suffer. While the opposite actually has benefits of higher wages to combat increased rent.
Both have negative effects on certain people, but its most assuredly worse to tear down an area that is currently doing just fine.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
The NYP is a rag. Linking it here has lowered dakka's IQ by several points. Somewhere a dakkaite just forgot where he parked his car because he was exposed to the stupidity in that article. Please never link to the NYP again.
Ahtman wrote: President Obama's Secret Potato Salad Recipe
Hah! I was going to go in to angry rant about the unbelievable stupidity in faux outrage over data collection, but your post did it so much better.
Grey Templar wrote: Actually it would make his condo less desirable. The deflation of local property values will hurt local homeowners and cause local business to suffer. While the opposite actually has benefits of higher wages to combat increased rent.
'benefits of higher wages to combat increased rent'
That's amazing. I mean, just think it through, please. Consider someone being told by their landlord that their rent is going up, along with everyone else in this building and the rest of the neighbourhood. "Don't worry," says one tenant, "this rent increase will force all of our pays to go up, so the overall effect is an economic benefit."
Just think about how deeply ridiculous that sounds. Forget any kind of technical economic knowledge, on an instinctive level you're so far wrong that you really just need to stop.
BlaxicanX wrote: People with brains understand that gentrification is evil when it negatively impacts specific groups.
If you're a rich white guy making 150K a year, a couple apartments in your neighborhood being turned into subsidized housing has no effect on you or the $2200 a month condo you're renting. Whereas the dude who makes $20,000 a year is screwed when the property values of his neighborhood get jacked up by gentrification and his $1000 a month rent goes up to $1650.
As someone who lives in the San Francisco bay area, I see this first hand every day. I grew up in San Francisco- it's my home- but unless I become a Google employee or find some equally high-paying career, I'm literally going to be forced to move away if/when something happens to my Mom and the house we're renting. The cost of living is simply too high for me to afford with my job.
It isn't even just people with crappy jobs, too. Something like 80% of City employees live outside of the city. Electricians making $50/hour can barely afford to live here. Thanks, tech-boom.
Yes its horrible how people are able to come into run down communities, buy up crapped out properties and turn them into jewels, with all those evil incidents like lower crime, better schools, etc. Evil. EEEEEEVVVVVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
sebster wrote: The NYP is a rag. Linking it here has lowered dakka's IQ by several points. Somewhere a dakkaite just forgot where he parked his car because he was exposed to the stupidity in that article. Please never link to the NYP again.
Yeah, you can cut the bias of that article with a knife, and then I looked again... oh, NYP, well that explains it.
It's one of Murdoch's tabloids.
That team would find something nefarious with the Obama Thinks Kittens And Puppies Are Cuddly Act.
sebster wrote: The NYP is a rag. Linking it here has lowered dakka's IQ by several points. Somewhere a dakkaite just forgot where he parked his car because he was exposed to the stupidity in that article. Please never link to the NYP again.
Yeah, you can cut the bias of that article with a knife, and then I looked again... oh, NYP, well that explains it.
It's one of Murdoch's tabloids.
That team would find something nefarious with the Obama Thinks Kittens And Puppies Are Cuddly Act.
ARE YOUR RABBITS IN DANGER?!
Obama Administration Passes New Law Privileging Cat/Dog Hierarchy
Is this the first step in Obama's shadowy plan to take your rabbits away from you and feed them to gay black immigrant stem-cell researching pro-lifers?
Find out more from these three interviews with reactionary bigots tenuously related to the story...
Too late. Obama went back in time to Germany (you know the Naaaazzzzzziiiiz) to help breed dachshunds, so one day he could utterly dominate your rabbits. The power to destroy a thing is the power to control a thing!
Obama, history's time traveling greatest villain!
Also, how are they going to racialize categorize neanderthals? As the last of my kind, I should get preferential treatment. Don't be a hata! Stop Neanderthal bigotry by the Homo Sapiens Sapiens!
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
An ultimately racist methodology? Sorry, I'm going to have to be walked through how building affordable housing does not benefit racial minorities (who tend to be the ones who need affordable housing).
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
An ultimately racist methodology? Sorry, I'm going to have to be walked through how building affordable housing does not benefit racial minorities (who tend to be the ones who need affordable housing).
This is the government looking at areas, deciding they have too much/not enough of a certain race, and then taking steps to "fix" it. That is discrimination. No decision should ever be made based on race, yet they are doing just that. its favoring one race over others, only because they are a specific race.
It's called the census. Collects all kind of data which is all available to the public via simple to use online databases. I used them when I did research in my public health projects and epidemiology projects.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
An ultimately racist methodology? Sorry, I'm going to have to be walked through how building affordable housing does not benefit racial minorities (who tend to be the ones who need affordable housing).
This is the government looking at areas, deciding they have too much/not enough of a certain race, and then taking steps to "fix" it. That is discrimination. No decision should ever be made based on race, yet they are doing just that. its favoring one race over others, only because they are a specific race.
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
Not going to start a new thread for this being it does fir more into this
The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.
The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.
If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”
The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.
Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.
The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.
The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.
Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.
Since this would effect me I am against this.
If it happens then I will more likely "lose" my weapons before they come to confiscate them
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
No, I'm saying its not racism.
The Webster Definition doesn't work. We can't look at a system like America's, where white people are vastly better off because they hold most of the institutional power, and then use a definition of racism which favours the status quo (ie, the definition where anything that isn't colourblind is racist). This definition excludes things like affirmitive action, which is necessary to create a level playing field to base a society on.
Scrabb wrote: Someday President Obama will actually do something nefarious and no one will care.
"The Republicans that cried wolf." as it were.
Beware listening to anything this guy says he is probably an Islamic Kenyan plant and I am more than willing to bet he wasn't even born in the US!
I found you out, HUSSEIN SCrabb!
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
No, I'm saying its not racism.
The Webster Definition doesn't work. We can't look at a system like America's, where white people are vastly better off because they hold most of the institutional power, and then use a definition of racism which favours the status quo (ie, the definition where anything that isn't colourblind is racist). This definition excludes things like affirmitive action, which is necessary to create a level playing field to base a society on.
Affirmative action is racist too you know. If we can't use the best and most widely used dictionary definition we might as well use none.
a) It's not a "secret" db if it's going to be published... eh?
b) There's going to be an awfully arbitrary classification:
- The agency proposes using nonwhite populations of 50% or higher as the threshold for classifying segregated areas.
c) This is a load of crock.. why just blacks?
-HUD plans to drill down to an even more granular level, detailing the proximity of black residents to transportation sites, good schools, parks and even supermarkets. If the agency’s social engineers rule the distance between blacks and these suburban “amenities” is too far, municipalities must find ways to close the gap or forfeit federal grant money and face possible lawsuits for housing discrimination.
Non-blacks can be poor too ya know.
d) This seems invasive to individual's privacy...
-Mortgage contracts won’t be the only financial records vacuumed up by the database. According to federal documents, the repository will include “all credit lines,” from credit cards to student loans to car loans — anything reported to credit bureaus.
e) Especially this:
-The FHFA will also pry into your personal assets and debts and whether you have any bankruptcies. The agency even wants to know the square footage and lot size of your home, as well as your interest rate
I don't know if this is "all on Obama"... but, these Government activities is troubling as it's ripe for abuse.
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
No, I'm saying its not racism.
The Webster Definition doesn't work. We can't look at a system like America's, where white people are vastly better off because they hold most of the institutional power, and then use a definition of racism which favours the status quo (ie, the definition where anything that isn't colourblind is racist). This definition excludes things like affirmitive action, which is necessary to create a level playing field to base a society on.
Affirmative action is racist too you know. If we can't use the best and most widely used dictionary definition we might as well use none.
Most widely accepted in America. But we'll stick with it, and I'll revise my position.
I don't think that all (Merriam Webster) racism is bad. In fact, if its a racist policy designed to create an equal position between whites and racial minorities, you can sign me up. Because, as of yet, America is not doing very well at the whole 'equality' deal.
Sorry, but affirmative action is not really racist. All it does is, assuming everyone is equally qualified, give the opportunity to the minority. This is because to be seen as equally qualified, the minority likely had to work harder and actually be more qualified.
skyth wrote: Sorry, but affirmative action is not really racist. All it does is, assuming everyone is equally qualified, give the opportunity to the minority. This is because to be seen as equally qualified, the minority likely had to work harder and actually be more qualified.
That is the very definition of racism.
"We don't know about you or your past, but we know you are black so the job is yours over those whites we also do not know the past of"
You are assuming they had it hard because they are black.
skyth wrote: Sorry, but affirmative action is not really racist. All it does is, assuming everyone is equally qualified, give the opportunity to the minority. This is because to be seen as equally qualified, the minority likely had to work harder and actually be more qualified.
That assumption is technically racist.
I often come from the position of whether or not they are qualified or if they know how to do it. Not what bloody race they are.
skyth wrote: Sorry, but affirmative action is not really racist. All it does is, assuming everyone is equally qualified, give the opportunity to the minority. This is because to be seen as equally qualified, the minority likely had to work harder and actually be more qualified.
That is the very definition of racism.
"We don't know about you or your past, but we know you are black so the job is yours over those whites we also do not know the past of"
You are assuming they had it hard because they are black.
Racist. Racist indeed.
The thing was, before the affirmitive action was put into place, the university would tend to have given the place to an equally qualified white person. Because they have institutional biases. Saying that the affirmitive action is racist ignores the (already existing and a massive problem) institutional racism against black students.
The thing was, before the affirmitive action was put into place, the university would tend to have given the place to an equally qualified white person. Because they have institutional biases. Saying that the affirmitive action is racist ignores the (already existing and a massive problem) institutional racism against black students.
skyth wrote: Sorry, but affirmative action is not really racist. All it does is, assuming everyone is equally qualified, give the opportunity to the minority. This is because to be seen as equally qualified, the minority likely had to work harder and actually be more qualified.
That is the very definition of racism.
"We don't know about you or your past, but we know you are black so the job is yours over those whites we also do not know the past of"
You are assuming they had it hard because they are black.
Racist. Racist indeed.
The thing was, before the affirmitive action was put into place, the university would tend to have given the place to an equally qualified white person. Because they have institutional biases. Saying that the affirmitive action is racist ignores the (already existing and a massive problem) institutional racism against black students.
You really can't make that assumption especially if we don't know peoples financial situation otherwise if it is a poor white family vs a middle income black family. The white family will get screwed because of the lack of scholarships for anyone that is white.
It may seem like a boohoo for a white family, but it is unfair. The education system is a gakky system that is pretty terrible at teaching large groups of people.
Race is not a qualifier of getting an education, your intelligence and dillgience to succeed is a higher priority for schools than what race you are. (Or it should be)
skyth wrote: Sorry, but affirmative action is not really racist. All it does is, assuming everyone is equally qualified, give the opportunity to the minority. This is because to be seen as equally qualified, the minority likely had to work harder and actually be more qualified.
That is the very definition of racism.
"We don't know about you or your past, but we know you are black so the job is yours over those whites we also do not know the past of"
You are assuming they had it hard because they are black.
Racist. Racist indeed.
The thing was, before the affirmitive action was put into place, the university would tend to have given the place to an equally qualified white person. Because they have institutional biases. Saying that the affirmitive action is racist ignores the (already existing and a massive problem) institutional racism against black students.
You really can't make that assumption especially if we don't know peoples financial situation otherwise if it is a poor white family vs a middle income black family. The white family will get screwed because of the lack of scholarships for anyone that is white.
It may seem like a boohoo for a white family, but it is unfair. The education system is a gakky system that is pretty terrible at teaching large groups of people.
Race is not a qualifier of getting an education, your intelligence and dillgience to succeed is a higher priority for schools than what race you are. (Or it should be)
That sounds like you need more scholarships for low income students, not less aid for black students getting into university.
Intelligence and diligence are the bigger priority. But it tended to be the case in the past that the white people got the places, because of the whole institutional bias thing.
I was fortunate - I'm white as milk, but there were a lot of scholarships kicking around for low-income families in my country.
skyth wrote: Sorry, but affirmative action is not really racist. All it does is, assuming everyone is equally qualified, give the opportunity to the minority. This is because to be seen as equally qualified, the minority likely had to work harder and actually be more qualified.
That is the very definition of racism.
"We don't know about you or your past, but we know you are black so the job is yours over those whites we also do not know the past of"
You are assuming they had it hard because they are black.
Racist. Racist indeed.
The thing was, before the affirmitive action was put into place, the university would tend to have given the place to an equally qualified white person. Because they have institutional biases. Saying that the affirmitive action is racist ignores the (already existing and a massive problem) institutional racism against black students.
You really can't make that assumption especially if we don't know peoples financial situation otherwise if it is a poor white family vs a middle income black family. The white family will get screwed because of the lack of scholarships for anyone that is white.
It may seem like a boohoo for a white family, but it is unfair. The education system is a gakky system that is pretty terrible at teaching large groups of people.
Race is not a qualifier of getting an education, your intelligence and dillgience to succeed is a higher priority for schools than what race you are. (Or it should be)
That sounds like you need more scholarships for low income students, not less aid for black students getting into university.
Intelligence and diligence are the bigger priority. But it tended to be the case in the past that the white people got the places, because of the whole institutional bias thing.
I was fortunate - I'm white as milk, but there were a lot of scholarships kicking around for low-income families in my country.
In the states your lucky to even be able to be eligible for one. You need to fit alot of parameters. And have to be a specific field or you have to have this ACT score, or this SATA, or any of the other billion things they have requirements for. I saw twelve scholarships for my field and 10 of them were for minorities and the other two you had to be a junior level or above.
BeAfraid wrote: Just try getting a Scholarship if you are over 30.
MB
Exactly
Scholarships are so bloody hard to attain if you are not a minority. Its a stupidly flawed system. As the system also requires you to fill out a resume and you have to fill out an essay, then you have to wait and get approved, and then once you are approve you go on a waiting list. Welcome to the United States education system.
Funny how many people here think it is perfectly ok to be racist towards white people to compensate other races. Its even more astounding that they then don't consider this to be racism but instead some form of equality check. I know racism still exists but we have enough BS in this world without getting into this
BeAfraid wrote: Just try getting a Scholarship if you are over 30.
MB
Exactly
Scholarships are so bloody hard to attain if you are not a minority. Its a stupidly flawed system. As the system also requires you to fill out a resume and you have to fill out an essay, then you have to wait and get approved, and then once you are approve you go on a waiting list. Welcome to the United States education system.
I would not say so.
Most people I know have gotten scholarships (and they are white, male, and in their 20s).
I technically AM a minority, as far as that goes. Especially for Scholarships.
The problem is that they are aimed at people between the ages of 17 and 30, and only about five scholarships exist for people over the age of 30 (and three of those are what they call "Re-entry Scholarships, for people who have been out of school for at least five years).
My grades are such that I would qualify for any number of scholarships.
The problems we have are structural issues with how Schools are financed in the USA, which have to do with cuts in funding at the Federal and State Level that used to subsidize Public Universities.
Scholarships USED to be something you only worried about if you went to a Private University.
Currently, I HAVE a Scholarship to UCLA. It covers 100% of my tuition and fees.
Unfortunately.... I need money for living expenses. Which is where ALMOST ALL Scholarships let down students. the VAST MAJORITY of Scholarships do not provide for living expenses, leaving recipients often unable to benefit from the Scholarship. They can afford the school, just not living near enough to the school to attend it.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
This is no different than balancing a checkbook.
If one is overdrawn, then one must return the money to the bank that one has taken from them.
Only, in this case, it is the White population making up for, and re-paying, the opportunities it stole from minorities through structural marginalization of those minorities and ethnic groups (NOT "RACES" - race does not exist as being think it does).
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
My family is half slavic. My family is just as guilty of slavery as the africans are.
You know because the word slave doesn't come from SLAVIC.
I think overall scholarships should not be limited by race, but by ability. It would be well fair. If you aren't a fantastic student you still can get movie
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
Yep.
They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.
It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.
You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.
Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.
You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
Yep.
They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.
It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.
You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.
Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.
You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.
MB
So I come from a moderately poor family, Apparently I have privilege because my family is white. Even though I am a second generation american? Yep defiantly.
Could someone explain to me why I am privileged because I am white without sounding racist and dumb?
BeAfraid wrote: Just try getting a Scholarship if you are over 30.
MB
Exactly
Scholarships are so bloody hard to attain if you are not a minority. Its a stupidly flawed system. As the system also requires you to fill out a resume and you have to fill out an essay, then you have to wait and get approved, and then once you are approve you go on a waiting list. Welcome to the United States education system.
No, they actually aren't. I serve on a scholarship board (one of the three required service positions I am required to have at my university.) About a quarter of the money available doesn't get doled out each year for one basic reason: prospective eligible students do not apply. I don't know if they are too lazy or just don't put forward an effort to learn about them, but the money just sits there, year after year earning interest. The next year the scholarships increase in value. Nowhere on any of those scholarships except four (about thirty total in my Dept.) is race even asked, and those are because of stipulations of the private donor. It is a state university in the Midwest. I know anecdotal evidence is suspect, but this fact that many scholarships do not get filled because students do not apply is quite common.
BeAfraid wrote: Just try getting a Scholarship if you are over 30.
MB
Exactly
Scholarships are so bloody hard to attain if you are not a minority. Its a stupidly flawed system. As the system also requires you to fill out a resume and you have to fill out an essay, then you have to wait and get approved, and then once you are approve you go on a waiting list. Welcome to the United States education system.
No, they actually aren't. I serve on a scholarship board (one of the three required service positions I am required to have at my university.) About a quarter of the money available doesn't get doled out each year for one basic reason: prospective eligible students do not apply. I don't know if they are too lazy or just don't put forward an effort to learn about them, but the money just sits there, year after year earning interest. The next year the scholarships increase in value. Nowhere on any of those scholarships except four (about thirty total in my Dept.) is race even asked, and those are because of stipulations of the private donor. It is a state university in the Midwest.
That is pretty much what I have found.
The issues I have with scholarships are entirely different than thinking someone is unfairly advantaged (other than being younger than 30).
I am more pissed that more is not covered by many scholarships. But there are a HUGE number of scholarships that get handed out to anyone who applies.
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
Yep.
They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.
It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.
You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.
Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.
You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.
MB
So I come from a moderately poor family, Apparently I have privilege because my family is white. Even though I am a second generation american? Yep defiantly.
Could someone explain to me why I am privileged because I am white without sounding racist and dumb?
He doesn't care mate, he is judging you because of your skin colour not because of your character. But don't worry, it ain't racist you are white...
BeAfraid wrote: Just try getting a Scholarship if you are over 30.
MB
Exactly
Scholarships are so bloody hard to attain if you are not a minority. Its a stupidly flawed system. As the system also requires you to fill out a resume and you have to fill out an essay, then you have to wait and get approved, and then once you are approve you go on a waiting list. Welcome to the United States education system.
No, they actually aren't. I serve on a scholarship board (one of the three required service positions I am required to have at my university.) About a quarter of the money available doesn't get doled out each year for one basic reason: prospective eligible students do not apply. I don't know if they are too lazy or just don't put forward an effort to learn about them, but the money just sits there, year after year earning interest. The next year the scholarships increase in value. Nowhere on any of those scholarships except four (about thirty total in my Dept.) is race even asked, and those are because of stipulations of the private donor. It is a state university in the Midwest.
So maybe its just my school O.o
Hmm I'll keep that in mind. Do you think there should be more scholarships then? That seem more appealing or is it that it is not advertised?
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
Yep.
They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.
It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.
You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.
Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.
You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.
MB
And... you understand that saying that I'm responsible for other people's actions because I'm white is literally the definition of racism, right? I mean, you could argue that it's good racism, I suppose, but you'd have to be illiterate or stupid to genuinely think that it's not racism to classify someone based on their race.
DarkLink wrote: And... you understand that saying that I'm responsible for other people's actions because I'm white is literally the definition of racism, right? I mean, you could argue that it's good racism, I suppose, but you'd have to be illiterate or stupid to genuinely think that it's not racism to classify someone based on their race.
You're adding 'responsible' in there. No-one else is ascribing personal responsibility to you.
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
Yep.
They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.
It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.
You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.
Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.
You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.
MB
So I come from a moderately poor family, Apparently I have privilege because my family is white. Even though I am a second generation american? Yep defiantly.
Could someone explain to me why I am privileged because I am white without sounding racist and dumb?
He doesn't care mate, he is judging you because of your skin colour not because of your character. But don't worry, it ain't racist you are white...
Yea sorry, sounds racist still.
Why is it that the people most eager to apologize for racism are also the same ones most eager to claim being a victim?
This situation is no different than if we lived in a society where our opportunities were selected based upon how quickly we could run 500 yards.
People who had shorter legs in that situation would automatically be at a disadvantage.
It doesn't mean that some people with long legs might not be able to run very fast (like some poor white people are ignorant of the advantages they have for being white), it just means that those with long legs are going to TEND to be advantaged over those with shorter legs.
Or, think of it as being in a classroom, and your grade at the end of the year was determined by being able to sit at your desk and throw a wadded up piece of paper into a trash can set at the front of the room.
Yes, some people in the front row would miss the shot, and some people at the back of the class would be lucky or skilled enough to make the shot.
But overall, those at the front of the class are advantaged over those are the back of the class.
Not being able to understand this, and confusing it with "Racism" is a part of the problem the group of people at the front of the class who missed the basket tend to have in their rush to blame someone else.
BeAfraid wrote: Just try getting a Scholarship if you are over 30.
MB
Exactly
Scholarships are so bloody hard to attain if you are not a minority. Its a stupidly flawed system. As the system also requires you to fill out a resume and you have to fill out an essay, then you have to wait and get approved, and then once you are approve you go on a waiting list. Welcome to the United States education system.
No, they actually aren't. I serve on a scholarship board (one of the three required service positions I am required to have at my university.) About a quarter of the money available doesn't get doled out each year for one basic reason: prospective eligible students do not apply. I don't know if they are too lazy or just don't put forward an effort to learn about them, but the money just sits there, year after year earning interest. The next year the scholarships increase in value. Nowhere on any of those scholarships except four (about thirty total in my Dept.) is race even asked, and those are because of stipulations of the private donor. It is a state university in the Midwest.
So maybe its just my school O.o
Hmm I'll keep that in mind. Do you think there should be more scholarships then? That seem more appealing or is it that it is not advertised?
I'm not sure about your school, but most schools don't advertise most of their scholarships (it is an easy way for admins. to redistribute the money if it isn't stipulated that the interest must stay in the specific college offering the scholarship.) Go to the secretary of your Dept. S/he will have a pamphlet or spreadsheet of all the scholarships your Dept. offers. Then go to Student Affairs, they will have a handout of general university scholarships. Also, do a search online. Many companies/institutions also offer scholarships that they don't really advertise (they can get a tax write off for donations and they can pocket whatever money goes unclaimed.)
Also, you say you will "keep that in mind" and complain about a short essay: that is the reason there are millions of dollars that universities/colleges pocket: quit complaining, get off your duff, write a short essay, and get your college paid for. There is really no reason for any student In the US to owe money for an undergrad degree other than simple laziness. Sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth.
DarkLink wrote: And... you understand that saying that I'm responsible for other people's actions because I'm white is literally the definition of racism, right? I mean, you could argue that it's good racism, I suppose, but you'd have to be illiterate or stupid to genuinely think that it's not racism to classify someone based on their race.
You're adding 'responsible' in there. No-one else is ascribing personal responsibility to you.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. BeAfraid quite literally said "let's judge people based on race, and it's not racist because I think it's the right thing to do". Maybe it is the right thing to do, maybe it isn't, but it certainly is still racist. If you don't like the way that sounds, then maybe you need to carefully reconsider the worth of taking that approach in lieu of something more noble. I think a lot of political effort is wasted on polarizing, controversial issues like affirmative action that could be spend addressing the underlying problems. I'd bet directing that effort towards overhauling the criminal code, or reworking the welfare system, would go much further towards providing minorities with greater opportunities while not actively discriminating against whatever the dominant group is.
Jihadin wrote: Affirmative Action is a different animal compare to racism
As for positive racism
I seriously seriously outright have intense hatred towards those who fall in my "Insurgent" column.
"Insurgent" isn't a race. Thats not racism.
Is it not a class of people?
Its my perception so I am racist towards them. End. Of. Story.
Stop pissing in my corn flakes dammit
At worst, its Classism. Under no definition is it racism.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Yeah, tho only racism would be if you thought all middle-eastern people were terrorists, or something like that.
Stop ruining my Hate. I thrive on hate.
I am an NCO. I might be misinformed, mislead, working on non updated EO material, mislabel, NCO-ism and all that jazz. First and Foremost I am a NCO. I am always right Stay out my world.
Since my stance is known on my viewpoint of Muslims in general
I am racist towards those who are radical militarized Muslims...........same as Christians......
Why can't everyone be a follower of Bacchus, God of Wine and sex. Where war is conducted by "stamina" and who can be drunk under the table
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
Yep.
They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.
It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.
You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.
Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.
You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.
MB
So I come from a moderately poor family, Apparently I have privilege because my family is white. Even though I am a second generation american? Yep defiantly.
Could someone explain to me why I am privileged because I am white without sounding racist and dumb?
He doesn't care mate, he is judging you because of your skin colour not because of your character. But don't worry, it ain't racist you are white...
Yea sorry, sounds racist still.
Why is it that the people most eager to apologize for racism are also the same ones most eager to claim being a victim?
I must have missed the part where he defended discrimination against minorities. And, while people probably aren't as racist towards him as might be experienced by other ethnic groups, that doesn't mean that when people behave in a racist manner towards him it's suddenly acceptable. If someone punches you in the face for no reason, it isn't acceptable just because they tend to punch other people in the face more. Punching him in the face was still wrong, yet you're proposing it as the solution to other people getting punched in the face. The whole point is so that no one gets punched in the face.
DarkLink wrote: That wasn't the point I was trying to make. BeAfraid quite literally said "let's judge people based on race, and it's not racist because I think it's the right thing to do". Maybe it is the right thing to do, maybe it isn't, but it certainly is still racist. If you don't like the way that sounds, then maybe you need to carefully reconsider the worth of taking that approach in lieu of something more noble. I think a lot of political effort is wasted on polarizing, controversial issues like affirmative action that could be spend addressing the underlying problems. I'd bet directing that effort towards overhauling the criminal code, or reworking the welfare system, would go much further towards providing minorities with greater opportunities while not actively discriminating against whatever the dominant group is.
And that's fair enough. I mean I'm not much of a fan of affirmative action, but it's impact is way overblown so ultimately I'd rather just not enter in to that part of the debate.
I was just picking up on a common response to a point made about understanding privilege - people reject it on the grounds that they personally aren't responsible for what happened. And while its true that you and me and lots of other people aren't personally responsible, it also doesn't matter. I mean, you see a baby lying on the highway, you don't start pointing out to people that you aren't going to do anything because you weren't the one that put the baby there, you just go and rescue the baby. Same thing here, not being personally responsible doesn't mean you can't recognise that there is a problem and that maybe you can be part of a solution.
LordofHats wrote: Wait- Freakonomics is about the economy?! I thought it was about sociology!
It's a weird thing. The premise was that some economists like the author are all super rational and detached which gives them incredible insights, and then it sets off telling a bunch of stories, some good and some bad, but with almost no economics in it anywhere. The only quantitative work in the book is some regression analysis, which is hardly unique to economics. The stand out work in the book, on drug dealer culture, was done by a sociologist. The worst element, the only work done by an economist, the co-author, on abortion, was comfortably the weakest element of the book.
But the story of the detached, strangely wise economist was a good one, and so the book sold and the myth grew. It didn't matter that the book didn't really have anything to do with economics, or that it really wasn't that great of a book.
I would've thought the free market advocates would be really into an initiative like this. After all, institutional racism causes the best candidate to not get the job, or the loan, etc. Instead, the selection process is biased towards whoever is whiter.
And, it is not racism to compensate for structural advantages that Whites have had in the USA for the last 200+ years, which resulted in the marginalization and denial of opportunity to minorities.
So... just because I'm white I'm suddenly responsible for the sins of various other white people who I don't know and have largely never met because most of them are long since dead?
Yep.
They don't call it "Structural" for no reason.
It means that just by being white in our society you benefit unfairly from that condition.
You have opportunities that are denied to those who are non-white, just because you are white.
Thus, ALL of society collectively shifts to compensate.
You are a part of ALL whether you wish to be or not.
MB
So I come from a moderately poor family, Apparently I have privilege because my family is white. Even though I am a second generation american? Yep defiantly.
Could someone explain to me why I am privileged because I am white without sounding racist and dumb?
I'll do my best not to sound dumb here. If you would like sources for anything I state, please ask. All of these statements are in reation to america, but most also apply to Britain.
White people are less likely to be pulled over, arrested or stop-searched. This creates a confirmation bias whereby more minorities are found to be guilty, and therefore the police are more likely to arrest them etc. This is particularly true of marijuana use, wherein use is roughly equal between whites and blacks, but black people are four times more likely to be arrested for possession.
In a job which requires 'fitting in' and teamwork, the prospective candidate is more likely to be called back/given the job if they are white, mainly because the selection panel is usually predominantly white. Identical CVs with the names changed between black-sounding and white-sounding names are more likely to be accepted if they have a white-sounding name.
If you are male, any aggressive tendencies you have are more likely to be ascribed to your masculinity than your race, whereas for black men this is the other way around. However, male agression is usually seen as more socially acceptable than black agression.
If you are white, you will be shown more houses on average on a house hunt by an estate agent.
In instances where the price of an item is negotiable, or where it is not set before you see it, such as when buying a used car, a black individual will likely be charged more. This may not even be due to outright racism on the part of the previous owner, you are just more likely to be percieved as a friendly guy who deserves a favour.
I am not saying that you as an individual inherit the guilt of slavery etc. You are your own person. Other aspects of your social makeup may mean that you do not have some of these privileges - if you are visibly poor then you may not be percieved as fitting-in in a middle class job environment, for example.
However, simply by being white you recieve a lot of advantages over an otherwise similar black individual, because of the implicit biases towards white people in our societies.
I can also provide sources for any of those things.
We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.
It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).
But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).
BeAfraid wrote: I can also provide sources for any of those things.
We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.
It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).
But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).
MB
while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?
BeAfraid wrote: I can also provide sources for any of those things.
We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.
It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).
But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).
MB
while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?
Its true of the past and it is still very true today.
It stops when there is a level playing field. When people realise the advantages they get for being white and actively seek to dismantle them.
You could try something better than affirmitive action, if you can think of it. It is a patch, until attitudes can be overhauled at the base level. However, overhauling these attitudes takes time, which is no comfort for the minorities who would not get the same education a white person would in the intervening time.
BeAfraid wrote: I can also provide sources for any of those things.
We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.
It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).
But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).
MB
while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?
At what point will people stop calling it Racism?
When that happens, then it is likely that we will no longer require it.
But until such a time, it will be necessary, as the calling this racism is itself a form of structural racism.
It is complaining that the kids at the back of the class are "Racists" for wishing to be treated more fairly by being given an opportunity to get their wad of paper into the trash can at the front of the class as easily as those at the front row (simply because one is in the front row, yet sucks at being able to get their own wad of paper in the trash can with a clear, unobstructed shot).
BeAfraid wrote: I can also provide sources for any of those things.
We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.
It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).
But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).
MB
while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?
At what point will people stop calling it Racism?
When that happens, then it is likely that we will no longer require it.
But until such a time, it will be necessary, as the calling this racism is itself a form of structural racism.
It is complaining that the kids at the back of the class are "Racists" for wishing to be treated more fairly by being given an opportunity to get their wad of paper into the trash can at the front of the class as easily as those at the front row (simply because one is in the front row, yet sucks at being able to get their own wad of paper in the trash can with a clear, unobstructed shot).
MB
You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.
BeAfraid wrote: I can also provide sources for any of those things.
We have run more studies on this from UCLA than I can even count.
It is something about which I used to believe very similarly to those here calling Affirmative Action "Racist" (which is an apology for racist attitudes).
But given that I prioritize evidence, and critical analysis above ideology, I changed my attitudes and opinions to match with the evidence when it was presented (and in rather voluminous amounts).
MB
while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....a tiny bordering on insignificant amount, at what point do we stop this form of legalized racism? How many years does it take for this to "level" the playing field?
At what point will people stop calling it Racism?
When that happens, then it is likely that we will no longer require it.
But until such a time, it will be necessary, as the calling this racism is itself a form of structural racism.
It is complaining that the kids at the back of the class are "Racists" for wishing to be treated more fairly by being given an opportunity to get their wad of paper into the trash can at the front of the class as easily as those at the front row (simply because one is in the front row, yet sucks at being able to get their own wad of paper in the trash can with a clear, unobstructed shot).
MB
You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is.
If you try being a little more condescending you might win the argument through walk-over.
You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.
What are you defining 'ACTUAL' in opposition to? The structural racism is there; it is huge and pervasive, and the priveleges for being white are manifold. But I never see people arguing against affirmitive action (which is trying to counter the structural racism) trying to do anything to counter structural racism.
Just telling institutions not to be racist and then expecting them to do so without putting in place any sanctions or rules isn't going to anything.
You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.
What are you defining 'ACTUAL' in opposition to? The structural racism is there; it is huge and pervasive, and the priveleges for being white are manifold. But I never see people arguing against affirmitive action (which is trying to counter the structural racism) trying to do anything to counter structural racism.
Just telling institutions not to be racist and then expecting them to do so without putting in place any sanctions or rules isn't going to anything.
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.
"You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.
This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.
That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.
Ouze wrote: "You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.
This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.
That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.
'
And that boils down to individual racism and not something that can be fixed by the government forcing people to be hired. Discrimination based upon race/ethnicity/color/creed/religion/sexual orientation/gender is wrong, doesn't matter if it is a program set up by the government to help the underprivileged it is just as wrong.
Ghazkuul wrote: while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....
Man, I remember back before Affirmative Action Cured Racism, when banks would run enormous predatory lending schemes, wherein they would steer Black and Latino borrowers towards worse loans then they were qualified?
Ghazkuul wrote: while it is true that in our past minorities have had a harder time achieving similar results to those of white people and affirmative action has in fact helped equal the field....
Man, I remember back before Affirmative Action Cured Racism, when banks would run enormous predatory lending schemes, wherein they would steer Black and Latino borrowers towards worse loans then they were qualified?
Never said it was cured, i am merely pointing out that affirmative action hasn't and will never work because it boils down to individual racism and not some greater government scheme.
Also terrible example. The banks gave crappy loans to everyone hence the 08 collapse.
You can say it that but it is not true, im sorry that I recognize ACTUAL racism for what it is. The way to dismantle unfair practices is to make everyone FEEL equal and not force them to be UNEQUAL by the government setting forth standards that actually exacerbates racism as opposed to fighting it.
What are you defining 'ACTUAL' in opposition to? The structural racism is there; it is huge and pervasive, and the priveleges for being white are manifold. But I never see people arguing against affirmitive action (which is trying to counter the structural racism) trying to do anything to counter structural racism.
Just telling institutions not to be racist and then expecting them to do so without putting in place any sanctions or rules isn't going to anything.
well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.
This is not according to people just saying 'it is because I'm black' when they didn't get a job.
It is from studies sending out similar CVs but typically black/white names, then measuring the responses.
Ouze wrote: "You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.
This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.
That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.
'
And that boils down to individual racism and not something that can be fixed by the government forcing people to be hired. Discrimination based upon race/ethnicity/color/creed/religion/sexual orientation/gender is wrong, doesn't matter if it is a program set up by the government to help the underprivileged it is just as wrong.
Its not 'individual racism' when everywhere does it. Its 'structural racism', because it is pervasive in the structure of our society.
We're talking about just the individual concerning Affirmative Action right? As in gender/racial quota's right?
Contract bids are a whole different animal
Ouze wrote: "You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.
This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.
That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.
'
And that boils down to individual racism and not something that can be fixed by the government forcing people to be hired.
My opinion on that statement rhymes with dull hit.
Ouze wrote: "You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.
This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.
That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.
Being in the military we're more exposed to it. So yes "we know more about it being your not military" does apply.
EO slots
Command Slots
Schools
etc etc etc
Seen and participated in the Contract bidding selection to
Also I'm not "Black" I'm Half Asian
Jihadin wrote: We're talking about just the individual concerning Affirmative Action right? As in gender/racial quota's right?
Contract bids are a whole different animal
Affirmative action is not quotas. They are different animals.
Quotas (Saying x% of thing Y must belong to group Z) are bad. Affirmative action (Everything else being equal, let disadvantaged person get it) is not bad.
Say you have a race between two runners. You give one of the runners a 100 pound backpack to carry. The race goes off and the runners tie. Affirmative action says you declare the person carrying the backpack the winner.
Affirmative action is quotas. They are not different animals.
Fixed your typo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
Your statement does not acknowldge my feelings on intolerance. You need to post a trigger warning before issuing such flagrant micro-aggressions from your position of inherent privilege. monocled cobra lives matter!*
White Privilege (which is BS) and AA ('nother BS) isn't what this database will be used for...
The Supreme Courtjust strengthened the legal concept of Disparate Impact.
These datasets are concerning as it'll encourage more Social Justice activities... with the recent court ruling, now these SJW can use the powah of the government to achieve their goals.
White Privilege (which is BS) and AA ('nother BS) isn't what this database will be used for...
The Supreme Courtjust strengthened the legal concept of Disparate Impact.
These datasets are concerning as it'll encourage more Social Justice activities... with the recent court ruling, now these SJW can use the powah of the government to achieve their goals.
Its real useful saying that white privilege is BS without saying why. Its furthering the conversation wonderfully.
Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?
Crystal-Maze wrote: Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?
I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.
Crystal-Maze wrote: Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?
I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.
It really does demonstrate the sheer tenacity of white Americans that they have risen to power in nearly all aspects of American society despite all of the racism against them.
Ouze wrote: "You don't know man, you weren't there" is rapidly becoming the new black.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white.
This is a super-repeatable experiment: Take two identical resumes and experience, name one Dan Jones, and name the other Duquan Johnson, you will get significantly less callbacks for the Duquan resume. Not a theory, not anecdotal, totally reproducible.
That's just one element of what the problem is, one small element.
Why don't we go ahead and post JUST ONE of the many studies that have been done doing just this:
You know, evidence, which we have in plenty for the arguments concerning structural racism, and which the claims that it is "faked" ring as true as the claims of any other Science-Denier in existence.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
Karl Popper (the father of Modern Science), had something interesting to say about Tolerance of Intolerance:
Karl Popper wrote:The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4
Karl Popper's statements on Tolerance were taken up by Hannah Arendt, among others, when discussing the trial of Adolph Eichmann in The Banality of Evil (Prior to the publication in the full account of Eichmann in Jerusalem).
Claiming Affirmative Action is racism is a claim that is usually made by racists, in an attempt to deflect attention from their bigotry, in the same way that the Intolerant cry foul at people not tolerating their intolerance.
Karl Popper and his Hitlerlike anti First Amendment rantings can suck chupacabra balls.
Claiming Affirmative Action is racism is a claim that is usually made by racists, in an attempt to deflect attention from their bigotry, in the same way that the Intolerant cry foul at people not tolerating their intolerance.
Claiming someone disagrees with you is racist is the calling card of someone who can't stand a fair fight argument wise.
Crystal-Maze wrote: Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?
I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.
No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.
That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There is a reason why Science works, and that it is working to show that Institutional and Structural Racism are things.
And trying to claim that all who point this out are Social Justice Warriors with some laughable post-modernist or pathological Identity Politics isn't going to help your cause, being nothing more than an Ad Hominem that does not address the actual arguments made.
Most in the Social Justice Movement take their positions too far, based upon flawed philosophical positions or ideology. But this does not mean that their basic claims are not without merit (only that they would take too far to an extreme that was just as Authoritarian and Anti-Enlightenment as their opposition who oppose even considering the evidence).
Crystal-Maze wrote: Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?
I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.
No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.
That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There is a reason why Science works, and that it is working to show that Institutional and Structural Racism are things.
And trying to claim that all who point this out are Social Justice Warriors with some laughable post-modernist or pathological Identity Politics isn't going to help your cause, being nothing more than an Ad Hominem that does not address the actual arguments made.
Most in the Social Justice Movement take their positions too far, based upon flawed philosophical positions or ideology. But this does not mean that their basic claims are not without merit (only that they would take too far to an extreme that was just as Authoritarian and Anti-Enlightenment as their opposition who oppose even considering the evidence).
MB
Ouze was on our side - "I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man. " - that was satire. Although I think we've reached the point here where the two are getting indistinguishable.
BeAfraid wrote: No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.
Did I? Maybe you uh, wanna go back and read that page again.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.
I was responding to him. And yeah, my next post was sarcasm, because I realized that I'm essentially playing calvinball. Arguing in this thread and most others in this subforum have become an exercise in futile frustration; you show up statistics, they say it's fudged and show nothing as to why, you show documentation, they claim you had to be there and offer nothing, you offer reason, they offer lies debunked over and over again dozens of times.
Ultimately, it's my fault, because I know the milk's sour but I keep sipping it.
Honestly, I think the only way to do it is to go full color blind. And enforce this method with strict laws.
And really, the onus to "fix" racism isn't on our legal system. I think that from a legal perspective, once we get rid of AA, we are just fine on the racism front. Our laws are colorblind as they should be.
The only issues racism is causing today are causes of individuals having deliberate or subconscious racist factors in their decision making. And really you can't ever legislate against this sort of thing, so don't even bother trying. Give it another 100 years and this will have mostly died out. I think the fact its gotten to this point in such a short amount of time is itself indicative of great progress. You can't expect it to disappear overnight, you at least have to get past living memory.
Then people need to stop blaming racism and think about other factors. Stop blaming the fact you are poor or otherwise disadvantaged on your skin color and do something about it.
So close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and pretend that there are absolutely no structural issues because it's bootstrappin' time? Good luck with that.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and pretend that there are absolutely no structural issues because it's bootstrappin' time? Good luck with that.
Regardless, the answer is definitely NOT to engage in more racism. Doing that is like seeing someone has 3rd degree burns from their stove and treating the problem by lighting the stove on fire.
Then people need to stop blaming racism and think about other factors. Stop blaming the fact you are poor or otherwise disadvantaged on your skin color and do something about it.
At some point you can no longer blame others, especially people who had nothing to do with the original crime, on your situation.
Well racism still exists, always will. Laws and legal activities can work to eliminate that. Quotas and set asides however, create a spoils system that fosters further racism. Plus it violates the Constitution.
Start the Draft. Make everyone go though EO sessions that's mandatory every Quarter. (every 4 months, you have to be there understand )
Since everyone starting off looking for employment after their hitch in uniform everyone would have a even footing on background (You have to have done it to understand; you crush the competition)
Affirmative Action works me being I mark Asian (A lot of you all can't get around that)
VEOA works for me being I am a Vet (You have to have done it to understand)
I claim over 30% Disability Preference for additional 10 points (You have to be there to understand how I received that)
I've a Security Clearance still active (You have to be there to understand why I needed it)
Retired after 23 years military service (I would not recommend the last 13 years nor do I desire any of you who did not serve that experience or being there)
etc etc etc
Remove the Asian portion I still win out over someone who would have slid in on Affirmative Reaction. I don't even look Asian though I was the lone "Hispanic" in the Department with two South Koreans. I asked who the Hispanic was and afterwards it marked no Hispanic but now three Asians. Cost them one 24oz coffee
Everyone has that streak of racism and/or discrimination in them if they know it or not. Everyone has that one aspect
Karl Popper wrote:The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4
This is a very ironic argument considering how it effectively states that it is okay to destroy ideologies with "fists or pistols" because you think that they might destroy other ideologies with "fists or pistols".
Ouze wrote:
BeAfraid wrote: No, you cited without evidence a claim that they were made up.
Did I? Maybe you uh, wanna go back and read that page again.
Ghazkuul wrote: well how about the fact that a lot of the numbers for discrimination are fudged. Anytime a person isn't hired and they are a minority they will say they were left out because they weren't white. I have seen this several times in my professional life both in the military and in the civilian sector.
I was responding to him. And yeah, my next post was sarcasm, because I realized that I'm essentially playing calvinball. Arguing in this thread and most others in this subforum have become an exercise in futile frustration; you show up statistics, they say it's fudged and show nothing as to why, you show documentation, they claim you had to be there and offer nothing, you offer reason, they offer lies debunked over and over again dozens of times.
Ultimately, it's my fault, because I know the milk's sour but I keep sipping it.
Okay then, post any argument about this issue and if I disagree I will counter it logically.
At some point you can no longer blame others, especially people who had nothing to do with the original crime, on your situation.
Well racism still exists, always will. Laws and legal activities can work to eliminate that. Quotas and set asides however, create a spoils system that fosters further racism. Plus it violates the Constitution.
Racism isn't going away, and it massively disadvantages minorities at all turns. You don't get to just ignore it. (Grey Templar, this is). Even '150 years on' - like that's some huge number.
Laws and legal activities have a duty to help eliminate it. Quotas, I think, are an alright stopgap, but they do seem to stir up resentment among white people. I don't know if the good they do outweights the damage than the long-term resentment might cause to eliminating racism. I'll leave the constitution bit alone though, I don't know two jots about it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The question then becomes, how are we supposed to "fix" racism?
That's answer's pretty simple, and will eventually fix itself- interbreeding. Once we're all one conglomerate race we can focus on the important reasons to hate other people, like religion and politics.
Quotas are bad because they ignore qualifications. Affirmative action works because you have to be qualified to get it while recognizing that you had to work harder to become qualified.
Frazzled wrote: AA is quotas. They may not be "official" but they typically evolve to such very quickly.
AA is never temporary.
AA violates the Constitution on its face.
' They may not be "official" but they typically evolve to such very quickly' - It sounds very much like you have a problem with the execution rather than the concept.
Its not been temporary yet because nothing is fixed.
Nothing anywhere is fixed and its been generations since AA was put in place in some areas. Really? Thats horse gak. How is AA going in Britain for you?
Crystal-Maze wrote: Oh no, statistics may reveal more bad things that America does to minorities, and via disparate impact, people will try to fix them. Who will stop those dangerous SJWs?
I think we established on the previous page that most of those statistics are like, totally made up, and you wouldn't understand why, because you weren't there, man, and SJW, and check your privilege, and dear god these forums man.
*sigh*...
*rubs temple*...
So... what are you really saying Ouze?
Don't be shy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Nothing anywhere is fixed and its been generations since AA was put in place in some areas. Really? Thats horse gak. How is AA going in Britain for you?
Unsure but I think AA is currently being challenge in the Federal Court system
Edit
Yep, but against Harvard......
A coalition of Asian-American groups has filed a complaint with the US Department of Education and the Department of Justice, arguing that Asians are discriminated against in admissions at elite universities:
A coalition of Asian-American organizations says the federal government should step in to change Harvard’s approach to admissions, accusing the university of racial discrimination.
In a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education and the Justice Department on Friday, the coalition of more than 60 groups claims that the university unfairly holds Asian-American applicants to a higher standard. Asian-Americans have the lowest acceptance rates at Harvard University and other elite universities, the complaint alleges, despite having some of the highest test scores and overall academic achievement.
“People from all over the world came to America for equal opportunities. We are trying to bring those principles back to America,” said Yukong Zhao, a Chinese-American author who helped organize the coalition. “This isn’t just about discrimination and race. It is about justice for everyone, including (people of) all races, and social and economic statuses.”
A lawsuit filed against Harvard in November also alleges discrimination against Asian-Americans. Both the complaint and the lawsuit argue that Harvard’s admissions policies, which give racial preferences to African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination at institutions that get federal funding. Most other selective universities, of course, have similar policies.
There is little doubt that affirmative action preferences do in fact negatively impact Asian-American applicants. If racial preferences are given to Groups A and B, that necessarily disfavors members of Groups C, D, and E who are not similarly favored. This is true even if the people who instituted the policy don’t feel any special hostility towards members of the disfavored groups. Some studies also suggest that elite college admissions policies not only disfavor Asian-Americans relative to preferred minority groups, but also even relative to whites.
Concern about this issue within the Asian-American community is not a new phenomenon. Some twenty-five years ago, I attended a high school with a large Asian-American population. Even back then, many of my Asian classmates worried that their racial background would be a disadvantage in competing for admission to elite universities. What is new is that some Asian-American groups are taking the lead in trying to curtail racial preferences. The complaint against Harvard follows on the footsteps of the key role played by Asian-American Democrats in blocking an effort to reverse California’s Proposition 209, which forbids racial preferences in California state universities. This development undermines claims that affirmative action is a simple issue that pits whites against racial minorities. In reality, there are minority interests on both sides. Some Asian groups support affirmative action preferences. But it is likely that the policy, at least as currently practiced, has a net negative impact on Asians.
The case of Asian-Americans also highlights tensions between the standard rationales for racial preferences in college admissions and the way they actually operate in practice. If the justification for racial preferences is to compensation for historical injustices inflicted against groups that have been subjected to widespread discrimination in American society, many Asian-American groups deserve not only equal treatment but preferences of their own. After all, there is a long history of discrimination against Chinese and Japanese-Americans by state and federal governments, including the cruel forcible internment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. The fact that these groups are relatively affluent today doesn’t necessarily mean they are less deserving of compensation for past injustices. Perhaps they would be still better off were it not for the history of discrimination. After all, a thief who steals from a wealthy person is still required to compensate them. Moreover, it is not clear why relatively poor Asian-Americans should be denied compensatory preferences merely because other members of the same group may be wealthier.
Denying preferences to Asian-Americans may make more sense under the diversity rationale for affirmative action that has been endorsed by the Supreme Court. If the purpose of racial preferences is not to benefit the groups that get them, but to expose students from other backgrounds to new perspectives, then it might make sense to disfavor groups that are already well-represented at elite schools. But this rationale is still a poor fit for the policies actually practiced by most schools. If promoting diversity is the real objective, it does not make sense to treat Asian-Americans as an undifferentiated mass, all of whom are already “overrepresented.” There are, in fact, major cultural and linguistic differences between various Asian groups. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Indians, and Vietnamese are not basically similar, interchangeable groups. And while some Asian groups are indeed disproportionately represented at elite schools, others – such as Cambodian and Filipino immigrants – are not.
A policy that truly seeks to use racial preferences to promote diversity would consider each Asian group separately, taking due account of their differing cultures and histories. Even if a school already has a “critical mass” of Chinese or Indians, it might not have a significant number of Cambodians or Vietnamese. A consistent diversity-oriented policy would also end the practice of treating “whites” as a single, undifferentiated category. Immigrants from Bulgaria and Sweden are no more interchangeable than Indians and Koreans are.
As I have written previously, I have some sympathy for the compensatory justice rationale for affirmative action, and relatively little for the diversity theory. I also believe that private institutions, including Harvard, should be free to pursue either policy, if they so choose; public universities, by contrast are (and should be) subject to strict constitutional constraints on the use of race in admissions. But whatever your view of these two standard justifications for affirmative action, the policies actually in force at most universities don’t fit either one very well.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
That's insane. Sorry, there's no other word for it. I'm willing to bet that you can come up with stuff that's vastly more racist within 3 seconds of reading this sentence, and it won't even have to be a Godwin.
Frazzled wrote: AA is quotas. They may not be "official" but they typically evolve to such very quickly.
AA is never temporary.
AA violates the Constitution on its face.
Affirmative Action does not involve quotas. People may mistakenly call quotas Affirmative Action.
Btw, everything is temporary
And I don't see how it violates the Constitution.
Let me ask you this...Two people go for a race. One person isn't allowed to start until one second after the other person. However, at the end of the race, they cross the finish line simultaneously. Who do we declare the winner of the race?
It is not likely that the people who oppose Affirmative Action are EVER going to understand the concept of Structural Advantages (what is sometimes called "Privilege" even though that is a TERRIBLE word for the concept and reality) in a society (or the US Society).
So no amount of analogies, no matter how clear and concise are going to help.
Two of these are "Opinion" pieces, and thus not "Evidence."
The third concern a girl in Texas who is doing nothing more than alleging "Reverse Racism."
Not exactly the best examples of "Evidence" when stacked against Empirical Research and Experimentation showing structural advantages for controlling for ethnicity.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
BeAfraid wrote: It is not likely that the people who oppose Affirmative Action are EVER going to understand the concept of Structural Advantages (what is sometimes called "Privilege" even though that is a TERRIBLE word for the concept and reality) in a society (or the US Society).
So no amount of analogies, no matter how clear and concise are going to help.
Still waiting for my privilege to kick in. And yes, the way people prattle on about how white people are advantaged they are claiming they are all privileged, even though it should be pointed out there are more poor white people than any other race. How are all those people advantaged?
Two of these are "Opinion" pieces, and thus not "Evidence."
The third concern a girl in Texas who is doing nothing more than alleging "Reverse Racism."
Not exactly the best examples of "Evidence" when stacked against Empirical Research and Experimentation showing structural advantages for controlling for ethnicity.
Opinions are NOT FACTS
MB
Sure, but those are some pretty important opinions. And really this is a field where opinion is just as important too.
AA is racism, full stop. Nothing can stop this fact, and it is fact. Racism is bad, yet we allow it to continue via AA.
Your priveledge already kicked in. That time a cop drove by and disn't stop you to harrass you. That time your resume wasn't round filed for having a weird name...
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We keep posting links to the studies with the CVs. Please read it and then respond, instead of stating your position over and over.
We're not saying 'all of these things will happen to you every time if you are white', it is just that being white makes these things more likely to happen to you, which is a structural advantage.
Even if AA is racism (which I do not believe) - your position on it boils down to 'this particular thing is racist against white people, we need to end it'.
Then when it comes to the comparatively huge amounts of structural racism against racial minorities the response comes 'What oh that? Doesn't exist. And even if it does it will sort itself out on its own eventually.' I don't get how anyone can hold that position without a huge amount of sticking their fingers in their ears and humming VERY loudly. Even a little bit of reflection makes it look laughable.
The only salient defence for the anti-AA crowd is Fraz's first amendment thing.
skyth wrote: Your priveledge already kicked in. That time a cop drove by and disn't stop you to harrass you. That time your resume wasn't round filed for having a weird name...
you've not seen my weird name...
I'm sure it helped my dad who was so poor as a child he and his brother were put in an orphanage so they wouldn't starve to death, who picked cotton when he was eight and was offered the opportunity to serve his country by a judge on trumped up charges from The Man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
skyth wrote: Your priveledge already kicked in. That time a cop drove by and disn't stop you to harrass you. That time your resume wasn't round filed for having a weird name...
you've not seen my weird name...
I'm sure it helped my dad who was so poor as a child he and his brother were put in an orphanage so they wouldn't starve to death, who picked cotton when he was eight and was offered the opportunity to serve his country by a judge on trumped up charges from The Man.
It probably did help your dad.
You can still get shat on by the system even if you are white; it is just less likely. I'd love to see a comparison between him and an other-wise socially similar minority individual.
Being poor in this case is the big kicker - but you'll still probably end up better off if you're poor and white than if you're poor and black. Because there are multiple axes on which a single individual can be opressed or advantaged.
a black guy would be more likely to face those trumped up charges, and would likely face a longer sentence for them - "Once convicted, black offenders receive longer sentences compared to white offenders. The U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes. The Sentencing Project reports that African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants and are 20 percent more like to be sentenced to prison." (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/)
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and pretend that there are absolutely no structural issues because it's bootstrappin' time? Good luck with that.
All that it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We keep posting links to the studies with the CVs. Please read it and then respond, instead of stating your position over and over.
We're not saying 'all of these things will happen to you every time if you are white', it is just that being white makes these things more likely to happen to you, which is a structural advantage.
Even if AA is racism (which I do not believe) - your position on it boils down to 'this particular thing is racist against white people, we need to end it'.
Then when it comes to the comparatively huge amounts of structural racism against racial minorities the response comes 'What oh that? Doesn't exist. And even if it does it will sort itself out on its own eventually.'
I don't get how anyone can hold that position without a huge amount of sticking their fingers in their ears and humming VERY loudly. Even a little bit of reflection makes it look laughable.
The only salient defence for the anti-AA crowd is Fraz's first amendment thing.
AA is most certainly racism. it fits the definition. therefore it is racist.
We can, I hope, agree that racism is bad. Therefore, AA is a bad thing and needs to be removed.
White Privilege is also total hogwash. If it was true, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many poor or incarcerated white people as there are.
The most you can argue is that there is a bias towards rich and educated people. As a ratio, a higher % of minorities are poor and poorly educated and this is partially due to racist institutions in the past. But the past is the past. Those institutions no longer exist. You can't expect the inequalities to be erased overnight even when the causes are removed. But the causes have been removed. Thus we really just need to wait and let osmosis occur. Forcing things to be what lame ass SJWs think they should be just creates more resentment, keeps racism alive, and doesn't actually fix anything.
your position on it boils down to 'this particular thing is racist against white people, we need to end it'.
You do realize that is exactly the position that black rights activists used over the last century. Why can't white people do it? Oh right its because its ok the be racist against the majority.
White Privilege is also total hogwash. If it was true, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many poor or incarcerated white people as there are.
The most you can argue is that there is a bias towards rich and educated people. As a ratio, a higher % of minorities are poor and poorly educated and this is partially due to racist institutions in the past. But the past is the past. Those institutions no longer exist. You can't expect the inequalities to be erased overnight even when the causes are removed. But the causes have been removed. Thus we really just need to wait and let osmosis occur. Forcing things to be what lame ass SJWs think they should be just creates more resentment, keeps racism alive, and doesn't actually fix anything.
your position on it boils down to 'this particular thing is racist against white people, we need to end it'.
You do realize that is exactly the position that black rights activists used over the last century. Why can't white people do it? Oh right its because its ok the be racist against the majority.
-According to Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have much higher rates of arrests. While only 14% of black people use drugs regularly, 37% of those arrested for drugs are black. This trend holds true for children of color as well, who are more likely to be perceived as guilty. The so-called school-to-prison pipeline targets children of color, funnelling them into the criminal justice system early due to unfair zero tolerance policies in American schools.
- When Seattle Seahawks superstar Richard Sherman dared speak out after making a game-winning play to get his team to the Superbowl, the word "thug" was used 625 times in 24 hours of television broadcasts. Sherman, a Standford University graduate, called out his critics, noting that white male aggression is seen as acceptable in sports like hockey because the vast majority of players are white.
- "More shocking was that some employers, mostly Caucasian-sounding women, were calling Bianca more than once, desperate to get an interview with her," Spivey wrote. "All along, my real Monster.com account was open and active; but, despite having the same background as Bianca, I received no phone calls. Two jobs actually did email me and Bianca at the same time. But they were commission only sales positions. Potential positions offering a competitive salary and benefits all went to Bianca."
- Sheri Parks, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, calls this the "Missing White Woman Syndrome." Dr. Mia Moody, assistant professor of journalism and media arts at Baylor University, notes the same thing in her research, which looks at the way media frames coverage, with the result that pretty white woman are put on a pedestal, while minorities, the poor and the less traditionally attractive are conspicuously absent from the front page.
- As ESPN commentator Bomani Jones emphasized in a recent column, this kind of refusal to rent to people of color has real consequences. "Discrimination in the housing market has been crippling to the attempts blacks and Latinos have made to empower themselves economically," Jones said. "The worst examples are in the sales market — there's a wealth of urban economic evidence showing how the inability to buy homes has affected the black-white wealth gap — but such behavior in the rental market is just as damaging."
These things might often be because of interplay with things like poverty, but some of them sure as hell aren't.
The difference in the 'but black activists did it' example is that the things they pointed out were -literally everywhere- whereas the white people that complain about this stuff have, what, AA and scholarships to go at? These are things that were put into place because of structural advantages white people have, in order to do a little bit to counter them.
To say that this is a gaming forum, people have a poor grasp of probability. I'll put these things another way -
White marines have a plus two to hit. This takes the form of a special rule written in to the nature of the game.This does not mean they will hit all the time ('but why are so many white people poor and incarcerated'). It means they are more likely to hit, that's all.
As a balancing mechanism, we give the black marines a sword which grants a plus one. Or a plus two even, if you want to play it that way. But all of the white marine players say 'those guys get a sword, no fair'.
Even if you manage to get the white marine players to realise they have a special rule, they say 'well the black marine players should wait till the next edition of the game. It will be better next edition, honest'.
I call bull. Let them have a sword for god's sake.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and pretend that there are absolutely no structural issues because it's bootstrappin' time? Good luck with that.
All that it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
I find the selfrightousness of some people disturbing.
White Privilege is also total hogwash. If it was true, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many poor or incarcerated white people as there are.
The most you can argue is that there is a bias towards rich and educated people. As a ratio, a higher % of minorities are poor and poorly educated and this is partially due to racist institutions in the past. But the past is the past. Those institutions no longer exist. You can't expect the inequalities to be erased overnight even when the causes are removed. But the causes have been removed. Thus we really just need to wait and let osmosis occur. Forcing things to be what lame ass SJWs think they should be just creates more resentment, keeps racism alive, and doesn't actually fix anything.
your position on it boils down to 'this particular thing is racist against white people, we need to end it'.
You do realize that is exactly the position that black rights activists used over the last century. Why can't white people do it? Oh right its because its ok the be racist against the majority.
-According to Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have much higher rates of arrests. While only 14% of black people use drugs regularly, 37% of those arrested for drugs are black. This trend holds true for children of color as well, who are more likely to be perceived as guilty. The so-called school-to-prison pipeline targets children of color, funnelling them into the criminal justice system early due to unfair zero tolerance policies in American schools.
- When Seattle Seahawks superstar Richard Sherman dared speak out after making a game-winning play to get his team to the Superbowl, the word "thug" was used 625 times in 24 hours of television broadcasts. Sherman, a Standford University graduate, called out his critics, noting that white male aggression is seen as acceptable in sports like hockey because the vast majority of players are white.
- "More shocking was that some employers, mostly Caucasian-sounding women, were calling Bianca more than once, desperate to get an interview with her," Spivey wrote. "All along, my real Monster.com account was open and active; but, despite having the same background as Bianca, I received no phone calls. Two jobs actually did email me and Bianca at the same time. But they were commission only sales positions. Potential positions offering a competitive salary and benefits all went to Bianca."
- Sheri Parks, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, calls this the "Missing White Woman Syndrome." Dr. Mia Moody, assistant professor of journalism and media arts at Baylor University, notes the same thing in her research, which looks at the way media frames coverage, with the result that pretty white woman are put on a pedestal, while minorities, the poor and the less traditionally attractive are conspicuously absent from the front page.
- As ESPN commentator Bomani Jones emphasized in a recent column, this kind of refusal to rent to people of color has real consequences. "Discrimination in the housing market has been crippling to the attempts blacks and Latinos have made to empower themselves economically," Jones said. "The worst examples are in the sales market — there's a wealth of urban economic evidence showing how the inability to buy homes has affected the black-white wealth gap — but such behavior in the rental market is just as damaging."
These things might often be because of interplay with things like poverty, but some of them sure as hell aren't.
The difference in the 'but black activists did it' example is that the things they pointed out were -literally everywhere- whereas the white people that complain about this stuff have, what, AA and scholarships to go at? These are things that were put into place because of structural advantages white people have, in order to do a little bit to counter them.
To say that this is a gaming forum, people have a poor grasp of probability. I'll put these things another way -
White marines have a plus two to hit. This takes the form of a special rule written in to the nature of the game.This does not mean they will hit all the time ('but why are so many white people poor and incarcerated'). It means they are more likely to hit, that's all.
As a balancing mechanism, we give the black marines a sword which grants a plus one. Or a plus two even, if you want to play it that way. But all of the white marine players say 'those guys get a sword, no fair'.
Even if you manage to get the white marine players to realise they have a special rule, they say 'well the black marine players should wait till the next edition of the game. It will be better next edition, honest'.
I call bull. Let them have a sword for god's sake.
I took a quick look at the article and I couldn't find the actual research papers, which makes debating about this subject quite hard. I would be happy if you would provide them.
White Privilege is also total hogwash. If it was true, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many poor or incarcerated white people as there are.
The most you can argue is that there is a bias towards rich and educated people. As a ratio, a higher % of minorities are poor and poorly educated and this is partially due to racist institutions in the past. But the past is the past. Those institutions no longer exist. You can't expect the inequalities to be erased overnight even when the causes are removed. But the causes have been removed. Thus we really just need to wait and let osmosis occur. Forcing things to be what lame ass SJWs think they should be just creates more resentment, keeps racism alive, and doesn't actually fix anything.
your position on it boils down to 'this particular thing is racist against white people, we need to end it'.
You do realize that is exactly the position that black rights activists used over the last century. Why can't white people do it? Oh right its because its ok the be racist against the majority.
-According to Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have much higher rates of arrests. While only 14% of black people use drugs regularly, 37% of those arrested for drugs are black. This trend holds true for children of color as well, who are more likely to be perceived as guilty. The so-called school-to-prison pipeline targets children of color, funnelling them into the criminal justice system early due to unfair zero tolerance policies in American schools.
- When Seattle Seahawks superstar Richard Sherman dared speak out after making a game-winning play to get his team to the Superbowl, the word "thug" was used 625 times in 24 hours of television broadcasts. Sherman, a Standford University graduate, called out his critics, noting that white male aggression is seen as acceptable in sports like hockey because the vast majority of players are white.
- "More shocking was that some employers, mostly Caucasian-sounding women, were calling Bianca more than once, desperate to get an interview with her," Spivey wrote. "All along, my real Monster.com account was open and active; but, despite having the same background as Bianca, I received no phone calls. Two jobs actually did email me and Bianca at the same time. But they were commission only sales positions. Potential positions offering a competitive salary and benefits all went to Bianca."
- Sheri Parks, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, calls this the "Missing White Woman Syndrome." Dr. Mia Moody, assistant professor of journalism and media arts at Baylor University, notes the same thing in her research, which looks at the way media frames coverage, with the result that pretty white woman are put on a pedestal, while minorities, the poor and the less traditionally attractive are conspicuously absent from the front page.
- As ESPN commentator Bomani Jones emphasized in a recent column, this kind of refusal to rent to people of color has real consequences. "Discrimination in the housing market has been crippling to the attempts blacks and Latinos have made to empower themselves economically," Jones said. "The worst examples are in the sales market — there's a wealth of urban economic evidence showing how the inability to buy homes has affected the black-white wealth gap — but such behavior in the rental market is just as damaging."
These things might often be because of interplay with things like poverty, but some of them sure as hell aren't.
The difference in the 'but black activists did it' example is that the things they pointed out were -literally everywhere- whereas the white people that complain about this stuff have, what, AA and scholarships to go at? These are things that were put into place because of structural advantages white people have, in order to do a little bit to counter them.
To say that this is a gaming forum, people have a poor grasp of probability. I'll put these things another way -
White marines have a plus two to hit. This takes the form of a special rule written in to the nature of the game.This does not mean they will hit all the time ('but why are so many white people poor and incarcerated'). It means they are more likely to hit, that's all.
As a balancing mechanism, we give the black marines a sword which grants a plus one. Or a plus two even, if you want to play it that way. But all of the white marine players say 'those guys get a sword, no fair'.
Even if you manage to get the white marine players to realise they have a special rule, they say 'well the black marine players should wait till the next edition of the game. It will be better next edition, honest'.
I call bull. Let them have a sword for god's sake.
Total bull.
White people are less likely to get arrested because a lower % of white people commit crime. Thats not discrimination, thats simply applying the law where it needs to be applied. Arguments of this angle fail to account for higher actual crime rates among poor people, and as a higher % of minorities are poor it leads to them being more likely to commit crime. This is correlation, not causation. Crime also tends to be cyclical, so if you commit a crime you are more likely to commit another crime. this artificially inflates crime rates to make it appear as if there is more bias then there actually is/might be.
Plus all of the stuff on that website is totally anecdotal anyway.
Thug is also not a racist term despite how people may want it to be so they can play the race card.
Also, your gaming analogy is totally flawed and has no similarity to the real world. White people do not have an innate +2 to anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: WHites are no longer the majority in California (nearly so in Texas as well). Do they get AA now?
Frazzled wrote: WHites are no longer the majority in California (nearly so in Texas as well). Do they get AA now?
Are they struggling to get jobs or college places?
I may be wrong here, but I thought that in Cali whites had only dropped below 50% of the population, rather than actually being overtaken by a single other ethnicity?
Frazzled wrote: WHites are no longer the majority in California (nearly so in Texas as well). Do they get AA now?
Are they struggling to get jobs or college places?
I may be wrong here, but I thought that in Cali whites had only dropped below 50% of the population, rather than actually being overtaken by a single other ethnicity?
*Affirmative action does not apply to them or Asians, but can be applied against them in university admissions.
*lower skilled jobs, you betcha.
1. White people have it better than black people in America. Period. Sure, you could find plenty of white people who are worse off in life than the average black person. But white people still have it better in America than black people.
2. I'd personally replace all mention of "privilege white people enjoy" to "discrimination black people face." This cuts down on the blame on one hand, and the defensiveness on the other hand.
3. This gak is messy, and has no "good" answers. The kind of wrong done in America's past doesn't wash out clean, quick, or easy. People, both black and white, are going to suffer for things they didn't do because of gakky ancestors.
4. AA policies in my general experience have existed as quotas, which I don't personally agree with. I believe other forms of AA are defensible in the current climate.
Scrabb wrote: 4. AA policies in my general experience have existed as quotas, which I don't personally agree with. I believe other forms of AA are defensible in the current climate.
Quotas were found to be discrimination and aren't constitutional, so it's a good thing we don't actually use quotas anymore.
Scrabb wrote: 4. AA policies in my general experience have existed as quotas, which I don't personally agree with. I believe other forms of AA are defensible in the current climate.
Quotas were found to be discrimination and aren't constitutional, so it's a good thing we don't actually use quotas anymore.
Except we do. They're just hidden behind the veil of AA. "Oh we don't have enough X, so lets take more X even if they aren't as qualified as Y" or "This thing here is only for X people. Even if there is a Y individual who is more qualified in every way."
Scrabb wrote: I was alluding to how the wrong name consistently gets rejected in favor of a 'normal' name.
Maybe the applicants actual name should not be given to the person who ends up making the hiring decisions? IDK.
Maybe it should. But I think this is such a minor issue that its not worth implementing a racist policy.
Its just another "feel good" band-aid that doesn't actually accomplish what is trying to be fixed, and has the bad side effect of actually propagating what is supposedly being controlled for. Its like saying "I got a paper cut on my thumb, I'll make another paper cut on my other thumb so they match!"
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
The only "evidence" ever posted was simply anecdotal. Yet I can post links to any number of scholarships I am ineligible for because I am a white male. I can also post links to AA policies which actively discriminate against whites in favor of lesser qualified individuals of other races.
Frazzled wrote: WHites are no longer the majority in California (nearly so in Texas as well). Do they get AA now?
When it is shown that they statistically are disadvantaged for being a minority, yes.
But that hasn't happened.
You seem to think that Affirmative Action exists to deal with solely one thing, or that simply being a minority is all it takes to require it.
Cultural Myopia.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The only "evidence" ever posted was simply anecdotal. Yet I can post links to any number of scholarships I am ineligible for because I am a white male. I can also post links to AA policies which actively discriminate against whites in favor of lesser qualified individuals of other races.
Then you missed the six studies I posted, and the four experiments posted between myself and another poster which showed that such advantages exist.
The only "Anecdotes" that were posted dealt with one issue on scholarships, where all that is required is one counterexample to falsify a universal claim.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.
Cultural Myopia.
being that I am legally blind under certain criteria I would have appreciated a trigger warning before your professed antimyopic bigotry. All you sight privileged haters have no idea of the constant micro aggressions you throw off like bad dandruff.
I used to feel very similarly to yourself on this issue as I was raised in a home that did not make an issue of race. They taught me to treat everyone as I wanted to be treated.
I didn't see a need for programs or ideas to help people get away from racial discrimination because gee, sure there were racist people out there somewhere, but there were also communists and plain old jerkfaces and people who thought their hands weren't real out there too. What exactly was the problem?
It wasn't until one of my Hispanic friends told me about the first time he remembered someone hating him for his race that it really sunk home in my mind that this was a real problem.
When President Obama won his first election one of my friends cried, and actually posted on facebook how encouraging it was for her I paid attention. This is real gak for real people. Stop pretending that the only/worst injustice is suffered at the hands of white people. You are wrong.
But that doesn't mean you're a bad guy. Okay? It can be difficult (speaking from personal experience) to have a realistic view of race relations in America as a white person without getting either defensive or guilty about it.
It's not your fault that white people have it better than black people. But it the truth.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.
ZOOOM!
What was that???
Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.
ZOOOM!
What was that???
Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.
MB
Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?
If a fascist starts trying to incite violence you laugh him away, or beat his face in AFTER he starts the violence. Or call the cops if you feel threatened. Or leave.
Violently repressing him only gives him fuel for his ideology.
Jihadin wrote: You posted studies and Grey is stating facts about scholarship. There are Scholarships that some race cannot get. Just pointing that out
Yes, but there are reasons that some of the races can get them and not others i.e. underrepresentation.
The case of Asian Americans is an interesting one here. Whilst they face discrimination in most other walks of life in white countries, certain ethnicities are very well/over-represented in higher education (at least in my country - I imagine America is the same). Though, as you observed earlier, 'asian-americans' is a catch all term. What this tends to mean is that some Asian ethnicities such as Vietnamese and Thai are under-represented but invisible in shallow statistical analyses.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.
ZOOOM!
What was that???
Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.
MB
Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?
So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.
ZOOOM!
What was that???
Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.
MB
Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?
So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?
MB
What a fethed up argument. We did not use violence to stop him/suppress his views until AFTER he initiated violent acts and started a war. Popper is advocating preemptive violence to shut down speech he deems bad.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.
ZOOOM!
What was that???
Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.
MB
Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?
So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?
MB
A couple of problems with that statement.
1. WE stopped the Nazis due to their acts, not what they said. We didn't drop Long Tom on Franco or the Argentinians.
2. Hitler was German, not a US citizen so that guy.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
He did not say that intolerance is sometimes acceptable, he said that there isn't always a need to supress them by law.
BeAfraid wrote: It is not likely that the people who oppose Affirmative Action are EVER going to understand the concept of Structural Advantages (what is sometimes called "Privilege" even though that is a TERRIBLE word for the concept and reality) in a society (or the US Society).
So no amount of analogies, no matter how clear and concise are going to help.
Still waiting for my privilege to kick in. And yes, the way people prattle on about how white people are advantaged they are claiming they are all privileged, even though it should be pointed out there are more poor white people than any other race. How are all those people advantaged?
Two of these are "Opinion" pieces, and thus not "Evidence."
The third concern a girl in Texas who is doing nothing more than alleging "Reverse Racism."
Not exactly the best examples of "Evidence" when stacked against Empirical Research and Experimentation showing structural advantages for controlling for ethnicity.
Opinions are NOT FACTS
MB
Sure, but those are some pretty important opinions. And really this is a field where opinion is just as important too.
AA is racism, full stop. Nothing can stop this fact, and it is fact. Racism is bad, yet we allow it to continue via AA.
Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
And I already posted that Popper is a fascist who should be whipped out of the country for being an anti First Amendment Rat. People who support him should be whipped out as rail. Hah employed his own doctrine against him!
Godwin = WIN!
Karl Popper was one of the greatest known opponents of Fascism in the early 20th Century, and the quote on Tolerance was SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT FASCISM
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:He was a dogged opponent of totalitarianism, nationalism, fascism, romanticism, collectivism, and other kinds of (in Popper’s view) reactionary and irrational ideas. . . .
A central aim of The Open Society and Its Enemies as well as The Poverty of Historicism was to explain the origin and nature of totalitarianism. In particular, the rise of fascism, including in Popper’s native Austria, and the ensuing Second World War prompted Popper to begin writing these two essays in the late 1930s and early 1940s, while he was teaching in New Zealand. He described these works as his “war effort” (Unended Quest, 115). . . .
In any event, the full horrors of the Soviet social experiments were not yet known to the wider world. In addition, the Soviets during the Second World War were part of the alliance against fascism, which Popper saw as a much greater threat to humanity. In fact, initially Popper viewed totalitarianism as an exclusively right-wing phenomenon. However, he later became a unambiguous opponent of Soviet-style communism, and he dedicated the 1957 publication in book form of The Poverty of Historicism to the “memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”
So, I think you are just making things up (I know Fallacy Ref has a call on that foul as well, but it takes a while to find them now that there are so many).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you have proof that is why that happened, and not because I wasn't breaking traffic laws or I was more qualified.
We already posted said "Proof" (BTW, learn the difference between "Proof" and "Evidence"), TWICE at least.
Just by the Law of Large numbers, you have benefitted at least once from being white and male.
lord_blackfang wrote: I look away for 5 minutes and this thread turns into the tired old "telling me to stop being intolerant is itself intolerant, and thus wrong"
I think I already posted something WRT that trope (Karl Popper's comments on the Paradox of Tolerance - which someone immediately fell right into in commenting upon).
The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong).
Too many of the defenses of Intolerance are of this sort.
MB
It is even more ironic that you post "The problem among most of them is with thinking that all opinions are equally valid. When it is very possible for an opinion to be both invalid, and unsound (and thus completely wrong)", after you have posted the quote due to the effect that the justification for intolerance of intolerance is based around the idea that tolerane is always good no matter what, while there are several cases where for example intolerating a criminal is acceptable. Eg. you wouldn't want to rehire a nurse that has killed patients.
Missing the point that at the beginning of the quote Popper addressed this SPECIFICALLY.
It is called The Paradox of Tolerance, and he addressed that specifically.
MB
Espousing violence to stop Fascist speech is itself Fascist. Zombie James Madison says you are bad and should feel bad.
ZOOOM!
What was that???
Oh! That was the point, mate, flying over your head.
MB
Horse gak. Espousing violence to stop views is Fascist on its face. Why do you hate the Constitution so?
So, then I guess we should apologize to Adolph for the violence we used to stop him?
Scrabb wrote: If a fascist starts trying to incite violence you laugh him away, or beat his face in AFTER he starts the violence. Or call the cops if you feel threatened. Or leave.
Violently repressing him only gives him fuel for his ideology.
Basically,
Repression and ignoring a problem only worsens it.
Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.
Well as Netroots taught us, the Democrat party doesn't believe all lives matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.
Good thing neither of those are related. On a personal level I was a poor student and didn't get any of that so your argument is what we call, worm poop.
cincydooley wrote: You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.
Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?
cincydooley wrote: You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.
Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?
He's not saying it was aliens, but, it was aliens.
cincydooley wrote: You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.
Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?
In short, banks shouldn't be absolved of predatory lending practices that yielded many of these loans, but they were, effectively, encouraged and enabled to so by the federal government in large part through the Community Reinvestment Act and further enabling by Cuomo and the HUD via Fannie and Freddie.
cincydooley wrote: You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.
Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?
In short, banks shouldn't be absolved of predatory lending practices that yielded many of these loans, but they were, effectively, encouraged and enabled to so by the federal government in large part through the Community Reinvestment Act and further enabling by Cuomo and the HUD via Fannie and Freddie.
That link leads to a 404 error for me - buisiness insider does not often like computers my side of the pond.
Is the thing you're getting at that the government encouraged predatory lending to black people insofar as they were poor, rather than banks specifically directing predatory loans towards black people?
That link leads to a 404 error for me - buisiness insider does not often like computers my side of the pond.
Is the thing you're getting at that the government encouraged predatory lending to black people insofar as they were poor, rather than banks specifically directing predatory loans towards black people?
More or less.
Basically, people with sub-prime credit (typically less than 700), many of whom in the US are minorities, and many of whom, further, don't necessarily have the financial savvy to understand how an ARM works, which is the majority of the loan types they were being offered. Loan adjusts....people can no longer afford their loans. That's why you'll hear most pundits recommend Fixed Rate loans. Jumbo loans are a different beast altogether.
To further it, the HUD, through Fannie and Freddy, basically guaranteed the debt from lenders (they said they'd purchase like, $2T --yes, trillion-- in these types of loans) making the risk of the lending even less for the initial lender (because they were going to, in turn, be bought by Fannie or Freddy.)
Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.
Wrong.
Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.
Frazzled wrote: Well as Netroots taught us, the Democrat party doesn't believe all lives matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.
Good thing neither of those are related. On a personal level I was a poor student and didn't get any of that so your argument is what we call, worm poop.
I don't believe I was really trying to advance an argument here. I am genuinely curious. I guess I could see where an argument could follow, but that really depends on the answer, doesn't it? And how does your one personal experience make any argument you see there worm droppings? Anecdotal evidence fallacy at its finest.
Its because favoring one race over another is wrong.
Lets say we have 100 scholarships available.
95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.
That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.
I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.
95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.
That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.
I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.
I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?
95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.
That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.
I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.
I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?
Sure, but class-ism is far less worse than racism. And this would actually be helping people who can't afford school.
Of course it still doesn't really help people who aren't poor enough to qualify for low income scholarships but also aren't rich enough to afford school without going into debt, like myself. But thats really another issue, and at least we aren't dealing with a racist policy.
That link leads to a 404 error for me - buisiness insider does not often like computers my side of the pond.
Is the thing you're getting at that the government encouraged predatory lending to black people insofar as they were poor, rather than banks specifically directing predatory loans towards black people?
More or less.
Basically, people with sub-prime credit (typically less than 700), many of whom in the US are minorities, and many of whom, further, don't necessarily have the financial savvy to understand how an ARM works, which is the majority of the loan types they were being offered. Loan adjusts....people can no longer afford their loans. That's why you'll hear most pundits recommend Fixed Rate loans. Jumbo loans are a different beast altogether.
To further it, the HUD, through Fannie and Freddy, basically guaranteed the debt from lenders (they said they'd purchase like, $2T --yes, trillion-- in these types of loans) making the risk of the lending even less for the initial lender (because they were going to, in turn, be bought by Fannie or Freddy.)
That may well be true in general.
But from the actual study I posted:
"A joint report from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the US Department of the Treasury found that, as of
2000, “borrowers in black neighborhoods [were] five
times as likely to refinance in the subprime market
than borrowers in white neighborhoods,” even when
controlling for income."
"A joint report from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the US Department of the Treasury found that, as of
2000, “borrowers in black neighborhoods [were] five
times as likely to refinance in the subprime market
than borrowers in white neighborhoods,” even when
controlling for income."
Frazzled wrote: Well as Netroots taught us, the Democrat party doesn't believe all lives matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.
Good thing neither of those are related. On a personal level I was a poor student and didn't get any of that so your argument is what we call, worm poop.
I don't believe I was really trying to advance an argument here. I am genuinely curious. I guess I could see where an argument could follow, but that really depends on the answer, doesn't it? And how does your one personal experience make any argument you see there worm droppings? Anecdotal evidence fallacy at its finest.
AA policies are completely unrelated to helping the poor. They are not designed to help class but "ethnicity." A wealthy African American student gets more benefit from AA policies than a poor Vietnamese immigrant.
95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.
That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.
I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.
Kind of like its ok to have Black history month but it would be considered extremely racist to have a white history month. The argument that every month is white history month springs up often. But then again every month is also black history month, at least in the US. When you learn about the colonial period the new textbooks are sure to include that a black person was killed during the Boston Massacre and so on and so on. I thought the point of racism is to separate the races by giving them different categories, groupings and rules. Wouldn't specifically pointing out things black people have done, even if they are borderline useless to history....racist?
95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.
That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.
I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.
I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?
Sure, but class-ism is far less worse than racism. And this would actually be helping people who can't afford school.
Of course it still doesn't really help people who aren't poor enough to qualify for low income scholarships but also aren't rich enough to afford school without going into debt, like myself. But thats really another issue, and at least we aren't dealing with a racist policy.
'White man in poverty thinks scholarships for the poor are less bad than scholarships for black people'.
Black people and poor people are both disadvantaged groups in American society, because it is structured against both groups. That is why both groups get scholarships.
You are assuming both get scholarships and at similar rates.
If you REALLY want to help you help poverty, not AA. That raises all boats and has a supernormative impact for minorities that are disproportionately poor.
If you really really want to help poverty, fix the schools for everyone. Thats equal funding, equal standards (not the tyranny of lowered expectations) the full gambit.
95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.
That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.
I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.
I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?
Sure, but class-ism is far less worse than racism. And this would actually be helping people who can't afford school.
Of course it still doesn't really help people who aren't poor enough to qualify for low income scholarships but also aren't rich enough to afford school without going into debt, like myself. But thats really another issue, and at least we aren't dealing with a racist policy.
'White man in poverty thinks scholarships for the poor are less bad than scholarships for black people'.
Black people and poor people are both disadvantaged groups in American society, because it is structured against both groups. That is why both groups get scholarships.
So the upper class black kid is more deserving of a scholarship than a poor white kid? He could apply for many scholarships that the white kid could not.
Because every black only scholarship I've seen has never had an income qualifier.
And again, there would be rioting in the streets if there was a scholarship that said "whites only", even if it also had a income qualifier. Yet the reverse is perfectly ok.
You are basically saying racism is ok if its socially acceptable. Slavery and Apartheid were socially acceptable at the time.
Ok then I would be for getting rid of AA policies if we could have an application process that took the name off the application (and the sex as well) so there are no preferential treatments based on race or gender and just assigned based on needs. Do keep in mind that this method would still likely have a bias towards African Americans as a result because of economic demographics. Would you be fine with this?
Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.
Wrong.
Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.
Yeah...
All 3 of my kids are adopted, and all three from overseas because of this.
In the 1993-94 timeframe my wife and I tried to adopt through the state of TX (we were both LTs assigned to Ft Hood). I VERY strongly believed in helping kids from the US because I knew there were a ton out there needing homes. Went through all the required classes at much personal pain (I was often going directly from the field and going directly back,my wife picking me up at a tank trail intersection in the training areas or from a live fire range and then dropping me back off). After over a year of either not having been offered a kid or having the abused kid given back to the abusing mother we were getting a bit miffed with the process. We VERY clearly stated we would accept black, hispanic, mixed race and would take sibling pairs (or even three). We were finally told we were not being offered kids because there were 'no blue eyed blond haired babies in the system' and 'we could not raise minority kids In Their Culture' (want to talk about White Privilege with me?) so regardless of our stability as a couple and financial ability to raise kids we were not suitable parents in their eyes (even though we flew through the home study process with flying colors and were certified as being good candidates. Another social worker pointed out they were funded by how many kids were in foster care, not how many were placed in permanent adoptive homes.
After wasting about 18 months we decided to go through an agency that got kids from another country. 5 weeks later we were on a plane to pick up two little boys who were biological brothers.
The first 2 years was waiting for a baby, then it ended up dying in childbirth. Then they waited another 2 years for me.
My sister from China took a year and a half for the paperwork. My little brother from Vietnam took only 11 months. And my sister from Khazakstan took 2.5 years, but only because 9-11 happened halfway through the process(and the tragic part was she had already visited us as part of a program to have children be in an exchange home for 6 months to try and trigger adoptions, she was the only adoption of an older child. So she knew we were going to adopt her, but had to wait a full 18 months longer than she should have. during which time we had no contact.)
Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.
Wrong.
Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.
You, we are talking about you, so unless "my sibglings are vietnamese" is the new "I have friends that are black" it really doesn't matter much. You were also a domestic adoption, so international adoption characteristics really aren't much use there ither.
But to get back to you, and of course it would be easier to make a case if we knew your age (or at least a decade that you were born), and possibly even the state. With identity concerns in mind it is also understandable if you don't want to provide info like that.
You are white (at least you seem to be based on your consistency in using the "I never had nothing given to me despite being white" arguments). So let's start from scratch:
Being adopted by white parents also comes out on top, regardless of the race of the child:
Other research has suggested that just by being white, you had a much higher likelihood to be adopted:
Our results show that children’s probability of receiving an application is considerably
affected by their race. In particular, this probability dramatically decreases if
the child is, at least partially, African American.
Projecting the marginal effect linearly, the probability that a 100 percent African
American child (of unknown gender) receives an application is 1.8 percent in contrast
to a probability of 13.1 percent for a 0 percent African American child (a
chi-squared test indicates these differences are significant at any reasonable confidence
level).
23 Similarly, application probabilities decrease dramatically for both
African American girls and boys. In other words, PAPs in our sample exhibit a large
and negative preference against African American children. This suggests that the
overrepresentation of African Americans in the population of adopted children is
due to a sizable supply effect
This also varies depending on the state of course. (I would link directly to the tables used in the article, but the link automatically downloads the PDF of the table to your computer and I know many don't like automatic downloads).
Of course none of this means that you were destined to be a collection of cells on the bottom of a biohazard back at the abortion clinic if you weren't white, or that adoptive parents would have laughed at the prospect of adopting you if you weren't white, or that your live would have been completely different if you were white. Because none of that is how the concept of "white privilege" works. All it means is that the fact that you were white gave you a higher chance of ending up with the life you did.
If life was Settlers of Catan you simply had better starting spots because of your race. The game can still be won with bad starting spots of course, and it is highly affected by the random rolls of the dice, how well you play the game, and by how everybody you are playing with is playing. But your starting spots can help push the odds in your favor.
So when you ask "where is my privilege, how come I have never seen it", your adoption story could be the first thing that you never bothered to look at.
Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.
Wrong.
Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.
Yeah...
All 3 of my kids are adopted, and all three from overseas because of this.
In the 1993-94 timeframe my wife and I tried to adopt through the state of TX (we were both LTs assigned to Ft Hood). I VERY strongly believed in helping kids from the US because I knew there were a ton out there needing homes. Went through all the required classes at much personal pain (I was often going directly from the field and going directly back,my wife picking me up at a tank trail intersection in the training areas or from a live fire range and then dropping me back off). After over a year of either not having been offered a kid or having the abused kid given back to the abusing mother we were getting a bit miffed with the process. We VERY clearly stated we would accept black, hispanic, mixed race and would take sibling pairs (or even three). We were finally told we were not being offered kids because there were 'no blue eyed blond haired babies in the system' and 'we could not raise minority kids In Their Culture' (want to talk about White Privilege with me?) so regardless of our stability as a couple and financial ability to raise kids we were not suitable parents in their eyes (even though we flew through the home study process with flying colors and were certified as being good candidates. Another social worker pointed out they were funded by how many kids were in foster care, not how many were placed in permanent adoptive homes.
After wasting about 18 months we decided to go through an agency that got kids from another country. 5 weeks later we were on a plane to pick up two little boys who were biological brothers.
Was Grey a domestic adoption or an international adoption? International adoptions are nice and well, but talking about them as a rebuttal to the fact that domestic adoptions favor white children makes as much sense as talking about buying a house when someone is talking about renting an apartment.
But hey, even considering how easy it is to adopt internationally, and how international adoptions from countries where whites are a minority have less white kids getting adopted - what a shocker, the largest group of adopted children is still white:
Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.
Wrong.
Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.
You, we are talking about you, so unless "my sibglings are vietnamese" is the new "I have friends that are black" it really doesn't matter much. You were also a domestic adoption, so international adoption characteristics really aren't much use there ither.
But to get back to you, and of course it would be easier to make a case if we knew your age (or at least a decade that you were born), and possibly even the state. With identity concerns in mind it is also understandable if you don't want to provide info like that.
You are white (at least you seem to be based on your consistency in using the "I never had nothing given to me despite being white" arguments). So let's start from scratch:
Being adopted by white parents also comes out on top, regardless of the race of the child:
Other research has suggested that just by being white, you had a much higher likelihood to be adopted:
Our results show that children’s probability of receiving an application is considerably
affected by their race. In particular, this probability dramatically decreases if
the child is, at least partially, African American.
Projecting the marginal effect linearly, the probability that a 100 percent African
American child (of unknown gender) receives an application is 1.8 percent in contrast
to a probability of 13.1 percent for a 0 percent African American child (a
chi-squared test indicates these differences are significant at any reasonable confidence
level).
23 Similarly, application probabilities decrease dramatically for both
African American girls and boys. In other words, PAPs in our sample exhibit a large
and negative preference against African American children. This suggests that the
overrepresentation of African Americans in the population of adopted children is
due to a sizable supply effect
This also varies depending on the state of course. (I would link directly to the tables used in the article, but the link automatically downloads the PDF of the table to your computer and I know many don't like automatic downloads).
Of course none of this means that you were destined to be a collection of cells on the bottom of a biohazard back at the abortion clinic if you weren't white, or that adoptive parents would have laughed at the prospect of adopting you if you weren't white, or that your live would have been completely different if you were white. Because none of that is how the concept of "white privilege" works. All it means is that the fact that you were white gave you a higher chance of ending up with the life you did.
If life was Settlers of Catan you simply had better starting spots because of your race. The game can still be won with bad starting spots of course, and it is highly affected by the random rolls of the dice, how well you play the game, and by how everybody you are playing with is playing. But your starting spots can help push the odds in your favor.
So when you ask "where is my privilege, how come I have never seen it", your adoption story could be the first thing that you never bothered to look at.
All of those graphs involve Hispanic origin or Hispanic adoptive parents.
And again, I say total BS on my being adopted as "proof" of white privilege. My siblings have the same life, and they aren't white. Unless we're going to talk about Asian privilege next, or that because my parents are white it somehow transfers to them.
And heck, even if White Privilege is real, its still no excuse for racist policies like AA. Its racism because of an accident of birth, just like racism against blacks, asians, etc...
That link leads to a 404 error for me - buisiness insider does not often like computers my side of the pond.
Is the thing you're getting at that the government encouraged predatory lending to black people insofar as they were poor, rather than banks specifically directing predatory loans towards black people?
More or less.
Basically, people with sub-prime credit (typically less than 700), many of whom in the US are minorities, and many of whom, further, don't necessarily have the financial savvy to understand how an ARM works, which is the majority of the loan types they were being offered. Loan adjusts....people can no longer afford their loans. That's why you'll hear most pundits recommend Fixed Rate loans. Jumbo loans are a different beast altogether.
To further it, the HUD, through Fannie and Freddy, basically guaranteed the debt from lenders (they said they'd purchase like, $2T --yes, trillion-- in these types of loans) making the risk of the lending even less for the initial lender (because they were going to, in turn, be bought by Fannie or Freddy.)
That may well be true in general.
But from the actual study I posted:
"A joint report from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the US Department of the Treasury found that, as of
2000, “borrowers in black neighborhoods [were] five
times as likely to refinance in the subprime market
than borrowers in white neighborhoods,” even when
controlling for income."
"
Not sure what you're tying to point out with this quotation. None of that contradicts anything I posted.
So Frazz, one fringe advocacy group represents the entire Democratic Party? Just like the Birthers and Ted Cruz represent the entire GOP, right? Your fallacies today are adding up. You've met your quota.
Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.
Wrong.
Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.
Ah Crap. I'm done with this thread
The final authority on these adoption rested on my wife.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So Frazz, one fringe advocacy group represents the entire Democratic Party? Just like the Birthers and Ted Cruz represent the entire GOP, right? Your fallacies today are adding up. You've met your quota.
Hey thats what the Left Coast always says. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Why are Presidential candidates not refuting this?
Why didn't the GOP candidates (other than Grahm) refute Trump about Mexican immigrants being rapsists? Goose meet gander. We are well and truly OT. And I'm from the Midwest, like smack dab center, not the Left coast. Don't sink to those pinko commie tactics
Y'all will have to excuse me if I sound stupid when I say that I don't see what the spending on education has when we were discussing affirmative action.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why didn't the GOP candidates (other than Grahm) refute Trump about Mexican immigrants being rapsists? Goose meet gander. We are well and truly OT. And I'm from the Midwest, like smack dab center, not the Left coast.
Because Trump isn't to be taken seriously, unlike some of these other groups who aren't actually fringe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Y'all will have to excuse me if I sound stupid when I say that I don't see what the spending on education has when we were discussing affirmative action.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why didn't the GOP candidates (other than Grahm) refute Trump about Mexican immigrants being rapsists? Goose meet gander. We are well and truly OT. And I'm from the Midwest, like smack dab center, not the Left coast.
Because Trump isn't to be taken seriously, unlike some of these other groups who aren't actually fringe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Y'all will have to excuse me if I sound stupid when I say that I don't see what the spending on education has when we were discussing affirmative action.
AA is most common used with education.
Had you heard of net roots before this, because is sure haven't.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why didn't the GOP candidates (other than Grahm) refute Trump about Mexican immigrants being rapsists? Goose meet gander. We are well and truly OT. And I'm from the Midwest, like smack dab center, not the Left coast.
Because Trump isn't to be taken seriously, unlike some of these other groups who aren't actually fringe. .
1. Most of them have. 2 While thats not an accurate statement, it is a matter of record that there has been an inflow of crime from illegal aliens. Whether its a rate higher or lower than natives is irrelevant. For example if you look at California prisons, the a substantial minority, if not majority come from Mexico and Central America. Indeed, MS13 was started that way.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Y'all will have to excuse me if I sound stupid when I say that I don't see what the spending on education has when we were discussing affirmative action.
AA is most common used with education.
Yes. What does that have to do with education expenditure?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Y'all will have to excuse me if I sound stupid when I say that I don't see what the spending on education has when we were discussing affirmative action.
It started with your comment (which has to do with economic classes, as Frazz suggested helping poverty is what is important):
And what's an important part of lifting people out of poverty? Education you say? Gee, what a shame that there's nothing we can do about that, huh?
I pointed out we (the US) ARE doing something about education, and that the Something seems to not be very efficient at solving the problem (with what we are spending on education we are not seeing the resulting 'lift' out of poverty you would expect).
In short, you offered 'education' as a solution to lifting people out of poverty and then implied we were not doing enough to provide that education. I attempted to show we are doing a lot to provide it.
And what's an important part of lifting people out of poverty? Education you say? Gee, what a shame that there's nothing we can do about that, huh?
I pointed out we (the US) ARE doing something about education, and that the Something seems to not be very efficient at solving the problem (with what we are spending on education we are not seeing the resulting 'lift' out of poverty you would expect).
In short, you offered 'education' as a solution to lifting people out of poverty and then implied we were not doing enough to provide that education. I attempted to show we are doing a lot to provide it.
Yup, the problem lies somewhere between where the money gets handed off and where it gets spent.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why didn't the GOP candidates (other than Grahm) refute Trump about Mexican immigrants being rapsists? Goose meet gander. We are well and truly OT. And I'm from the Midwest, like smack dab center, not the Left coast.
Because Trump isn't to be taken seriously, unlike some of these other groups who aren't actually fringe.
.
1. Most of them have.
2 While thats not an accurate statement, it is a matter of record that there has been an inflow of crime from illegal aliens. Whether its a rate higher or lower than natives is irrelevant.
For example if you look at California prisons, the a substantial minority, if not majority come from Mexico and Central America. Indeed, MS13 was started that way.
They only really started attacking him after he made his McCain statements. Cruz even requested a meeting with Trump after that. And the rest of your post tries to actually defend his statement and makes up excuses/qualify his claim. Wow dude, I'm done with you.
So we're all in agreement that it's not the money, but where it's going, that is lacking. If only there were some sort of programme that redistributed money to disadvantaged people in order to compensate for the fact that they're less likely to attain higher education...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So we're all in agreement that it's not the money, but where it's going, that is lacking. If only there were some sort of programme that redistributed money to disadvantaged people in order to compensate for the fact that they're less likely to attain higher education...
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why didn't the GOP candidates (other than Grahm) refute Trump about Mexican immigrants being rapsists? Goose meet gander. We are well and truly OT. And I'm from the Midwest, like smack dab center, not the Left coast.
Because Trump isn't to be taken seriously, unlike some of these other groups who aren't actually fringe.
.
1. Most of them have.
2 While thats not an accurate statement, it is a matter of record that there has been an inflow of crime from illegal aliens. Whether its a rate higher or lower than natives is irrelevant.
For example if you look at California prisons, the a substantial minority, if not majority come from Mexico and Central America. Indeed, MS13 was started that way.
They only really started attacking him after he made his McCain statements. Cruz even requested a meeting with Trump after that. And the rest of your post tries to actually defend his statement and makes up excuses/qualify his claim. Wow dude, I'm done with you.
Don't ever ever accuse me of defending Cruz on anything other than yes he is human. Perry did. Bush did. Walker did.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So we're all in agreement that it's not the money, but where it's going, that is lacking. If only there were some sort of programme that redistributed money to disadvantaged people in order to compensate for the fact that they're less likely to attain higher education...
1. The Democratic Party is against vouchers.
2. AA does do this.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So we're all in agreement that it's not the money, but where it's going, that is lacking. If only there were some sort of programme that redistributed money to disadvantaged people in order to compensate for the fact that they're less likely to attain higher education...
You are being ignorant.
Look at the amount spent in minority heavy cities:
2010 numbers: Washington, D.C., schools topped per-pupil spending at $18,667 New York City School District spent the most per student in 2010 at $19,597
The Rochester School District spends more money per pupil than nearly any other large school district in the country, according to newly released U.S. census data.
The district spent $20,333 on each of its 30,145 students in 2013
84% eligible for free/reduced-price lunch
16.5% with special needs
10% with limited English proficiency
87 different languages
22% of schools at 90% poverty or higher
Highest poverty rate among NYS Big 5 districts
And yet...
According to a new report from the Schott Foundation for Public Education, the Rochester City School District graduates the lowest rate of Black male students in the entire country.
Having a problem with people spouting 'all lives matter' in response to 'black lives matter' is not saying that all lives don't matter. Spouting off 'all lives matter' is insulting and totally misses the point. It is dishonest and ignores the point. No one disagrees with or has to be reminded that all lives matter (other than Tea party members).
Having a problem with people spouting 'all lives matter' in response to 'black lives matter' is not saying that all lives don't matter. Spouting off 'all lives matter' is insulting and totally misses the point. It is dishonest and ignores the point. No one disagrees with or has to be reminded that all lives matter (other than Tea party members).
Black Lives matter implies that other lives don't. Saying All Lives matter has no negative connotation, unless you aren't speaking English.
Frazzled wrote: The thought that saying "all lives matter" is insulting is what the average person would call "insane."
Donna Brazile explains it:
when someone says ALL lives matter, it can sound like that person is dismissing the specific pain behind the slogan. And that is something that the young people organizing in community after community cannot easily tolerate. They have been to too many funerals. They have seen too many of these horrific videos watching their friends die right in front of their own eyes.
Of course ALL lives matter. But there is no serious question about the value of the life of a young white girl or boy. Sadly, there is a serious question -- between gang violence and this police violence -- about the value of the life of a young black girl or boy. So those who are experiencing the pain and trauma of the black experience in this country don't want their rallying cry to be watered down with a generic feel-good catchphrase.
Having a problem with people spouting 'all lives matter' in response to 'black lives matter' is not saying that all lives don't matter. Spouting off 'all lives matter' is insulting and totally misses the point. It is dishonest and ignores the point. No one disagrees with or has to be reminded that all lives matter (other than Tea party members).
Black Lives matter implies that other lives don't. Saying All Lives matter has no negative connotation, unless you aren't speaking English.
It only does because you've decided it does. There's nothing in that statement that makes it exclude anyone. Seeing as "black lives" is a subset of "all lives" the statement "black lives matter" is not mutually exclusive with "all lives matter".
Frazzled wrote: The thought that saying "all lives matter" is insulting is what the average person would call "insane."
You're taking what was just said out of context. It's dishonest and quite frankly beneath you.
O Malley was talking. Protestors stormed in shouting "black lives matter." He responded that Black lives matter brown lives matter all lives matter. He was then shouted down. Taking nothing out of context.
Having a problem with people spouting 'all lives matter' in response to 'black lives matter' is not saying that all lives don't matter. Spouting off 'all lives matter' is insulting and totally misses the point. It is dishonest and ignores the point. No one disagrees with or has to be reminded that all lives matter (other than Tea party members).
Black Lives matter implies that other lives don't. Saying All Lives matter has no negative connotation, unless you aren't speaking English.
It only does because you've decided it does. There's nothing in that statement that makes it exclude anyone. Seeing as "black lives" is a subset of "all lives" the statement "black lives matter" is not mutually exclusive with "all lives matter".
You wouldn't know that given some of the racist behavior of people chanting "Black lives matter". They've definitely been making it out that its somehow white people's fault.
that guy.
