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.

Ouze wrote:

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.

 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?

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.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Kronk will show us the way!

Kronk = Muad'dib?!?!?!


Edit

What''s funny how some portion of the movie relates today

 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"

 Asherian Command wrote:
AA is as racist as you can get really.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Here are some links to why AA is racism.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448

http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/09/25/affirmative-action-institutional-discrimination

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/affirmative-action-in-university-admissions-research-roundup

BeAfraid wrote:

 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

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Here are some links to why AA is racism.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448

http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/09/25/affirmative-action-institutional-discrimination

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/affirmative-action-in-university-admissions-research-roundup

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

BeAfraid wrote:

 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

 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...

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 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.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 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.

your position on it boils down to 'this particular thing is racist against white people, we need to end it'.

 Grey Templar wrote:


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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


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.

I'll bite on the 'white privelege is hogwash' first. I'll put a few points on here first, but a full article is available here - http://mic.com/articles/89653/7-actual-facts-that-prove-white-privilege-exists-in-america

-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.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


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.

I'll bite on the 'white privelege is hogwash' first. I'll put a few points on here first, but a full article is available here - http://mic.com/articles/89653/7-actual-facts-that-prove-white-privilege-exists-in-america

-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.

 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?

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 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?