You know how many people on a certain other social media site have issues with the idea of equality? How is equality bad? Isn’t the ultimate goal of a society not to discriminate based on things such as race? So if an admission process is blind to race, how is that bad?
Equal doesn’t mean equitable. For example, I hear people say everyone should pay a flat tax. Everyone pays 10% so that is equal. Yes. it is an equal percentage, and yes, the billionaires will pay vastly more than the poor. Suppose you make $1000 a month and you pay $100. That leaves you $900 to pay your bills and eat. Now a billionaire, let’s say he makes $10,000,000 a month. He pays out $1 mil but he still have $9 million to pay his bills…for that month. That is not equitable. Equitable would be to leave everyone with an equal burden on their income. Even if you taxed the billionaire 90%, he would still be able to live in luxury.
I do not feel there would be a need for racial quotas if there was instead a quota for xx% students from this income bracket must be accepted. Each applicant would be measured by both their skill and their ability to meet and overcome obstacles. There should be two piles: those that meet the standards, and those who do not. Out of all the potentials, shuffle the names and select at random.
Because everything leading up to the admissions process isn’t blind to race. I don’t like affirmative action in a vacuum either, but it was necessary to balance things out.
Public schools are funded by property taxes. Class mobility is a myth, generational poverty is the reality, and the natives were historically genocided and black people enslaved. The result is that certain ethnic groups now live in poorer areas with lower property taxes and worse schools.
If this wasn’t our reality, affirmative action would be outrageous. But, what’s actually outrageous is how much these people are kept generationalally poor. If we had swapped out affirmative action for something that would help poor children get a better education at a young age and have the same opportunities when applying to college, I would laud it. But it did not.
This doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
They see that an identifiable group is under represented and they want to ‘fix’ it. Without any idea what the ramifications of their ‘fix’ is.
Claiming the other side is just ignorant is not a good faith argument. At this point, those in favor of affirmative action are pretty clearly aware of the negative sides of previous incarnations of affirmative action due to these issues being a major topic of discussion for decades now.
All they care about is the demographics of whatever it is they are looking at. All they think about is race.
Literally nobody arguing on either side of this issue ONLY cares about race. Race is a major topic of discussion, but reducing the side opposite your own to ONLY caring about demography and race is just outright misrepresenting their position.
The idea that racism is the way out of racism is simply crazy.
This is the only good point you have made here. I have a question for this point. If we want a more fair and equitable society and we know certain groups (or even just races) are defacto excluded from certain positions in society unfairly, how do you propose we grant them entrance to those positions without doing so based on their group status (or even just racial staus)? Bonus points: What if their group status unfairly puts them into a position where they cannot attain the same qualifications to be in the position in question as other groups?
Of course, you have to realize that the definition of racism can change from an outlook of superiority to power + privilege on a whim too.
Different people define things in different ways. Just because you struggle to cope with complicated/controversial topics from a broad array of people, doesn’t make the arguments of other people inherently wrong or faulty.
The whole progressive mindset is just fucking evil
Is it? I can see how it could come off that way when you go out of your way to misrepresent other peoples positions and arguments as strongly as you are doing. But to me it seems like the only reason you think this is because either: (a) you don’t actually understand what the people you are arguing against are saying or (b) you understand them but feel you don’t have a good enough argument against what they’re actually saying to argue against it without misrepresenting what is being said?
The idea that racism is the way out of racism is simply crazy.
See, I find this statement to perfectly summarize the situation, and I do plan on using it myself. I could totally agree with you on your entire post actually except for that last statement which is woefully out of line. I don’t understand how you can get the first part of your post so right, but then get the last line of your post so wrong.
I guess considering the last part out of line depends on what your (or my) understanding of the progressive way of thinking and what it’s based on and what it’s goals are.
They’ve done a great job marketing it as ‘just be a nice person’ but that’s not at all what it really is.
I’m sure there are hundreds of millions of well-meaning progressives who believe that. And I’m not trying to insult them.
But people get sold on one thing and end up getting something entirely different all of the time. It’s sad, but that’s the way things are, unfortunately.
I’m not saying the opposite of progressivism is the answer here either, what I would advocate is common sense.
If you need a PhD and peer reviewed sociology papers to try to convince someone that something as egregious as race-based college admissions is a good thing, you’re pretty obviously the baddie and common sense should tell us that you’re trying to convince us of something for a different reason.
Of course, you have to realize that the definition of racism can change from an outlook of superiority to power + privilege on a whim too
I’m in my 50s, I don’t recall the definition of racism changing at all, much less “on a whim”. What are some of the other definitions you have seen arbitrarily assigned to the term racism?
When you were taught the definition of racism, or when it’s spoken about today (sometimes) it’s a hateful word and a hateful way of thinking about a group of people.
: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Progressives have since changed that definition to sometimes mean power + privilege = racism. Which is a wildly different thing and is not based on hate at all, but on socio-issues
Prejudice plus power, also known as R = P + P, is a stipulative definition of racism used in the United States, often by white anti-racism activists.
The problems in discussing these things or calling someone ‘racist’ is that these definitions (amongst others) can be used interchangeably, because they are both wildly different definitions of the same word
You know how many people on a certain other social media site have issues with the idea of equality? How is equality bad? Isn’t the ultimate goal of a society not to discriminate based on things such as race? So if an admission process is blind to race, how is that bad?
Equal doesn’t mean equitable. For example, I hear people say everyone should pay a flat tax. Everyone pays 10% so that is equal. Yes. it is an equal percentage, and yes, the billionaires will pay vastly more than the poor. Suppose you make $1000 a month and you pay $100. That leaves you $900 to pay your bills and eat. Now a billionaire, let’s say he makes $10,000,000 a month. He pays out $1 mil but he still have $9 million to pay his bills…for that month. That is not equitable. Equitable would be to leave everyone with an equal burden on their income. Even if you taxed the billionaire 90%, he would still be able to live in luxury.
I do not feel there would be a need for racial quotas if there was instead a quota for xx% students from this income bracket must be accepted. Each applicant would be measured by both their skill and their ability to meet and overcome obstacles. There should be two piles: those that meet the standards, and those who do not. Out of all the potentials, shuffle the names and select at random.
Because everything leading up to the admissions process isn’t blind to race. I don’t like affirmative action in a vacuum either, but it was necessary to balance things out.
Public schools are funded by property taxes. Class mobility is a myth, generational poverty is the reality, and the natives were historically genocided and black people enslaved. The result is that certain ethnic groups now live in poorer areas with lower property taxes and worse schools.
If this wasn’t our reality, affirmative action would be outrageous. But, what’s actually outrageous is how much these people are kept generationalally poor. If we had swapped out affirmative action for something that would help poor children get a better education at a young age and have the same opportunities when applying to college, I would laud it. But it did not.
People in favor of affirmative action in college admissions see things very specifically.
They see that an identifiable group is under represented and they want to ‘fix’ it. Without any idea what the ramifications of their ‘fix’ is.
All they care about is the demographics of whatever it is they are looking at. All they think about is race.
The idea that racism is the way out of racism is simply crazy.
Of course, you have to realize that the definition of racism can change from an outlook of superiority to power + privilege on a whim too
The whole progressive mindset is just fucking evil
This doesn’t feel like you are arguing in good faith.
Claiming the other side is just ignorant is not a good faith argument. At this point, those in favor of affirmative action are pretty clearly aware of the negative sides of previous incarnations of affirmative action due to these issues being a major topic of discussion for decades now.
Literally nobody arguing on either side of this issue ONLY cares about race. Race is a major topic of discussion, but reducing the side opposite your own to ONLY caring about demography and race is just outright misrepresenting their position.
This is the only good point you have made here. I have a question for this point. If we want a more fair and equitable society and we know certain groups (or even just races) are defacto excluded from certain positions in society unfairly, how do you propose we grant them entrance to those positions without doing so based on their group status (or even just racial staus)? Bonus points: What if their group status unfairly puts them into a position where they cannot attain the same qualifications to be in the position in question as other groups?
Different people define things in different ways. Just because you struggle to cope with complicated/controversial topics from a broad array of people, doesn’t make the arguments of other people inherently wrong or faulty.
Is it? I can see how it could come off that way when you go out of your way to misrepresent other peoples positions and arguments as strongly as you are doing. But to me it seems like the only reason you think this is because either: (a) you don’t actually understand what the people you are arguing against are saying or (b) you understand them but feel you don’t have a good enough argument against what they’re actually saying to argue against it without misrepresenting what is being said?
See, I find this statement to perfectly summarize the situation, and I do plan on using it myself. I could totally agree with you on your entire post actually except for that last statement which is woefully out of line. I don’t understand how you can get the first part of your post so right, but then get the last line of your post so wrong.
I guess considering the last part out of line depends on what your (or my) understanding of the progressive way of thinking and what it’s based on and what it’s goals are.
They’ve done a great job marketing it as ‘just be a nice person’ but that’s not at all what it really is.
I’m sure there are hundreds of millions of well-meaning progressives who believe that. And I’m not trying to insult them.
But people get sold on one thing and end up getting something entirely different all of the time. It’s sad, but that’s the way things are, unfortunately.
I’m not saying the opposite of progressivism is the answer here either, what I would advocate is common sense.
If you need a PhD and peer reviewed sociology papers to try to convince someone that something as egregious as race-based college admissions is a good thing, you’re pretty obviously the baddie and common sense should tell us that you’re trying to convince us of something for a different reason.
I’m in my 50s, I don’t recall the definition of racism changing at all, much less “on a whim”. What are some of the other definitions you have seen arbitrarily assigned to the term racism?
When you were taught the definition of racism, or when it’s spoken about today (sometimes) it’s a hateful word and a hateful way of thinking about a group of people.
Progressives have since changed that definition to sometimes mean power + privilege = racism. Which is a wildly different thing and is not based on hate at all, but on socio-issues
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
The problems in discussing these things or calling someone ‘racist’ is that these definitions (amongst others) can be used interchangeably, because they are both wildly different definitions of the same word