Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-10-2019, 05:46 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
...

But Democrats should tone down on the SJW stuff ...
Like speaking out against the racially driven police brutality/killing that plagues America.
  #152  
Old 11-10-2019, 06:28 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Appealing to NCEW voters does not require turning away from real issues of social justice. Appealing to them in that way would be a mistake and fruit not worth eating or even picking up off the ground.

The main thing is to resist the temptation to "other" them in manners similar to how Trumpism "others", well, others.

While I believe identifying and trying to help with the real problems that face the demographic is good politics, it would be the right thing to do for the country even if it was not.

But not at the expense of not addressing the real problems of other groups.
  #153  
Old 11-10-2019, 06:28 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Like speaking out against the racially driven police brutality/killing that plagues America.
No, talk about it.

What SJWs do is that they call all police officers murderers and then ask online activists doxx police officers' families.

That is what Democrats should not be running on.
  #154  
Old 11-10-2019, 06:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
No, talk about it.

What SJWs do is that they call all police officers murderers and then ask online activists doxx police officers' families.

That is what Democrats should not be running on.
You have a very active imagination.

No the actions of a very few do not reflect all that get labelled as SJW by the Right and is certainly not the position that the Democratic party has ever run on.
  #155  
Old 11-10-2019, 07:01 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
No, talk about it.

What SJWs do is that they call all police officers murderers and then ask online activists doxx police officers' families.

That is what Democrats should not be running on.
Not all of them are murderers, of course. Only some cops are murderers.
  #156  
Old 11-10-2019, 07:40 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post


Democrats should probably campaign more in rural places and talk about jobs, healthcare, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Parties should focus on everyone, not only a sliver of the electorate.
Anyone else confused?
  #157  
Old 11-10-2019, 08:37 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Anyone else confused?
Be a national party. Don't just focus on urban areas.

Show up in Carroll County, MD, or Sussex County, NJ, and talk about jobs, healthcare, crime, prescription pills.


This is not confusing.


Focus on everyone.

Jobs, economy should be the Democrats number one priority, but it isn't.
  #158  
Old 11-10-2019, 08:43 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,551
The Democrats are the only ones trying to minimize Russian election interference. They've got a lotta balls in the air.
  #159  
Old 11-11-2019, 07:56 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
The Democrats are the only ones trying to minimize Russian election interference.
Minimization is a team effort. Democrats are focusing on the future, Republicans on the past.
  #160  
Old 11-11-2019, 11:56 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So some prominent liberals had some false instincts on an issue, and after "long and tedious work" most of them (or enough of them) changed their mind on the issue?

While I'd hope liberals wouldn't have any negative or racist instincts, I understand that anyone can have such feelings. But this reflects well on liberals, in general -- we're a group who, with time and good arguments and data, actually have a great chance at changing our views.
The false instinct seems to be the dominant instinct. I cannot identify nearly as many non-asian liberals whose first instinct was to condemn the anti-asian discrimination. What do you call it when conservatives have an instinct to support a policy that discriminates against a racial group? What do you call it when liberals have that sort of instinct?

For every cite you can provide of a liberal whose first instinct was to speak out against these discriminatory policies, I can provide at least 2 examples of liberals speaking out in support of them.

What is an acceptable percentage of liberals that continue to push anti-asian discrimination. How much of that discrimination should asians tolerate?

Quote:
It sounds like Asian advocates are doing the right thing and making good arguments. Good for them. I don't know if everything you're saying is factually accurate (sometimes you characterize your cites in ways that don't strike me as accurate), and given our past history of discussions and disagreements, I'm probably not going to take your characterizations at face value. I still think your personal feelings about black people, liberals, and "woke SJWs" are pointing you at the wrong enemies -- the "right" enemies are the same as they almost always are... wealthy and powerful institutions, generally run by and benefiting wealthy white people. "Woke SJWs" are just a silly fantasy boogieman.

I'll leave it there.
I have characterized black CULTURE as toxic but I have no negative feelings towards blacks.

I have negative feelings towards woke SJWs and for good reason IMO. I think they are a bad for liberalism. They shrink the tent with their ideological purity.

In what way is the SHSAT benefitting wealthy white people? Whites are underrepresented and wealthy whites don't go to public schools in NYC. How is the NYC Dept. of Ed. run by wealthy white people?
  #161  
Old 11-11-2019, 06:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
This is misleading - other elite schools were still majority white in the 70s (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-students.html)
How is it misleading? In the exact same post I say that the kids were in fact predominantly white and the white kids were predominantly jewish. I suspect the majority of those jewish kids were immigrants or the children of immigrants.

The fact of the matter is that one of the "big three" specialized high schools in NYC was at one point majority black and hispanic. That school right now is about 15% black and hispanic. Those blacks and hispanics have largely been replaced by asians. Mostly poor immigrant asians.

At the other two elite schools, the white population has dropped from 68 white to 23% white at Bronx Science and from 70% to 19% at Stuyvesant. Those seats were also lost to asians. Mostly poor immigrant asians.

The Vox article was implying that the SHSAT was some form of preservation of privilege by wealthy whites. It was a defense of objective standards and meritocracy by jewish immigrants.

But it wasn't merely the influx of asian immigrants that caused the plummeting black and hispanic admission rates.

Black and hispanic neighborhoods lost their GT programs because NYC deemed it too expensive to effectively create a separate schools within otherwise failing schools in black and hispanic neighborhoods for the small number of students that qualified. There were not enough kids that qualified for the GT programs to justify the overhead of maintaining a GT program, in some cases it would result in a teacher teaching a class of 5 or 6 gifted students at a low performing school. These GT programs were the pipeline through which black and hispanic kids got into the specialized high schools.

Furthermore, the recent focus on diversity has also resulted in high end private schools skimming the best black and hispanic academic talent. Almost every exclusive private aschool in NYC has a much higher black population than before. For example Trinity (perennially one of the best schools in NYC) has 15% black and hispanic students. The percentage 50 years ago is probably closer to 1% Pretty much every low income black student that would have gone to stuyvesant and Bronx Science in the past are now recruited by schools like Trinity, Regis, Dalton, etc. These schools offer much better pathways to top colleges than Stuyvesant (the flagship specialized public school).

But to too many woke liberals, there are too many asians compared to the number of blacks and hispanics and that means that something is wrong. Something unfair is going on and must be remedied. They intend to fight what they perceive as injustice with actual injustice. This isn't just some random woke SJW crying racism as minority kids (of the wrong color) stream into these schools, its the mayor of NYC and the chancellor of the NYC public school system.

Quote:
The relevant aspect of this is to recognize the scale (the net effect is STILL that Black and Latino students are underrepresented in a variety of ways) what you can do about it.
Different factions have different ideas.

https://www.savetheshsat.org/

This group supports this bill

Quote:
Actually having racial quotas would be illegal as you say. Having a single test to get in would probably not work in any case in undergrad, and would have to be something very different from the SAT.
The SHSAT is free to all NYC public school 8th graders and all pirvate school 8th graders that can establish NYC residency.

Quote:
The SAT is run by a private organization, you have to pay to take the test and you can pay to take the test multiple times and use your best scores from each section - it nakedly benefits people who can pay more. It's also very unlikely to actually test what students will be studying in a particular field of study. You would at the very best have to do something more like creating a test like the LSAT tailored for the particular field of study a student would be going into, which also would have complications because a lot of people apply to undergrad with no major, or switch majors.
The SATs have been dumbed down over the last 30 years. There was a time when there were a small handful of perfect SAT scores per administration. Now there are hundreds of perfect SAT scores each year. It used to be that taking the SAT a second time was a big red flag and you only did it if you really thought you would do a LOT better the second time. There were several reasonas for this but the main reason is that colleges didn't want that much differentiation between students.

And it was dumbed down deliberately. But that's an entirely different discussion about the dumbing down of America generally.

Quote:
I think the conclusion to your argument is that the only thing remaining is the binary choice to allow or disallow affirmative action. I don't think it's fair to view someone who doesn't want to scrap AA over the Harvard (or similar) admissions controverseys to be doing it out of racism or unfairness to Asians.
I didn't conflate anti-asian discrimination with affi5rmative action. Asians are not the ones that conflated affirmative action with anti-asian discrimination. It was the woke SJWs that did so.

They conflated the two and then accused the asians of selfishness and racism. They claimed that asians were being duped by white supremacists into fighting against affirmative action when we were only fighting anti-asian discrimination.

Asians were pretty sure that you could have affirmative action without discriminating against asians but the woke SJWs have convinced many of us otherwise. You created the opportunity for the conservatives to show that affirmative action is largely borne by rejected asian students, not rejected white students.

Now you find yourselves trying to convince asians that anti-asian discrimination is NOT necessary for affirmative action after spending years trying to undermine the harvard lawsuit by saying that anti-asian discrimination didn't exist and what we were really fighting against was affirmative action.
  #162  
Old 11-11-2019, 06:29 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm sure it is just me, but I am highly doubtful that concern over allegations of discrimination against Asian students at the nation's most elite institutions is the issue that is most critical to Democratic performance with the non-college educated, especially rural, whites. I did click the right thread?
It started when I claimed that Democrats were racist in their own way and it went from there. The problem that Democrats have with white voters is that they only really care about white people if they have money. Poor white people can go stand in line behind blacks. And for some reason they should stand behind hispanics as well.

Quote:
So, meanwhile two conflicting narratives regarding how Ds are positioned to do with the non-college educated, especially rural, white voters moving forward are being fed by different takes on recent data:

1) We have 538's take on the recent election cycle: Ds are killing it in suburbia but doing even poorer in rural areas.

2) We have a NYT opposing take that yes suburbia is delivering for the Ds but that Trump's rural white support is softening significantly.

Massive turnout and D-ward margins among urban to suburban voters will of course be key in 2020. But there are important states that cannot be won without undercutting Trump's GOP huge margins with non-college educated rural white voters. The nature of our system is that all voters are equal but that some voters (rural voters) are more equal than others. Ceding them to Trumpism without contest would be foolish and I hope that the NYT analysis is more on target this time ...
Trump is not actually cratering in swing states.
  #163  
Old 11-11-2019, 07:03 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 805
#ForSomeReason
  #164  
Old 11-11-2019, 08:31 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
How is it misleading? In the exact same post I say that the kids were in fact predominantly white and the white kids were predominantly jewish. I suspect the majority of those jewish kids were immigrants or the children of immigrants.

The fact of the matter is that one of the "big three" specialized high schools in NYC was at one point majority black and hispanic. That school right now is about 15% black and hispanic. Those blacks and hispanics have largely been replaced by asians. Mostly poor immigrant asians.

At the other two elite schools, the white population has dropped from 68 white to 23% white at Bronx Science and from 70% to 19% at Stuyvesant. Those seats were also lost to asians. Mostly poor immigrant asians.

The Vox article was implying that the SHSAT was some form of preservation of privilege by wealthy whites. It was a defense of objective standards and meritocracy by jewish immigrants.

But it wasn't merely the influx of asian immigrants that caused the plummeting black and hispanic admission rates.

Black and hispanic neighborhoods lost their GT programs because NYC deemed it too expensive to effectively create a separate schools within otherwise failing schools in black and hispanic neighborhoods for the small number of students that qualified. There were not enough kids that qualified for the GT programs to justify the overhead of maintaining a GT program, in some cases it would result in a teacher teaching a class of 5 or 6 gifted students at a low performing school. These GT programs were the pipeline through which black and hispanic kids got into the specialized high schools.

Furthermore, the recent focus on diversity has also resulted in high end private schools skimming the best black and hispanic academic talent. Almost every exclusive private aschool in NYC has a much higher black population than before. For example Trinity (perennially one of the best schools in NYC) has 15% black and hispanic students. The percentage 50 years ago is probably closer to 1% Pretty much every low income black student that would have gone to stuyvesant and Bronx Science in the past are now recruited by schools like Trinity, Regis, Dalton, etc. These schools offer much better pathways to top colleges than Stuyvesant (the flagship specialized public school).

But to too many woke liberals, there are too many asians compared to the number of blacks and hispanics and that means that something is wrong. Something unfair is going on and must be remedied. They intend to fight what they perceive as injustice with actual injustice. This isn't just some random woke SJW crying racism as minority kids (of the wrong color) stream into these schools, its the mayor of NYC and the chancellor of the NYC public school system.
Clearly the (Democratic) Deblasio Admin has exposed their view that they are playing an zero-sum, them-or-me game with admission specialized high schools.

However, as your own city-journal source states, the test was put in as a bulwark to prevent school integration efforts at the time.

The nydailynews source cites Brooklyn Tech as an "example" when it reality it was an anomaly and Black and Latino students were never a majority or even close in elite schools in the aggregate.

This absolutely doesn't mean that today it still makes sense to support eliminating the test, it's just wrong to misrepresent the situation and ignore the history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie
The relevant aspect of this is to recognize the scale (the net effect is STILL that Black and Latino students are underrepresented in a variety of ways) what you can do about it. Actually having racial quotas would be illegal as you say. Having a single test to get in would probably not work in any case in undergrad, and would have to be something very different from the SAT.
FYI - this was in reference to the college admissions issue, not high school


Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
I didn't conflate anti-asian discrimination with affi5rmative action. Asians are not the ones that conflated affirmative action with anti-asian discrimination. It was the woke SJWs that did so.

They conflated the two and then accused the asians of selfishness and racism. They claimed that asians were being duped by white supremacists into fighting against affirmative action when we were only fighting anti-asian discrimination.
I didn't say you conflated anti-Asian discrimination with AA, I said that the logical conclusion to your argument as that the govt. has the choice to either keep or axe it. You've already eliminated quotas or metrics for balancing, tying admissions to all colleges purely to the SAT won't work, and lawsuits haven't found any conscious discrimination. The only choice remaining is to eliminate AA. The fact that most dems don't want to eliminate AA doesn't make them racist.

I think the situation is similar in nature to housing discrimination in the Boston area in that the problem exists in the subconscious minds of thousands of people and you can't solve that with a targeted policy - you would have to use a sledgehammer.
  #165  
Old 11-12-2019, 08:57 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
#ForSomeReason
You got something you wanna say?
  #166  
Old 11-12-2019, 11:04 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Clearly the (Democratic) Deblasio Admin has exposed their view that they are playing an zero-sum, them-or-me game with admission specialized high schools.

However, as your own city-journal source states, the test was put in as a bulwark to prevent school integration efforts at the time.
No, it was a bulwark against "a time when the ideal of equality of opportunity gave way to demands for equality of results"

Quote:
The nydailynews source cites Brooklyn Tech as an "example" when it reality it was an anomaly and Black and Latino students were never a majority or even close in elite schools in the aggregate.
There are only 3 elite schools. Blacks and Hispanics were the majority in one of them. Admissions to all three schools were based exclusively on the exam. How is it not an example. The article CLEARLY states that the schools were majority white (jewish). The point of that statement was to show that the test wasn't exclusionary or biased.

Quote:
This absolutely doesn't mean that today it still makes sense to support eliminating the test, it's just wrong to misrepresent the situation and ignore the history.
I don't think you grasp the history, there was NEVER a time when eliminating the test made sense. Hecht Calandra Act was not some Jim Crow law designed to exclude blacks and hispanics. It was a law designed to maintain objective merit based criteria for admission. The three SHS were selective schools. The SHSAT was the method of selection and the test selected mostly immigrant jews for stuyvesant and bronx science and mostly blacks and hispanics at brooklyn tech.

This is not like the implementation of holistic review at harvard, which was a deliberate attempt to reduce the population of meritorious jews at harvard in favor of non-jewish whites.

Quote:
FYI - this was in reference to the college admissions issue, not high school
I'm not sure what can be done but I don't think that preferences for one minority group should come at the expense of another politically weaker minority group.

I don't know what can be done about underrepresentation but whatever problems exist, it is not due to discrimination or bias in the admissions process. So maybe we need to address issues that arise earlier in their education.

Quote:
I didn't say you conflated anti-Asian discrimination with AA, I said that the logical conclusion to your argument as that the govt. has the choice to either keep or axe it. You've already eliminated quotas or metrics for balancing, tying admissions to all colleges purely to the SAT won't work, and lawsuits haven't found any conscious discrimination.
A single test is the primary determinant for college admissions in many countries.
By and large a single test is the primary determinant for law school admissions. Medical school admissions are also largely determined by the results of a single test. There is a fair bit of affirmative action there as well, but between people of the same race, the LSAT and MCATs are probably a bigger determinant of admissions than anything else.

It doesn't have to be a single test but too much of what we call holistic admissions is a vehicle for circumventing a merit based system in order to give preferences to particular populations. That was the original intent when it was implemented at harvard and it continues to be the primary purpose today.

Quote:
The only choice remaining is to eliminate AA. The fact that most dems don't want to eliminate AA doesn't make them racist.
The benefits of affirmative action are largely paid for by asians.

see chart on page 299

Eliminating affirmative action increases the white admissions by about 2.36% at competitive schools.

Eliminating affirmative action increases asian admissions by 32.58% at competitive schools.

If you know these things and you still support affirmative action, then you are effectively saying that you want preferences for one minority at the expense of another minority. And that seems racist to me. That's a big "if," but ignorance of these facts seems a bit discriminatory as well. I don't think democrats would remain ignorant in the face of similar complaints by any other minority.

Quote:
I think the situation is similar in nature to housing discrimination in the Boston area in that the problem exists in the subconscious minds of thousands of people and you can't solve that with a targeted policy - you would have to use a sledgehammer.
Sledgehammers based on race are generally unconstitutional.

Affirmative action is largely used these days to provide seats at selective schools for URM students that are far less qualified than their classmates. It's not that they won't get into college, it's that they won't get into the most selective colleges.

For example, affirmative action is illegal in California public colleges.

The public university system is divided into three tiers, the University of California system which it targeted at the top 10%, the California State University system which is targeted at the top third and the California community college system

The University of California system is about 4% black in a state that is 7% black; 21% hispanic in a state that is 39% hispanic; 25% white in a state that is 38% white and 30% asian in a state that is 15% asian. The concern AFAICT is that blacks and hispanics are severely underrepresented at Berkley and UCLA.

In the Cal State University system we see 4% black; 41% hispanic; 23% white and16% asian.

In the California community college system, we see 7% black; 41% hispanic; 29% white; and 14% asian.

There is persistent under-representation of blacks and hispanics at the UC level both before and after prop 209. The primary effect of prop 209 was pushing blacks and hispanics down the pecking order of UC schools from UC Berkeley and UCLA to UCSD and UC Irvine. The underrepresentation of blacks and hispanics should be viewed in light of the underrepresentation of whites (which is milder but still significant).

There is also black underrepresentation at the CSU level but the under-representation of and of hispanics has virtually disappeared as has asian over-representation. Meanwhile white under-representation continues.

AFAICT, the problem with diversity at these schools exists mostly at Berkeley and UCLA and that drives almost all of the push to repeal prop 209. The problem isn't so much that blacks and hispanics don't have access to college, it's that they can't make the cut at the most selective colleges.

And in order to remedy this, they want to stack the deck against asians.

To paraphrase RBG: I ask no favor for my race; all I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.
  #167  
Old 11-12-2019, 06:50 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I'm not sure what can be done but I don't think that preferences for one minority group should come at the expense of another politically weaker minority group.

I don't know what can be done about underrepresentation but whatever problems exist, it is not due to discrimination or bias in the admissions process. So maybe we need to address issues that arise earlier in their education.
This is the problem though - if you don't think there's an clear solution for college admissions discrimination, I don't think it's fair to call the dems racists for themselves not coming up with one.
  #168  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:07 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
... The problem that Democrats have with white voters is that they only really care about white people if they have money. Poor white people can go stand in line behind blacks. And for some reason they should stand behind hispanics as well. ...
The problem that Democrats have with white voters (well NCEW voters specifically) is that the GOP has been able to sell that complete cock and bull story as believable, and that the Democrats have not done a good enough job combating it.

Meanwhile the GOP does not care about any people without money, be they white, Black, yellow, brown, or purple. They have however managed to use resentment politics to their cynical advantage.
  #169  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:17 AM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,658
Here's what the Dems would have to do to get my vote...

1; drop their antigun stance, attempting to ban semiauto firearms will not prevent further gun crime, and most law abiding gun owners (myself included) will *NEVER* use our firearms offensively or go on shooting sprees.

stop trying to blame/punish *US* for the actions of mentally ill people and/or just plain *evil* people who shouldn't own anything more dangerous than a cotton ball (admittedly, that cotton ball could be used as a weapon, but... )

2; stop meddling in peoples personal affairs (SSM/Abortion) the Government is *NOT* supposed to be a Nanny.

3; use taxes to pay for infrastructure maintenance.

4; use the Military for protecting the country, not pre-emptive wars.

that's basically it, really, i'm not a fan of the GOP, in it's current form, i'm an Independent, and have no love for Orange Man, but I also didn't like Obama, Dubya, or Clinton either, i'd say the last president I was happy with was Reagan, and back then I was in High School and wasn't as versed on the politics of the day.
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #170  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:14 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
Here's what the Dems would have to do to get my vote...



1; drop their antigun stance, attempting to ban semiauto firearms will not prevent further gun crime, and most law abiding gun owners (myself included) will *NEVER* use our firearms offensively or go on shooting sprees.



stop trying to blame/punish *US* for the actions of mentally ill people and/or just plain *evil* people who shouldn't own anything more dangerous than a cotton ball (admittedly, that cotton ball could be used as a weapon, but... )



2; stop meddling in peoples personal affairs (SSM/Abortion) the Government is *NOT* supposed to be a Nanny.



3; use taxes to pay for infrastructure maintenance.



4; use the Military for protecting the country, not pre-emptive wars.



that's basically it, really, i'm not a fan of the GOP, in it's current form, i'm an Independent, and have no love for Orange Man, but I also didn't like Obama, Dubya, or Clinton either, i'd say the last president I was happy with was Reagan, and back then I was in High School and wasn't as versed on the politics of the day.
2... Huh? It's the Democratic party that is on the "freedom of choice" side for SSM and abortion. The Republicans want to ban both.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #171  
Old 11-13-2019, 10:00 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
This is the problem though - if you don't think there's an clear solution for college admissions discrimination, I don't think it's fair to call the dems racists for themselves not coming up with one.
I don't think there is anti-black/hispanic discrimination in the college admissions process, I think there is anti-asian discrimination.

I thought you were asking how we could boost black/hispanic college admissions considering their under-representation. And I think the answer to that lies way before they start studying for the SATs.

The Dems are racist for giving preferences for a politically powerful constituency at the expense of a politically weak constituency that they feel already have enough and are more or less fungible anyways. That's how racism works racism=prejudice+power
  #172  
Old 11-13-2019, 10:07 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The problem that Democrats have with white voters (well NCEW voters specifically) is that the GOP has been able to sell that complete cock and bull story as believable, and that the Democrats have not done a good enough job combating it.
You don't think the Democrats are putting URM ahead of poor whites? Because that's the way a lot of poor whites feel. Why do you think they feel that way? Because Republicans are telling them to feel that way?

You're basically saying that the poor whites are being duped by the republicans and don't know what's good for them. That's almost exactly what republicans say about blacks being duped by democrats and not knowing what's good for them.

Quote:
Meanwhile the GOP does not care about any people without money, be they white, Black, yellow, brown, or purple. They have however managed to use resentment politics to their cynical advantage.
Republicans would argue that the free market does more to alleviate poverty than social programs.
  #173  
Old 11-13-2019, 10:11 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
2... Huh? It's the Democratic party that is on the "freedom of choice" side for SSM and abortion. The Republicans want to ban both.
I think the post should have started :"this is what a political party has to do to get my vote."

Sort of libertarian isolationist.

Once Trump is out of office, I will need reasons to vote Democrat because it's a close thing right now and i think it Romney was running against any of these guys, I would vote for Romney (if I could convince myself that Warren was just pandering too the woke SJW crowd with some of her recent statements, I could vote for her).
  #174  
Old 11-13-2019, 03:09 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
No, talk about it.

What SJWs do is that they call all police officers murderers and then ask online activists doxx police officers' families.

That is what Democrats should not be running on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Be a national party. Don't just focus on urban areas.

Show up in Carroll County, MD, or Sussex County, NJ, and talk about jobs, healthcare, crime, prescription pills.


This is not confusing.


Focus on everyone.

Jobs, economy should be the Democrats number one priority, but it isn't.
Democrats are doing all of these things and have been all along.

The problem is Republicans go around telling people that the Democrats are doing terrible things. And some people believe them.

My advice is that you pay more attention to what's actually happening and listen less to people who are telling you stories.
  #175  
Old 11-13-2019, 08:05 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't think there is anti-black/hispanic discrimination in the college admissions process, I think there is anti-asian discrimination.

I thought you were asking how we could boost black/hispanic college admissions considering their under-representation. And I think the answer to that lies way before they start studying for the SATs.

The Dems are racist for giving preferences for a politically powerful constituency at the expense of a politically weak constituency that they feel already have enough and are more or less fungible anyways. That's how racism works racism=prejudice+power
To clarify my question:

1. Is there a workable strategy the Democrats should be pursuing to respond to anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions other than eliminating affirmative action?

2. If the choice is simply keep or eliminate affirmative action, are the Democrats racist for not trying to eliminate affirmative action?
  #176  
Old 11-13-2019, 09:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You don't think the Democrats are putting URM ahead of poor whites? Because that's the way a lot of poor whites feel. Why do you think they feel that way? Because Republicans are telling them to feel that way?....

... Republicans would argue that the free market does more to alleviate poverty than social programs.
100% I do not feel that Democrats are putting under-represented minorities ahead of poor whites.

I do feel that Democrats have, since Obama '08 anyway, failed at marketing to NCEW, mostly rural, voters, and that in the void of an effective positive message marketing campaign to them by the Democratic side the GOP had stepped up with a very effective campaign selling a message of resentment and othering. The Ds have presented good policy but policy is not perception if it aint packaged and advertised well. You need to also tell the good (and truthful) stories.

No question that quite a few Republicans feel that social programs are less effective than the free market at addressing social ills, and some NCEW voters, inclusive of those who have and do benefited mightily from many of those programs and would shout loudly if they were threatened, buy that claptrap. They assume that the social programs in question are the ones that benefit those others, not the ones they use. Some don't even think of what they use as "social programs."

Democrats do not, in general, pretend that inequities based in minority status that go above and beyond economic disadvantages, do not exist. They unfortunately though do a poor job recognizing, or at least articulating recognition of, how rural districts also face some unique challenges that go above and beyond economic disadvantages as well.

I believe a D presidential candidate can win the general election with losses in the NCEW voter column even beyond 2016 levels, with a tent full of college educated white voters, minority voters across all districts, and suburban to urban district voters of all demographics. I do not think that win, a win that leads one demographic to further conclude that they do not matter to the rest of the society and are left behind without any concern by the rest, is the best way forward for our country overall. A win that includes winning by decreasing the 2016 R margin with NCEW voters because their just issues are being taken seriously, is the better win for our country's long term health.
  #177  
Old 11-14-2019, 02:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,530
I'm not a huge fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but IMO this is the kind of ad that Democrats should be running in the middle of the country (i.e. to "white working class" areas):

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/sta...42683565301761

Just a magnificently simple political advertisement.
  #178  
Old 11-14-2019, 03:52 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
To clarify my question:

1. Is there a workable strategy the Democrats should be pursuing to respond to anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions other than eliminating affirmative action?
Affirmative action as it exists today? I don't think so.

The woke SJWs have spent the last couple of years conflating anti-asian discrimination and affirmative action and I have come to the conclusion that they may be right. The current form of affirmative action may require anti-asian discrimination.

Democrats would have to abandon Harvard's "diversity" model of affirmative action and redefine affirmative action because too much of what passes for affirmative action today is not any attempt to equalize opportunity, it is an attempt to equalize results.

Quote:
2. If the choice is simply keep or eliminate affirmative action, are the Democrats racist for not trying to eliminate affirmative action?
Yes. At least to the extent that it provides preferences to hispanics and black immigrants or pretty much any group other than the descendants of slaves and american indians.

So sure go ahead and keep affirmative action for the descendants of slaves and american indians but I have not heard a good justification for why a poor hispanic immigrants should be given a preference over a poor asian immigrant aside from the fact that there are already a bunch of asian kids in good schools.

If you wanted to use race as a tiebreaker to try and achieve diversity, that would probably not be racist but we are seeing differences of up to two standard deviations in test scores at competitive colleges and the Bill DeBlasio plan would expand that difference to the point where a signifciant portion of the black and hispanic kids would be below grade level while a significant portion of the asian kids would be approaching genius level.
  #179  
Old 11-14-2019, 07:21 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So sure go ahead and keep affirmative action for the descendants of slaves and american indians but I have not heard a good justification for why a poor hispanic immigrants should be given a preference over a poor asian immigrant aside from the fact that there are already a bunch of asian kids in good schools.
This is another case that I don't think would work in practice.

Do you not allow Latino people to report their race? Since Latino ethnically is a mix of European, African and Native American ancestry, could they just report Black/African or Native American?

EDIT: If you had to present proof of direct ancestry, what about people who might have ancestors who were slaves or were on the "approved list" of non-Latino indigenous people but didn't have proof one way or the other?

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 11-14-2019 at 07:23 PM.
  #180  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:21 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
This is another case that I don't think would work in practice.
If the societal cost of racial preferences are predominantly going to be borne by a politically weak minority like asian americans, and there is no practical way to limit the benefits, then what do you think is the right answer?

When the overwhelming majority of the beneficiaries of race based affirmative action are black immigrants and hispanics and the burden of this racial preference is borne predominantly by another minority, how do you justify the practice?

Quote:
Do you not allow Latino people to report their race? Since Latino ethnically is a mix of European, African and Native American ancestry, could they just report Black/African or Native American?
Everything is race blind and then you add affirmative action preference at the end. We are not asking people to "self identify" as black. We are asking "were a quarter of your ancestors American slaves" (or whatever other formula you want to devise to determine who qualifies for the preference).

Quote:
EDIT: If you had to present proof of direct ancestry, what about people who might have ancestors who were slaves or were on the "approved list" of non-Latino indigenous people but didn't have proof one way or the other?
The number of african and caribbean immigrants prior to WWII is trivial and is very sparse before the civil rights movement. Pre civil rights era - not a lot of blacks immigrating to the USA. Post civil rights era - a lot more black immigration to the USA. 1960 is not that long ago as far as records are concerned. If you can't prove that your ancestors were in america before 1960, then they probably weren't.

American indian tribes have registries of tribe members. They take that shit seriously, I would take their word for who qualifies and who does not.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 11-15-2019 at 02:22 PM.
  #181  
Old 11-15-2019, 09:59 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If the societal cost of racial preferences are predominantly going to be borne by a politically weak minority like asian americans, and there is no practical way to limit the benefits, then what do you think is the right answer?

When the overwhelming majority of the beneficiaries of race based affirmative action are black immigrants and hispanics and the burden of this racial preference is borne predominantly by another minority, how do you justify the practice?
I think the only two policy options are keep AA or eliminate it and the happy middle ground where you keep the good elements and throw out the bad don't work, because colleges aren't allowed to have a formula to determine how they factor race into the equation.

Since we have to choose the least bad option from imperfect options, I don't believe it's fair to say that wanting to continue Affirmative Action is racist (I also wouldn't say wanting to eliminate it is racist).

I personally think the pros outweigh the cons, but if we actually reached the point where Black and Latino people were over-represented I would likely think that AA had outlived its usefulness.

Quote:
Everything is race blind and then you add affirmative action preference at the end. We are not asking people to "self identify" as black. We are asking "were a quarter of your ancestors American slaves" (or whatever other formula you want to devise to determine who qualifies for the preference).

The number of african and caribbean immigrants prior to WWII is trivial and is very sparse before the civil rights movement. Pre civil rights era - not a lot of blacks immigrating to the USA. Post civil rights era - a lot more black immigration to the USA. 1960 is not that long ago as far as records are concerned. If you can't prove that your ancestors were in america before 1960, then they probably weren't.

American indian tribes have registries of tribe members. They take that shit seriously, I would take their word for who qualifies and who does not.
An example of how this wouldn't work is the Coahuiltecan people, an indigenous tribe that exited in an area that would now span across both the US and Mexico, and that has been essentially wiped out as a distinct ethnic identity. So a large number of Latinos could have ancestry from this tribe, but it would be almost impossible for anyone to know.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 11-15-2019 at 10:03 PM.
  #182  
Old 11-15-2019, 11:38 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
I think the only two policy options are keep AA or eliminate it and the happy middle ground where you keep the good elements and throw out the bad don't work, because colleges aren't allowed to have a formula to determine how they factor race into the equation.

Since we have to choose the least bad option from imperfect options, I don't believe it's fair to say that wanting to continue Affirmative Action is racist (I also wouldn't say wanting to eliminate it is racist).
I think it's racist to continue to support affirmative action when you know that it oppresses a minority group.

It's not racist against blacks and hispanics, and for some people that's the only type of racism they find offensive.

It's one thing to say that discrimination against whites isn't racism because whites have all the power and while you can discriminate against people more powerful than you, so you can't actually be racist against them. It's another thing to say that you can discriminate against asians without being racist because asians are successful. That would also justify discriminatingt against jews and any other model minority.

Quote:
I personally think the pros outweigh the cons, but if we actually reached the point where Black and Latino people were over-represented I would likely think that AA had outlived its usefulness.
Blacks are slightly overrepresented at harvard. 14.3% at harvard 12.7% in the general population.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissio...ons-statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...ed_States#Race

Most of those black students are black immigrants or the descendants of black immigrants.

So, how are you measuring the pros and cons?

Quote:
An example of how this wouldn't work is the Coahuiltecan people, an indigenous tribe that exited in an area that would now span across both the US and Mexico, and that has been essentially wiped out as a distinct ethnic identity. So a large number of Latinos could have ancestry from this tribe, but it would be almost impossible for anyone to know.
How did America oppress them? AFAICT, they were decimated before the Louisiana purchase.

There might very well be other corner cases.
Heck, there might be an emancipated slave sometime in history that returned to africa or escaped to the caribbean and had descendants that came back to america as african/caribbean immigrants. Should we extend affirmative action to the entire continent of africa?

For the most part we can fairly well identify who we owe that moral debt to and that debt is generally not owed to hispanic immigrants.

Hispanics are 12.2% of harvard and 17.6% of the general population. So hispanics are underrepresented but not as underrepresented as whites

Whites are 36% of harvard and 61% of the US population.

Ultimately, I don't think proportional representation should be a driving factor or even much of a consideration beyond a threshhold amount.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 11-15-2019 at 11:42 PM. Reason: typos and formatting
  #183  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:07 AM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Blacks are slightly overrepresented at harvard. 14.3% at harvard 12.7% in the general population.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissio...ons-statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...ed_States#Race

Most of those black students are black immigrants or the descendants of black immigrants.
Overall, black people are still underrepresented in colleges, and black people who go to college are more likely to have to go into debt to pay for their college education (see post 79). Harvard is a single example that isn't representative of colleges as a whole.

Quote:
How did America oppress them? AFAICT, they were decimated before the Louisiana purchase.
I'm not exactly sure what your personal criteria are for including descendants of slavery and Native American genocide but this group and their descendants is historically oppressed and disadvantaged, and couldn't easily be separated into a Latino/non-Latino designation.

In any case, just looking at a list of extinct Native American languages in the United States, lists countless examples of tribal identities that no longer exist, and have been absorbed into other ethnic groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...#United_States

Quote:
There might very well be other corner cases.
Heck, there might be an emancipated slave sometime in history that returned to africa or escaped to the caribbean and had descendants that came back to america as african/caribbean immigrants. Should we extend affirmative action to the entire continent of africa?

For the most part we can fairly well identify who we owe that moral debt to and that debt is generally not owed to hispanic immigrants.
This is an argument for simplifying what people report, not asking everyone to trace back obscure family history.
  #184  
Old 11-16-2019, 11:49 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Overall, black people are still underrepresented in colleges, and black people who go to college are more likely to have to go into debt to pay for their college education (see post 79). Harvard is a single example that isn't representative of colleges as a whole.
OK so when discussing the harvard lawsuit, you say that blacks are under-represented. I show they are not underrepresented at harvard but you concede nothing about harvard's discriminatory admissions practices.

You say that blacks are underrepresented at colleges generally.
42% of whites and 34% of blacks ages 18-24 attend college. This does not seem like a gross disparity when you consider the higher poverty rates among blacks and how poverty rates correlate to college attendance. This is apparently an SES driven factor not a race driven factor.

You say that blacks take out more college loans.
Noone has to take out loans because they are black, they have to take out loans because they are poor. You can argue about whether they are poor because they are black but ultimately this is another SES driven factor.

Quote:
I'm not exactly sure what your personal criteria are for including descendants of slavery and Native American genocide but this group and their descendants is historically oppressed and disadvantaged, and couldn't easily be separated into a Latino/non-Latino designation.

In any case, just looking at a list of extinct Native American languages in the United States, lists countless examples of tribal identities that no longer exist, and have been absorbed into other ethnic groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...#United_States
Did you take a look at those languages? Most of them:
(i) were absorbed by other existing recognized tribes that would qualify for affirmative action. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenaki_language absorbed into the Penobscot tribe (federally recognized)
(ii) people just stopped speaking the language and it died out. or
(iii) they died out without any oppression from america https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adai_language there is no record of americans meeting an indian that actually spoke this language

Show me a significant population of american indians that are not part of a federally recognized.

Quote:
This is an argument for simplifying what people report, not asking everyone to trace back obscure family history.
Wait. So we can add all sorts of complexity to promote affirmative action but we should not add any complexity and increase the impact of affirmative action and its negative affects on asians to make things simpler? How difficult is it to identify ancestry back to 1960? Why would you confer these benefits that come at the cost of discrimination against asians to people who other american indians will not accept as being american indian?

You don't seem to be placing a whole lot of significance on the burden this places on asians when you promote a broad affirmative action policy that might pick up some hypothetical descendant of someone that was oppressed by the USA while definitely including a TON of people who were not (e.g. anyone from central or south america and most of mexico).

This disregard for the cost of this policy on asians would cause outrage on the left if we adopted a similar disregard for policies that had a negative affect on blacks or hispanics.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 11-16-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #185  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:51 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
OK so when discussing the harvard lawsuit, you say that blacks are under-represented. I show they are not underrepresented at harvard but you concede nothing about harvard's discriminatory admissions practices.

You say that blacks are underrepresented at colleges generally.
42% of whites and 34% of blacks ages 18-24 attend college. This does not seem like a gross disparity when you consider the higher poverty rates among blacks and how poverty rates correlate to college attendance. This is apparently an SES driven factor not a race driven factor.
It's not a gross disparity, in part because affirmative action is used in most colleges and has the effect of reducing the disparity. It's obviously tough to separate race and class, but poverty rates among Black people is an aspect of systemic racial barriers in the US that can't be discounted. In any case my previous link supports that black and latino people with 3.5 or higher high school GPAs are more likely to go to community college than white people.

Quote:
You say that blacks take out more college loans.
Noone has to take out loans because they are black, they have to take out loans because they are poor. You can argue about whether they are poor because they are black but ultimately this is another SES driven factor.
I don't know what SES stands for but yes, this is generally a refutation to the inaccurate criticism that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college.

Quote:
Did you take a look at those languages? Most of them:
(i) were absorbed by other existing recognized tribes that would qualify for affirmative action. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenaki_language absorbed into the Penobscot tribe (federally recognized)
(ii) people just stopped speaking the language and it died out. or
(iii) they died out without any oppression from america https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adai_language there is no record of americans meeting an indian that actually spoke this language

Show me a significant population of american indians that are not part of a federally recognized.
I happened to find another wikipedia article that listed known peoples in what is now the southeast of the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indige...ist_of_peoples

The list of known peoples was over 100, and there are now 20 federally recognized tribes.

One example on that list are the Guale who had contact with both the Spanish and British before being wiped out primarily by disease and the British and being absorbed into many indigenous groups, absorbed by Spanish missions and may have been absorbed by an African American subculture/subethnicity.

Quote:
Wait. So we can add all sorts of complexity to promote affirmative action but we should not add any complexity and increase the impact of affirmative action and its negative affects on asians to make things simpler? How difficult is it to identify ancestry back to 1960? Why would you confer these benefits that come at the cost of discrimination against asians to people who other american indians will not accept as being american indian?

You don't seem to be placing a whole lot of significance on the burden this places on asians when you promote a broad affirmative action policy that might pick up some hypothetical descendant of someone that was oppressed by the USA while definitely including a TON of people who were not (e.g. anyone from central or south america and most of mexico).

This disregard for the cost of this policy on asians would cause outrage on the left if we adopted a similar disregard for policies that had a negative affect on blacks or hispanics.
The part about AA that is not complex is that most people know which race they identify as (BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them). The thing that I don't think would work is trying to piecemeal things- I think the net result is either that you require a standard of proof that arbitrarily excludes a large number of people who are intended beneficiaries, or you keep letting people self-report, but on unknown aspects of their own history.

I haven't disregarded the negative effects of this policy - I keep saying there are negative effects and we have to choose the least bad of imperfect options.
  #186  
Old 11-16-2019, 06:36 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
It's not a gross disparity, in part because affirmative action is used in most colleges and has the effect of reducing the disparity.
The only colleges that really need to implement affirmative action are the more selective ones. What happens when you eliminate affirmative action is not that these students don't go to college, they go to less selective colleges.

You seem to be arguing in good faith, you have an opinion, but you seem to be open to new facts. So to the extent facts matter to you, I present the case of california and prop 209.

Prop 209 prohibits the consideration of race in california public college admissions.

California has a 3 tier state college system.

At the top is the university of california system (including the flagship berkeley and ucla campus). These college generally admit students in the top 10% of their graduating class.

Next is the california state university system. These colleges draw from the top 33% of their graduating class

Finally is the california community college system. These colleges are open admissions to any student with a high school degree or equivalent.

After the passage of prop 209 the greatest impact was seen at the university of california level where the percentage of black students went from 3.8% of the student body in 1997 (the year before prop 209 took effect) 2.9% in 1998 (the first year prop 209 took effect). Today blacks are 4.1% of the freshman class as the uc system started to use ses and other non-race based preferences. The admission rate at berkeley and ucla are still low but these students were absorbed elsewhere in the system.

In the california state university system, the effects were much smaller with about a 10% initial drop in enrollment.

Graduation rates, and the rate of graduation with honors among black students went up significantly since prop 209 was implemented. Black students were no longer filling up the bottom of the curve at many schools.

The primary obstacle to college access for black students is not race, it is money. Poor black students have the same sort of obstacles to attending college as poor white and asian students but more black students are poor.

There is no lack of access to college based on race. Black women have the highest rates of college attendance in the country https://www.theroot.com/black-women-...-us-1790855540

Quote:
It's obviously tough to separate race and class, but poverty rates among Black people is an aspect of systemic racial barriers in the US that can't be discounted. In any case my previous link supports that black and latino people with 3.5 or higher high school GPAs are more likely to go to community college than white people.
It's not that tough to separate race and class. Just apply preferences by class rather than race. An SES based system will probably benefit blacks at 3 times the rate it will benefit whites and would do so without being racist.

Blacks and hispanics with 3.5 GPAs attend community college for several reasons. Primary among them is money. California community college los angeles costs a couple thousand dollars a year to attend, UCLA is about 30K if you commute from home. Once again this is entirely a wealth thing. not a race thing.

Show me some significant group of students getting top 10% SAT scores (1350+) going to community college. I bet the disparity shrinks to near nothing. It's just not happening because with high GPAs and SAT scores, money stops being an issue for poor people attending college unless the student needs to work or take care of family.

Quote:
I don't know what SES stands for but yes, this is generally a refutation to the inaccurate criticism that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college.
Who said that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college? My criticism has been that the black beneficiaries of affirmative action have mostly been black immigrants and the children of black immigrants.

SES=socioeconomic status

You are also conflating two issues. Affirmative action, which really only applies to selective colleges and college affordability. There is no need for affirmative action and most colleges, the bigger obstacle is money.

Blacks are not attending colleges at significantly lower rates than anyone else, they take on more debt to do so because they poverty rate among blacks is higher.

Quote:
I happened to find another wikipedia article that listed known peoples in what is now the southeast of the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indige...ist_of_peoples

The list of known peoples was over 100, and there are now 20 federally recognized tribes.

One example on that list are the Guale who had contact with both the Spanish and British before being wiped out primarily by disease and the British and being absorbed into many indigenous groups, absorbed by Spanish missions and may have been absorbed by an African American subculture/subethnicity.
"Guale society was shattered by extensive epidemics of new infectious diseases and attacks by other tribes."

So how do the gaule = modern day hispanic population?

If you keep digging, I'm sure you can find corner cases. But you are justifying discrimination against asians to pay for some moral debt owed by america to some hypothetical tiny sliver of the hispanic population. You are supporting real and actual discrimination against asians to pay for some national debt to hispanics that you have to squint to see.

At this point I have to ask. Are you looking for the right answer or are you simply trying to find reasons to stick to your guns? This is at least the 5th time I have responded to your "yeah, but what about..." questions.

And each time I respond, you come back with a more and more remote scenario.

Do you have an open mind about this because I am really only doing this to convince you, I am not using this conversation with you as a proxy to convince a larger audience that may be lurking out there. The rest of this board has already seen this conversation and anyone that can be convinced with whatever facts and argument I have to present have already been convinced to one extent or another.

Quote:
The part about AA that is not complex is that most people know which race they identify as (BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them). The thing that I don't think would work is trying to piecemeal things- I think the net result is either that you require a standard of proof that arbitrarily excludes a large number of people who are intended beneficiaries, or you keep letting people self-report, but on unknown aspects of their own history.
Who is excluded by my arbitrary standards? The descendants of american indians whose heritage is so diluted that other american indians do not recognize them as such? Blacks who can't figure out where their ancestors were in 1960?

If, as I argue, affirmative action results in discrimination against asians, then unless you are saying that asians should pretend not to be asian, we must limit the scope of affirmative action to those whom we feel reasonably confident a moral debt is owed.

Is that what you meant by "BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them" That asians should disguise their asian heritage. Because that is a pretty racist thing to suggest.

I don't think you would suggest jews should hide their jewish identity to get a fair shake. There is already a pretty disturbing tendency for some asians to distance themselves from their heritage and culture.

Quote:
I haven't disregarded the negative effects of this policy - I keep saying there are negative effects and we have to choose the least bad of imperfect options.
And discriminating against asians to give preferences to hispanics (the vast majority of whom have no moral claim against america) seem like the least of all evils to you?
  #187  
Old 11-16-2019, 08:00 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The only colleges that really need to implement affirmative action are the more selective ones. What happens when you eliminate affirmative action is not that these students don't go to college, they go to less selective colleges.

You seem to be arguing in good faith, you have an opinion, but you seem to be open to new facts. So to the extent facts matter to you, I present the case of california and prop 209.

Prop 209 prohibits the consideration of race in california public college admissions.

California has a 3 tier state college system.

At the top is the university of california system (including the flagship berkeley and ucla campus). These college generally admit students in the top 10% of their graduating class.

Next is the california state university system. These colleges draw from the top 33% of their graduating class

Finally is the california community college system. These colleges are open admissions to any student with a high school degree or equivalent.

After the passage of prop 209 the greatest impact was seen at the university of california level where the percentage of black students went from 3.8% of the student body in 1997 (the year before prop 209 took effect) 2.9% in 1998 (the first year prop 209 took effect). Today blacks are 4.1% of the freshman class as the uc system started to use ses and other non-race based preferences. The admission rate at berkeley and ucla are still low but these students were absorbed elsewhere in the system.

In the california state university system, the effects were much smaller with about a 10% initial drop in enrollment.

Graduation rates, and the rate of graduation with honors among black students went up significantly since prop 209 was implemented. Black students were no longer filling up the bottom of the curve at many schools.

The primary obstacle to college access for black students is not race, it is money. Poor black students have the same sort of obstacles to attending college as poor white and asian students but more black students are poor.

There is no lack of access to college based on race. Black women have the highest rates of college attendance in the country https://www.theroot.com/black-women-...-us-1790855540

It's not that tough to separate race and class. Just apply preferences by class rather than race. An SES based system will probably benefit blacks at 3 times the rate it will benefit whites and would do so without being racist.

Blacks and hispanics with 3.5 GPAs attend community college for several reasons. Primary among them is money. California community college los angeles costs a couple thousand dollars a year to attend, UCLA is about 30K if you commute from home. Once again this is entirely a wealth thing. not a race thing.
According to a 538 analysis of the aggregate of states that have banned affirmative action, there actually is a gap for research university attendance both among Black and Latino students, so there are noticeable AA effects outside of the most selective schools, and the bar between going to a university and either not getting any higher ed or going to a school such as a non-research college or community college (while they didn't delineate specifically on community college) is affected by AA.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ge-admissions/

FYI, as this blog explains, the data that article by theroot cites is actually that black women are the most educated within their race - in other words black women's educational achievement is a higher proportion of black people is higher than women of any other race.

Quote:
Who said that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college? My criticism has been that the black beneficiaries of affirmative action have mostly been black immigrants and the children of black immigrants.
It was a response to the statement that most Black Harvard-goers are African immigrants which implies that AA doesn't actually help underprivileged minorities, but actually helps this privileged group of rich people who exploit the system, which was I thought what your point was.

Quote:
"Guale society was shattered by extensive epidemics of new infectious diseases and attacks by other tribes."

So how do the gaule = modern day hispanic population?

If you keep digging, I'm sure you can find corner cases. But you are justifying discrimination against asians to pay for some moral debt owed by america to some hypothetical tiny sliver of the hispanic population. You are supporting real and actual discrimination against asians to pay for some national debt to hispanics that you have to squint to see.
In the wiki article, it mentions that there is a modern day group of African Americans that may have some ancestry, and that there were multiple waves of refugees the fled to Spanish missions and other areas controlled by Spain. The important part is that none of their descendants could know. This is one example of a multitude of similar situations that occurred with Native American tribes.

Quote:
If, as I argue, affirmative action results in discrimination against asians, then unless you are saying that asians should pretend not to be asian, we must limit the scope of affirmative action to those whom we feel reasonably confident a moral debt is owed.

Is that what you meant by "BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them" That asians should disguise their asian heritage. Because that is a pretty racist thing to suggest.

I don't think you would suggest jews should hide their jewish identity to get a fair shake. There is already a pretty disturbing tendency for some asians to distance themselves from their heritage and culture.
I don't care if people report their race or not. I don't want there to be a system where any minority group doesn't get a fair shake, but unfortunately there is no system that is fair to everyone. AA simply has the advantage that it asks people to identify something about themselves they readily know and doesn't distinguish between who can actually trace their family tree back several generations.

Quote:
And discriminating against asians to give preferences to hispanics (the vast majority of whom have no moral claim against america) seem like the least of all evils to you?
I can't choose a system that leads to no bias. This is why I don't think either side of the AA discussion is racist.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 11-16-2019 at 08:02 PM.
  #188  
Old 11-17-2019, 01:14 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
According to a 538 analysis of the aggregate of states that have banned affirmative action, there actually is a gap for research university attendance both among Black and Latino students, so there are noticeable AA effects outside of the most selective schools, and the bar between going to a university and either not getting any higher ed or going to a school such as a non-research college or community college (while they didn't delineate specifically on community college) is affected by AA.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ge-admissions/
You are moving the goalposts. Again.

We are talking about blacks at harvard and you say that you won't be satisfied until blacks are no longer under-represented. I point out that blacks are over-represented at harvard. So you move the goalposts and say you don't want blacks underrepresented in colleges.

I point out that there is no race based obstacle to college attendance and the obstacle we see is largely financial.

Now you say that it's not enough that blacks have access to colleges, they have to have proportional attendance at public research universities.

At this point you seem to be saying that you simply want equality of outcome and are not really all that interested in equality of opportunity if it does not result in equality of results. You are further fairly dismissive of (or at the very least minimizing) the cost of these policies on asians.

Quote:
FYI, as this blog explains, the data that article by theroot cites is actually that black women are the most educated within their race - in other words black women's educational achievement is a higher proportion of black people is higher than women of any other race.
Did you stop reading after the second paragraph? Here is an excerpt from the 4th paragraph:

Black women attend college at higher rates than any other group.
"By both race and gender, a higher percentage of black women (9.7 percent) are enrolled in college than any other group, topping Asian women (8.7 percent), white women (7.1 percent) and white men (6.1 percent)."

At this point I can't help but wonder if you have predetermined your conclusions and are simply resistant to facts that contradict your predetermined conclusions.

Quote:
It was a response to the statement that most Black Harvard-goers are African immigrants which implies that AA doesn't actually help underprivileged minorities, but actually helps this privileged group of rich people who exploit the system, which was I thought what your point was.
I think you are jumbling and conflating issues in your mind. I thought our discussion was about aa as an avenue for paying off america's moral debt. I was arguing that we should limit who we credit with that debt because for every kid that gets an preference, there is another kid who is being denied opportunities they have earned. And when the kids being denied are disproportionately asian, we should not be extending the preference to a group as large as hispanics in order based on some hypothetical populations of extinct american indians that might form some small percentage of the genetic ancestry of hispanics as a whole.

Quote:
In the wiki article, it mentions that there is a modern day group of African Americans that may have some ancestry, and that there were multiple waves of refugees the fled to Spanish missions and other areas controlled by Spain. The important part is that none of their descendants could know. This is one example of a multitude of similar situations that occurred with Native American tribes.
If your connection is so attenuated and remote that you cannot substantiate the link, then how do you justify extending such a profound preference to hispanics generally over asians?

I think race based aa is so profoundly counter to the principles of fairness and equality that it cannot be applied to a general population based on these remote corner cases absent substantiation.

Quote:
I don't care if people report their race or not. I don't want there to be a system where any minority group doesn't get a fair shake, but unfortunately there is no system that is fair to everyone. AA simply has the advantage that it asks people to identify something about themselves they readily know and doesn't distinguish between who can actually trace their family tree back several generations.
And that is inherently unfair to asians and somewhat racist.

Quote:
I can't choose a system that leads to no bias. This is why I don't think either side of the AA discussion is racist.
I can (and have) pointed out how your position that all blacks and hispanics should get a preference at the expense of asians is racist. Can you explain how my position that requires a fairly low threshold of substantiation is racist.

I don't see my position as advocating for the elimination of aa preferences. But aa as it is practiced today is racist.

BTW, I think this might be the first time I have heard people say that hispanics generally can piggyback on the suffering of american indians to access aa preferences. Your position seems to be to make access to aa as simple and easy as possible.

I see no attempt to try and balance the burden aa places on asians with the benefits it provides to achieving the goals of a fair aa policy.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 11-17-2019 at 01:14 PM.
  #189  
Old 11-21-2019, 01:39 PM
Kevbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I The only thing Republicans have to do to win over naturally conservative minorities is to stop being racist. Democrats, on the other hand...
You might as well suggest that Republicans stop breathing. Racism has been a kingpin of Republican strategy since 1968, when Nixon won with his Southern Strategy. Suppression of minority voting is a major focus of their statehouse and national legislative agendas. If they stop being racist, they lose the most of the alt-right vote which they depend on. If Republicans return to being "The Party of Lincoln" they can kiss the South and much of their northern rural support goodbye.

Racism isn't just bad behavior of the Republican party, it is baked into their DNA.
__________________
-Never tell a politician they are a two-bit whore, unless you want to be beaten silly with their bag of quarters.
  #190  
Old 11-25-2019, 09:15 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevbo View Post
You might as well suggest that Republicans stop breathing. Racism has been a kingpin of Republican strategy since 1968, when Nixon won with his Southern Strategy. Suppression of minority voting is a major focus of their statehouse and national legislative agendas. If they stop being racist, they lose the most of the alt-right vote which they depend on.
And who would they vote for? Or would they just stay home?

Quote:
If Republicans return to being "The Party of Lincoln" they can kiss the South and much of their northern rural support goodbye.
So the south would go blue?

Quote:
Racism isn't just bad behavior of the Republican party, it is baked into their DNA.
Republicans had been around for a century before the southern strategy and they have changed their spots several times in that period. Same with the democratic party. As both parties race to their respective extremes, I wonder if there is an appetite for a third party. We have had period of our history when there was deep division between the parties when third parties have risen up and claimed the middle.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017