Straight Dope Message Board

[LAZombie]

Originally Posted by Mijin

Yeah and how come feminists may still claim there's discrimination yet they do nothing to try to get women to play in the NFL!?!

Are you equating Asian males to females?

I thought diversity is our strength. I guess that doesn't apply to liberal Hollywood and NBA and NFL.

If you want to see a yellow face in Hollywood, the only ones are Sponge Bob and the Simpsons. 101

[Ravenman]

Right wing debate traps: not fooling anyone since 1776. 102

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Mijin

I wouldn't blame white supremacy as such, but the US is a country with low social mobility where blacks started below the bottom: many could not say they had as much as a penniless white until maybe a decade or two after the civil rights movement.

In terms of the Asian-american situation, it's more complicated. Some indeed started from the bottom, and they would benefit from efforts to make society more meritocratic and less dependent on where you grew up or whether you got tuition for the test.
But many are from families that had already succeeded academically or economically in their home countries.

And in terms of foreign students coming to the US to study, a high proportion of them are from wealthy families.
So it is not surprising that when we're talking about economic inequality and how blacks are disadvantaged from where they go to school that few people are concerned with the kids who went to a school in Shanghai that costs $30,000 / yr and got extra tuition on the weekends.

Then on other issues like police brutality, I am unaware of this even being a problem for asian americans. If it is, then for sure I would also protest that.

All that said, as someone living in China, it's clear to me that the whole society places a huge value on academic achievement.
And yes, it would be good if we could build such a culture among say blacks or latinos. I would agree with that. But that doesn't mean the system is fair for kids growing up in poor families, or that the best or only way to tackle the problems is to focus on culture.

Since you are in China, where the term originated, is that attitude actually common? Is there actually a sizable amount of folks who think western liberalism is nutty? Or is it more of a Chinese Internet thing? 103

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

In terms of highly selective colleges (think top 30 in the country) one of the neatest tricks has been convincing upper-middle class white and Asian parents that all "their" slots at these schools have been taken up by under-represented minorities, most especially African Americans, who don't "deserve" the slot.

The reality is that the BEST ways to get into a highly selective college are:

• Have parents who went there
• Have parents who have or seem likely to donate large sums of money
• Attend one of the top 25 or so "independent" schools in the country
• Be a recruited athlete

ALL those categories are dominated by rich white elites. But the resentment is aimed at the 7-10% of these schools that are black.

People who object to AA policies at private schools think that AA is driven by some tree-hugger empathy bullshit. It's not. Elite schools cater to the (very) wealthy. That's who built them, that's who they are for. The very wealthy want to go to school with 1) other very wealthy people 2) interesting people from diverse backgrounds. They don't particularly want to go to school with a bunch of kids who are the children of professionals, who attended a generic "great" high school full of other children of professionals . They want a chance to have a Black Friend, a Gay Friend, A Poor Friend. But not too many.

Everyone who is not full-pay at an elite school has been recruited as a PROP to improve the experiences of the kids that pay. Actual admissions officers are often very well-intentioned and want to help individual kids, but the institutional philosophy is about keeping the school the sort of school that Rich Elites want.

If the T30 schools just quit admitting Black applicants, it would be no easier for middle-class and upper-middle class Asians to get in. They'd just admit more elites.

Props? That’s a pretty harsh indictment of higher education. 104

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by octopus

Props? That’s a pretty harsh indictment of higher education.

It's literally what they say. They don't say "prop", they say "provide a diverse environment for all students". But the diversity is there to improve the environment for the rest. And the diversity benefits from the experience, don't get me wrong--it's probably a fair trade--but that's why they have been recruited, as surely as the football player was recruited so that everyone else could have the experience of rooting for a home team. 105

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

It's literally what they say. They don't say "prop", they say "provide a diverse environment for all students". But the diversity is there to improve the environment for the rest. And the diversity benefits from the experience, don't get me wrong--it's probably a fair trade--but that's why they have been recruited, as surely as the football player was recruited so that everyone else could have the experience of rooting for a home team.

I believe you. It’s just I hadn’t thought of the reasons in that way before and it seems inhuman and overly exploitive. 106

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

With Jeremy Lin being kicked out of the NBA, there isn't a single Asian player in the league.

Why don't my liberal friends cry out for diversity? Why doesn't the woke NBA implement affirmative action to rectify this injustice? Why doesn't Andrew Yang mention this? He tweets about the Knicks.

I'll never understand why Asians vote liberal when it does nothing for them.

It's mostly because the alternative is to vote for racists or people who traffic with them. If they could abandon their racism, they would be a viable alternative for immigrant groups like asians but it looks like they are going in the other direction and doubling down on the racism these days. 107

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...there is no mention of "woke SJW's" in either case. How are woke SJW's related to this case?

The people supporting Harvard are the woke SJWs. They are the ones telling asians that they are racist for opposing anti-asian discrimination.

I am no threat to affirmative action, I can assure you.

I never said you were.

I haven't dismissed any concerns of anti-asian discrimination.

Good for you, I never said you did.

Cite?

Not even fucking close.

Do you seriously still not understand which case I am talking about after I linked all the court documents? Because that was your questions:

"...what lawsuit?"

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...2&postcount=82

Then I said the lawsuit against harvard.

Then you asked me to be more specific. Are you still confuised about which lawsuit I am talking about or have you shifted to debating the fact that most of the people who are defensing Harvard are woke SJWs?

Because i don't a study I can cite.

I can provide a list of examples, starting with the amicus briefs in the harvard case and articles by woke SJWs, Netflix shows about how asians are the worst kinds of americans for fighting against anti-asian discrimination, varoious nthreads on this board where the woke SJW crowd waffles between accusations of racism and flat out denial that there is any discrimination going on.

Do YOU believe that harvard is or may be discriminating against asians in the admissions process? 108

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

The people supporting Harvard are the woke SJWs. They are the ones telling asians that they are racist for opposing anti-asian discrimination.

...I'm a woke SJW. I haven't told any asians they are racist for opposing anti-asian discrimination.

I never said you were.

But I'm a woke SJW. You did say that I did.

Good for you, I never said you did.

But I am a woke SJW. You are saying that I did.

Do you seriously still not understand which case I am talking about after I linked all the court documents? Because that was your questions:

This has nothing to do with my question. I answered your question.

"...what lawsuit?"

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...2&postcount=82

Then I said the lawsuit against harvard.

Then you asked me to be more specific. Are you still confuised about which lawsuit I am talking about or have you shifted to debating the fact that most of the people who are defensing Harvard are woke SJWs?

Because i don't a study I can cite.

I'm not confused at all.

You haven't come fucking close to explaining how woke SJW's fit into this narrative you've created. You are adding 1 + 1 and coming up with 3. Nothing you say makes any sense.

I can provide a list of examples, starting with the amicus briefs in the harvard case and articles by woke SJWs,

Show me these examples written by woke SJW's.

Netflix shows about how asians are the worst kinds of americans for fighting against anti-asian discrimination,

Cite?

varoious nthreads on this board where the woke SJW crowd waffles between accusations of racism and flat out denial that there is any discrimination going on.

Cite?

Do YOU believe that harvard is or may be discriminating against asians in the admissions process?

To be honest I don't really give a fuck. I don't live in America. I can only imagine Harvard in the most abstract of ways. I'm not going to read the legal documents you cited because reading legal document hurts my brain. And with all due respect I don't trust your interpretation of what those documents say and what they mean.

I'm here because you've made specific claims about woke SJW's. And as a member of the woke SJW community I'm here to correct your misconceptions of what it means to be a woke SJW. Woke SJW's do not "immediately dismiss the concerns of anti-asian discrimination." That isn't what we do. Its in our charter. So whatever it is you are ranting about in this thread: it doesn't have anything at all to do with anything that a woke SJW actually said. 109

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Let me walk you through the logic here:

1) You start a thread about how Asians feel disenchanted with liberals because they believe baizuo want to use AA to discriminate against Asian-Americans in some convoluted attempt to prove white supremacy is why black and Latinos can’t succeed. Or something.

If you are muddling your way through the first part then you are not going to get any of the rest of this.

It is very important to understand how much the woke SJW crowd has invested in the notion that all the racial disparity is STILL due to racism (in this case white supremacy) and pretty much ONLY racism. See Critical race theory.

And now it has become racist to imply that the URM community might be able to do something to improve its own situation. See how to be an anti-racist.

2) I then point out that Asian-Americans have a misplaced focus on AA; most of the discrimination occurs outside of AA.

I think you are projecting. Where do I blame AA, or focus on it. It seems to me that YOU are the one that is focused on AA. You are the one that sees anti-asian discrimination through the prism of what effect fightintg anti-asian discrimination might have on AA. You, not me.

When black and Latino students are constantly the go-to examples for unfairness, if reveals a racially biased mindset taken straight out of white Republican playbooks. “Baizuo” smacks of the same.

When did I do that? AFAICT, I mention the unjustly admitted white students far more frequently than AA admits. It seems that once again you are projecting YOUR issues.

3) Your response to this is to then deny that Asian-Americans are focused on AA. Which obviously makes no sense, since this very thread is [I]about baizuo and their ideological position on AA.

Yes, their focus on AA, like yours, blinds them to any arguments that might pose any sort of potential threat to AA even if it means discrimination against asians. Asians are not opposed to AA. They just think the baizuo who oppose addressing anti-asian discrimination because they THINK it might pose some sort of potential threat to AA are actually being racist against asians.

That’s what you’re saying is all the talk on the internets, right? That reveals the fixation that I’m talking about.

The fixation is yours. The fixation is on the part of the baizuo. We'd like to get AA out of the conversation, it is keeping people who would otherwise oppose anti-asian discrimination from doing so. Because they are afraid that in the process of achieving fairness for asians, we might create an argument against AA.

THEY are the ones talking about AA, not us. Pretty much every amicus brief is talking about AA. The lawsuit barely mentions it. Almost every article opposing the lawsuit talks about AA. The supporters spend all their time trying to convince people it's not about AA, it's about anti-asian discrimination. But our woke SJW friends tell us that we are naive and being hoodwinked because of course this is about AA. They tell us that the white supremacists are only offering a short and temporary respite from discrimination by liberals in order to achieve a greater victory with our unwitting cooperation that will result in much more oppressive discrimination by conservatives.. 110

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Which one, Blum's or the other one?

What other one? I am only aware of Blum's 111

[Chingon]

Just get to your point. Shodan did it already so there's no need to be cute. 112

[iiandyiiii]

It's not "woke SJWs" who are defending Harvard's admission policies -- it's rich white parents. Maybe some of them are liberal, but they're not defending Harvard because they're liberal... they're defending Harvard because they want to justify/rationalize special benefits for their kids. 113

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

This premise--"success is supposed to be impossible for anyone that is not white in America's white supremacist culture"--is an idiotic premise, as easily disproved as the words Oprah Winfrey.

Fortunately, nobody believes this premise. Anyone who thinks there's an entire subculture that believes this premise is fantasizing.

DA, I dearly hope you don't buy into the ridiculous idea that such people exist. But if you don't, this thread is puzzling.

If you do buy into that ridiculous idea, please start by finding a single person with any sort of power whatsoever (here I'm excluding a random highschooler on a Tweetstorm) that holds this belief.

Not that success is impossible for any single person. That success is impossible for any minority group. And do you really need cites for that? 114

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Ruken

This is telling. As if school admissions should be some rack-and-stack measure of qualifications.

Absolutely!

Given equal rack and stack qualifications (including extra-curriculars and sports, etc), the white applicants were several times more likely to be admitted than asian applicants.

What unquantifiable quality do these white students have in so much abundance that they are several times more likely to be admitted?

You are very dismissive of anti-asian discrimination. I wonder if you would be as dismissive of discrimination against other minorities. 115

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

With Jeremy Lin being kicked out of the NBA, there isn't a single Asian player in the league.

Why don't my liberal friends cry out for diversity? Why doesn't the woke NBA implement affirmative action to rectify this injustice? Why doesn't Andrew Yang mention this? He tweets about the Knicks.

I'll never understand why Asians vote liberal when it does nothing for them.

The problem with implementing affirmative action in something like competitive sports is that it's a uniquely unforgiving environment for those who aren't cut out for the role. Whatever the reason may be for Asians not being represented well in the NBA - be it their lack of interest in pursuing a roster spot, or lack of physical practice in it, or whatever - forcing teams to have Asian players whether the teams want it or not would be an utter embarrassment on the court. You would end up with Asian players being absolutely drubbed and humiliated on the court because they weren't truly cut out for it. Jeremy Lin got into the NBA because 1) he had the physical goods and 2) he was psychologically motivated enough to make it happen.

If you want affirmative action in academic admissions or the corporate boardroom or something like that, the damage that can be caused is better shielded and less visible. But doing it in a professional sport, in front of a TV audience of millions, would be absolutely cringeworthy. 116

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Absolutely!

Given equal rack and stack qualifications (including extra-curriculars and sports, etc), the white applicants were several times more likely to be admitted than asian applicants.

What unquantifiable quality do these white students have in so much abundance that they are several times more likely to be admitted?

You are very dismissive of anti-asian discrimination. I wonder if you would be as dismissive of discrimination against other minorities.

Serious question--did they weigh feeder schools and relative wealth (not just current income, but "development potential" level wealth? 117

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Not that success is impossible for any single person. That success is impossible for any minority group. And do you really need cites for that?

Uh, yeah, I really fuckin do. I've been involved in leftist groups for nearly half a century, and I have never heard a leftist saying that "success is impossible for any minority group." What a dumbass claim that would be.

I think you'll find, if you look for cites, that this is an imaginary claim. You may consider saving face by citing something different, but I urge you not to go that route, and instead admit that no significant leftist has ever made this claim. That way lies real learning and personal growth. 118

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

In terms of highly selective colleges (think top 30 in the country) one of the neatest tricks has been convincing upper-middle class white and Asian parents that all "their" slots at these schools have been taken up by under-represented minorities, most especially African Americans, who don't "deserve" the slot.

That is not what this is about but for some reason the people who are defending harvard keep insisting that it is. This is not about black kids and affirmative action. This is about anti-asian discrimination, not AA.

[quote]The reality is that the BEST ways to get into a highly selective college are:

• Have parents who went there
• Have parents who have or seem likely to donate large sums of money
• Attend one of the top 25 or so "independent" schools in the country
• Be a recruited athlete

And even with these things being corrected for why are white students more likely to be admitted than asian students?

ALL those categories are dominated by rich white elites. But the resentment is aimed at the 7-10% of these schools that are black.

You're not seeing that resentment here regarding the harvard lawsuit.

People who object to AA policies at private schools think that AA is driven by some tree-hugger empathy bullshit. It's not. Elite schools cater to the (very) wealthy. That's who built them, that's who they are for. The very wealthy want to go to school with 1) other very wealthy people 2) interesting people from diverse backgrounds. They don't particularly want to go to school with a bunch of kids who are the children of professionals, who attended a generic "great" high school full of other children of professionals . They want a chance to have a Black Friend, a Gay Friend, A Poor Friend. But not too many.

This sounds like a really good argument for removing their tax exampt status.

I will note that asian admission at harvard this year have reached a 40 year high. Why is the asian population at Harvard the same as it was 40 years ago despite the asian population being about 4 times larger? You sure there's no anti-asian discrimination there?

Everyone who is not full-pay at an elite school has been recruited as a PROP to improve the experiences of the kids that pay. Actual admissions officers are often very well-intentioned and want to help individual kids, but the institutional philosophy is about keeping the school the sort of school that Rich Elites want.

If the T30 schools just quit admitting Black applicants, it would be no easier for middle-class and upper-middle class Asians to get in. They'd just admit more elites.

So in your estimation they are sacrificing rich white students to admit the poor black ones? I have studies that say otherwise. Do you also have studies that support your position? 119

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

And I missed that there was a second page. My apologies for the redundancies.

One other thing: I do a LOT of highly selective college admissions work, and one thing I would add is that it is every bit as hard for a white, upper-middle class kid to get into a T20 as an Asian kid with the same stats. This doesn't show up in the data, because it doesn't distinguish between

• Taylor, whose parents are a moderately successful lawyer and doctor and have a household income of $275K and who goes to "one of the best high schools in [flyover state]"
  
• Jordan, whose parents are partners at a partners at their respective law firms and who make $850K/year and who went to Lawrence Academy

But I gotta tell you, it doesn't matter if Taylor is Asian or white. They will have to have cured cancer to get into Harvard. Jordan will not have to do nearly as much--Asian or white. The discrimination is toward sorta generic High Income, Low Wealth kids.

And yet places like Harvard have a higher threshhold for recruiting asians from flyover country compared to the white kids in [flyover flyover]. Why is there a higher threshhold for an asian student to be recruited based on their PSAT? 120

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...I'm a woke SJW. I haven't told any asians they are racist for opposing anti-asian discrimination.

Not every woke SJW is a baizuo. Perhaps you're not woke enough.

Just like not every Trump voter is a racist.

This has nothing to do with my question. I answered your question.

I did answer your question. You asked "what lawsuit". I don't know how to answer it any more clearly than that.

What question did you answer?

I'm not confused at all.

You haven't come fucking close to explaining how woke SJW's fit into this narrative you've created. You are adding 1 + 1 and coming up with 3. Nothing you say makes any sense.

Wait. So you are saying that you don't think that woke SJWs are supporting Harvard's side in this lawsuit? Pfft.

Once again I would say, look at that long list of amicus briefs written by SJWs. Look at the parade of articles written by SJWs. You don't see any woke SJWs there?

Cite?

Watch the first episode of Hasan Minhaj series.

"Do YOU believe that harvard is or may be discriminating against asians in the admissions process?"

To be honest I don't really give a fuck.

Yes, that is becoming quite clear.

I don't live in America. I can only imagine Harvard in the most abstract of ways.

Then how the fuck is it relevant that you haven't formed a baizuo-like opinion on the harvard lawsuit? It's like saying "racists in the 1960s used to lynch black people in the south" and you saying "I was a racist in the 1960s and I've never lynched anyone" Oh, BTW I've never been to the south.

I'm not going to read the legal documents you cited because reading legal document hurts my brain. And with all due respect I don't trust your interpretation of what those documents say and what they mean.

Yes of course, you don't want to read the evidence, and you won't take my word for what it says but think I'm making it all up. It's like I'm arguing with a global warming denier.

I'm here because you've made specific claims about woke SJW's. And as a member of the woke SJW community I'm here to correct your misconceptions of what it means to be a woke SJW. Woke SJW's do not "immediately dismiss the concerns of anti-asian discrimination." That isn't what we do. Its in our charter. So whatever it is you are ranting about in this thread: it doesn't have anything at all to do with anything that a woke SJW actually said.

So I say some woke SJWs do X and the only people doing X seems to be woke SJWs. And your response is I am a woke SJW and I don't do X so that proves you're wrong and therefore no woke SJWs do X. 121

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

It's not "woke SJWs" who are defending Harvard's admission policies -- it's rich white parents. Maybe some of them are liberal, but they're not defending Harvard because they're liberal... they're defending Harvard because they want to justify/rationalize special benefits for their kids.

So Janelle Wong, Julie Park, are white?

I am not sure where the narrative of the lawsuit being against AA started but the woke SJW crowd picked it up and ran with it. Unless you think discrimination against asians is a necessary element of AA, why would anyone reach this conclusion?

I am not sure where the condescending skepticism towards asian concerns came from but the woke SJW crowd picked it up and ran with it. If these allegation were made by any other minority and they had HALF the evidence that exists in this case, liberals would generally jerk their knee in support of the party alleging the discrimination. but not so with asians.

I am not sure where the notion that asians were naive pawns being manipulated by the white supremacists came from but the woke SJW crowd picked it up and ran with it. Why do white woke SJWs think that they need to come along and do our thinking for us? Why do they feel the need to whitesplain how we are being duped?

These woke SJWs were told the lawsuit was a direct attack on AA and they rallied to its defense and they entirely dismissed asian concerns because AA was being threatened. This is why it feels like asians are a juunior partner, why asians feel like there is a racial pecking order and we're fairly low down that pecking order. 122

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Serious question--did they weigh feeder schools and relative wealth (not just current income, but "development potential" level wealth?

Espenshade did the study and it was based mostly on stuff available to admissions offices i believe. I don't know if they had the information to correct for wealth but they did correct for legacy, extracurriculars and sports. I figure legacy might be a proxy for wealth. 123

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Not every woke SJW is a baizuo. Perhaps you're not woke enough.

...I'm as woke as fuck. You can't get more woke than me. I'm a card-carrying woke social-justice-fucking-warrior.

Just like not every Trump voter is a racist.

LOL.

I did answer your question. You asked "what lawsuit". I don't know how to answer it any more clearly than that.

You missed my point.

What question did you answer?

"is that enough background?"

Wait. So you are saying that you don't think that woke SJWs are supporting Harvard's side in this lawsuit? Pfft.

I'm saying you haven't demonstrated "woke SJWs are supporting Harvard's side in this lawsuit."

Once again I would say, look at that long list of amicus briefs written by SJWs.

You need to provide names of these alleged "SJW's", you need to define how you are using the word "SJW."

Look at the parade of articles written by SJWs. You don't see any woke SJWs there?

How the fuck should I know? You haven't cited a parade of articles allegedly written by SJW's. What the fuck are you talking about?

Watch the first episode of Hasan Minhaj series.

This isn't a cite. Its a handwave.

"Do YOU believe that harvard is or may be discriminating against asians in the admissions process?"

What part of "I really don't give a fuck" did you not understand?

Yes, that is becoming quite clear.

LOL. I don't think it is.

Then how the fuck is it relevant that you haven't formed a baizuo-like opinion on the harvard lawsuit? It's like saying "racists in the 1960s used to lynch black people in the south" and you saying "I was a racist in the 1960s and I've never lynched anyone" Oh, BTW I've never been to the south.

This thread isn't about Harvard. Its about woke SJW's. How is Harvard relevant to the OP? It isn't my job to put 2 and 2 together.

Yes of course, you don't want to read the evidence, and you won't take my word for what it says but think I'm making it all up. It's like I'm arguing with a global warming denier.

What the fuck does the Harvard lawsuit have to do with the OP? The lawsuit was only mentioned once on the first page, and that mention wasn't even by you. This thread isn't a Great Debate. Its a rant.

So I say some woke SJWs do X and the only people doing X seems to be woke SJWs. And your response is I am a woke SJW and I don't do X so that proves you're wrong and therefore no woke SJWs do X.

Which woke SJW's are you talking about? Because what you claim these woke SJW's are saying and what woke SJW's actually say and believe are very different things. I've NEVER seen a woke SJW who holds the beliefs and says the things you claim we say ever. You haven't cited a single person who has expressed those views. 124

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Uh, yeah, I really fuckin do. I've been involved in leftist groups for nearly half a century, and I have never heard a leftist saying that "success is impossible for any minority group." What a dumbass claim that would be.

I think you'll find, if you look for cites, that this is an imaginary claim. You may consider saving face by citing something different, but I urge you not to go that route, and instead admit that no significant leftist has ever made this claim. That way lies real learning and personal growth.

So this is perhaps the 4th request for cites supprting the notion that woke SJWs hold particular views. But I am told that they must be from significant people. Anonymous posts on message boards etc. don't count. Things said by people at marches and rallies don't count. This tells me that you (along with others) might agree that there are in fact woke SJWs that talk this way.

I will concede that the baizuo are not the Richard Delgados and Mari Matsudas of the world. They tend to be journalists, rally attenders and anonymous message board posters 125

[Damuri Ajashi]

[QUOTE=Banquet Bear;21847383]...I'm as woke as fuck. You can't get more woke than me. I'm a card-carrying woke social-justice-fucking-warrior.

How the fuck should I know? You haven't cited a parade of articles allegedly written by SJW's. What the fuck are you talking about?

So you've developed a strong opinion on an issue that you know almost nothing about? Hrmm. Perhaps you are a woke SJW. 126

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So you've developed a strong opinion on an issue that you know almost nothing about? Hrmm.

...I'm an expert on woke SJW's. I know lots about woke SJW's. The behaviour you attribute to woke SJW's is not behaviour that woke SJW's actually do. You claim there are a "parade of articles written by SJWs" that back up your narrative. But you haven't shown that "parade of articles." Cite these articles. Name names.

Perhaps you are a woke SJW.

What part of "I'm a woke SJW" are you failing to understand? Did you think I was making that up? 127

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by octopus

I believe you. It’s just I hadn’t thought of the reasons in that way before and it seems inhuman and overly exploitive.

It's exaggerated. Even elite colleges need non-full-pay students for their own sake, as the pool of full-pay students is too limited, both numerically and in all sorts of other ways.

Yes, colleges try to "build a community" by choosing a student body that will help make the college look good in a lot of different metrics. But that doesn't mean that the non-full-pay students are merely "props" or "extras" to improve the experience specifically for the full-pays. In fact, sometimes full-pay students are rejected because they seem unlikely to be beneficial to the experience of the other students. It's not in fact all about pandering to the rich, though I won't claim that pandering to the rich never happens. 128

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Anonymous posts on message boards etc. don't count. Things said by people at marches and rallies don't count.

Well, are you even citing any of those? Things that you claim without any evidentiary support that alleged "woke SJWs" post on messageboards and say at marches and rallies definitely don't count. 129

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

Are you equating Asian males to females?

I thought diversity is our strength. I guess that doesn't apply to liberal Hollywood and NBA and NFL.

It was something of an extreme, jokey example, because I thought your point was ridiculous. The point was just that "equality of outcome" is something of a strawman IMO; I only ever seem to hear people arguing against it. Campaigning for equal pay for equal work or trying to improve prospects for inner city blacks are not trying to equalize outcomes. Let alone claiming there should be equal outcome in all things.

While we're talking sports though, extrapolating from professional sports to the general population is fallacious, and I even started a thread on this topic a while back.
For many sports it is just a function of how much a culture values a particular sport and therefore how much money gets spent on scouting, training facilities and teaching, and how many kids make it the focus of their lives. It's unlikely that Brits have sailing genes or Norwegians have skiing genes. And we can't say Jews have some natural aptitude for basketball just because they dominate the sport. Oh wait, I mean black people.
There are a few sports where partipation is broad enough that perhaps natural aptitude becomes the dominant factor. But even here people make bad extrapolations, e.g. that because jamaican sprinters are, let's say, on average 2% faster than, say, german sprinters than jamaican people as a whole population must be 2% faster. But to draw such a conclusion would be a misunderstanding of statistics and selection.

Originally Posted by octopus

Since you are in China, where the term originated, is that attitude actually common? Is there actually a sizable amount of folks who think western liberalism is nutty? Or is it more of a Chinese Internet thing?

I have never heard it, but I'm not a big participant in social media communities, and I'm not always up to date on the latest slang.

I have to say, it doesn't surprise me. When I talk to locals about politics, there is a dismaying amount of ignorance and repetition of standard talking points, usually right wing ones.
For example, prior to the full blown trade war, and even a little now, there was strong admiration for Trump. He's a "strong leader" fighting "political correctness". And people will come up with WTF statements like "Boris Johnson...he's a genius, right?" like a turd out of the blue.
And this is in cosmopolitan, relatively well-informed, Shanghai. 130

[Ravenman]

I’ve learned three things in this thread:

1. Only true woke SJWs eat their haggis this way.
2. Only true baizuo eat their haggis that way.
3. The OP couldn’t provide a cite if his life depended on it. 131

[ElvisL1ves]

I'm sure he could, but he has reasons not to. 132

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So this is perhaps the 4th request for cites supprting the notion that woke SJWs hold particular views. But I am told that they must be from significant people. Anonymous posts on message boards etc. don't count. Things said by people at marches and rallies don't count. This tells me that you (along with others) might agree that there are in fact woke SJWs that talk this way.

It should tell you that I've been around messageboards. I could cite you people who think that Carlos Castaneda was a nonfiction writer and world-class shaman; that aliens built the pyramids; that handshakes are the moral equivalent of rape; that adoptions are child abuse--and I could do all that without ever leaving this one messageboard. But that doesn't mean any of those are positions that have any influence whatsoever on public policy. It just means that messageboards sometimes attract nutjobs.

So I'm asking you if there's anyone in any of these categories who's made the specific claim you've attributed to them:
-Published journalists or other authors (i.e., someone has paid them for their words)
-Elected officials
-Tenured professors
-Members of admissions offices
-Organizers of rallies that attracted more than 100 people

I'm trying to cast a really wide net here.

And if you can't cite anyone in any of these categories who've made these claims, why should we give the tiniest of shits about these claims? But just for shits and giggles, why don't you cite anyone -- ANYONE -- who has made these claims?

I'm pretty sure I know why you won't. It's the same reason I won't give you the GPS coordinates of the ten-meter-high cat fur sculpture of a viking. 133

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

And here's the thing: while nobody (aside from, possibly, a vanishingly small number of nutjobs with zero influence on society) has made the claim you've attributed to them, there are plenty of people who have made different claims in support of the rationale that Asian immigrants to the United States are as a cohort qualitatively different from the descendants of African slaves, or from Latinx immigrants, and therefore should be treated differently as a cohort by public policy.

But those claims are a lot more subtle, and require a lot more knowledge and thinking to rebut. I submit that you have, consciously or unconsciously, substituted the ridiculous "success is supposed to be impossible for anyone that is not white in America's white supremacist culture" because that stupid claim is instantly rebutted; and by attributing it to the people you disagree with, you can have the satisfaction of beating them in an argument. 134

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

And yet places like Harvard have a higher threshhold for recruiting asians from flyover country compared to the white kids in [flyover flyover]. Why is there a higher threshhold for an asian student to be recruited based on their PSAT?

PSAT recruitment has very little to do with who is actually admitted. I mean, yes, I would love to hear the exact conversation that lead to THAT decision, and I'm very open to the possibility that it was entirely bigoted in intent, but, again, recruitment is like a totally different thing than admissions. PSAT recruitment is about building brand awareness and harvesting mass applications to keep acceptance rates low.

I have kids who got a 1300 on the PSAT getting slammed with T20 recruitment materials. No one involved in that decision thinks any of those kids will be admitted.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

It's exaggerated. Even elite colleges need non-full-pay students for their own sake, as the pool of full-pay students is too limited, both numerically and in all sorts of other ways.

Yes, colleges try to "build a community" by choosing a student body that will help make the college look good in a lot of different metrics. But that doesn't mean that the non-full-pay students are merely "props" or "extras" to improve the experience specifically for the full-pays. In fact, sometimes full-pay students are rejected because they seem unlikely to be beneficial to the experience of the other students. It's not in fact all about pandering to the rich, though I won't claim that pandering to the rich never happens.

It's less exaggerated than the popular counter-narrative, that states that all the white kids "deserve" to be there because they had the stats, and the URM kids were "allowed" in because of an altruistic, selfless dedication to social justice--and those generous scholarships are pure charity.

Sure, there are lots of rich kids who don't get in because they seem like they won't improve the school community, just like fancy country clubs don't let in every rich applicant: they want to be an appealing place for the community as a whole.

Highly selective schools didn't start recruiting a more diverse environment over the objections of their existing clientele. Again, most admissions officers are good people, in my experience. They want to build good classes that are a positive experience for everyone. But if their marketing research showed that once an URM % got over X%, "development" applications began to decline, you bet your ass they wouldn't cross that threshold. 135

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Espenshade did the study and it was based mostly on stuff available to admissions offices i believe. I don't know if they had the information to correct for wealth but they did correct for legacy, extracurriculars and sports. I figure legacy might be a proxy for wealth.

This is the same Espenshade who says his data do not prove that Asians are being discriminated against in college admissions. Specifically because he does not have access to all the application data that factor into selections. 136

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Espenshade did the study and it was based mostly on stuff available to admissions offices i believe. I don't know if they had the information to correct for wealth but they did correct for legacy, extracurriculars and sports. I figure legacy might be a proxy for wealth.

It's a poor proxy. A kid whose parents went to Harvard and Yale and who went to Phillips Andover is going to be a lot more likely to get in that a kid who went to a local "great" private school that's only 100 years old and whose parents went to state schools--even if household incomes are similar.

The feeder school bump is real. It's expected that 30% or more of each class will be accepted by an Ivy League school (no one is tracking admittance to other highly selectives, but I imagine it tracks). The party line is just that since they are great schools, they have great kids and it's all a perfect meritocracy, but I've spoken to admissions officers who will tell you differently. The presence of these kids significantly distorts the perception of how easy it is for white kids to get into highly selectives. 137

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

You are very dismissive of anti-asian discrimination

You haven't given us anything concrete to dismiss.

But as for unquantifiable factors, an applicant's poor critical thinking skills, inability to cite data, or tendency to rely on straw men might be reflected in his or her essay or in teacher recommendations. That would certainly outweigh something unimportant like SAT scores.

Other factors:
Demonstrated leadership
Demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and persist through challenges
The school wants a bassoonist 138

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Ruken

You haven't given us anything concrete to dismiss.

But as for unquantifiable factors, an applicant's poor critical thinking skills, inability to cite data, or tendency to rely on straw men might be reflected in his or her essay or in teacher recommendations. That would certainly outweigh something unimportant like SAT scores.

Other factors:
Demonstrated leadership
Demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and persist through challenges
The school wants a bassoonist

It's even more complicated than that.. It's also quite possible that implicit bias on the part of teachers (most of whom are white) plays up the accomplishments of white students and discounts similar accomplishments on the part of Asian students--which is reflected in letters (and, as or more importantly, in counselor's assessments. Counselor assessments carry a lot of weight and counselors spend less time with students).

Look, it's a dirty, imperfect, messy problem. 139

[Ruken]

Personal assessments certainly can be biased. The evidence is compelling that they are for employment decisions, so I would expect to see that elsewhere. It's harder to run the same blind studies with schools though. 140

[cmkeller]

Mr. Dibble:

Hispanics have been in the US longer than WASPs...

You mean like the descendants of the original Spanish colonists in New Mexico, Arizona and California? They don't consider themselves to be Hispanic (they prefer to be called "Hispanos") and don't vote like what's more commonly considered the "Hispanic" community in America - fourth-or-fewer-generation immigrants primarily from Mexico, Puerto Rico (technically not immigrants, but you know what I mean), the Dominican Republic and Cuba.

Logically, the argument about immigrant self-selection that was put forth in the quote I had responded about should apply as much to these groups as to Asian-Americans, but it does not seem to yield the same result. 141

[LAZombie]

Originally Posted by Velocity

The problem with implementing affirmative action in something like competitive sports is that it's a uniquely unforgiving environment for those who aren't cut out for the role. Whatever the reason may be for Asians not being represented well in the NBA - be it their lack of interest in pursuing a roster spot, or lack of physical practice in it, or whatever - forcing teams to have Asian players whether the teams want it or not would be an utter embarrassment on the court. You would end up with Asian players being absolutely drubbed and humiliated on the court because they weren't truly cut out for it. Jeremy Lin got into the NBA because 1) he had the physical goods and 2) he was psychologically motivated enough to make it happen.

If you want affirmative action in academic admissions or the corporate boardroom or something like that, the damage that can be caused is better shielded and less visible. But doing it in a professional sport, in front of a TV audience of millions, would be absolutely cringeworthy.

FYI - Like most people from the West, my perception of Asians was that they are generally much shorter and smaller than the average Western man. This is due to the fact that most immigrants come from the southern region of China. Just as one might generalize that Italians are smaller compared to the Dutch. There are areas in China and Asia where the people are much taller. Professional Chinese basketball teams can field rosters with the same size as any NBA team. Not the same talent level but certainly the same size.

There are 900 roster spots in the NBA when you include the developmental league. Are you saying there is not one spot that could be given to an Asian if only to develop that player as project?

As a general rule, most teams play at most 10 of their 15 man roster. Jeremy Lin was one of those player who rarely got to play. When he did play, it was cringeworthy. When he got a chance to show what he could do, it was one of the greatest sports stories ever: Linsanity.

Somehow you think affirmative action is fine in occupations where the stakes are life and death such as a policeman or surgeon, but is unacceptable in a sporting event 142

[Bone]

It seems odd to me to focus on elite university admission rates when the evidence is consistent across a variety of other fields. We can argue about whether one, or two, or a dozen specific universities have practice that harms Asians, but the data is quite clear that discriminatory practices that harms Asians is prevalent across a much wider and larger scale. 143

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

What other one? I am only aware of Blum's

Blum's lawsuit and the lawsuit by a coalition of Asian-American students are not the same thing. 144

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

Mr. Dibble:



You mean like the descendants of the original Spanish colonists in New Mexico, Arizona and California? They don't consider themselves to be Hispanic (they prefer to be called "Hispanos")

Do demographers consider them Hispanic, though?

As to the immigrant self-selection argument, I think you'll find that the majority of those immigrants are not self-selecting in the same sense as, say, Chinese immigrants. They are, I would say, more circumstance-driven immigrants. A closer analogue on the Asian side would be e.g. Hmong and Bengali immigrants.

Basically, the Asian "model minority" idea breaks down rapidly when you look at individual ethnicities. Then it's all over the place. 145

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

PSAT recruitment has very little to do with who is actually admitted. I mean, yes, I would love to hear the exact conversation that lead to THAT decision, and I'm very open to the possibility that it was entirely bigoted in intent, but, again, recruitment is like a totally different thing than admissions. PSAT recruitment is about building brand awareness and harvesting mass applications to keep acceptance rates low.

Would this level of evidence convince you that Jews were being discriminated against? URMs? How much evidence before the knee jerks in favor of asians?

But if their marketing research showed that once an URM % got over X%, "development" applications began to decline, you bet your ass they wouldn't cross that threshold.

Once again, this seems like a good argument for rescinding their tax exempt status. 146

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Ruken

This is the same Espenshade who says his data do not prove that Asians are being discriminated against in college admissions. Specifically because he does not have access to all the application data that factor into selections.

Yes. He concludes that "The book concluded that Asian American applicants to United States colleges were much more likely to be rejected by seven elite colleges than were similar members of any other race" but he can't prove its racism because the schools will not share their admissions data.

Since then Harvard has had to share some of its admissions data and the things that he said he didn't have access to are now a little more available. And here's what we have discovered:

Harvard admissions committees routinely score asian applicants lower on personal scores than whites despite the fact that alumni interviewers do not have a similar disparity in personal scores.

Harvard has a higher cut off to send recruitment material to asians than to whites.

So how exactly do you explain how the asian population has stayed flat for decades despite an ever increasing asian population? 147

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

It's a poor proxy. A kid whose parents went to Harvard and Yale and who went to Phillips Andover is going to be a lot more likely to get in that a kid who went to a local "great" private school that's only 100 years old and whose parents went to state schools--even if household incomes are similar.

The feeder school bump is real. It's expected that 30% or more of each class will be accepted by an Ivy League school (no one is tracking admittance to other highly selectives, but I imagine it tracks). The party line is just that since they are great schools, they have great kids and it's all a perfect meritocracy, but I've spoken to admissions officers who will tell you differently. The presence of these kids significantly distorts the perception of how easy it is for white kids to get into highly selectives.

I agree that there are a bunch of factors that weigh in the white applicant's favor. The study corrected for legacy, athletics, extracurriculars. If you are basically saying that the 4 fold advantage that white students hold over asian students is primarily due to the number of white students coming from feeder schools, I'd have to ask for a cite that shows how white Andover graduates have higher acceptance rates than asians with similar scores, extracurriculars, athletic prferences and legacy status.

My understanding was that Andover was a feeder school because so many of the kids there are legacies, engage in inaccessible sports like crew and sailing, and are screened by the Andover admission process. I didn't think you got an extra 400% bump because you went to Andover. 148

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Ruken

You haven't given us anything concrete to dismiss.

But as for unquantifiable factors, an applicant's poor critical thinking skills, inability to cite data, or tendency to rely on straw men might be reflected in his or her essay or in teacher recommendations. That would certainly outweigh something unimportant like SAT scores.

Other factors:
Demonstrated leadership
Demonstrated ability to overcome adversity and persist through challenges
The school wants a bassoonist

And you think that white applicants have this attribute 400% more frequently than asian applicants? 149

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

It's even more complicated than that.. It's also quite possible that implicit bias on the part of teachers (most of whom are white) plays up the accomplishments of white students and discounts similar accomplishments on the part of Asian students--which is reflected in letters (and, as or more importantly, in counselor's assessments. Counselor assessments carry a lot of weight and counselors spend less time with students).

Look, it's a dirty, imperfect, messy problem.

And well, the bread always lands buttered side down for asians but it's a messy process so what can you do? 150