But that is the proposal by the opponents to prop 16. Rather than discriminate against asians, you should do positive things for blacks and hispanics. Sure it’s harder longer less instantly gratifying but this sort of generational work is how you can make lasting change.
Anyways I can see that there is no actual desire to "see the other side here’ so I will retreat to other threads where I can talk about stuff i want without derailing the conversation.
That needed a cite, I was not opposed to that and even less the Asians that supported the proposition. What is clear is that the right just concentrated on what was not proposed, quotas were not going to be imposed again, that was one big misleading effort made by right wing sources to defeat the proposition.
It’s not clear what would happen if affirmative action were restored. UC regents support restoring affirmative action, saying it’s needed to fully diversify campuses but recently voted to ban quotas, which the U.S. Supreme Court already has nixed. Board Chairman John A. Pérez has said that race would become one of more than a dozen factors currently evaluated in applications.
Yes, because what is ignored is that quotas are not part of it. As mentioned many times, race should be just one factor to be considered among many to increase diversity.
What the other side has been doing is to even twist the narrative to be just about discrimination against Asians, while at the same time ignoring the discrimination made against blacks and Hispanics.
It does seem that “right wing” thinkers will tolerate a lot more dishonesty and amoral behaviour among right wing leaders as long as the basic conservative agenda remains the central focus.
I think you are confused.
Please cite where people concentrated on quotas?
The conversation only touched on quotas because you put forward your token asians as representative of asians sentiment. I pointed out that they were not representative and to support that I pointed out that asians voted overwhelmingly to defeat prop 16 and that your token asians had at one point supported anti-asian racial quotas.
California has got it right. The California public university system is pretty well diversified. What is not as diverse is UCLA and Berkeley. This whole kerfuffle is about diversity at the most competitive schools. Probably 25 or 30 schools nationwide. There is no systemic racial barrier to higher education. If there were, then black women wouldn’t be the most educated group in the country.
Black women don’t need help getting into and graduating from college, they need help getting equal pay for equal work. White men with identical credentials working in identical fields get paid more than black women. A large part of the gender wage gap can be traced to the wage gap between black women and white men.
We should pursue lasting meaningful changes that reduce discrimination, not superficial temporary changes that increase discrimination. I wonder if you would be more open to this approach if we weren’t already in a sort of adversarial debate.
It might seem that way but only because their leaders have been more dishonest and amoral lately.
Where was the moral purity when women were accusing Bill Clinton of sexual harassment?
Both sides do it. The republicans just have shittier leaders.
That is like saying the murder rate in a particular city seems high only because a lot of people have been killed.
Or that COVID only seems to be getting worse because we test more.
So, all the crap being pulled by the Republicans and their moronic leader through all these years is equal to one man’s real and supposed indiscretions decades ago? This is what you mean by “both sides do it”?? Why is it when I see that phrase, it is followed by a ridiculously unbalanced comparison?
You pointed that, your never cited it. Just pointing at Wikipedia does not work. The point is that quotas were not the main issue nor they could be imposed, other ways can be used to get diversity. But what needs to be remarked again in this thread is that conservatives got several Asians to fall for misleading narratives.
Why the sudden interest in Asian-American rights by conservatives who normally reject any mention of race or ethnicity as “identity politics,” especially when those mentions claim racial discrimination? Asian Americans are the latest vehicle for critiquing affirmative action. Blum, Clegg and others claim that providing an admissions boost to black and Latino applicants negatively affects Asian Americans.
The problem with this logic, however, is that it assumes that the number of seats for white students — the majority in most schools — must remain constant, while Asian Americans and black and Latino applicants vie for the remaining slots. So, under this faulty logic, giving to underrepresented minorities means taking away from Asian Americans. This slippery argument is how conservatives are co-opting Asian Americans in their mission to end affirmative action. As they do so, they assume the dominance of whites.
But affirmative action cannot explain why Asian Americans seem to need higher achievement than whites to gain entrée into top colleges. Is this a form of affirmative action for whites amid Asian-American overachievement? Most Asian Americans support affirmative action, and, in my experience, also believe that elite colleges discriminate against Asian-American applicants, in favor of whites.
On the one hand I am saying that republican politicianss (on average) are more dishonest than democratic ones but that says nothing about their constituency’s tolerance for that dishonesty. Democrats tolerate dishonesty and amorality just fine.
I think it’s more like saying that that there are more unsolved murders in a particular city because there are simply more murders in that city.
No. It’s like saying that the number of deaths in NYC are higher because there are more people who get sick there.
This is not a matter of detection rates of dishonesty and amorality in politicians. The claim is that Republicans are more tolerant of dishonesty and amorality and i point out that it only seems that way because republicans are more dishonest. When Democrats are dishonest and amoral, the left seems to give their politicians a pass.
I’m pretty sure I specifically said they were NOT equal. I was saying that their constituency tolerates that dishonesty and amorality on both sides. I did not hear calls for Clinton’s resignation based on accusations of sexual assault from the left like I did when Trump was similarly accused. Partisans are partisan regardless of the side they are on. both sides do it.
Are you fucking kidding? The entire reason the consent agreement had to be modified was because the original consent agreement had racial quotas. Asians wanted those quotas removed and your token asians wanted to keep the anti-asian quotas in place. Ultimately the courts indicated that racial quotas would not survive scrutiny so they changed it to SES factors and it turned out that poor asians study pretty hard too. So they just got rid of the entire thing.
Once again you cite an editorial piece, an opinion. Please make your own arguments. I would rather have your opinion on what asians think than some woke white woman’s opinion on what asians think. It’s too easy for you to not take any responsibility for any positions when all you do is cite the opinions of others. it makes it very difficult to have an debate when your arguments are frequently just cites to some rando opinions on the internet.
As the last cite from the LA Times showed, it is wrong to claim they are token Asians.
Nope, not playing your game, I rather check with more knowledgeable people than an anonymous opinion on a message board.
For you to assert this, this means that you must know why they actually support him - with an astonishing amount of certainly about the beliefs of the entire demographic! This makes you a valuable resource into how the other side thinks!
So, oh psychic one, if conservatives do not support Trump because they like the shit he talks, why do they support him?
Is it his racist deeds and policies?
Do they love the tarriffs and their effect on the american economy?
Are they a big fan of covid and the deaths of millions of people including their relatives and potentially themselves?
Are they a huge fan of golfers who cheat constantly?
The mind boggles - so what, oh great sage, do conservatives like about Trump, aside from his words?
…and would be a refreshing change of pace if you could answer without repeating that tired “Both sides do it” refrain.
Any time anybody makes the “both sides do it” argument, they are explicitly saying:
- The person/side they support is in fact a criminal/scumbag/piece of immoral shit.
- That they love the fact that the person/side they support is a criminal/scumbag/piece of immoral shit.
It’s not a refutation of how bad their side, or they themselves, are. It’s an attempt to pretend that being that bad is normal. It’s an attempt to justify, to themselves, what they’re supporting, when they know they shouldn’t.
I say that they’re justifying it to themselves, because the number of people who have been convinced by this shitty tactic is approximately zero, and they know it. Therefore it’s an attempt to defend the indefensible (indefensible because if there was a better way to defend it, they’d be saying that instead).
When you’re bad and you know it, the only way to pretend it’s not bad to be bad is to pretend that being bad is normal - and that that makes it okay somehow.
I have read and digested this thread. The answer about trumps support is that his voters support him out of a very strong personal conviction: “Both sides do it.”
Trump really is the end of “both sides”. Democrats haven’t tolerated anything close to Trump in terms of corruption, dishonesty, attempted autocracy and dictatorship, etc., in 100 years of not much more.
The problem isn’t the leaders. The problem is that most Republican and conservative voters either actively favor or are willing to tolerate Trump levels of corruption, dishonesty, and attempted autocracy. Some of these people are in my extended family and very kind and loving to me and my immediate family. That doesn’t mean they can or should be excused for supporting or tolerating this kind of extreme corruption and worse. Their ignorance and intolerance is the problem.
You’re going to have to make your own arguments.
If by game you mean debate rather than peppering us with random opinions form the internet. That’s up to you but those are the terms of engagement kin a debate. You have to present your own arguments or at least repeat the arguments of others. Simply citing an opinion piece and saying “this says you’re wrong” is not really a debate.
If you don’[t want to debate anonymous people, what are you doing here?
Well in 2016, they voted for him because he was the republican candidate and he wasn’t hillary clinton. In 2020 they voted for him because he was the republican candidate and he wasn’t joe biden. Many people who voted for joe biden voted for him because he the democratic candidate and he wasn’t donald trump. Both sides do it.
The pro-lifers and legal conservatives like his supreme court nomination.
The working class folks like his stance on trade
The racists like his stance on racism
It depends on the conservative.
But they do.
The argument seems to be that when your side does it its OK because you’re on the side of the angels.
Who do I support?
I think both sides are pretty crappy right now.
And if democrats could have prevented trump with an equal both oppositely aligned level of corruption. They would have done it. Very few would say "hey our guys, pretty bad, lets give this one to the other side.
Who are you making “both sides do it” arguments in defense of?
And why? What do you think you are saying when you say that “both sides do it”?