+1
I wonder this sometimes as well. I have to admit I’ve used it before because I couldn’t be bothered to type European-Americans of Southern Descent that are poverty stricken. But it still makes me wonder why the term is accepted, even if I’ve used it.
This whole thread has been one big assumption that the hosts MUST be racist, then of course the usual shots at Fox News (which has nothing to do with a local Fox affiliate), coupled with insinuations of racism aimed at Shodan for making what looked to me like a very obvious and non-controversial point.
This need to play the race card even when the ‘racism’ has to be inferred because no one said or did anything racist is stupid and counterproductive. It diminishes real racism, and gives real racists the opportunity to dismiss criticism as just more racist hysteria. It’s also deeply unfair to the people being attacked, and people are having their careers destroyed by this nonsense.
The real story here is probably something like this: A couple of local on-air talents tried to find a human interest story, and their researchers probably gave them this one, perhaps expecting them to talk about the kid’s great marks or the amazing fact that he got accepted to all 20 schools, and instead they read it as a story about applying to too many schools. Because they are on-air talents, not sociologists.
Were they racists deep in their hearts and that’s why they chose that angle? I have no idea. And since I think racism is a horrible thing, I wouldn’t dream of lobbing that accusation at them without proof, because that would make me an asshole. And I damned sure wouldn’t assume bad motives on their part because of their skin color, because that would actually make me a racist.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained through stupidity. These are a couple of local TV personalities trying to fill airtime.
Some Dopers see racism much too often. Others object to any charge of racism unless the racist explicitly admits to racism. Isn’t there some middle ground? Give people the benefit of the doubt, but not when the racism is staring us in the face.
So you think the same inane comment would have been made if the student were white? Yes or No?
How about two blacks arrested in Starbucks? Neither the manager nor the cops ever said “I hate niggers because they are niggers.” That means it couldn’t have been racism, right?
Okay, but for some reason I really doubt we’d see this same story if the student was white. Just like I doubt that a student’s project clock would have been flagged as probably a bomb if they were white. Just like I somehow think the story surrounding a rapist getting 6 months in prison might have been different if they weren’t white.
I dunno, sooner or later you start noticing patterns like this.
I assure you that they are all isolated incidents. Thousands and thousands of isolated incidents.
No, you wouldn’t see it if he were white, and it’s even less likely if he were Asian. Dog bites man isn’t news.
Notice any patterns there?
Regards,
Shodan
Thereby demonstration massive ignorance on so many levels, not the least of which is understand college admission policies. A simple phone call would have fixed that.
Colleges “accept” people and send them invitations to attend based on whatever criteria they have established. They know that a large number of them won’t accept the invitation, so just like the airlines, they overbook. He didn’t “take anyone’s place away”.
Because some people don’t believe a myth, it must mean the myth is not caused by anything. Government employee training?
It appears to be your problem because many people believe it, it is indeed a myth, and you are complaining about it. More importantly, it is a problem for “black” people.
The fact that the myth exists is a direct result of the policy.
The myth: “Successful ‘blacks’ are only successful because of affirmative action.”
Imagine affirmative action didn’t exist in the lexicon. How silly would someone sound saying the above myth out loud.
Your welcome for bringing logic to bear on your emotional Coates parroting.
It is a bizarre situation that statists and social technocrats find themselves in. On one hand they say affirmative action is necessary because without it certain groups would not qualify. On the other hand they say individuals from those groups are qualified and anyone who thinks otherwise has a personal problem.
Logic is not their friend. Of course it was always an emotional appeal to begin with. American “Blacks” were improving their standard of living at a much more rapid pace before affirmative action and before white progressives rekindled their race-based social engineering.
Of course the claim is easily tested. The myth didn’t exist before affirmative action and it does after affirmative action began. The causation is staring you in your face.
Amazingly, I almost agree with you! (I say “almost agree” because even Fox newscasters have been to college: they didn’t need a phone call to learn about college “overbooking”; they already knew it but assumed most Fox viewers would be too stupid to catch it.)
But, details aside, how were you able to form this judgment? Serious question: Did you watch the Fox broadcast and know by yourself how inane it was? Did you click a link posted by a libtard? I’d really like to understand; perhaps we should be proud of your progress.
Who says this? I certainly don’t, nor do any of the progressives or AA supporters I know.
But you always mischaracterize liberal and progressive positions and motivations. You always get us wrong; it’s kind of your trademark. And when I try to tell you what I really believe, it never sinks in.
I’m not sure whether you’re trying to mimic an intellectual thinker or a stand-up comic, but either way, you need to work on your delivery.
I’ve the vague impression some of the quoted sentences are intended as sarcastic, but I can’t be bothered to guess which ones. Pro-tip: When your ideas are outlandish but you sincerely want to communicate, you need to be clear and straightforward. Many of your sentences are unclear; and reading even the clear sentences, the reader doesn’t know—or care—which are sarcasms. BTW, why does the word blacks need quote marks?
The following might actually be a useful observation, if true
American “Blacks” were improving their standard of living at a much more rapid pace before affirmative action
… but nobody will believe it from you without a cite.
But first: When will you get one of your YouTube mentors to summarize Rathbard’s solution to external costs and post it for us?
Then the basis of your support for AA is purely emotional posturing?
No, it’s because society and culture (IMO) are tilted away from black people, women, and many other groups, making it more difficult for them to achieve even with identical skill and talent and qualifications, and AA tries to even out this unfairness (and doesn’t entirely succeed, but IMO we’re better off with it than without it in the present society and culture). In a truly fair society, AA wouldn’t be needed; hopefully one day we’ll get there.
But I’ve probably tried to explain this before; I’m skeptical that you’re capable of replacing your own preconceived notions about progressives.
Should I use more italicized and bolded words? More font sizes? Or should I run-on for post after post without saying anything and listen to Robert Reich audiobooks?
Because you choose euphemisms over direct language it means I don’t understand progressives?
Huh? What you said directly conflicts with my beliefs about AA.
The myth “the only reason blacks are successful is because of affirmative action” has been proven as false and I don’t think Shodan ever asserted that.
The more likely assertion that was hinted at is “successful blacks are welcomed to the front of the line of equally successful people because they are black”.
The truth of the myth is not in question. The myth exists. Why does it exist? I suggested the policy of AA is responsible for the myth. An alternative reason for its existence is that people are racist and it is their problem. Well, people were racist before affirmative action and this myth did not exist. Therefore, the causation lies with the policy of AA.
Now if you think the myth is not a big deal compared to the good that AA does, say so, but don’t pretend to be concerned about the plight of successful “blacks” who are the victims of the myth.
Yes there were a lot of beliefs in that post, along with a couple IMOs. Your beliefs are that AA is good and shouldn’t be described in *bad * language.
I don’t know why people think I am hinting anything. I am not hinting; I am saying it directly.
Kids like the one in the OP are in very high demand, because [list=A][li]he is very well-qualified, **and **[*]because he is black, and therefore furthers the goal of diversity in a way that an Asian or white student would not do.[/list]I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. [/li]
Colleges don’t want to lower their standards to meet the goal of diversity (meaning having more students who are not white or Asian). Here is a student who way exceeds the standard, and helps them meet their goal of diversity. Therefore, he is in very high demand. An Asian or a white kid won’t help meet their goal of diversity. If the goals are to get the best candidates and “diversity”, then whites and Asians are less well-qualified, and thus in less demand. Two-for-one candidates are better than one-for-ones.
Read the cite I posted twice. Only about 2% of the top scorers on the SATs are black, and therefore fulfill both the goals of recruiting the best students, and recruiting blacks. Simple supply and demand is going to dictate that limited supply and high demand means that the kid’s got a seller’s market.
That’s why he got into every school he applied to. He is one of the rather few who is a top performer, and “diversity”.
Regards,
Shodan