So can Yale discriminate against Chinese immigrants?
That’s not strictly true. It’s legal to discriminate for affirmative action.
I have read the entire thread and it’s almost impossible to figure out what position anybody is trying to defend at this point.
But for what it’s worth, it’s not more legal to discriminate for affirmative action than it is for any other reason. There’s legal discrimination and there’s illegal discrimination; affirmative action can be one or the other, just like all other kinds of activity.
And Sam is right that “Asians” identifies a protected class, and those who are telling him it doesn’t are just using the terminology incorrectly. Race and ethnicity are protected characteristics, but a “protected class” is a group of people sharing one of those characteristics who have been affected by whatever activity is in question. Sam et al, as I described above, are not correct that some races, nationalities, etc. are protected and others aren’t. But he’s right that the idea of a “protected class” has its origin in US law in the idea that there are “discrete and insular minorities” who need protection. It is because of those groups that you aren’t allowed to discriminate based on protected characteristics.
You did say “hating the white people that kept him oppressed with their Apartheid policies” – that’s not all white people, that’s the ones that oppressed with Apartheid.
No, not all white people in South Africa should be hated. There, I said it! Is that shocking to you? Similarly, I don’t believe all white people in America should be hated.
If you think this is an unusual statement from a progressive, then your understanding of progressive beliefs is as abysmal as Trump.
No, not even close. I’m saying that the white supremacy in America is a very complicated milieu of disgusting and sometimes even contradictory beliefs, and it can result in weirdness sometimes that may not even involve, in the immediate sense, any white people. And also, I don’t know specifically what caused particular hate crimes, and only with detailed research are we likely to have some idea (aside from the areas that have already been researched already, like lynchings and cross burnings).
The question I believe you were asked by @DemonTree was whether you believed that hate crimes committed against asians by black americans were rooted in white supremacy. Now, she phrased it as follows:
You don’t believe black hate crimes against Asians are rooted in white supremacy?
Which may be what she meant, but I believe she simply phrased it in-artfully. I’m sure she’ll help us out and specify which she meant specifically.
You responded:
I asked for a clarification:
You responded:
Which I will not assume is intentionally evasive but does not at all answer the initial question asked or my follow up question. It also seems to imply that while we have a pretty good understanding of what causes racial crime by whites, we need additional research to understand what causes hate crime by non-whites.
Do you want to try again for clarity, or would you rather I just drop it because it seems to me like this is an uncomfortable conversation for you?
Something I’m curious about. You talk about bigots a lot, and I’m guessing you follow the party line on redefining racism as prejudice + power. So would you mind answering:
Is a black person expressing prejudice against whites racist?
Is that person a bigot, are they welcome in your no-longer-so-big tent? Does it depend on what exactly they say/believe?
I don’t have a specific answer to your question (except “no, that’s not what I said”), because I don’t have all the answers. I answered it as best I could.
I’m curious for your answers to my earlier questions, but you didn’t answer most of them, so I suppose my curiosity will go unsated.
Understood.
Moss did. Quoting from the Newsweek article, Moss wrote that the psychological treatment of Whiteness “is no guarantee against regression” and “[t]here is not yet a permanent cure.”
Okay, fair enough. Can you explain what kinds of discrimination are legal, or is there a handy summary somewhere?
It’s right there in the abstract I quoted in this thread. One paragraph long.
Well, that alone is good enough to dismiss that paper IMHO, if there is a chance to get better (implied with the “no guarantee against regression”) that bit about not being a permanent cure is not a thing I would put on a medical publication.
Of course, just in case a point is missed here, no paper is the final word in a field, nor it is a way to reach a consensus, it is really just a more sophisticated nutpick. An ongoing dismissal of a paper actually means that one undermines the usefulness of it by the right wing media or “social” media that pointed at that paper in an effort to dismiss other fields. Also: it is not good evidence for one to think that in a specific field that all ponder the same way.
I think you’re taking this guy’s rantings a bit too seriously. 
My point in posting it was to show the gaping double standard in what is acceptable to say. Claim white people are particularly susceptible to a ‘malignant, parasitic-like condition’ that is also named after them - get published in a peer reviewed journal, and defended by progressives who don’t see a problem(!) Oppose affirmative action in a published paper - author removed from directorship, and paper withdrawn by journal.
That is different than incurable.
If you want to have a philosophical discussion over whether a non-permanent treatment can be considered a cure, it might be better to start a new thread.
Do any of the three articles you cited have anything to do with wokism or “woke” people. Neither of the words appear in any of the articles. Politically, being ant-woke is about being anti-left. It’s a rejection of leftist principals and jargon, especially the most ridiculous of it. It’s general sentiment is anti-pretentiousness. As for being racist, I’d say that someone is more likely to be made fun of for being woke if they’re white than if they’re black or some other colour.
Well, my point still stands, is that the paper (as I pointed to you before in another thread about another publication that many on the right wanted to be a consensus too when it was not) does not represent what everyone in that field (and that is more into a medical one than a sociology one) thinks about that issue.
It remains a more sophisticated nutpick.
I didn’t say it was a consensus - in fact I was surprised that posters here defended something so obviously offensive and inflammatory.
Again, the point is that it is considered acceptable to publish, not that it is the majority view. If you are going to keep posting to deny things that no one believes or has claimed, there is no point responding any more.