Hey, easy on him - he’s gotta meet his daily IRA quota.
For someone who gets aroused at the thought of a so-called progressive dictator and who has continuously posted advocation for crimes against humanity you have no room to talk. Especially when what you are posting you know is a lie. You haven’t always been so delusional and disingenuous even if you have always been somewhat hysterical with the sky is falling due to the scary right and to preserve our freedoms we need a benevolent leftist dictator posts.
Commentary on the actions of the left during the mostly peaceful summer of love is raving? What psychodelics are you on?
Hey, I wasn’t at the Capitol trying to overturn the votes of 80 million people with violence - they’re your “freedom fighters,” not mine, not antifa’s, not Black Lives Matters’, not Pelosi’s, or Schumer’s, or Biden’s.
But yeah if one side’s already calling for civil war, well then let’s be sober about that threat an advocate that the tools in our toolbox include using government power to protect the public interest and that they include some tools to “oppress” the sick fucks on the right, if it comes to that.
If you’re so afraid of Republicans, have you thought of leaving the US? I hear Venezuela is run by a benevolent leftist, and they hardly rigged the elections at all.
Venezuela is led by a corrupt leftist, so no, I’m not entertaining thoughts of moving there. Unfortunately, the United States encourages radical leftism in the Americas through its perpetual support of corrupt right wing thugs on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Why should I be forced to leave the country? I mean sure, I can if I decide I’ve had enough, but why is that the option that right wingers propose? “If you don’t like it, get out.”
Oh, yeah, totally not a RW troll…
US foreign policy never seems to change very much, no matter who is in power.
You shouldn’t. I’m just curious how serious you are about the chicken-littlism. Not that there’s any guarantee you can leave, unless you have duel citizenship.
I wonder which country has the least conservatives, or if that’s even a sensible question?
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by the word “this” or how closely it corresponds to the details of the University of California admissions process we’ve been discussing.
However, I do have some evidence about the UC Berkeley admissions selection process as described on their own website.
‘This’ = favouring students because they have rich parents, or parents with higher degrees, or because the student went to a highly ranked high school, in the admissions process.
I had assumed the point of gathering that information was the opposite, but you say that is an unreasonable assumption.
Once again, the connection between what I said and what you seem to be claiming I said is not entirely clear to me.
AFAIK, higher education institutions in general don’t have admissions policies “favouring students because they have rich parents, or parents with higher degrees, or because the student went to a highly ranked high school”. I’m not really sure exactly how you derived that claim from my observation that “most colleges want their student body to have a mix of family backgrounds”, if that was indeed what you’re trying to paraphrase.
As I said in post #2574:
I am not opposed to conservatives per se, but my definition of a conservative is not the American one. The American (mostly white) right wants to conserve barbarism, anti-liberty, ethnic subjugation because the cannot imagine their economic, political, and social caste system functioning without it. They speak of “liberty,” but the liberty of which they speak has to do with the “strong” dominating the “weak,” even going so far as to misuse science as a justification for it.
I said that greater family wealth, or higher parental education level, would never be a positive factor in the holistic review - it would either be negative (count against the student) or neutral. You disagreed. Which must mean you think those demographic factors may in some cases be a positive factor, ie they would be favouring students for having them.
Then I gotta say, your choice of a thread title when you started this thread was perhaps not the most illuminating.
I get that you somewhat clarified in your OP that you were specifically objecting to conservatives “if they are committed to anti-intellectualism and deliberately undermining good faith discussion”, but I think the well had already been pretty much poisoned by then.
What do you think the American right believe about themselves, and about left-wingers?
No, no, no…the well has been poisoned by “conservatives.” And there are too many of this kind. They are a threat to all that I, and others, value. I did right by making this thread to call these fuckers, with their fake “concerns” and fraudulent “debates”, out.
Who are you even talking about? AFAIK there are literally zero Trump supporters on this message board since UrbanRedneck quit.
Your recollection of the discussion seems to be really overstating my position. Here’s how that disagreement actually went:
In other words, you asked my opinion about whether application reviewers might give a high score for a particular characteristic, and I said that it seemed unlikely to me that there would be any algorithmic requirement to score it either high or low.
You have now morphed that exchange into the claim that you said reviewers would never give a high score for a particular characteristic, and that I disagreed with you on that.
This sort of thing, DemonTree, is largely why it’s often so difficult to have a productive discussion with you. Your posts tend to have high levels of “forensic drift”, where you constantly reinterpret what an argument said previously based on what you want to be arguing about now.
What you think your reinterpretation of my previous remarks “must” mean has little bearing on what my remarks actually mean. What I claimed was that “most colleges want their student body to have a mix of family backgrounds”.
I disclaimed, and continue to disclaim, any specific knowledge of the exact details of how college admissions departments accomplish that and other applicant selection goals. With the exception of the following:
- I know, because they say so, that “holistic review” applications processes such as that of UC Berkeley can use all the information in application files in making selection decisions, not just quantitative grades, scores and rankings.
- I know, because the report originally cited in post #2377 said so, that some proponents of holistic review advocate not including standardized test scores in admissions criteria because they add very little information to prediction of student performance.
It does seem to me that you’re really desperate to have an argument with somebody about these positions, and it’s leading you to misremember what I actually said as things I didn’t say. And then to insist that those things must imply that I support the hypothetical positions you want to argue against.
It always felt a little cruel to hammer Urbanredneck for his views. He was that dumb.