I think it is largely a matter of degree. You can believe woke things a bit without being overly woke.
The ones that are obvious in this debate are the ones that believe:
1.Racism against blacks and hispanics is bad because it hurts blacks and hispanics, but racism against asians is OK because it helps blacks and hispanics.
Academic merit is a myth and we have to keep fine tuning how we define that merit until we get a racially acceptable result.
The only source of disparity in outcomes between races is racism.
Anecdote>=Data
Narrative>=Reason
Levelling results>=Levelling opportunity
There are more but it’s more a matter of how far you take it.
For example I think that all racism is bad but I don’t think you are overly woke for wanting a small amount of preference for blacks and hispanics. However if you are willing to go to a lottery system knowing that the primary impact of the lottery will be to replace deserving asian kids with less deserving white kids solely because you will get a handful more black and hispanic kids, then I think you are overly woke.
I think there is room to discuss how to measure merit better but if any measure of merit that does not lead to your preferred racial distribution is racist, then you are overly woke.
I am encouraged that the arguments your side has to offer has come down to this. I expect we will see the death of race based affirmative action in this country within my lifetime. thank you for the encouragement.
This is not why I use this word. But what word would you prefer I use to describe the category of people that I am describing when I refer to the overly woke? In my experience, the main reason people don’t like this word is because they don’t want to be associated with the actions and words of people who share their beliefs.
You were literally citing a college students opinion from a school newspaper. You made the argument that the asian group that that supported prop 16 had more valid opinions than me because they represented asians until I showed you how they were (1) actually in favor of anti-asian discrimination, (2) most asians disagreed with them and (3) the overwhelming majority of asians agreed with me. You can’t win arguments with someone else’s personal opinions, try forming and presenting some of your own.
Bring me data and we can talk otherwise it really seems like you are saying “I think people agree with me so I’m right” That’s a very trumpian method of analysis.
Asian students, that was to counter your idea that they are just tokens or just more aware people of other races. And they are not in favor of discrimination, they do see that other minorities are.
Once again the overwhelming majority of asians voted agains prop 16. When you prop up a minority voice within the asian community as representative of the asian community that is a form of tokenism. Anecdote/> data. Asians do not support rules that would promote discrimination against asians.
It is no better than trotting out a bunch of minority faces and claiming that minorities support trump when he only got 32% of hispanics, 31% of asians, and 17% of blacks.
That remains the fallacy of the “appeal to the people”. What I have concluded is that there are good news about diversity even in California, as noted before it depends on the place if there is a need for intervention. Like in the SF schools in 2005 or The Magnet School in Virginia or leave the diversity efforts in Colleges like Yale alone.
Still the item of not understanding the language of the proposition remains.
In addition to voter education, there is an ongoing need for greater clarity in the language describing propositions, said Chon Noriega, director of UCLA’s Chicano Studies Research Center. Noriega noted that a report from the Latino Community Foundation — conducted by Latino Decisions — showed that only 39% of Latinos surveyed in California understood that the proposition would reinstate affirmative action.
“The rest were split between thinking it would prohibit affirmative action or did not know what it meant,” he said. “I do not think that Prop. 16 offers insight into the political leanings of the state, or even into the actual level of support for affirmative action. Frankly, a significant reason for its failure resides in the fact that the ballot text was poorly written, leading some to think that the proposition would prohibit considerations of race and ethnicity.”
I’m thinking the overly woke are people who have become so obsessed with social justice that they have forgotten about ordinary justice. In this case, Asians are the collateral damage. Rejecting evidence that doesn’t fit their narrative is a big part of the problem, and so is the insistence that anyone who disagrees with them must either be ignorant or evil. No difference of opinion is allowed.
How does that counter the idea that they are just tokens?
Nope. It’s not, YOU claimed that asians support affirmative action and you presented the opinions of a few token asians to support your comments. I point out that asians overwhelmingly voted against prop 16.
The clarity issue menans that they are either lying or stupid. This is the 3rd time they have tried to preserve affirmative action. The last 2 times THEY drafted the language. So either they are incompetent or they are simply fooling themselves.
This is part of the problem with CRT. Narrative storytelling as a basis for reasoning requires you to see things from their point of view and ONLY their point of view.
Q16A: Next, do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs designed to help [SPLIT SAMPLE Blacks/Black people], women, and other minorities get better access to higher education?
You’ve spent the entire thread doing this shuffle where you take a point like that and then say Asians all agree with you in the entirety, because you define everything you support as “affirmative action.” If the next survey question was “Do you favor or support the use of racial quotas as the primary means of accomplishing this access” or “Do you favor or support the displacement of Asians by less qualified whites, even if this has minimal impact on black representation,” there is no way the response would be the same as it is to the question about unspecified “better access.” But you pretend that those things, which is what we’re actually discussing at TJ, are what people in this one poll supported, through the handwave of just decreeing that “affirmative action” means whatever you want it to mean in any given situation, no matter how many times other people scream “WE NOTICE WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND WE DON’T ACCEPT IT AS VALID REASONING.”
The point that you continue to miss is that you don’t have a clue still about how, in general, CRT proponents see Affirmative Action, IOW it is clear why there is no cite coming from you or others to justify making them the current bogeyman. Not giving a clue about how in reality CRTs see Affirmative Action yet to a few here, because this is a lesson not only for you but for others about how and why some do fall for misleading information from right wing sources.
Just saying also that it is not my problem that when evidence is presented that shows that overreaching statements about what Asians support are wrong, the problem is to not reflect if the right wing sources one uses are reliable. One has to notice that just citing tweeter is not a very convincing move, neither is to continue to to use juvenile insults from the right wing bubble consisting of words that they themselves made sure to turn them into disparaging ones.
Support of unspecified “affirmative action” vs support of any specific implementation such as considering race and ethnicity as part of admissions are two different beasts. One can support the former and not the latter. And the polls reflect this. E.g.,
I used people’s attitudes about healthcare as an analogy in another thread, but I think support for “balance the budget” vs any specific plan to balance the budget might be a better example.
Wait, are you now acknowledging that CRT proponents exist and are involved in the destruction of TJ? Because you’ve spent 500 posts denying that any person or action connected to this has the slightest involvement with CRT despite the fingerprints of the ideology being all over it.
This isn’t a sentence.
Who is “citing tweeter?” What “insults” are involved in stating that a generalized support for “helping blacks get education” is not equivalent to endorsing an Asian quota and filling the spots with unqualified whites?
Just saying here why I did not gave a clue about what CRT makes about AA, please continue governor. I’m not the one showing an ignorant argument here.
That “sentence” I made referred to what is clear, you are depending still of right wing sources that exaggerate and lie to make caricatures of what is going on and you repeat them.
And your last sentence just shows that you are not reading the thread, that reply was not just directed at you.
That displays an inadequate understanding of what the term token means. Noone on my side of the argument is holding up these black and hispanic students to support our side of the argument. Whereas you are pointing to asian folks that agree with you to add weight to your argument that asians are OK with being discriminated against. They are mere tokens. Tools in the repertoire.
I don’t think his points are anywhere nearly as easy to dismiss as your long series of non-arguments, citation to internet opinions and clearly incorrect understanding of the facts and inability to string together a rational argument for racial discrimination in favor of blacks and hispanics at the expense of asians to counter racism created by whites. You are easy to ignore but I hope you are not ignored because your arguments only display how intellectually bankrupt, intentionally ignorant, logically flawed and inherently racist your position is.
Once again, for like the 6th time, you’re wrong. Asians voted overwhelmingly against prop 16. We knew exactly what was at stake with prop 16. If you talk about affiramtive action in some intangible sense, then sure, we all that more diversity > less diversity. But if you ask whether asians should be discriminated against in order to achieve that diversity, the answer is resoundingly no.
You are entitled to your own opinion (or the adoption of the opinions of others if you cannot formulate your own) but you are not entitled to your own facts.
CRT’s relationship with affirmative action is complicated. We can have an entire thread about that. And it will likely boil down to how you define affirmative action. If it looks like what we now refer to as "anti-racism, they like it.
We’re still waiting for you to provide that evidence.
At this point I am very optimistic about the elimination of race based affirmative action as it exists today. If your arguments are the best a left leaning site like this can offer then I think the argument is over.
We must now look to what form affirmative action might take in the future that will not require racially discriminating against one minority for the benefit of another.
This is just claiming that you can read their minds. That is not evidence.
What I said was that there are other solutions going on to increase diversity, so besides ignoring the evidence of how unclear the proposition was, others did not see a big need to use race as one factor among many (not quotas indeed)
