The Economist Says Affirmative Action Is Bad Unsurprise

[Mavorpen]

I will try again
Income and property inequality is the dominant sociological issue that these programs are trying to tackle indirectly.
That said, I appreciate your attempts to force me to answer in one of two ways which would fit you, yet have nothing to do with my point. It's vaguely clever, though it gets boring fast.

Then offer reasons why the question is supposedly irrelevant, rather than merely sitting in a corner dodging.

It's hilarious, isn't it? He more than likely sees the giantigaping hole in his argument and is trying to glide over it.

[Central Slavia]

I will try again
Income and property inequality is the dominant sociological issue that these programs are trying to tackle indirectly.
That said, I appreciate your attempts to force me to answer in one of two ways which would fit you, yet have nothing to do with my point. It's vaguely clever, though it gets boring fast.

So you don't believe race is a sociological issue.

How utterly naive of you.

So you don't believe income inequality is the key factor.
I'd say 'how utterly naive', if I was sure it was, rather than you simply pushing an agenda.

[Mavorpen]

So you don't believe race is a sociological issue.

How utterly naive of you.

So you don't believe income inequality is the key factor.
I'd say 'how utterly naive', if I was sure it was, rather than you simply pushing an agenda.

Oh no, I do. I also agree race is a sociological problem. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Nice try though. Really, it is indeed sad you don't believe race is a sociological problem.

[The Electoral College]

A publication run by and marketed mainly to white people is against affirmative action?

You don't say.

A body composed of mostly old white men has ruled affirmative action consistent with the ultimate end of racial desegregation?

You don't say.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Do explain, I would love to learn.

Well for one the State should be completely colourblind (or race blind, whichever you prefer). It's just bad to treat people differently because of their race, be it favourably or unfavourably.

Thankfully, AA is colourblind.

Or rather, it just introduces and mandates diversity as an additional consideration.

[Democratic Koyro]

Well for one the State should be completely colourblind (or race blind, whichever you prefer). It's just bad to treat people differently because of their race, be it favourably or unfavourably.

Thankfully, AA is colourblind.

Or rather, it just introduces and mandates diversity as an additional consideration.

Clearly the "Affirmative Action" they have in the US is different to "Positive Discrimination Affirmative Action" in the UK. Mandating Diversity makes it non-colourblind.

[Mavorpen]

Thankfully, AA is colourblind.

Or rather, it just introduces and mandates diversity as an additional consideration.

Clearly the "Affirmative Action" they have in the US is different to "Positive Discrimination Affirmative Action" in the UK. Mandating Diversity makes it non-colourblind.

Because in every single case, diversity just means "MOAR BLACK PPLZ!"

Oh yes, diversity can never be increased with more white people.

[Central Slavia]

So you don't believe income inequality is the key factor.
I'd say 'how utterly naive', if I was sure it was, rather than you simply pushing an agenda.

Oh no, I do. I also agree race is a sociological problem. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Nice try though. Really, it is indeed sad you don't believe race is a sociological problem.

Except that both being sociological problems does not mean both problems have the same scale. And the disadvantage imposed on a person by having a low income are the dominant factor.
Or are you trying to say that whatever ethnic minority kid from a family earning let's say, 3 times minimum wage (which isentirely consistent with what the article states) needs state help while a white kid whose parents work at minimum wage levels doesn't?
Because if not, then it means that the correct key to distribute such aid by is socioeconomic factors, and if yes, I'm calling bullshit.

[Democratic Koyro]

Clearly the "Affirmative Action" they have in the US is different to "Positive Discrimination Affirmative Action" in the UK. Mandating Diversity makes it non-colourblind.

Because in every single case, diversity just means "MOAR BLACK PPLZ!"

Oh yes, diversity can never be increased with more white people.

irrelvent comment. Although i forgot putting words in the mouth of your opponent is a typical liberal tactic.

[Central Slavia]

Because in every single case, diversity just means "MOAR BLACK PPLZ!"

Oh yes, diversity can never be increased with more white people.

irrelvent comment. Although i forgot putting words in the mouth of your opponent is a typical liberal tactic.

Not really. It's just a couple of them giving the rest a bad name.

[Mavorpen]

Because in every single case, diversity just means "MOAR BLACK PPLZ!"

Oh yes, diversity can never be increased with more white people.

irrelvent comment. Although i forgot putting words in the mouth of your opponent is a typical liberal tactic.

Then it's colorblind.

[Mavorpen]

Oh no, I do. I also agree race is a sociological problem. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Nice try though. Really, it is indeed sad you don't believe race is a sociological problem.

Except that both being sociological problems does not mean both problems have the same scale. And the disadvantage imposed on a person by having a low income are the dominant factor.
Or are you trying to say that whatever ethnic minority kid from a family earning let's say, 3 times minimum wage (which isentirely consistent with what the article states) needs state help while a white kid whose parents work at minimum wage levels doesn't?
Because if not, then it means that the correct key to distribute such aid by is socioeconomic factors, and if yes, I'm calling bullshit.

Please stop attacking Charlie.

If you honestly haven't seen the gaping hole in your argument, that people can do more than one thing at a time, then you haven't given this much thought.

[Central Slavia]

Except that both being sociological problems does not mean both problems have the same scale. And the disadvantage imposed on a person by having a low income are the dominant factor.
Or are you trying to say that whatever ethnic minority kid from a family earning let's say, 3 times minimum wage (which isentirely consistent with what the article states) needs state help while a white kid whose parents work at minimum wage levels doesn't?
Because if not, then it means that the correct key to distribute such aid by is socioeconomic factors, and if yes, I'm calling bullshit.

Please stop attacking Charlie.

If you honestly haven't seen the gaping hole in your argument, that people can do more than one thing at a time, then you haven't given this much thought.

If you honestly can't understand that the fact that there are a number of contributing factors in a problem does not mean they are of the same scale or relative importance, then you haven't given this much thought either.


Regardless , toodles for the night.

[The Electoral College]

Please stop attacking Charlie.

If you honestly haven't seen the gaping hole in your argument, that people can do more than one thing at a time, then you haven't given this much thought.

If you honestly can't understand that the fact that there are a number of contributing factors in a problem does not mean they are of the same scale or relative importance, then you haven't given this much thought either.


Regardless , toodles for the night.

number of contributing factors

So race should be one of them?

In a holistic review?

ho·lis·tic
adjective \hō-ˈlis-tik\
1: of or relating to holism
2: relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts <holistic medicine attempts to treat both the mind and the body> <holistic ecology views humans and the environment as a single system>

[Mavorpen]

Please stop attacking Charlie.

If you honestly haven't seen the gaping hole in your argument, that people can do more than one thing at a time, then you haven't given this much thought.

If you honestly can't understand that the fact that there are a number of contributing factors in a problem does not mean they are of the same scale or relative importance, then you haven't given this much thought either.


Regardless , toodles for the night.

Wow...

Fine, I'll hold your hand.

If you acknowledge that race is a sociological problem, then you admit that it needs to be solved. So tell me. Why in the world can't we address it simply because there is a larger problem? What sensible, mature person uses an argument akin to "okay, I see that your finger has been chopped off. Unfortunately, we can only deal with one problem at a time, so we'll deal with the biggest threat." No, forget about addressing all spectrums of the problem. Only focus on one thing because it's of bigger consequence. Why can't we address both? Seriously, why? Are people that incompetent? If so we might as well throw in the towel right fucking now.

What a childish, pathetic, and irresponsible worldview.

[New Chalcedon]

So you don't believe race is a sociological issue.

How utterly naive of you.

So you don't believe income inequality is the key factor.
I'd say 'how utterly naive', if I was sure it was, rather than you simply pushing an agenda.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The income inequality post-dates the racial inequality, it doesn't predate it. The racial inequality has been in the USA (which was, after all, a nation that practised slavery on the basis of race and in which even freed non-whites couldn't become citizens) since its founding.

Or, to put it another way: the income inequality is the result of racism, not the cause of it. To deal with the inequality, the racism must first be resolved - and what you propose is to leave the institutionalised racism alone, and to instead put a bandaid on the income inequality.

That won't help, and it will give the right wing cover to attack the idea of government intervention - because they'll be able to point at this and say, "See? Gubbermint can't do anything right!"

[Mavorpen]

So you don't believe income inequality is the key factor.
I'd say 'how utterly naive', if I was sure it was, rather than you simply pushing an agenda.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The income inequality post-dates the racial inequality, it doesn't predate it. The racial inequality has been in the USA (which was, after all, a nation that practised slavery on the basis of race and in which even freed non-whites couldn't become citizens) since its founding.

Or, to put it another way: the income inequality is the result of racism, not the cause of it. To deal with the inequality, the racism must first be resolved - and what you propose is to leave the institutionalised racism alone, and to instead put a bandaid on the income inequality.

That won't help, and it will give the right wing cover to attack the idea of government intervention - because they'll be able to point at this and say, "See? Gubbermint can't do anything right!"

Nonsense. If you solve income inequality the magical Free Market fairy will descend from the heavens in the form of Reagan and destroy institutionalized slavery with a snap of its fingers.

[New Chalcedon]

You're putting the cart before the horse. The income inequality post-dates the racial inequality, it doesn't predate it. The racial inequality has been in the USA (which was, after all, a nation that practised slavery on the basis of race and in which even freed non-whites couldn't become citizens) since its founding.

Or, to put it another way: the income inequality is the result of racism, not the cause of it. To deal with the inequality, the racism must first be resolved - and what you propose is to leave the institutionalised racism alone, and to instead put a bandaid on the income inequality.

That won't help, and it will give the right wing cover to attack the idea of government intervention - because they'll be able to point at this and say, "See? Gubbermint can't do anything right!"

Nonsense. If you solve income inequality the magical Free Market fairy will descend from the heavens in the form of Reagan and destroy institutionalized slavery with a snap of its fingers.

Play nice, Mavorpen. Please?

[Mavorpen]

Nonsense. If you solve income inequality the magical Free Market fairy will descend from the heavens in the form of Reagan and destroy institutionalized slavery with a snap of its fingers.

Play nice, Mavorpen. Please?

...What?

[New Chalcedon]

Play nice, Mavorpen. Please?

...What?

You know what. Caustic wit won't convince anyone who isn't already in the choir

[Mavorpen]

...What?

You know what. Caustic wit won't convince anyone who isn't already in the choir

We're in a choir? I have to warn you, I can't sing at all.

[Kromar]

If you honestly can't understand that the fact that there are a number of contributing factors in a problem does not mean they are of the same scale or relative importance, then you haven't given this much thought either.


Regardless , toodles for the night.

Wow...

Fine, I'll hold your hand.

If you acknowledge that race is a sociological problem, then you admit that it needs to be solved. So tell me. Why in the world can't we address it simply because there is a larger problem? What sensible, mature person uses an argument akin to "okay, I see that your finger has been chopped off. Unfortunately, we can only deal with one problem at a time, so we'll deal with the biggest threat." No, forget about addressing all spectrums of the problem. Only focus on one thing because it's of bigger consequence. Why can't we address both? Seriously, why? Are people that incompetent? If so we might as well throw in the towel right fucking now.

What a childish, pathetic, and irresponsible worldview.

The issue is that affirmative action, which indirectly is meant to level the playing field of socioeconomic factors for college/university, is being used instead of a more directly helpful action.

My issue with affirmative action is that it lets inferior minority students, or prospective employees take the spots of superior students or prospective employees, if the superior students happened to be from a racial majority/masculine sex.
As the article said, Asian students can be over 400 points superior than blacks and still be edged out by the black person. This is obviously racial discrimination, and since I'm not racist I don't support racial discrimination.

[Mavorpen]

Wow...

Fine, I'll hold your hand.

If you acknowledge that race is a sociological problem, then you admit that it needs to be solved. So tell me. Why in the world can't we address it simply because there is a larger problem? What sensible, mature person uses an argument akin to "okay, I see that your finger has been chopped off. Unfortunately, we can only deal with one problem at a time, so we'll deal with the biggest threat." No, forget about addressing all spectrums of the problem. Only focus on one thing because it's of bigger consequence. Why can't we address both? Seriously, why? Are people that incompetent? If so we might as well throw in the towel right fucking now.

What a childish, pathetic, and irresponsible worldview.

The issue is that affirmative action, which indirectly is meant to level the playing field of socioeconomic factors for college/university, is being used instead of a more directly helpful action.

My issue with affirmative action is that it lets inferior minority students, or prospective employees take the spots of superior students or prospective employees, if the superior students happened to be from a racial majority/masculine sex.
As the article said, Asian students can be over 400 points superior than blacks and still be edged out by the black person. This is obviously racial discrimination, and since I'm not racist I don't support racial discrimination.

Not really an argumrnt against affirmative action.

More like an argument against irrational practices in the educational system that only hinder students that occur with or without affirmative action.

[Evraim]

Clearly the "Affirmative Action" they have in the US is different to "Positive Discrimination Affirmative Action" in the UK. Mandating Diversity makes it non-colourblind.

Because in every single case, diversity just means "MOAR BLACK PPLZ!"

Oh yes, diversity can never be increased with more white people.

Diversity is a good thing, but the question is whether we should force institutions to be diverse or not, no?

[Phocidaea]

I will try again
Income and property inequality is the dominant sociological issue that these programs are trying to tackle indirectly.
That said, I appreciate your attempts to force me to answer in one of two ways which would fit you, yet have nothing to do with my point. It's vaguely clever, though it gets boring fast.

So you don't believe race is a sociological issue.

How utterly naive of you.

He has said indirectly that he does.

He has said, basically, that "certain ethnicities/races are more likely to be impoverished" - which strongly implies that it is a sociological issue.

The reason AA targets minorities is because they are more likely to be poor. But there are also poor whites - who get screwed over - and middle- and upper-class minorities - who get an advantage from AA even though they might not need it.