NationStates

Kowani wrote:Point of order-Dictionaries evolve slower than actual language does.

And language is frustratingly painfully slow to evolve, even moreso now because of our longer lifespans.

However, you'll note many of the expressions noted in the dictionary are used today and are used in a gender neutral fashion. To zero in on those:

a man could get killed there

she's your man

The men have been on strike for several weeks.

nine men on each side

a Bowdoin man

when I heard the siren, I knew it was the Man

We should control anything that affects black people. Why should The Man control us?

Presuming it's the same guy, Jimmy Denham, author of the last quote, is still a professor in southern florida.

From the other dictionary:

‘places untouched by the ravages of man’

‘a man could buy a lot with eighteen million dollars’

‘Cro-Magnon man’

Clearly, it's not only male humans who have the ability to buy a lot of things with 18 million dollars, nor is it only male humans that ravage our environment.


Nor does your hypothetical exception regarding asserted extremely recent usage change etymology of manhole, a term invented in 1769, as far as we can tell.

Meh, it is kind of funny that they would waste their time on something so trivial. But, on the other end life will go on regardless of what Berkeley calls fishermen.

The Republic of Fore wrote:Meh, it is kind of funny that they would waste their time on something so trivial. But, on the other end life will go on regardless of what Berkeley calls fishermen.

WE CALL THEM FISH! THE TERM PEOPLE WAS INVENTED BY MEN!

Vassenor wrote:Are we still trying to spin this as evil feminists oppressing men by saying it's bad to say manhole?

It's fascinating to see the effort that you're devoting to supporting this change, while trying to tell the rest of that it's no big deal.

Shofercia wrote:If affirmative action is based primarily on race, then yes, it is racism, but stated in a friendlier way. Why didn't the Confederates try that? "Slavery's not racism, it's just affirmative action to enhance the rights of rich white people!"

First of all, the question at hand was not whether affirmative action is racist. The question at hand was whether or not affirmative action constitutes a racial quota. You are answering a question that nobody asked.

Secondly, you are answering that question in an incredibly ridiculous way. Affirmative action programs lend no support to slavery. One seeks to resolve racial inequities, the other seeks to perpetuate them. That is the obvious difference.

Not all consideration of race is racism. Racism is perpetuating racial inequities, not trying to resolve them. That's just your typical "I don't see color" bullshit mentality that actually perpetuates racism by ignoring it.

Whether or not affirmative action actually solves these inequities is another question, but to say that there is no difference between current affirmative action programs and chattel slavery is fucking ridiculous.

Shofercia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Are we still trying to spin this as evil feminists oppressing men by saying it's bad to say manhole?

It's fascinating to see the effort that you're devoting to supporting this change, while trying to tell the rest of that it's no big deal.

Probably because this is a forum and the purpose is to post on it.

Shofercia wrote:
And no college has challenged it ever since... https://www.thecollegefix.com/clemson-u ... em-fields/

Clemson University’s College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences has rolled out quota goals for faculty hiring and student enrollment rates in an effort to increase racial diversity and assist other “underrepresented” groups, according to a draft proposal obtained by The College Fix.

https://cei.org/blog/quotas-limiting-ma ... ar-science

Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013. The White House has promised that "new guidelines will also be issued to grant-receiving universities and colleges" spelling out "Title IX rules in the science, technology, engineering and math fields." These guidelines will likely echo existing Title IX guidelines that restrict men's percentage of intercollegiate athletes to their percentage in overall student bodies, thus reducing the overall number of intercollegiate athletes.

That took me all of two minutes to find. Imagine what I can find in ten minutes. Drop that bullshit line of argument right now. Gracias, amigo.

1: Please tell me what the hell gender quotas have to do with racial quotas.
2: Those quotas are goals, not actual mandates. It's unconstitutional to mandate racial quotas. If Clemson had mandated racial quotas, they would have had the shit sued out of them by now.
3: It's not a bullshit argument. It was a fucking supreme court ruling, Bakke vs UC.
4: So please drop your bullshit argument, hombre.

Shofercia wrote:
And no college has challenged it ever since... https://www.thecollegefix.com/clemson-u ... em-fields/

By the way, my claim was that racial quotas in college admissions are unconstitutional. Your claim is that Clemson had racial quotas for hiring faculty members. This has nothing to do with college admissions, just like gender quotas have nothing to do with racial quotas either. All of your information was completely irrelevant to my claims. Please learn how to read.

How did this become about affirmative action?

Anyway, my opinion on affirmative action is that it's an inefficient and bad system that pointlessly advances certain types of people for little reason while making it harder for other types to get to college just because there's too many of them in college already or something. It undermines meritocracy, and is just generally dumb.

Also, it's not like it's catering to minorities- at least, not all minorities. Affirmative action makes it actually harder for Asians to get into college. They now have a low acceptance rate than white students at affirmative action schools.

Recidivism wrote:

Shofercia wrote:If affirmative action is based primarily on race, then yes, it is racism, but stated in a friendlier way. Why didn't the Confederates try that? "Slavery's not racism, it's just affirmative action to enhance the rights of rich white people!"

First of all, the question at hand was not whether affirmative action is racist. The question at hand was whether or not affirmative action constitutes a racial quota. You are answering a question that nobody asked.

There was no question. You see, Recidivism, questions are usually followed by question marks. Kekistan was taking issue with a person being promoted for his or her skin color, rather than their meritocratic ability. You opted to respond to that. Hence the conversation. It goes beyond a single question.

Recidivism wrote:Secondly, you are answering that question in an incredibly ridiculous way. Affirmative action programs lend no support to slavery. One seeks to resolve racial inequities, the other seeks to perpetuate them. That is the obvious difference.

I didn't say that affirmative action supports slavery. I stated that affirmative action based primarily on race/ethnicity, rather than income inequality, or meritocracy, sounds as racist as a slave owner pretending that slavery isn't about race. If race is a primary factor, then it is about race. It also doesn't really resolve racial inequality as there is going to be inherent discrimination against those who rode on the coattails of affirmative action. You're simply creating more discrimination with it.

Recidivism wrote:Not all consideration of race is racism. Racism is perpetuating racial inequities, not trying to resolve them. That's just your typical "I don't see color" bullshit mentality that actually perpetuates racism by ignoring it.

I never said that all consideration of race is racism. I said that if you discriminate against White and Asian students on college admissions, primarily because of their race, then that is racism. But to you, Recidivism, it clearly isn't.

Recidivism wrote:Whether or not affirmative action actually solves these inequities is another question, but to say that there is no difference between current affirmative action programs and chattel slavery is fucking ridiculous.

I didn't say that there was no difference; I said that both used race as a primary factor, and both were racist programs. If A kills B because B solely because B is Asian, that's racism. If A cuts B off on the freeway, solely because B is Asian, that's also racism. But no one sane is going to pretend that the two are equivalent.

Shofercia wrote:There was no question. You see, Recidivism, questions are usually followed by question marks. Kekistan was taking issue with a person being promoted for his or her skin color, rather than their meritocratic ability. You opted to respond to that. Hence the conversation. It goes beyond a single question.

Sometimes questions are implicit. The "question" in my post (before you butted in with irrelevant information) was whether or not some future liberal movement would mandate racial quotas, as Kekistan claimed (and as I showed to be absurd).

Shoferica, please let this be a lesson about butting into other people's conversations; you may not know what they were actually talking about.

The Republic of Fore wrote:Meh, it is kind of funny that they would waste their time on something so trivial. But, on the other end life will go on regardless of what Berkeley calls fishermen.

Fisherpeople.

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances

What were you saying about my bullshit argument, Shofercia?

Recidivism wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
It's fascinating to see the effort that you're devoting to supporting this change, while trying to tell the rest of that it's no big deal.

Probably because this is a forum and the purpose is to post on it.

I thought the purpose was to make some sort of sense when you're posting here, but apparently to you, Recidivism, the purpose is simply to post on it.

Recidivism wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
And no college has challenged it ever since... https://www.thecollegefix.com/clemson-u ... em-fields/



https://cei.org/blog/quotas-limiting-ma ... ar-science



That took me all of two minutes to find. Imagine what I can find in ten minutes. Drop that bullshit line of argument right now. Gracias, amigo.

1: Please tell me what the hell gender quotas have to do with racial quotas.
2: Those quotas are goals, not actual mandates. It's unconstitutional to mandate racial quotas. If Clemson had mandated racial quotas, they would have had the shit sued out of them by now.
3: It's not a bullshit argument. It was a fucking supreme court ruling, Bakke vs UC.
4: So please drop your bullshit argument, hombre.

1. Creating quotas based on something that a person cannot change shouldn't be done.
2. So instead of pretending that they're mandates, Clemson is pretending that they're goals
3. Your claim, that you deviously omitted from the quote: "No, they won't, since the use of racial quotas in college admissions was ruled unconstitutional in 1978."

If Clemson is using racial quotas as mandates, excuse me, "goals" - then the use of racial quotas in college admissions remains; yes, it was unconstitutional, thank Bakke for that.

4. Arguing that racial discrimination is racist is now bullshit? Apparently that's bullshit to you.

Recidivism wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
And no college has challenged it ever since... https://www.thecollegefix.com/clemson-u ... em-fields/

By the way, my claim was that racial quotas in college admissions are unconstitutional. Your claim is that Clemson had racial quotas for hiring faculty members. This has nothing to do with college admissions, just like gender quotas have nothing to do with racial quotas either. All of your information was completely irrelevant to my claims. Please learn how to read.

Learning how to read, perhaps that's something you should do, Recidivism?

Clemson University’s College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences has rolled out quota goals for faculty hiring and student enrollment rates

Since that's a tad too complex for you, let me make it simpler:

Clemson University’s College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences has rolled out quota goals for... student enrollment rates

Do I have to explain to you, Recidivism, how the word "and" works in English grammar? And yes, colleges do unconstitutional things. Like Harvard, where, after it was sued by the Asian-American community for being racist, the rates of Asians admitted magically went up, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence to Recidivism: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-amer ... on-n990051

The university said 25.4 percent of its admitted class of 1,950 students is Asian American, up from 22.7 percent the year before. The new figure is the highest proportion of Asian American students that the university has published in the last decade. Data released as part of a lawsuit against Harvard suggest that the 25.4 percent figure is the highest since at least 1980.

Reminds me of something: "without admitting guilt, our party will pay billions of dollars to the Federal Government out of the goodness of our hearts, and this lawsuit that's being closed as a result is just a pure coincidence!"

"Our rate of Asian admissions increased from 22.7% to 25.4%, by nearly 12%, at the same time that we're being sued for discriminating against Asians, but this is totally a coincidence!"

Hey Recidivism, there's a bridge on sale in Brooklyn, want it?

Given the state of the country right now, I feel like this is the wrong thing to be up in arms over.

Like, oh boy, Berkeley, a city not known for spectacular self-awareness, is literally being Berkeley! The unfettered horror of it all!

Recidivism wrote:

Shofercia wrote:There was no question. You see, Recidivism, questions are usually followed by question marks. Kekistan was taking issue with a person being promoted for his or her skin color, rather than their meritocratic ability. You opted to respond to that. Hence the conversation. It goes beyond a single question.

Sometimes questions are implicit. The "question" in my post (before you butted in with irrelevant information) was whether or not some future liberal movement would mandate racial quotas, as Kekistan claimed (and as I showed to be absurd).

You might've done that in your imagination. In reality, that clearly didn't happen, since I pointed out Clemson is setting racial quotas as "goals" rather than mandates, meaning that race is still playing a factor. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, Recidivism, but just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Thinking otherwise is absurd.

Recidivism wrote:Shoferica, please let this be a lesson about butting into other people's conversations; you may not know what they were actually talking about.

Except I do, because I read. You, on the other hand, accused me of failing to read, while managing to fail to grasp an extremely basic point, in the very same post. This brought much hilarity to NSG, thanks for that.

Recidivism wrote:

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances

What were you saying about my bullshit argument, Shofercia?

That it was bullshit. You got that part. Here's the part you missed: just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Thinking otherwise is absurd. For instance: illegal immigration is illegal. And yet, it happens. When booze was banned, did people stop drinking it? To some, affirmative action is like booze - they desperately need it to justify their own self-imposed prejudices, so they'll still try it, even if SCOTUS said "nope" because that's just who they are.

If colleges are truly using unconstitutional racial quotas, then all you have to do is sue the shit out of them.

Logging off for now.

Recidivism wrote:If colleges are truly using unconstitutional racial quotas, then all you have to do is sue the shit out of them.

Logging off for now.

Yeah, the Asian-American community's doing that with Harvard. Lawsuit's still buffering. "Just sue them" is not an easy task against a billion dollar institution. That said, Asian American admissions rose by nearly 12% during the lawsuit. What a coincidence!

Also, where did I say that unconstitutional racial quotas never happen? All I ever said was that anybody who did so would get sued. Then again, you are notoriously disingenuous and frequently outright fabricate information, so this is exactly what I would expect from you.

Shofercia wrote:

Recidivism wrote:If colleges are truly using unconstitutional racial quotas, then all you have to do is sue the shit out of them.

Logging off for now.

Yeah, the Asian-American community's doing that with Harvard. Lawsuit's still buffering. "Just sue them" is not an easy task against a billion dollar institution. That said, Asian American admissions rose by nearly 12% during the lawsuit. What a coincidence!

Ok, well that’s the only legal mechanism available. Also, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have some powerful people on their side.

Recidivism wrote:Also, where did I say that unconstitutional racial quotas never happen? All I ever said was that anybody who did so would get sued. Then again, you are notoriously disingenuous and frequently outright fabricate information, so this is exactly what I would expect from you.

Let's review the conversation, as it happened, rather than what happened in your imagination:

Kekistan: Libs will try to "equalize" STEM by setting up strict racial quotas...

Recidivism: No, they won't...

Do you understand what the words "no they won't" mean in that context? Because in that specific context, they mean that Libs won't try to equalize STEM with racial quotes. Kekistan said that Libs will try to attempt to impose racial quotas on STEM, and you said that they won't.

Now you're asking me where you said that unconstitutional racial quotas never happen but nether Kekistan nor I were talking about the racial quotas being unconstitutional. That's simply something that you added in an attempt to move the goal posts, while accusing a fellow poster of being "notoriously disingenuous" - do you always project this heavily Recidivism?

Meh, I don't see any issues with this.

jg

Recidivism wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Yeah, the Asian-American community's doing that with Harvard. Lawsuit's still buffering. "Just sue them" is not an easy task against a billion dollar institution. That said, Asian American admissions rose by nearly 12% during the lawsuit. What a coincidence!

Ok, well that’s the only legal mechanism available. Also, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have some powerful people on their side.

It's actually not. You can always boycott, or write to your local representative asking to investigate the institution, or send letters to the institution's supporters about their actions, etc. There are quite a few things that you can do, that are legal, and don't require thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. Let's not be utilizing NSG to pretend that lawsuits are the only way, in a thread about manholes, eh Recidivism? Oh, here's another thing: you can always elect politicians that will work to ban all sorts of racial considerations. That's also legal.