Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch
- Thread starter joeboosauce
- Start date
[quote name='Msut77']http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/[/QUOTE]
That RPG analogy is pretty spot on.
That RPG analogy is pretty spot on.
^ Spot on and rather good, while also being unnecessary. Thats not to say his analogy is wrong or even inaccurate.
My overall point is when you resort to these sort of fictional concoctions to support a point of factual reality , you'll always end up weakening your own point. If you use The real world in your analogies , you'll always end up on terra firma. And when your point isnt so solid, its probably because you're trying to shove square pegs into round holes to serve your own purpose.(Again , not saying thats what happened here)
You can go back a few pages and change "Billy Bob" to Goebbles and "Gas station" to Gulag , you'll see what I'm gettin' at.
Becomes a completely different "story"
My overall point is when you resort to these sort of fictional concoctions to support a point of factual reality , you'll always end up weakening your own point. If you use The real world in your analogies , you'll always end up on terra firma. And when your point isnt so solid, its probably because you're trying to shove square pegs into round holes to serve your own purpose.(Again , not saying thats what happened here)
You can go back a few pages and change "Billy Bob" to Goebbles and "Gas station" to Gulag , you'll see what I'm gettin' at.
Becomes a completely different "story"
Eh, sometimes you have to play to your audience. You don't go into a classroom full of grade school kids and try to teach them astrophysics from a college text book. I'd rather something get dumbed down then to fly over a lot of heads.
And I know that sounds elitist, but it's true. Some adults are such children that their comprehension is at that level.
And I know that sounds elitist, but it's true. Some adults are such children that their comprehension is at that level.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
My opinion is quite different
[quote name='Clak']Eh, sometimes you have to play to your audience. You don't go into a classroom full of grade school kids and try to teach them astrophysics from a college text book. I'd rather something get dumbed down then to fly over a lot of heads.
And I know that sounds elitist, but it's true. Some adults are such children that their comprehension is at that level.[/QUOTE]
Yep that guy played to you very well. [quote name='Clak']That RPG analogy is pretty spot on.[/QUOTE]
I found it idiotic and insulting to everyone. While you found it "pretty spot on"
"Some" adults are such children that they this find this type of crap pretty spot on so IMO it played to those people and their comprehension level.
edit: It wasn't surprising though that it was so idiotic considering who posted it here and who quoted that post and backed it.
[quote name='Clak']Eh, sometimes you have to play to your audience. You don't go into a classroom full of grade school kids and try to teach them astrophysics from a college text book. I'd rather something get dumbed down then to fly over a lot of heads.
And I know that sounds elitist, but it's true. Some adults are such children that their comprehension is at that level.[/QUOTE]
Yep that guy played to you very well. [quote name='Clak']That RPG analogy is pretty spot on.[/QUOTE]
I found it idiotic and insulting to everyone. While you found it "pretty spot on"
"Some" adults are such children that they this find this type of crap pretty spot on so IMO it played to those people and their comprehension level.
edit: It wasn't surprising though that it was so idiotic considering who posted it here and who quoted that post and backed it.
Last edited:
Well Mr.Clak ,I guess that depends on your definition of what stupid is. Is it the absence of knowledge (unaware of the facts) Or is it an unwillingness to think? Comprehension is another matter.
I watched Black Hawk down over the weekend(Love that movie) Not entirely accurate in its portrayal compared to the book or the engagement itself. Point is: I think the Military is a perfect real world analogy of white privilege.
Within the entire outfit of Task Force Ranger , A unit comprised of soldiers from the 160th Spec Ops, Navy Seals , Seal Team Six Members & AFC operators , theres all of two Black Guys.
Were not talking about an event from some bygone era, like the Tuskegee Airmen. This event is one of histories great engagements that occurred in our generation (1992)
While there isnt any reason to believe that Generals and Commanders in contemporary society believe themselves to be superior . Its evident that to this day , military culture believes young black men are incapable or not-as capable as white men to do that job. Its also evident that while not being overtly racist , those white officers are all beneficiaries of institutionalized racism.
And every once in a while, you get a Colin Powell (or an Obama for that matter) and suddenly all this doesn't exist. But those men are the exception and not the rule
I watched Black Hawk down over the weekend(Love that movie) Not entirely accurate in its portrayal compared to the book or the engagement itself. Point is: I think the Military is a perfect real world analogy of white privilege.
Within the entire outfit of Task Force Ranger , A unit comprised of soldiers from the 160th Spec Ops, Navy Seals , Seal Team Six Members & AFC operators , theres all of two Black Guys.
Were not talking about an event from some bygone era, like the Tuskegee Airmen. This event is one of histories great engagements that occurred in our generation (1992)
While there isnt any reason to believe that Generals and Commanders in contemporary society believe themselves to be superior . Its evident that to this day , military culture believes young black men are incapable or not-as capable as white men to do that job. Its also evident that while not being overtly racist , those white officers are all beneficiaries of institutionalized racism.
And every once in a while, you get a Colin Powell (or an Obama for that matter) and suddenly all this doesn't exist. But those men are the exception and not the rule
I never used the word stupid, but it's a combo of both. Lack of knowledge/understanding and the unwillingness to acquire it. Which I'd say sums a good portion of our society. Which is why complicated things such as this end up being explained with video game analogy, it's the only way to slip it in. Otherwise they roll their eyes thinking "not this again" and you've already lost. Know your audience and adapt. If you were talking to a group of sociologists about it, obviously you wouldn't make such analogies because they wouldn't be needed.
If white is "easy mode" then being part of a protected minority is like playing Forza with driving assists but without the knowledge that the assists are active so you can't be sure it's really you succeeding on your own and it 
s with your psyche (As an aside, I think it should be fully disclosed to the beneficiary of affirmative action that they were hired/selected for a job/college). I wrestle with this issue myself. Did I earn my degree because of the work I did or because my ethnic last name is something the college can show off?
Of course, we're all playing on easy mode when compared to being born in Afghanistan or something.
s with your psyche (As an aside, I think it should be fully disclosed to the beneficiary of affirmative action that they were hired/selected for a job/college). I wrestle with this issue myself. Did I earn my degree because of the work I did or because my ethnic last name is something the college can show off? Of course, we're all playing on easy mode when compared to being born in Afghanistan or something.
[quote name='Clak']I never used the word stupid, but it's a combo of both. Lack of knowledge/understanding and the unwillingness to acquire it. Which I'd say sums a good portion of our society. Which is why complicated things such as this end up being explained with video game analogy, it's the only way to slip it in. Otherwise they roll their eyes thinking "not this again" and you've already lost. Know your audience and adapt. If you were talking to a group of sociologists about it, obviously you wouldn't make such analogies because they wouldn't be needed.[/QUOTE]
Like I said , I dont have a problem with the video game analogy itself or its content. Its an entirely accurate analogy. And I can totally see objectively why you would use it(we're all gamers here)
My Point was , you cant argue with Facts. My post on Mogadishu. Inarguable
I just hope you didnt take anything I said as overtly negative or insulting. I know you didnt use the word stupid, I did
Like I said , I dont have a problem with the video game analogy itself or its content. Its an entirely accurate analogy. And I can totally see objectively why you would use it(we're all gamers here)
My Point was , you cant argue with Facts. My post on Mogadishu. Inarguable
I just hope you didnt take anything I said as overtly negative or insulting. I know you didnt use the word stupid, I did
I love that you guys are so agreeable to an analogy that describes life as "easy" because of your skin color. A lot of white people would beg to differ that they glide through life with little challenge but since they "glide" through life without the challenges of being a minority they are somehow racist?
A white man puts his pants on one leg at a time, the same as a black man. The difference is in the actions of others that affect both men.
A white man puts his pants on one leg at a time, the same as a black man. The difference is in the actions of others that affect both men.
[quote name='Spokker']If white is "easy mode" then being part of a protected minority is like playing Forza with driving assists but without the knowledge that the assists are active so you can't be sure it's really you succeeding on your own and it s with your psyche (As an aside, I think it should be fully disclosed to the beneficiary of affirmative action that they were hired/selected for a job/college). I wrestle with this issue myself. Did I earn my degree because of the work I did or because my ethnic last name is something the college can show off?[/quote]
Affirmative action doesn't work that way and why should it matter if you "earned" the spot or not? The issue is bigger than any one individual and for every affirmative action case, there are probably more than a few legacy cases or large donor cases. Not to mention that most schools want a diverse student body to begin with whether for marketing or otherwise.
Even then, grades or extracurricular activities aren't always representative of the aptitude of a child. A kid that grew up in a wealthy town with the top school district in a state that gets straight A's and has a ton of activities works hard and deserves credit for it just as a kid that lives in the ghetto in one of the worst neighborhoods in a state that gets mediocre grades, but faces poverty, crime, and a host of other things before they even step on school grounds deserves an opportunity too.
And once you're actually in an institution, the color of your skin doesn't mean you'll get a pass or not have to work as hard as white students. More often than not, you have to actually work harder and it gets worse as you go for more advanced degrees. They don't call it the Ivory Tower for nothing.
s with your psyche (As an aside, I think it should be fully disclosed to the beneficiary of affirmative action that they were hired/selected for a job/college). I wrestle with this issue myself. Did I earn my degree because of the work I did or because my ethnic last name is something the college can show off?[/quote]Affirmative action doesn't work that way and why should it matter if you "earned" the spot or not? The issue is bigger than any one individual and for every affirmative action case, there are probably more than a few legacy cases or large donor cases. Not to mention that most schools want a diverse student body to begin with whether for marketing or otherwise.
Even then, grades or extracurricular activities aren't always representative of the aptitude of a child. A kid that grew up in a wealthy town with the top school district in a state that gets straight A's and has a ton of activities works hard and deserves credit for it just as a kid that lives in the ghetto in one of the worst neighborhoods in a state that gets mediocre grades, but faces poverty, crime, and a host of other things before they even step on school grounds deserves an opportunity too.
And once you're actually in an institution, the color of your skin doesn't mean you'll get a pass or not have to work as hard as white students. More often than not, you have to actually work harder and it gets worse as you go for more advanced degrees. They don't call it the Ivory Tower for nothing.
It doesn't make the struggles that people of color experience in the US any less difficult or important.
[quote name='Knoell']I love that you guys are so agreeable to an analogy that describes life as "easy" because of your skin color. A lot of white people would beg to differ that they glide through life with little challenge but since they "glide" through life without the challenges of being a minority they are somehow racist?
A white man puts his pants on one leg at a time, the same as a black man. The difference is in the actions of others that affect both men.[/QUOTE]
The entire history of the US and current statistics along racial lines say otherwise.
No one is saying that anyone "glides" because they're white; just that life is easier with a trend of better outcomes. No one is comparing Billy Bob to Oprah, but if you compare white Billy Bob to black Billy Bob, white Billy Bob will make more money and statistically have a higher chance at a better outcome than black Billy Bob. Just as how white middleclass William Robert will make more money while having more wealth than black middleclass William Robert as well as both having kids with varying degrees of academic success and achievement respectively even if they have the same education level and profession.
A white man puts his pants on one leg at a time, the same as a black man. The difference is in the actions of others that affect both men.[/QUOTE]
The entire history of the US and current statistics along racial lines say otherwise.
No one is saying that anyone "glides" because they're white; just that life is easier with a trend of better outcomes. No one is comparing Billy Bob to Oprah, but if you compare white Billy Bob to black Billy Bob, white Billy Bob will make more money and statistically have a higher chance at a better outcome than black Billy Bob. Just as how white middleclass William Robert will make more money while having more wealth than black middleclass William Robert as well as both having kids with varying degrees of academic success and achievement respectively even if they have the same education level and profession.
[quote name='dohdough']Affirmative action doesn't work that way and why should it matter if you "earned" the spot or not? The issue is bigger than any one individual and for every affirmative action case, there are probably more than a few legacy cases or large donor cases. Not to mention that most schools want a diverse student body to begin with whether for marketing or otherwise.
Even then, grades or extracurricular activities aren't always representative of the aptitude of a child. A kid that grew up in a wealthy town with the top school district in a state that gets straight A's and has a ton of activities works hard and deserves credit for it just as a kid that lives in the ghetto in one of the worst neighborhoods in a state that gets mediocre grades, but faces poverty, crime, and a host of other things before they even step on school grounds deserves an opportunity too.
And once you're actually in an institution, the color of your skin doesn't mean you'll get a pass or not have to work as hard as white students. More often than not, you have to actually work harder and it gets worse as you go for more advanced degrees. They don't call it the Ivory Tower for nothing.
It doesn't make the struggles that people of color experience in the US any less difficult or important.[/QUOTE]
It's a little bit more difficult, IMO, for a white student that comes from a blue collared family who just so happens to make enough money they get NO financial aid but NOT enough money to foot the bill.
That student takes on an unfair amount of debt compared to the hispanic girl who gets a free ride as well as pell grants and other forms of aid to pay for food and room and board.
It sounds stupid but I went to school with kids that planned their degree program out over 6 years because they knew once they graduated the money got cut off and they'd have to pay for their own room and board.
Edit: And I'm not trying to sound like one person is more or less deserving of aid then another; I'm actually really proud of my ex girlfriend from college who came from nothing, wasn't very bright but worked really hard and got her degree and made the most of the opportunity she was given. It is very doubtful that if she hadn't received her vollyeball scholarship or the additional grant and aid that allowed her to study and not have to work she wouldn't have started let alone finishe college.
Even then, grades or extracurricular activities aren't always representative of the aptitude of a child. A kid that grew up in a wealthy town with the top school district in a state that gets straight A's and has a ton of activities works hard and deserves credit for it just as a kid that lives in the ghetto in one of the worst neighborhoods in a state that gets mediocre grades, but faces poverty, crime, and a host of other things before they even step on school grounds deserves an opportunity too.
And once you're actually in an institution, the color of your skin doesn't mean you'll get a pass or not have to work as hard as white students. More often than not, you have to actually work harder and it gets worse as you go for more advanced degrees. They don't call it the Ivory Tower for nothing.
It doesn't make the struggles that people of color experience in the US any less difficult or important.[/QUOTE]
It's a little bit more difficult, IMO, for a white student that comes from a blue collared family who just so happens to make enough money they get NO financial aid but NOT enough money to foot the bill.
That student takes on an unfair amount of debt compared to the hispanic girl who gets a free ride as well as pell grants and other forms of aid to pay for food and room and board.
It sounds stupid but I went to school with kids that planned their degree program out over 6 years because they knew once they graduated the money got cut off and they'd have to pay for their own room and board.
Edit: And I'm not trying to sound like one person is more or less deserving of aid then another; I'm actually really proud of my ex girlfriend from college who came from nothing, wasn't very bright but worked really hard and got her degree and made the most of the opportunity she was given. It is very doubtful that if she hadn't received her vollyeball scholarship or the additional grant and aid that allowed her to study and not have to work she wouldn't have started let alone finishe college.
[quote name='GBAstar']It's a little bit more difficult, IMO, for a white student that comes from a blue collared family who just so happens to make enough money they get NO financial aid but NOT enough money to foot the bill.
That student takes on an unfair amount of debt compared to the hispanic girl who gets a free ride as well as pell grants and other forms of aid to pay for food and room and board.[/QUOTE]
You need to rethink your example. I'd tell you why it's both racist and dumb(not to be confused with it's dumb because it's racist0, but I want to see if you can figure it out yourself.
edit: I don't have a problem discussing problems in regards to the process, but financial aid is a different topic from campus racial climate.
That student takes on an unfair amount of debt compared to the hispanic girl who gets a free ride as well as pell grants and other forms of aid to pay for food and room and board.[/QUOTE]
You need to rethink your example. I'd tell you why it's both racist and dumb(not to be confused with it's dumb because it's racist0, but I want to see if you can figure it out yourself.
Is there something more to this? I don't see what your point you're trying to make when lots of kids take more than 4 years.
Actually, you are arguing that one person is more deserving than the other without understanding why.
edit: I don't have a problem discussing problems in regards to the process, but financial aid is a different topic from campus racial climate.
Should a child from a white family with a single non working parent receive less aid then a child from a (insert race here) family with a single non working parent?
I can't speak for other states but in Maine children of indian (Native American) blood can go to any state university for free regardless of family income status. It doesn't matter if they are full indian or 1/8th. Do you think that should continue in 5 years? 50? 500?
I know some awful things happened to native americans many years ago but we are talking about 17 and 18 year old kids here who weren't part of those events
Edit: Kids whose last names are Smith and haven't set foot on an indian reservation.
Yes but it's different when you're paying your own way. Many of the students I was talking about don't graduate and don't plan on graduating. They are merely occupying their time by going to college on taxpayer money. At what point should that financial burden become the responibility of those students?
Many students who are on academic or athletic scholarships lose that money if they don't meet certain standards. There are also good faith grants and scholarships that have to be PAID BACK if you don't graduate.
I think people become weakend by being given "Gifts".
Do you think it is okay to basically say "Well Kid A was given a lot in life (aka you came from a family with some sort of means) so you should have to pay your way through college while Kid B had a tough life with very little means so we'll let him go to college for free.
Unless kid B has a disability wouldn't he be able to get a job during or after college and pay back his loans just like Kid A?
Let's be honest it is a very small percentage of college students that actually come from families who repay their childrens college debt in full (meaning the student doesn't have to contribuye a dime).
^ No that wasn't my point. She worked hard and finished college. You're making it sound like every person deserves to go to college and have the outside factors adjusted so that they all finish with equal hardship. Those who have a tough life should have their hand held and be given everything along the way and those who had an easy life (meaning $$$) should have pressure put on so that life is hard for them too.
I can't speak for other states but in Maine children of indian (Native American) blood can go to any state university for free regardless of family income status. It doesn't matter if they are full indian or 1/8th. Do you think that should continue in 5 years? 50? 500?
I know some awful things happened to native americans many years ago but we are talking about 17 and 18 year old kids here who weren't part of those events
Edit: Kids whose last names are Smith and haven't set foot on an indian reservation.
Yes but it's different when you're paying your own way. Many of the students I was talking about don't graduate and don't plan on graduating. They are merely occupying their time by going to college on taxpayer money. At what point should that financial burden become the responibility of those students?
Many students who are on academic or athletic scholarships lose that money if they don't meet certain standards. There are also good faith grants and scholarships that have to be PAID BACK if you don't graduate.
I think people become weakend by being given "Gifts".
Do you think it is okay to basically say "Well Kid A was given a lot in life (aka you came from a family with some sort of means) so you should have to pay your way through college while Kid B had a tough life with very little means so we'll let him go to college for free.
Unless kid B has a disability wouldn't he be able to get a job during or after college and pay back his loans just like Kid A?
Let's be honest it is a very small percentage of college students that actually come from families who repay their childrens college debt in full (meaning the student doesn't have to contribuye a dime).
^ No that wasn't my point. She worked hard and finished college. You're making it sound like every person deserves to go to college and have the outside factors adjusted so that they all finish with equal hardship. Those who have a tough life should have their hand held and be given everything along the way and those who had an easy life (meaning $$$) should have pressure put on so that life is hard for them too.
[quote name='dohdough']
And once you're actually in an institution, the color of your skin doesn't mean you'll get a pass or not have to work as hard as white students.
[/QUOTE]That's hard to say when an institution's marketing efforts include boasting about how many people of a certain group they graduate. It's an open question in my view.
And once you're actually in an institution, the color of your skin doesn't mean you'll get a pass or not have to work as hard as white students.
[/QUOTE]That's hard to say when an institution's marketing efforts include boasting about how many people of a certain group they graduate. It's an open question in my view.
[quote name='GBAstar']
That student takes on an unfair amount of debt compared to the hispanic girl who gets a free ride as well as pell grants and other forms of aid to pay for food and room and board.
[/QUOTE]
A side issue to this is another question I have wrestled with over the years. Is it better to be just below the poverty line or just above?
As you explained, if you're just South of the poverty line, you get the grants and the other forms of aid. But if you're North of the poverty line in the middle class, you're not going to get the need-based aid. This is true of other forms of aid as well.
Of course, the aid and low-interest loans, coupled with the "everybody must go to college" mantra, are part of the reason why college is so expensive anyway, but that's another issue.
[quote name='GBAstar']
I can't speak for other states but in Maine children of indian (Native American) blood can go to any state university for free regardless of family income status. It doesn't matter if they are full indian or 1/8th. Do you think that should continue in 5 years? 50? 500?
[/QUOTE]I've wrestled with this question as well. I've actually posed it to several anti-racists from advocacy organizations and they gave me non-answers. Essentially, when the minority is the majority, which will happen at some point, at what point do the equalization efforts stop? Also, if a minority group receives all this assistance and does not advance in the means, do we cease those efforts because they are ineffective or do we continue them out of a sense of guilt? Or is the aid part of what is holding them back?
The general question is this, is there any point where the advocacy stops because the problem goes away? I tend to think television is really representative of the general demographics (proven by acting unions that collect demographic information), but there are still those that call the TV executives and producers racist for their casting decisions. If I were part of some group that advocates for equal representation in media, to give one example, I'd disband the group by now.
That student takes on an unfair amount of debt compared to the hispanic girl who gets a free ride as well as pell grants and other forms of aid to pay for food and room and board.
[/QUOTE]
A side issue to this is another question I have wrestled with over the years. Is it better to be just below the poverty line or just above?
As you explained, if you're just South of the poverty line, you get the grants and the other forms of aid. But if you're North of the poverty line in the middle class, you're not going to get the need-based aid. This is true of other forms of aid as well.
Of course, the aid and low-interest loans, coupled with the "everybody must go to college" mantra, are part of the reason why college is so expensive anyway, but that's another issue.
[quote name='GBAstar']
I can't speak for other states but in Maine children of indian (Native American) blood can go to any state university for free regardless of family income status. It doesn't matter if they are full indian or 1/8th. Do you think that should continue in 5 years? 50? 500?
[/QUOTE]I've wrestled with this question as well. I've actually posed it to several anti-racists from advocacy organizations and they gave me non-answers. Essentially, when the minority is the majority, which will happen at some point, at what point do the equalization efforts stop? Also, if a minority group receives all this assistance and does not advance in the means, do we cease those efforts because they are ineffective or do we continue them out of a sense of guilt? Or is the aid part of what is holding them back?
The general question is this, is there any point where the advocacy stops because the problem goes away? I tend to think television is really representative of the general demographics (proven by acting unions that collect demographic information), but there are still those that call the TV executives and producers racist for their casting decisions. If I were part of some group that advocates for equal representation in media, to give one example, I'd disband the group by now.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='EdRyder']Well Mr.Clak ,I guess that depends on your definition of what stupid is. Is it the absence of knowledge (unaware of the facts) Or is it an unwillingness to think? Comprehension is another matter.
I watched Black Hawk down over the weekend(Love that movie) Not entirely accurate in its portrayal compared to the book or the engagement itself. Point is: I think the Military is a perfect real world analogy of white privilege.
Within the entire outfit of Task Force Ranger , A unit comprised of soldiers from the 160th Spec Ops, Navy Seals , Seal Team Six Members & AFC operators , theres all of two Black Guys.
Were not talking about an event from some bygone era, like the Tuskegee Airmen. This event is one of histories great engagements that occurred in our generation (1992)
While there isnt any reason to believe that Generals and Commanders in contemporary society believe themselves to be superior . Its evident that to this day , military culture believes young black men are incapable or not-as capable as white men to do that job. Its also evident that while not being overtly racist , those white officers are all beneficiaries of institutionalized racism.
And every once in a while, you get a Colin Powell (or an Obama for that matter) and suddenly all this doesn't exist. But those men are the exception and not the rule[/QUOTE]
I actually knew Powell and served in the military. Anyway what you say is a huge load of crap at least in the different areas, deployments, and experience I had.
BTW Colin Powell is pretty much hated and his career was ruined/ended. So not a good example if you take what is known publicly about it and the public view of him because of it.
I watched Black Hawk down over the weekend(Love that movie) Not entirely accurate in its portrayal compared to the book or the engagement itself. Point is: I think the Military is a perfect real world analogy of white privilege.
Within the entire outfit of Task Force Ranger , A unit comprised of soldiers from the 160th Spec Ops, Navy Seals , Seal Team Six Members & AFC operators , theres all of two Black Guys.
Were not talking about an event from some bygone era, like the Tuskegee Airmen. This event is one of histories great engagements that occurred in our generation (1992)
While there isnt any reason to believe that Generals and Commanders in contemporary society believe themselves to be superior . Its evident that to this day , military culture believes young black men are incapable or not-as capable as white men to do that job. Its also evident that while not being overtly racist , those white officers are all beneficiaries of institutionalized racism.
And every once in a while, you get a Colin Powell (or an Obama for that matter) and suddenly all this doesn't exist. But those men are the exception and not the rule[/QUOTE]
I actually knew Powell and served in the military. Anyway what you say is a huge load of crap at least in the different areas, deployments, and experience I had.
BTW Colin Powell is pretty much hated and his career was ruined/ended. So not a good example if you take what is known publicly about it and the public view of him because of it.
Last edited:
[quote name='Spokker']A side issue to this is another question I have wrestled with over the years. Is it better to be just below the poverty line or just above?
As you explained, if you're just South of the poverty line, you get the grants and the other forms of aid. But if you're North of the poverty line in the middle class, you're not going to get the need-based aid. This is true of other forms of aid as well.
Of course, the aid and low-interest loans, coupled with the "everybody must go to college" mantra, are part of the reason why college is so expensive anyway, but that's another issue.[/QUOTE]
Statistically I think it is better financially to have parents who are legally seperated or who were never married; have one who is wealthy and contributes to your childhood and one who is not so you can claim the non wealthy parent on your FASFA forms. Edit: that way you would have a decent childhood (from a $$$ standpoint) but would not have to pay very much, if at all, to go to college.
But no one would do that... would they?
As you explained, if you're just South of the poverty line, you get the grants and the other forms of aid. But if you're North of the poverty line in the middle class, you're not going to get the need-based aid. This is true of other forms of aid as well.
Of course, the aid and low-interest loans, coupled with the "everybody must go to college" mantra, are part of the reason why college is so expensive anyway, but that's another issue.[/QUOTE]
Statistically I think it is better financially to have parents who are legally seperated or who were never married; have one who is wealthy and contributes to your childhood and one who is not so you can claim the non wealthy parent on your FASFA forms. Edit: that way you would have a decent childhood (from a $$$ standpoint) but would not have to pay very much, if at all, to go to college.
But no one would do that... would they?
People are going to game the system no matter what. And many do so legally. The trick is having a system that cannot be gamed. Sometimes the best solution is not to have a system in the first place.
Speaking of school antics that parents pull, I was registered in high school under one parent's address even though I did not live there, so that I could go to a better (in their opinion) high school in the city. They got the idea from other parents in the district. My parents weren't even divorced. They remained legally married even though they were not living together.
People are going to do this when they don't have school choice. People are going to do this when the incentives to marry are distorted by government.
Speaking of school antics that parents pull, I was registered in high school under one parent's address even though I did not live there, so that I could go to a better (in their opinion) high school in the city. They got the idea from other parents in the district. My parents weren't even divorced. They remained legally married even though they were not living together.
People are going to do this when they don't have school choice. People are going to do this when the incentives to marry are distorted by government.
[quote name='Pliskin101']I actually knew Powell and served in the military. Anyway what you say is a huge load of crap at least in the different areas, deployments, and experience I had.
BTW Colin Powell is pretty much hated and his career was ruined/ended. So not a good example if you take what is known publicly about it and the public view of him because of it.[/QUOTE]
First : Prove with facts what I say is Crap. Not with anecdotes of your own personal life experience. Second: I could give less than a shit what you think of Powells accomplishments or how Pliskin views him personally. Your opinion of him doesn't diminish a career of service.
BTW Colin Powell is pretty much hated and his career was ruined/ended. So not a good example if you take what is known publicly about it and the public view of him because of it.[/QUOTE]
First : Prove with facts what I say is Crap. Not with anecdotes of your own personal life experience. Second: I could give less than a shit what you think of Powells accomplishments or how Pliskin views him personally. Your opinion of him doesn't diminish a career of service.
[quote name='GBAstar']Should a child from a white family with a single non working parent receive less aid then a child from a (insert race here) family with a single non working parent?[/QUOTE]
Looks like you can't figure it out, so I'll spell it out for you.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT RACE THEY ARE WHEN FINANCIAL AID IS BASED ON FINANCIAL NEED. The fact that Native Americans are a special case is irrelevant when the population of Native American students in higher education are so low that they get rounded up to 1%.
You know why that blue-collar white family needs private loans? Because they have too much money despite being blue-collar. Swap out white and add Hispanic with the same economic circumstances and you have the exact same result.
If that Hispanic student in your example is getting a free ride, that means that her need dictates her amount of aid according to FAFSA. Swap out Hispanic for white with the same financial circumstances, and once again, you have the exact same result.
Just because something "happened" 500 years ago doesn't mean that the population that it "happened" to isn't still largely negatively affected by it today.
And FYI, each tribe dictates it's own ancestral requirement to be a member.
If you knew how financial aid works, you'd know why most of your examples would never happen.
Looks like you can't figure it out, so I'll spell it out for you.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT RACE THEY ARE WHEN FINANCIAL AID IS BASED ON FINANCIAL NEED. The fact that Native Americans are a special case is irrelevant when the population of Native American students in higher education are so low that they get rounded up to 1%.
You know why that blue-collar white family needs private loans? Because they have too much money despite being blue-collar. Swap out white and add Hispanic with the same economic circumstances and you have the exact same result.
If that Hispanic student in your example is getting a free ride, that means that her need dictates her amount of aid according to FAFSA. Swap out Hispanic for white with the same financial circumstances, and once again, you have the exact same result.
Native Americans, as a group, trend worse than black people and have far worse outcomes than any other racial group by a mile. Like I said, they're less than 1% of the students in higher ed. The amount of funding they get it literally insignificant relative to all the money spent in federal and state grants.
Just because something "happened" 500 years ago doesn't mean that the population that it "happened" to isn't still largely negatively affected by it today.
And FYI, each tribe dictates it's own ancestral requirement to be a member.
So.What. Regardless of their graduation plan, half of all students tend to not graduate from college within 6 years anyways. You know which race composes most of those numbers? White.
Ok...and?
Tell me again how are you not saying that one group is more deserving than another?
This is a completely different issue from access and the student that came from a family with more money/resources will obviously tend to be able to fall back on that whereas the student given the free ride that needed it to begin with, won't.
Irrelevant when we're talking about access.
And you're saying that those that can't pay shouldn't be able to get a higher education at all. You're also comparing people having the most to people having the least while assuming an education makes them even out of college. This is naive and wrong.
If you knew how financial aid works, you'd know why most of your examples would never happen.
[quote name='Spokker']That's hard to say when an institution's marketing efforts include boasting about how many people of a certain group they graduate. It's an open question in my view.[/QUOTE]
That's a completely different issue referencing grade inflation, at which point would help ALL students, not just students of color. Not to mention that students of color are still graded more harshly regardless of any inflation.
That's a completely different issue referencing grade inflation, at which point would help ALL students, not just students of color. Not to mention that students of color are still graded more harshly regardless of any inflation.
[quote name='dohdough']
You know why that blue-collar white family needs private loans? Because they have too much money despite being blue-collar. Swap out white and add Hispanic with the same economic circumstances and you have the exact same result.
If that Hispanic student in your example is getting a free ride, that means that her need dictates her amount of aid according to FAFSA. Swap out Hispanic for white with the same financial circumstances, and once again, you have the exact same result.
[/QUOTE]
Equal treatment but disparate impact. I'm fine with this if it is indeed happening (non-whites having disproportionate access to financial aid over whites despite equal treatment). At the same time, we should be fine with disparate impact despite equal treatment in other parts of society. However, disparate impact is forbidden by Title VII even if there is no discriminatory intent and all people are treated equally.
That's one of the reasons why it's hard to raise fares on public transportation, to give one example, because it would disparately impact minorities and low-income individuals even though in many cases the fare increase is really needed and everybody pays the same fare. The very act of increasing the fare costs money, because you have to go and study the issue thoroughly to comply with the regulations and that just expands the bureaucracy.
Here's an article that has a good grasp of the issue of disparate impact.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/d...he-uniform-guidelines-on-employee-procedures/
[quote name='GBAstar']Is it true that finanicial aid ONLY takes need into account?
What about grants and scholarships?
A quick search shows that their is finacial aid that is awarded based on race[/QUOTE]The FAFSA does not ask questions based on race. There are race-based scholarships available but these are awarded by private groups, and it is their right to do so.
However, institutions themselves have wide discretion in awarding aid, so I don't know where race and ethnicity comes into play there. The issue is so dynamic that I can't even figure out how exactly race plays a role in financial aid, admissions and other stuff. I think the Supreme Court has taken up a case about this but I can't determine if they've ruled yet. The case will be heard this fall.
Interestingly enough, some Asians are neglecting to check off Asian in the race/ethnicity box because they feel it will hurt their chances due to over-representation.
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/about_us/teen_media/what-role-does-race-play-in-college-admissions
This article doesn't even fully answer the question.
You know why that blue-collar white family needs private loans? Because they have too much money despite being blue-collar. Swap out white and add Hispanic with the same economic circumstances and you have the exact same result.
If that Hispanic student in your example is getting a free ride, that means that her need dictates her amount of aid according to FAFSA. Swap out Hispanic for white with the same financial circumstances, and once again, you have the exact same result.
[/QUOTE]
Equal treatment but disparate impact. I'm fine with this if it is indeed happening (non-whites having disproportionate access to financial aid over whites despite equal treatment). At the same time, we should be fine with disparate impact despite equal treatment in other parts of society. However, disparate impact is forbidden by Title VII even if there is no discriminatory intent and all people are treated equally.
That's one of the reasons why it's hard to raise fares on public transportation, to give one example, because it would disparately impact minorities and low-income individuals even though in many cases the fare increase is really needed and everybody pays the same fare. The very act of increasing the fare costs money, because you have to go and study the issue thoroughly to comply with the regulations and that just expands the bureaucracy.
Here's an article that has a good grasp of the issue of disparate impact.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/d...he-uniform-guidelines-on-employee-procedures/
[quote name='GBAstar']Is it true that finanicial aid ONLY takes need into account?
What about grants and scholarships?
A quick search shows that their is finacial aid that is awarded based on race[/QUOTE]The FAFSA does not ask questions based on race. There are race-based scholarships available but these are awarded by private groups, and it is their right to do so.
However, institutions themselves have wide discretion in awarding aid, so I don't know where race and ethnicity comes into play there. The issue is so dynamic that I can't even figure out how exactly race plays a role in financial aid, admissions and other stuff. I think the Supreme Court has taken up a case about this but I can't determine if they've ruled yet. The case will be heard this fall.
Interestingly enough, some Asians are neglecting to check off Asian in the race/ethnicity box because they feel it will hurt their chances due to over-representation.
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/about_us/teen_media/what-role-does-race-play-in-college-admissions
This article doesn't even fully answer the question.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']Is this true?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Especially if you're a woman of color. Lots of professors think students of color are affirmative action cases and can't hack it. It worse in the sciences and graduate studies. If you're in doctoral(non-MD) studies, good luck in finding a supportive adviser.
Yes. Especially if you're a woman of color. Lots of professors think students of color are affirmative action cases and can't hack it. It worse in the sciences and graduate studies. If you're in doctoral(non-MD) studies, good luck in finding a supportive adviser.
[quote name='GBAstar']Is it true that finanicial aid ONLY takes need into account?
What about grants and scholarships?
A quick search shows that their is finacial aid that is awarded based on race[/QUOTE]
You're mixing up terms. Federal and state grants are solely based on income. Private grants are completely different and you can't compare the two.
Like I said, you seriously need to learn about how financial aid works.
What about grants and scholarships?
A quick search shows that their is finacial aid that is awarded based on race[/QUOTE]
You're mixing up terms. Federal and state grants are solely based on income. Private grants are completely different and you can't compare the two.
Like I said, you seriously need to learn about how financial aid works.
[quote name='dohdough']You're mixing up terms. Federal and state grants are solely based on income. Private grants are completely different and you can't compare the two.
Like I said, you seriously need to learn about how financial aid works.[/QUOTE]
Also, there are perhaps 30 people (give or take) in the entire country who get totally full rides any more
Like I said, you seriously need to learn about how financial aid works.[/QUOTE]
Also, there are perhaps 30 people (give or take) in the entire country who get totally full rides any more
[quote name='dohdough']Yes. Especially if you're a woman of color. Lots of professors think students of color are affirmative action cases and can't hack it.[/QUOTE]Another consequence of affirmative action. Many will not go to a black doctor for the same reason. They would otherwise have zero problem going to a black doctor in the absence of affirmative action.
I probably can't afford a white or Jewish doctor, but I'm not going to a doctor on MLK Blvd., suffice to say.
I probably can't afford a white or Jewish doctor, but I'm not going to a doctor on MLK Blvd., suffice to say.
I found some stats if a blog post is good enough for you all, though the author is an economist with a libertarian slant, so some of you won't like it. However, in the excerpt below he is using another organization's data, an organization that believes the current financial aid system is racist and broken.
http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com/2006/10/financial-aid-and-race-overuse-of-r.html
http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com/2006/10/financial-aid-and-race-overuse-of-r.html
Later in the post, he touches on something I've suspected for some time. While Hispanics are more valuable in the diversity game than whites (with Asians fast becoming the least valuable), a black student is much more valuable than a Hispanic student for diversity cred. This is negatively correlated with the mean high school performance of the four broadly defined groups. Asians do best, then whites, then Hispanics, then blacks.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='EdRyder']First : Prove with facts what I say is Crap. Not with anecdotes of your own personal life experience. Second: I could give less than a shit what you think of Powells accomplishments or how Pliskin views him personally. Your opinion of him doesn't diminish a career of service.[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't give my personal or professional opinion of Powell please quote where I did. Also Did I talk about his accomplishments or even my opinion on them?
If you want to get into a discussion about Powell and how he diminished his own career or anything else about him please bring it.
Moving on...
Were you in the military ever?
Back up with facts your Bullshit about white privilege in the military. I am not talking about fifty years ago but you can start there if you want to but end with current military. Talking about a movie or book or Mogadishu is not backing that up. When you are done backing that up then maybe we can talk about what so-called white privilege (in and out of the military) REALLY is and not discuss some IDIOTIC link that an idiot posted here and another idiot backed up.
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't give my personal or professional opinion of Powell please quote where I did. Also Did I talk about his accomplishments or even my opinion on them?
If you want to get into a discussion about Powell and how he diminished his own career or anything else about him please bring it.
Moving on...
Were you in the military ever?
Back up with facts your Bullshit about white privilege in the military. I am not talking about fifty years ago but you can start there if you want to but end with current military. Talking about a movie or book or Mogadishu is not backing that up. When you are done backing that up then maybe we can talk about what so-called white privilege (in and out of the military) REALLY is and not discuss some IDIOTIC link that an idiot posted here and another idiot backed up.
[quote name='Pliskin101']What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't give my personal or professional opinion of Powell please quote where I did. Also Did I talk about his accomplishments or even my opinion on them?
If you want to get into a discussion about Powell and how he diminished his own career or anything else about him please bring it.
Moving on...
Were you in the military ever?
Back up with facts your Bullshit about white privilege in the military. I am not talking about fifty years ago but you can start there if you want to but end with current military. Talking about a movie or book or Mogadishu is not backing that up. [/QUOTE]
Ok, Maybe I misenterpreted this
As for the second part: My "bullshit" already is fact.
To my knowledge , nothing I related in the post was inaccurate.
Whenever you care to refute any of it, I'm more than willing to listen.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be under the impression that "I was in the Military" somehow magically refutes all of my statements
Or is it just easier to say I'm "full of Crap" ?
I didn't give my personal or professional opinion of Powell please quote where I did. Also Did I talk about his accomplishments or even my opinion on them?
If you want to get into a discussion about Powell and how he diminished his own career or anything else about him please bring it.
Moving on...
Were you in the military ever?
Back up with facts your Bullshit about white privilege in the military. I am not talking about fifty years ago but you can start there if you want to but end with current military. Talking about a movie or book or Mogadishu is not backing that up. [/QUOTE]
Ok, Maybe I misenterpreted this
If that's the case, I apologize.
As for the second part: My "bullshit" already is fact.
To my knowledge , nothing I related in the post was inaccurate.
Whenever you care to refute any of it, I'm more than willing to listen.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be under the impression that "I was in the Military" somehow magically refutes all of my statements
Or is it just easier to say I'm "full of Crap" ?
[quote name='Spokker']Equal treatment but disparate impact. I'm fine with this if it is indeed happening (non-whites having disproportionate access to financial aid over whites despite equal treatment). At the same time, we should be fine with disparate impact despite equal treatment in other parts of society. However, disparate impact is forbidden by Title VII even if there is no discriminatory intent and all people are treated equally.
That's one of the reasons why it's hard to raise fares on public transportation, to give one example, because it would disparately impact minorities and low-income individuals even though in many cases the fare increase is really needed and everybody pays the same fare. The very act of increasing the fare costs money, because you have to go and study the issue thoroughly to comply with the regulations and that just expands the bureaucracy.
Here's an article that has a good grasp of the issue.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/d...he-uniform-guidelines-on-employee-procedures/
[/QUOTE]
I'm only go to as far as to say that I agree in respect to financial aid to promote access to higher education.
That's one of the reasons why it's hard to raise fares on public transportation, to give one example, because it would disparately impact minorities and low-income individuals even though in many cases the fare increase is really needed and everybody pays the same fare. The very act of increasing the fare costs money, because you have to go and study the issue thoroughly to comply with the regulations and that just expands the bureaucracy.
Here's an article that has a good grasp of the issue.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/d...he-uniform-guidelines-on-employee-procedures/
[/QUOTE]
I'm only go to as far as to say that I agree in respect to financial aid to promote access to higher education.
Institutions aren't able to give money to whoever they want based on race. The government simply acts as the payee on a student's account. Nothing more. Financial aid departments have a mechanism in place for special circumstances such as deaths, layoffs, etc to make adjustments to financial aid packages, but that's still federal/state money. Departmental grants are different because they tend to be obtained by the faculty themselves to get research assistants, interns, etc.
That's because the answer is racism. It's white people that complain about there being too many Asians at a school. This was the case at Berkeley and University of Toronto.
[quote name='Spokker']Another consequence of affirmative action. Many will not go to a black doctor for the same reason. They would otherwise have zero problem going to a black doctor in the absence of affirmative action.
I probably can't afford a white or Jewish doctor, but I'm not going to a doctor on MLK Blvd., suffice to say.[/QUOTE]
No, it's actually racism, not affirmative action, that's the problem. To assume that someone is unqualified because of race by proxy of affirmative action is inherently racist.
Chinese doctors also tend to have it worse than black doctors.
[quote name='Spokker']I found some stats if a blog post is good enough for you all, though the author is an economist with a libertarian slant, so some of you won't like it. However, in the excerpt below he is using another organization's data, an organization that believes the current financial aid system is racist and broken.
http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com/2006/10/financial-aid-and-race-overuse-of-r.html
[/quote]
Use of "income" is misleading when income isn't the only metric for getting financial aid, so I'm going to have to call bullshit unless you want to provide a source the the newsletter cited.
I probably can't afford a white or Jewish doctor, but I'm not going to a doctor on MLK Blvd., suffice to say.[/QUOTE]
No, it's actually racism, not affirmative action, that's the problem. To assume that someone is unqualified because of race by proxy of affirmative action is inherently racist.
Chinese doctors also tend to have it worse than black doctors.
[quote name='Spokker']I found some stats if a blog post is good enough for you all, though the author is an economist with a libertarian slant, so some of you won't like it. However, in the excerpt below he is using another organization's data, an organization that believes the current financial aid system is racist and broken.
http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com/2006/10/financial-aid-and-race-overuse-of-r.html
[/quote]
Use of "income" is misleading when income isn't the only metric for getting financial aid, so I'm going to have to call bullshit unless you want to provide a source the the newsletter cited.
What you're missing here is that there's no distinction between people of color that were born here and international students.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='EdRyder']Ok, Maybe I misenterpreted this If that's the case, I apologize.
As for the second part: My "bullshit" already is fact.
To my knowledge , nothing I related in the post was inaccurate.
Whenever you care to refute any of it, I'm more than willing to listen.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be under the impression that "I was in the Military" somehow magically refutes all of my statements
Or is it just easier to say I'm "full of Crap" ?[/QUOTE]
Yes you did misinterpret that line and I accept your apology.
I apologize for coming off very angry and condescending as I was and am more disappointed in you making a white privilege in the military statement with anything to back it up. First you said you think after talking about black hawk down now I think you are saying it is fact. It is not FACT and I am disappointed that you would make such a blanket statement without backing it up with anything substantial and now are going to put it off on me to prove otherwise. Are you going to play that childish game?
"Were you in the military ever?
Back up with facts your statement about white privilege in the military. I am not talking about fifty years ago but you can start there if you want to but end with current military. Talking about a movie or book or Mogadishu is not backing that up."
And no I am not under the impression my EXPERIENCE statement refutes your blanket false statement just as your making a false unsubstantiated statement and now saying it is fact does not make it so.
As for the second part: My "bullshit" already is fact.
To my knowledge , nothing I related in the post was inaccurate.
Whenever you care to refute any of it, I'm more than willing to listen.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be under the impression that "I was in the Military" somehow magically refutes all of my statements
Or is it just easier to say I'm "full of Crap" ?[/QUOTE]
Yes you did misinterpret that line and I accept your apology.
I apologize for coming off very angry and condescending as I was and am more disappointed in you making a white privilege in the military statement with anything to back it up. First you said you think after talking about black hawk down now I think you are saying it is fact. It is not FACT and I am disappointed that you would make such a blanket statement without backing it up with anything substantial and now are going to put it off on me to prove otherwise. Are you going to play that childish game?
"Were you in the military ever?
Back up with facts your statement about white privilege in the military. I am not talking about fifty years ago but you can start there if you want to but end with current military. Talking about a movie or book or Mogadishu is not backing that up."
And no I am not under the impression my EXPERIENCE statement refutes your blanket false statement just as your making a false unsubstantiated statement and now saying it is fact does not make it so.
Last edited:
[quote name='Msut77']Also, there are perhaps 30 people (give or take) in the entire country who get totally full rides any more[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, this isn't true and I'm glad it isn't. The Gates Millennium Scholars program supports 1000 students per year. Boston University also offers free rides to 4-7 students at every high school in the Boston Public School system every year.
Unfortunately, this isn't true and I'm glad it isn't. The Gates Millennium Scholars program supports 1000 students per year. Boston University also offers free rides to 4-7 students at every high school in the Boston Public School system every year.
Dude , I do apologize and it was sincere. But dont go over the line. If You're at all intellectually honest and objective then you can easily see how I interpreted that statement as disparaging.
And as for the rest of it. I need you to point out a specific example in my post.
I didnt go back 50 years ago. I went back 19 years ago.
You continually make the claim that you're the only adult in the room. Yet all you're contributing to the discussion is "Its Bullshit" and "You're full of Crap" While also making a claim that somehow IM the one playin a childish game
What specifically in what I wrote is bullshit?
And dont say "all of it"
When you're asking me to "back up" my own claims: Its as if you're asking me to debate myself. You have to contribute to the debate , otherwise you're the one here thats five, guy
Me saying its fact does not make make it so: Fine. You saying its bullshit without citing a specific example doesn't make it so.
I made the claim that white privilege in the military is an excellent source example.
I used the battle of Mogadishu to back up my claim.
Do you just not "like" my example and would prefer I used a different one?
Is this whats really going on here.... That what I wrote might've just rubbed you the wrong way because you were in the Military
And as for the rest of it. I need you to point out a specific example in my post.
I didnt go back 50 years ago. I went back 19 years ago.
You continually make the claim that you're the only adult in the room. Yet all you're contributing to the discussion is "Its Bullshit" and "You're full of Crap" While also making a claim that somehow IM the one playin a childish game
What specifically in what I wrote is bullshit?
And dont say "all of it"
When you're asking me to "back up" my own claims: Its as if you're asking me to debate myself. You have to contribute to the debate , otherwise you're the one here thats five, guy
Me saying its fact does not make make it so: Fine. You saying its bullshit without citing a specific example doesn't make it so.
I made the claim that white privilege in the military is an excellent source example.
I used the battle of Mogadishu to back up my claim.
Do you just not "like" my example and would prefer I used a different one?
Is this whats really going on here.... That what I wrote might've just rubbed you the wrong way because you were in the Military
[quote name='dohdough']
That's because the answer is racism. It's white people that complain about there being too many Asians at a school. This was the case at Berkeley and University of Toronto.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure that it's racism. I think it's the goals of diversity hurting a group other than whites. The answer might be that, if judged strictly on a merit-based system, Asians would be massively over-represented in college relative to their representation in the population. And the vast majority probably deserve to be there based on strong academic performance. But in order to admit more black and Hispanic students, qualified Asian students would have to be turned down. There is that perception that they are for this reason.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/educat...sian-students-college-applications/51620236/1
[quote name='dohdough']No, it's actually racism, not affirmative action, that's the problem. To assume that someone is unqualified because of race by proxy of affirmative action is inherently racist.
Chinese doctors also tend to have it worse than black doctors. [/quote]
The problem is information asymmetry. In the market for choosing a doctor (or choosing a specific person to perform any service) you cannot go and look up whether or not the individual benefit from affirmative action and is less qualified than someone who did not benefit from AA. Because doctors deal in life and death, you err on the side of caution, and avoid black doctors. Government policies, in essence, have incentivized racism.
In regard to Chinese (and Asian doctors, especially Indian ones), could it also be nationalistic? Someone may choose a doctor with an American-sounding name in the hopes that they do not get a doctor that has a thick accent that came from another country. It could be sort of like a "Buy American" thing. It could also be frustration that Asians are passing Americans by.
That's because the answer is racism. It's white people that complain about there being too many Asians at a school. This was the case at Berkeley and University of Toronto.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure that it's racism. I think it's the goals of diversity hurting a group other than whites. The answer might be that, if judged strictly on a merit-based system, Asians would be massively over-represented in college relative to their representation in the population. And the vast majority probably deserve to be there based on strong academic performance. But in order to admit more black and Hispanic students, qualified Asian students would have to be turned down. There is that perception that they are for this reason.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/educat...sian-students-college-applications/51620236/1
I say let them all in. If we let the chips fall where they may, and Asian students are massively over-represented in higher education, that's the way it should be. To do it any other way, to fulfill racial quotas for instance, is to jeopardize the academic future of the country. I think if we really did judge students solely by merit, colleges would be nothing but Nguyens and Guptas. I think the proportion of whites would drop too (and it is), as they forgot how to do long division years ago. Here's a good rant that encapsulates how I feel about the subject.
[quote name='dohdough']No, it's actually racism, not affirmative action, that's the problem. To assume that someone is unqualified because of race by proxy of affirmative action is inherently racist.
Chinese doctors also tend to have it worse than black doctors. [/quote]
The problem is information asymmetry. In the market for choosing a doctor (or choosing a specific person to perform any service) you cannot go and look up whether or not the individual benefit from affirmative action and is less qualified than someone who did not benefit from AA. Because doctors deal in life and death, you err on the side of caution, and avoid black doctors. Government policies, in essence, have incentivized racism.
In regard to Chinese (and Asian doctors, especially Indian ones), could it also be nationalistic? Someone may choose a doctor with an American-sounding name in the hopes that they do not get a doctor that has a thick accent that came from another country. It could be sort of like a "Buy American" thing. It could also be frustration that Asians are passing Americans by.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']I'm not so sure that it's racism. I think it's the goals of diversity hurting a group other than whites. The answer might be that, if judged strictly on a merit-based system, Asians would be massively over-represented in college relative to their representation in the population (which is probably what happened). And the vast majority probably deserve to be there based on strong academic performance. But in order to admit more black and Hispanic students, qualified Asian students would have to be turned down.[/QUOTE]
The reason why Asians started getting admitted at the rate that they were was because California ended affirmative action. Why? Because some white dude named Bakke got pissed because he got rejected form UC. It has everything to do with whites "getting hurt" and absolutely nothing to do with admitting more black and Hispanic students. It's not a coincidence that it's only whites that always bring up cases like this. The proposal at the time to end the Yellow Peril wouldn't have helped black and Hispanic students at all and would've just cut the number of Asian students while admitting more white students.
Either way, this was big news like 5 years ago and white students in the UC system still outnumber every other racial group.
The reason why it's racist is because the finger for "taking someone's spot" is always pointed at some black or Hispanic kid for having lower scores all while ignoring all the legacy cases or other white students that had equally lower scores. It's aing farce and steeped in racism because those the argument is always that those damned minorities didn't earn their place there.
Asians are also proportionally represented as a group in higher education and only over-represented in very few select schools and areas. And why don't you define "massively over-represented" for me.
ing racist. How can you not understand this?
The reason why Asians started getting admitted at the rate that they were was because California ended affirmative action. Why? Because some white dude named Bakke got pissed because he got rejected form UC. It has everything to do with whites "getting hurt" and absolutely nothing to do with admitting more black and Hispanic students. It's not a coincidence that it's only whites that always bring up cases like this. The proposal at the time to end the Yellow Peril wouldn't have helped black and Hispanic students at all and would've just cut the number of Asian students while admitting more white students.
Either way, this was big news like 5 years ago and white students in the UC system still outnumber every other racial group.
The reason why it's racist is because the finger for "taking someone's spot" is always pointed at some black or Hispanic kid for having lower scores all while ignoring all the legacy cases or other white students that had equally lower scores. It's a
ing farce and steeped in racism because those the argument is always that those damned minorities didn't earn their place there.The academic future of this country is not doomed by affirmative action and the rant is dumb as shit, plays on stereotypes, and completely ignores that the reason why jobs were going overseas is strictly to exploit labor.
Asians are also proportionally represented as a group in higher education and only over-represented in very few select schools and areas. And why don't you define "massively over-represented" for me.
Assuming a black doctor is a product of affirmative action and therefore not qualified is
ing racist. How can you not understand this?It has nothing to do with "buy American." It's racist to think that someone with a foreign sounding name can't speak english or that they went to a podunk school in a developing country. It's not as if someone can just come over and just start practicing. They need to get licensed and for that, you need more than an elementary understanding of the english language.
[quote name='dohdough']
Asians are also proportionally represented as a group in higher education and only over-represented in very few select schools and areas.[/quote]Asians are over-represented at schools that do not ask about race and ethnicity (obviously, Asians must live in the region for this to happen).
Also, I'm not sure how Bakke would have helped whites. The proportion of whites enrolled in higher education (including the above mentioned system) is trending downward. And you don't need affirmative action to foster "diversity," whatever that is. California outlawed it as far as higher education goes in 1996.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-lehrer-affirmativeaction-20100712
Asians are also proportionally represented as a group in higher education and only over-represented in very few select schools and areas.[/quote]Asians are over-represented at schools that do not ask about race and ethnicity (obviously, Asians must live in the region for this to happen).
The University of California system.
Also, I'm not sure how Bakke would have helped whites. The proportion of whites enrolled in higher education (including the above mentioned system) is trending downward. And you don't need affirmative action to foster "diversity," whatever that is. California outlawed it as far as higher education goes in 1996.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-lehrer-affirmativeaction-20100712
By the way...
There's no way to know. When you're going in for surgery, being labeled a racist is the least of your worries. However, if they graduated from a California public college since 1996, which have had affirmative action outlawed for them, there's no need to worry because of Proposition 209. I would still worry, however, because UC schools still get around the law in many ways, and those methods tend to favor Hispanic students I suspect. These outside factors would make up about 25% of the point system score used to rank applications for admission.Assuming a black doctor is a product of affirmative action and therefore not qualified is
Last edited by a moderator:
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='EdRyder']Dude , I do apologize and it was sincere. But dont go over the line. If You're at all intellectually honest and objective then you can easily see how I interpreted that statement as disparaging.
And as for the rest of it. I need you to point out a specific example in my post.
I didnt go back 50 years ago. I went back 19 years ago.
You continually make the claim that you're the only adult in the room. Yet all you're contributing to the discussion is "Its Bullshit" and "You're full of Crap" While also making a claim that somehow IM the one playin a childish game
What specifically in what I wrote is bullshit?
And dont say "all of it"
When you're asking me to "back up" my own claims: Its as if you're asking me to debate myself. You have to contribute to the debate , otherwise you're the one here thats five, guy
Me saying its fact does not make make it so: Fine. You saying its bullshit without citing a specific example doesn't make it so.
I made the claim that white privilege in the military is an excellent source example.
I used the battle of Mogadishu to back up my claim.
Do you just not "like" my example and would prefer I used a different one?
Is this whats really going on here.... That what I wrote might've just rubbed you the wrong way because you were in the Military[/QUOTE]
I accepted your apology and did so nicely I did not go over the line in accepting it in any way. By you saying that makes me think that it was not sincere. Also I did not call you a child (but you did me) I did say that you throwing out a huge statement/claim about white privilege in the military as FACT with NOTHING to back it up and then asking me to prove it was a childish game that you are choosing especially if you continue along those lines. Which you have. If you think it isn't then we disagree.
Your statement is opinion not fact (which you did say) and you have offered nothing to back it up and don't act dumb I already said what I thought was BS specifically and you have acknowledged it here.
But lets play anyway. First your white privilege statement by itself is nothing. Second the Mogadishu demographics you offered is nothing addressing the statement about white privilege either. That is not an example of anything.
I have to ASSUME what you are thinking and why? That leaves me at a disadvantage as only you know what you are thinking and why except for the blanket statement and a reference to Mogadishu.
So okay I will try. Maybe you are saying that because by stats historically after 1970 that more (at most times) white people are on the frontlines (GRUNTS or the shitty jobs) and die on the frontlines than black people and that also more black people serve in (proportional or representational wise) administration and support roles than whites in comparison to those frontlines and that is somehow white privilege (I am talking proportionally/representational)?
Or that enlisted troops are slightly more likely to be white then black?
Or that in the officer corps that blacks are slightly overrepresented (but has been in decline since about 2003 but there are many factors why) and whites are proportionally underrepresented?
Or that enlisted come mainly from middle to upper middle class and are overrepresented while low-income is underrepresented?
Education maybe? But that perception is wrong as enlisted military are not poorly educated.
Maybe something along the lines of culture and city enlistees vs country enlistees and the difference in the onset of military skill sets such as shooting and survival etc?
So which of the above supports your claim of white privledge? Do tell.
I can go on but it is a guessing game as to why you made such a crazy statement with no facts or even some bs philosophy or theory or anything else for that matter to back it up but still claim it and claim it as fact.
Again is it a white privilege that the proportions/representation (white and black) of combat (the shitty jobs) troops and deaths are not proportional/representative and are in favor of black people in most of military history since 1970?
So do you have something to actually say other than your crazy statement and weird reference that means NOTHING at all or do you just want to stick with your claim and belief "just because" or "just because you say so"?
edit: would you prefer more black people die in proportion/representation to their numbers rather than being the ones by numbers making the smarter career choices at the onset that helps them in and out of the military?
And as for the rest of it. I need you to point out a specific example in my post.
I didnt go back 50 years ago. I went back 19 years ago.
You continually make the claim that you're the only adult in the room. Yet all you're contributing to the discussion is "Its Bullshit" and "You're full of Crap" While also making a claim that somehow IM the one playin a childish game
What specifically in what I wrote is bullshit?
And dont say "all of it"
When you're asking me to "back up" my own claims: Its as if you're asking me to debate myself. You have to contribute to the debate , otherwise you're the one here thats five, guy
Me saying its fact does not make make it so: Fine. You saying its bullshit without citing a specific example doesn't make it so.
I made the claim that white privilege in the military is an excellent source example.
I used the battle of Mogadishu to back up my claim.
Do you just not "like" my example and would prefer I used a different one?
Is this whats really going on here.... That what I wrote might've just rubbed you the wrong way because you were in the Military[/QUOTE]
I accepted your apology and did so nicely I did not go over the line in accepting it in any way. By you saying that makes me think that it was not sincere. Also I did not call you a child (but you did me) I did say that you throwing out a huge statement/claim about white privilege in the military as FACT with NOTHING to back it up and then asking me to prove it was a childish game that you are choosing especially if you continue along those lines. Which you have. If you think it isn't then we disagree.
Your statement is opinion not fact (which you did say) and you have offered nothing to back it up and don't act dumb I already said what I thought was BS specifically and you have acknowledged it here.
But lets play anyway. First your white privilege statement by itself is nothing. Second the Mogadishu demographics you offered is nothing addressing the statement about white privilege either. That is not an example of anything.
I have to ASSUME what you are thinking and why? That leaves me at a disadvantage as only you know what you are thinking and why except for the blanket statement and a reference to Mogadishu.
So okay I will try. Maybe you are saying that because by stats historically after 1970 that more (at most times) white people are on the frontlines (GRUNTS or the shitty jobs) and die on the frontlines than black people and that also more black people serve in (proportional or representational wise) administration and support roles than whites in comparison to those frontlines and that is somehow white privilege (I am talking proportionally/representational)?
Or that enlisted troops are slightly more likely to be white then black?
Or that in the officer corps that blacks are slightly overrepresented (but has been in decline since about 2003 but there are many factors why) and whites are proportionally underrepresented?
Or that enlisted come mainly from middle to upper middle class and are overrepresented while low-income is underrepresented?
Education maybe? But that perception is wrong as enlisted military are not poorly educated.
Maybe something along the lines of culture and city enlistees vs country enlistees and the difference in the onset of military skill sets such as shooting and survival etc?
So which of the above supports your claim of white privledge? Do tell.
I can go on but it is a guessing game as to why you made such a crazy statement with no facts or even some bs philosophy or theory or anything else for that matter to back it up but still claim it and claim it as fact.
Again is it a white privilege that the proportions/representation (white and black) of combat (the shitty jobs) troops and deaths are not proportional/representative and are in favor of black people in most of military history since 1970?
So do you have something to actually say other than your crazy statement and weird reference that means NOTHING at all or do you just want to stick with your claim and belief "just because" or "just because you say so"?
edit: would you prefer more black people die in proportion/representation to their numbers rather than being the ones by numbers making the smarter career choices at the onset that helps them in and out of the military?
Last edited:
[quote name='Spokker']
The problem is information asymmetry. In the market for choosing a doctor (or choosing a specific person to perform any service) you cannot go and look up whether or not the individual benefit from affirmative action and is less qualified than someone who did not benefit from AA. Because doctors deal in life and death, you err on the side of caution, and avoid black doctors. Government policies, in essence, have incentivized racism.
[/QUOTE]
You have don't know how your doctor, regardless of race, got into college or medical school or how well they did in their classes. All you know is that they graduated. Maybe your doctor was the son or daughter of a rich donor or was admitted as a legacy student. Maybe he or she was at the bottom of the class and barely passed. Do you worry about these things when choosing a doctor? Why is affirmative action such a concern?
If a black doctor did initially get admitted to a university through affirmative actin and then went on to finish medical school, isn't that an example of affirmative action working?
I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. I think it's unfortunate when a student is admitted to a university through affirmative action, but they end up dropping out because they really weren't prepared. However, I don't have a problem with a student who takes the chance that they were given and goes on to be successful.
The problem is information asymmetry. In the market for choosing a doctor (or choosing a specific person to perform any service) you cannot go and look up whether or not the individual benefit from affirmative action and is less qualified than someone who did not benefit from AA. Because doctors deal in life and death, you err on the side of caution, and avoid black doctors. Government policies, in essence, have incentivized racism.
[/QUOTE]
You have don't know how your doctor, regardless of race, got into college or medical school or how well they did in their classes. All you know is that they graduated. Maybe your doctor was the son or daughter of a rich donor or was admitted as a legacy student. Maybe he or she was at the bottom of the class and barely passed. Do you worry about these things when choosing a doctor? Why is affirmative action such a concern?
If a black doctor did initially get admitted to a university through affirmative actin and then went on to finish medical school, isn't that an example of affirmative action working?
I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. I think it's unfortunate when a student is admitted to a university through affirmative action, but they end up dropping out because they really weren't prepared. However, I don't have a problem with a student who takes the chance that they were given and goes on to be successful.
[quote name='chiwii']You have don't know how your doctor, regardless of race, got into college or medical school or how well they did in their classes. All you know is that they graduated. Maybe your doctor was the son or daughter of a rich donor or was admitted as a legacy student. Maybe he or she was at the bottom of the class and barely passed. Do you worry about these things when choosing a doctor? Why is affirmative action such a concern?
[/QUOTE]
This can be a concern when you are looking at elite private colleges, but I wouldn't worry about it when talking about public colleges, even the highly selective ones, which are probably not very interested in legacy admits.
However, the vast majority of whites will never receive legacy consideration, even in the highly selective private schools. Affirmative action would or has had a much broader target. Every non-white that applies would benefit under AA if the policy is in effect in some way. Playing the odds, you'd worry more about your black doctor being an affirmative action admit/graduate than a legacy admit/graduate, if you are inclined to worry about that sort of thing. In other words, legacy consideration only benefits a select few upper-class, not all whites, not even close to all whites. AA benefits all blacks, or Hispanics, or whatever you want to boost your institution's diversity credentials.
But like I said, I go to the low-cost Latino doctor because that is what I can afford. But I'm still young. My goal in life is to be worked on by a Jewish doctor. I pin a picture of Larry Greenberg, M.D. on the wall behind my monitor to inspire me from time to time.
[/QUOTE]
This can be a concern when you are looking at elite private colleges, but I wouldn't worry about it when talking about public colleges, even the highly selective ones, which are probably not very interested in legacy admits.
However, the vast majority of whites will never receive legacy consideration, even in the highly selective private schools. Affirmative action would or has had a much broader target. Every non-white that applies would benefit under AA if the policy is in effect in some way. Playing the odds, you'd worry more about your black doctor being an affirmative action admit/graduate than a legacy admit/graduate, if you are inclined to worry about that sort of thing. In other words, legacy consideration only benefits a select few upper-class, not all whites, not even close to all whites. AA benefits all blacks, or Hispanics, or whatever you want to boost your institution's diversity credentials.
But like I said, I go to the low-cost Latino doctor because that is what I can afford. But I'm still young. My goal in life is to be worked on by a Jewish doctor. I pin a picture of Larry Greenberg, M.D. on the wall behind my monitor to inspire me from time to time.
[quote name='Spokker']Asians are over-represented at schools that do not ask about race and ethnicity (obviously, Asians must live in the region for this to happen). [/quote]
How is this different from what I said?
Btw, we don't need to eliminate affirmative action to see what would happen to the diversity of a vast majority of schools, we'd only need to look at history. And it tells us that it'll be filled with well-off white kids.
You're also still operating on the racist premise that affirmative action automatically equals bad. If that one doctor benefitted from affirmative action and is representative of all affirmative action beneficiaries, then we'd see a huge trend of white female doctors losing their licenses left and right because white females are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action as a group.
How is this different from what I said?
This isn't a definition. I asked how many Asians would be too much.
Enrollment as a percentage of the student body is down, yet there's a 25% increase in white freshmen admits, which translates into 4000 more whites. Sorry, but if you're going to play with numbers with me, you shouldn't provide numbers, use fuzzy math, and make disengenuous points. If anything, increasing the size of classes has much more to do with it.
Btw, we don't need to eliminate affirmative action to see what would happen to the diversity of a vast majority of schools, we'd only need to look at history. And it tells us that it'll be filled with well-off white kids.
No source again? Gonna call bullshit on that one because affirmative action doesn't work that way. There is no "spot," just spots in general and the UC system isn't representative of the higher ed system.
You're also still operating on the racist premise that affirmative action automatically equals bad. If that one doctor benefitted from affirmative action and is representative of all affirmative action beneficiaries, then we'd see a huge trend of white female doctors losing their licenses left and right because white females are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action as a group.
[quote name='Spokker']This can be a concern when you are looking at elite private colleges, but I wouldn't worry about it when talking about public colleges, even the highly selective ones, which are probably not very interested in legacy admits.[/quote]
That is one ridiculous statement. Public colleges are absolutely interested in legacy students, especially selective ones. Legacy usually translates into donations. Any noob admissions counselor could tell you that.
That is one ridiculous statement. Public colleges are absolutely interested in legacy students, especially selective ones. Legacy usually translates into donations. Any noob admissions counselor could tell you that.
What makes you think that all the white students are equally qualified to be at those institutions? You think that there aren't white students that don't have similar applications to affirmative action admits? Hell, those white students probably outnumber them.
There's racial humor and then there's racist humor. This is the latter. You are par for course.
bread's done