Take the Political Personality Test.

Traditional Liberal

Though affirmative action is tricky, a fine line between what's technically right and what's best. Is it right to give someone an advantage just because the color of their skin? No. But, giving advantages to poor people go towards helping lower poverty, crime etc. Basically, to get rid of it may be technically fair, but we'll gain nothing for it, and many more families will lose out. If I had to choose one or the other I'd keep it as is, but we should have it for the poor of all races and ethnicities. It's only reason is to help minority groups have the same life opportunities as everyone else and to guard against racist policies (which is still important, in the past and even now, so this part of it should stay). If a poor white family is just as disadvantaged as a black family in a ghetto, then they should get similar advantages.

Though, even though I attended private schools myself, I don't think families should have a choice of where to send their kids, and aren't opposed to getting rid of private schools. The well off, the powerful and the ones who give donations, send their kids and resources to schools for the rich, and now they want vouchers to remove more tax money from them. If these families kids were forced to attend public schools, there would be much more attention, effort and funds aimed at improving them, and that would greatly benefit poor children who have no choice over where to attend.

It made it possible for a minority that scored around 800-100 on SATs to get precidence over a white kid who scored 1400-1500.
Click to expand...

That would be in extreme cases maybe, if there was a real lack of minority applicants, though SAT's aren't nearly as important now unless you're applying to top schools. A friend of mine had honors courses and mostly A's, but got about 8 or 900 on his SAT's, and got into a very good school (though not ivy league or anything). Colleges often overlook them.

Creating a diverse student body has educational advantages in itself, namely reducing racism and getting people used to living in a multicultural environment (something many kids aren't used to).
 
Why is "the" colored black trhoughout your post alonzo?

Also, affirmitive action has no place in an college admissions. It doesn't help based on poverty at all. That has to do with finanicial aid and schlorships none of which is based on admissions. Minorities who are not even poor can be included in school AA policies. Your admission to a college should be based on qualifications not your ethnicity. Kayden's SAT example isn't that far fetched and while SAT and ACT scores have taken a backseat lately, they certainly do the similar things with GPAs and grades. Most admission systems have points and scores and grades are worth so many points then you get bonus points for being a minority (not for being poor or anything else). I hardly see how that is fair or even necessary because without such information they wouldn't even know your skin color so I don't see how they can discrimate based on race unless minorities have different handwritting than white people.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Why is "the" colored black trhoughout your post alonzo?

Also, affirmitive action has no place in an college admissions. It doesn't help based on poverty at all. That has to do with finanicial aid and schlorships none of which is based on admissions. Minorities who are not even poor can be included in school AA policies. Your admission to a college should be based on qualifications not your ethnicity. Kayden's SAT example isn't that far fetched and while SAT and ACT scores have taken a backseat lately, they certainly do the similar things with GPAs and grades. Most admission systems have points and scores and grades are worth so many points then you get bonus points for being a minority (not for being poor or anything else). I hardly see how that is fair or even necessary because without such information they wouldn't even know your skin color so I don't see how they can discrimate based on race unless minorities have different handwritting than white people.[/QUOTE]

I have the google toolbar which has a highlight option. Basically, when I do a search I use the highlight option to find the words I was searching for on the page. The text is black with a yellow background and all that this picks up is the black. I must have been doing a search that had the word "the" in it and still had the highlight on, usually I just have this problem when I quote things.

But affirmative action was designed to ensure that minorities get into these universities and careers, by making it so that they're not discriminated against by being refused admission to university or jobs based of there origins. They failed to take into account that all the oppression that has occured, and the more subtle racism that still exists today, could not be reversed instantaneously. The assumption was the percentage of accepted students should represent the population, but a myriad of factors prevents that.

There is still plenty of racism today and some safeguards are needed, but the days of where you can reasonably make a blanket assessment of visible minorities as poor are over. Safeguards against racist and bigotted hiring and admission are still needed, but there needs to be a way to keep that in place, while only rewarding those who are actually disadvantaged. Doing otherwise is overkill.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.


I too think this test should have had more questions. I don't think that from just 10 questions they could have recieved this answer and be so sure of it. I think that a secular centrist is close to what I am, but I find myself to be more in between a Traditional Liberal and a secular centrist. I feel that I'm more moderate than anything. Also, I find that I'm indifferent to gays and gay rights, so I'm not sure where they got the top one.[/QUOTE]

Thats the generic list.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I have the google toolbar which has a highlight option. Basically, when I do a search I use the highlight option to find the words I was searching for on the page. The text is black with a yellow background and all that this picks up is the black. I must have been doing a search that had the word "the" in it and still had the highlight on, usually I just have this problem when I quote things.

But affirmative action was designed to ensure that minorities get into these universities and careers, by making it so that they're not discriminated against by being refused admission to university or jobs based of there origins. They failed to take into account that all the oppression that has occured, and the more subtle racism that still exists today, could not be reversed instantaneously. The assumption was the percentage of accepted students should represent the population, but a myriad of factors prevents that.

There is still plenty of racism today and some safeguards are needed, but the days of where you can reasonably make a blanket assessment of visible minorities as poor are over. Safeguards against racist and bigotted hiring and admission are still needed, but there needs to be a way to keep that in place, while only rewarding those who are actually disadvantaged. Doing otherwise is overkill.[/QUOTE]


Makes sense...

But you sort of missed my main point about affirmative action. I'm not talking about careers and jobs, just college admission here. And in college admission you're ability to pay the tuition is not part of the focus. I was admitted to Notre Dame but didn't go because I could never afford it. That is school and federal financial aid that handles how you pay your way. Yet AA is still present for simple admissions. Why? It serves no purpose in my view, and certainly does nothing for kids to actually afford college. You could argue that it provides multicultural diversity, but school programs, scholarships, and international students are a much bigger contributing factor than simple admissions. Colleges especially larger public ones get thousands upon thousands of applications per year and simply by checking a box, another person can now have a greater adventage at getting admitted to the university. The kicker is I'm not allowed to check the same box.

If I get what your saying you basically agree with me. I'm saying that AA needs to be elminated from college admissions process. Should it be considered in financial aid oppertunities...perhaps so, but those are examined much more closely on a person by person, case by case basis to determine who needs what so it may not even be needed there.
 
Don't fret it, alonzo misses the point on just about anything that clashes with his neo-couture fascist view of america.

There is still plenty of racism today and some safeguards are needed, but the days of where you can reasonably make a blanket assessment of visible minorities as poor are over. Safeguards against racist and bigotted hiring and admission are still needed, but there needs to be a way to keep that in place, while only rewarding those who are actually disadvantaged. Doing otherwise is overkill.
Click to expand...

We obviously need a Racism Czar to ensure these "safeguards" and assure they only go to those who are deemed to be "actually disadvantaged". If not a Czar, than at least a well stocked bureacracy to handle the problem. God knows we can't let people have the fredom to do as they please becuase they will invariably make the wrong choices.

BTW, this is a horrible political test. This one's not comprehensive, but measurably better than the one on the OP.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Don't fret it, alonzo misses the point on just about anything that clashes with his neo-couture fascist view of america.



We obviously need a Racism Czar to ensure these "safeguards" and assure they only go to those who are deemed to be "actually disadvantaged". If not a Czar, than at least a well stocked bureacracy to handle the problem. God knows we can't let people have the fredom to do as they please becuase they will invariably make the wrong choices.

BTW, this is a horrible political test. This one's not comprehensive, but measurably better than the one on the OP.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/[/QUOTE]

I got the point, but affirmative action involves more than just college. I also was only half responding to his point and half going off on my own.

I was suggesting that affirmative actions needs to be corrected, as the style in place has lost much of its usefullness, but I also argued that the current system is better than nothing at all.

Though if people had done what they pleased, then desegregation would only have been partial, as many in the south (and to a lesser extent the north) wanted nothing to do with it and would not have allowed blacks into their businesses, schools and universities. We would not have the relatively integrated society that we have today if that were the case, and if these safeguards are not there there is nothing to stop people from following such policies in job or college admissions.

People doing what they want is fine, but not when those practices hinder peoples career and education oppurtunities. And besides, if you were (are?) black and your boss fires you, or refuses to hire you because you're black, are you going to be content with the logic of "people should be able to do what they please"? Other peoples discrimination can play a major role in someone elses life. And let's be realistic here, the minority cannot effectively make a discriminatory society to counter anothers discriminatory society that is equal in terms of jobs and education, as you have suggested before.

Also, thanks for adding a new term to my list of "I can't believe people called me this", I am now a fascist, though conservative is still my favorite :razz: .
 
You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:


  • Strongly supportive of gay rights.
  • Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
  • Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
  • Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
  • Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.
All of those points are pretty much accurate for me.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Don't fret it, alonzo misses the point on just about anything that clashes with his neo-couture fascist view of america.



We obviously need a Racism Czar to ensure these "safeguards" and assure they only go to those who are deemed to be "actually disadvantaged". If not a Czar, than at least a well stocked bureacracy to handle the problem. God knows we can't let people have the fredom to do as they please becuase they will invariably make the wrong choices.

BTW, this is a horrible political test. This one's not comprehensive, but measurably better than the one on the OP.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/[/QUOTE]

[quote name='"politicalcompass.org"']Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05[/quote]

That test is much better than the simple 10-question one, thanks for posting it. According to that one, I'm very slightly to the right-of-center and somewhat more libertarian.
 
I always liked the politcal compass site myelf. A little more multi-dimensional.

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

People wonder why I say that I am somewhere between a libertarian and a democrat (when they say they have opposing viewpoints on many things - true).
 
[quote name='GreenMonkey']I always liked the politcal compass site myelf. A little more multi-dimensional.

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

People wonder why I say that I am somewhere between a libertarian and a democrat (when they say they have opposing viewpoints on many things - true).[/QUOTE]

Well, Democrats aren't necessarily not libertarian in a lot of ways, depending on the Democrat obviously. Democrats can range from fairly authoritarian positions (political correctness, "affirmative action," game/music censorship, unions (closed shops), forced retirement program taxes, etc.) to very libertarian. Republicans can be the same, from the anti-government militia types to the religious protect-the-children ultra-conservatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top