pretty much not eggsalad

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 07:16:05 PM

Quote from: DemonicChronic on October 16, 2015, 07:15:02 PM

I kind of wish i could still check ip's but fuck it w/e

Was there a vulnerability here a while back or something? wtf?

Vulnerability? It's a basic and essential ability for moderators to have.

Oh, didn't know you were a moderator. although tbf i wouldn't have simply assumed moderators had that ability, as i don't think it really is essential depending on whether or not you want to filter a specific type of activity (i guess you guys do)

I kind of wish i could still check ip's but fuck it w/e

Was there a vulnerability here a while back or something? wtf?

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 05:33:49 PM

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 16, 2015, 12:40:45 PM

See, I don't really buy into this self flagellation meme that white people should all be compensatory towards blacks because they happened to be enslaved some 300 odd years ago. No contemporary African American has ever been afflicted by institutionalized slavery, nor do I believe there is some kind of embedded oppression within society disadvantaging them. The playing fields have, by and large, been pretty much levelled for blacks sans maybe the judicial system.

I fail to see why we should start treating them like infants with no agency, and then setting them up to be discriminated within the work force. It's counter-productive at best, and damaging to both blacks and the people who have actually worked hard for their desired professions.

Do you believe that, in this case, blacks and whites occupy the same socioeconomic brackets/distributions? If not, why do you think they do not?

Obviously not, but giving blacks a hall pass through life without the proper tools isn't going to alleviate that.

Agreed.

Just out of curiosity: if academics live in an ivory tower and are content to "sit in their offices and comment", why are Republicans so worried about radicalism in university staff? Especially considering the observation that they have no impact?

I think we should make more of them so we can painfully twist them into worker drones for our society.

tbh i think i'm probably god, and while i fear what i've created, the masochistic side/omniscient side of me forces me to see all that i end up seeing

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 16, 2015, 04:13:50 PM

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 16, 2015, 04:12:25 PM

why care?

Because this is a growing trend among academia and students. I don't care so much that I was personally accused of racism, I care that such accusations can be thrown around on a limb by individuals who really should know better.

And? Higher ed has ALWAYS done this. Just write the papers to get the grade and tell all the University Warriors to pound sand.

True story: when I was a senior at UCSD, one of the barefoot PETA wannabes took issue with my leather jacket. His dumb ass came running up with a bucket of red paint. I reared up to punch him, and he backed off and started calling me a fascist.

Do you know what happened from this? Nothing. Not one thing.

I'm pretty liberal, that's well known. There are some causes I support, some I couldn't care less about. But those little bastards are just wannabes that only have what power you give them. Tell them to fuck themselves and all they can do is call you names. That's it.

Do you care when I say that every time I create a thread your aggressively gay uncle rapes your face? I hope not. So why care when one of these milktoasts call you racist?

Stoic as fuck.

I'd dare to say that those who reap the benefits of AA are the middle-class who aren't the ones who need assistance. A black man with a degree most likely came from a middle-class family, not the horrible inner-city environments that cause the black statistical disadvantages. A person from that environment probably stays in that environment, doesn't get a higher education, and doesn't work for a major organization or firm that cares about statistics. AA is meant to remedy poverty, not reward blacks who aren't in poverty.

I keep trying not to say blacks specifically because AA applies to more but fuck it they are the largest minority group and the one we always talk about. Everyone knows Asians have more privilege than whites anyways.

Meh, like I was talking about with you, an interleaved poverty-based AA program could be instituted to augment what we have now. It would be more bureaucracy but it would address what is certainly an issue.

Dude, you don't need really academic studies to demonstrate that AA at face value is simply just positive discrimination in favour of blacks. It's such a patently patronising outlook to have on minorities, and is only setting them up for failure by setting standards at such ridiculously low levels. If you genuinely believe all races are equal, then you should subscribe to the notion that they should not receive arbitrary privileges simply because of a demographic they belong to.

If you're still not convinced then Affirmative Action Around The World by economist Thomas Sowell is a fantastic academic paper debunking myriad myths surrounding AA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_Action_Around_the_World
http://www.economist.com/node/2765848

Positive discrimination is a valid way of putting it, yes. I disagree that it is patronizing though. I view it as a realistic response to the fact that history has been unkind to them. They are not inherently worse than anyone, but our society and history has put them at a major disadvantage. I believe that the races are equally well off so long as all else is equal, which has never been the case. AA is merely another attempt at bringing the current state of things closer to such an ideal.

You believe they are setting the standards too low; that might not be something I disagree with.

Thanks for linking something substantive though. Looks like a long one, I'll have to find time to read it later. Can't view the economist link though; I'm getting a paywall. Fuck that.

Quote

AA, at the bare minimum, takes the case of two equally-qualified candidates and grants favor to the one coming from a disadvantaged background

Only it doesn't. Afirmative Action has proven to push people to fill jobs they are less qualified for, or colleges as well. It doesn't matter what wikipedia's definition is about AA. Statistics tell an entirely different story and the effects of AA do more harm than good.

You just said you're no expert

I think you should cite sources for your point before you're so quick to counter mine and imply I'm wrong.

https://youtu.be/7VBAEJlR4pk?t=88

There is a simple video for you

God damn it's hard to get my point across. I don't disagree that they let less initially qualified candidates through; that is part of AA's current implementation and methodology. I said at the bare minimum it considers the case of two initially equal candidates; however, with a configurable threshold of acceptance in spite of disadvantage you can increase the beneficial effects of AA to the minority to some extent. Obviously you cannot admit a high school dropout to an ivy league school on the basis of their race if they do not have other qualifications to demonstrate their capability; that would have a clearly detrimental effect, and I have stated multiple times that such cases occur to some lesser degree in the system we have now. It's just a fact, and I recognize it just like you guys do.

Your post was not this quantitative argument though; qualitative arguments only require reason to debate. Outside sources only serve to better illustrate those arguments. I don't believe I have a source that will put it particularly better than I can and I don't really care to go look for one. There are no numbers involved here; you made claims about how you perceive the meaning of AA to minorities, and I refute them.

I said I was no expert in response to Meta. My initial post to Meta was based on the assumption that he disagrees with AA on principle, which is no longer his stated disagreement with it. Rather, he disagrees with one particular implementation of it. That is something I have trouble arguing against because I am not an expert. In your case, I do not need to be an expert to understand what AA is as a concept, what Wikipedia's definition of racism is (don't know why you think I referenced Wikipedia's definition of AA; I never did), and how an understanding of the intent of AA precludes any notion that AA somehow claims that minorities are inferior somehow.

The purpose of AA is to reduce racial inequality. On that basis alone it does not meet Wikipedia's definition of racism. You stated that it implied minorities are not as capable as the majority and therefore must be forcibly aided, but this is not its reason for recognizing racial inequalities that we have. It attributes those initial inequalities to past systematic inequalities and seeks to rectify them by conferring advantages such that, in the future, those inequalities may be absent.

Where as people against it arer people who are saying blacks have to try just as hard as whites for the jobs they want.

You are seriously missing the point of my argument if you think it's not racist to say that minorities are in the position they are in because they don't "try just as hard" as the majority does.

You haven't even demonstrated that though. All I've seen is opinion from you, and you claim to know the objective truth? What a joke. Cite some sources and make some real points if you're so convinced. To be honest, I'm no expert and stand to learn a lot if you could take the damn time to share what you know rather than expect people to just believe you. Even then, value judgments are inherently subjective, so I'm not sure what you're on about there regardless of your lack of substance.

I'm going to bed. You've got all night.

some of us have fam here

Do you think it fails completely to perform its function (i.e. it doesn't benefit any single individual in the nation at all)? Of course we get some cost of implementation; even an ideal implementation would feature some cost. It also has some negative side effects due to poor implementation, like the mismatch effect. Personally, I think these costs are insufficient to warrant the dismantling of the program.

Quote from: Tsirist on October 16, 2015, 12:30:54 AM

To be fair, Wikipedia's definition of racism: "Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among different racial groups."

If you're against affirmative action, you either don't understand how it works (ignorance) or you seek to perpetuate the status quo of inequality (racism). In my opinion.

So I suppose everything rests on intention, and the consequences of AA don't actually matter?

This, ignoring for the moment, that my opposition to AA is neither intended to justify or cause racial inequality. . .

The consequences absolutely do matter, and I don't believe it is quite implemented properly or ideally right now. But conceptually it is sound, as far as I know.