Twinsies :).

I noticed the overlap as well around the time that Gamergate happened. There was an anime looking girl called Vivian that was constantly being referred to and people posting pictures of her but I never bothered to research the origins of Vivian.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...6_400x400.jpeg

You are pointing to the issue that affirmative action attempts to solve as the reason that affirmative action doesn't work lol. Plus I'm sure you know that you're strawmanning the concept by defining it by slippery slope scenarios that are so far outside the norm that they're essentially nonexistent.

Lastly, as I'm sure you've picked up on here, stupid people will bitch about anything and blame their problems on anyone but themselves, so that discrimination article doesn't really hold that much weight either.

There is also the issue of pointing to one case to show that the entire policy is flawed. Overall the policy general does more good than harm with a few outlier cases.

I was spit-balling a few hypothetical scenarios. I'd like to hear a great way in which we could enforce equality of outcome, but there definitely isn't one.

But yeah, I agree. People will blame anyone other than themselves for their failings. Either individually or as a community. Hence my whole stance against affirmative action in the first place. But at least there's a good reason to complain if you're being discriminated against due to affirmative action.

Evidence of this por favor. Or define discrimination because I see a lot of delusional people who simply proclaim that they're too wonderful to not admit into a school. The admission process runs through a lot more than SAT scores. If their victim complex falls under the umbrella then sure I agree with this statement.

https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files...Dec%202004.pdf

This is the only source I could find. I don't think they are really "collecting" data on it.

I get your point, but I don't think losing a job to affirmative action is discriminatory as much as it is the result of a shitty system that had to be put into place because of actual discrimination.

The most effective approach to affirmative action in my mind is maintaining a diverse admissions boards as well as in the groups that develop admissions standards.

I do think that affirmative action as most people understand it (student quotas) has its merits because of how different the opportunists between people can be. A student in a poorer neighborhood with the same SAT score as someone from a more upscale neighbourhood may not have the same extracurricular activities available to them that would put the latter student over the edge in the admissions process.

It's never perfect and could always be honed down though. Sometimes people are denied for the most fickle reasons, like having a boring but good writing style or just not seeming like a good fit for the school's culture (another good reason why a diverse board is a good idea: it keeps schools from becoming the [x] club).

I hate that argument tbh. Just because one group has more privilege than another does not invalidate discrimination against the more fortunate group. This goes for everything class, race, gender, etc. It may change priority but not significance.

Hm.

I get what you mean and agree but with lots of shades of grey painted all over it.

I guess I just don't get how it's good for a laugh when white people make valid complaints about ways they are discriminated against.

Which brings me back to my original statement that you agreed with.

LOL goofle's cognitive dissonance is truly lulzy;

A) African Americans problems are their own, and efforts by the federal government to fix these problems are morally corrosive, economically untenable, and is fundamentally backward looking.

B) Majority white areas in the Midwest and South have been the hardest hit by neoliberal trade and immigration policies. These policies have decimated the local economy, precipitated moral decline and a opiate drug epidemic.

C) The federal government must intervene to save the groups mentioned in B. MAGA.

LOL

Its like, white trash affirmative action amirite?

Thinking I've said the middle one is quite hilarious to be fair.

I'd never put the white race in that sentence.

So the difference is you are too big of a coward to point out you're a racial partisan?

You wanna have a discussion?

Aren't we already?

Not yet.

Flaunting your wealth can put you at risk of being mugged though :confused:

Fuck the BBC.

What's wrong with the BBC? One of the more reliable sources in the game.

They are reliable, if I want confirmation of something happening it's the first place I look, but they are also biased.

Their opinion pieces are biased af what's up with that?

They are biased but in the grand scheme of things they don't let that get in the way of facts like most news outlets do. Journalism just sucks right now.

I wasn't really referring to that particular link.

part of me wishes i hadnt dropped journalism so that i could write biased fluff pieces for the rest of my life.

You can.

You were talking about BBC in general right? So was I.

Just gonna take things out of the spoiler tag at this point. We should show off our conversation, which has been quite fun so far!

1. You're right in the 'there's more smoke than there's fire' sense. Outside of broad statements regarding 'Mexicans', there aren't overt paeans to racism in Trump's speeches. His downplaying of white nationalism, his targeting of ethnic groups that are historically non-white, and the series of housing discrimination lawsuits brought against him by the DOJ indicate that the amount of smoke means there's a least a little fire. Can I prove Trump is racist? No. Outside of people who say, "I am racist", you're going to have a tough time. His words, his policies, the people he surrounds himself with, his assumption that a black reporter could hook him up with the Congressional Black Caucus - all of this leads people not blinded by MAGA to say, huh, his actions sure do seem to target non-white, non-Christians. Others have talked about how illogical a physical wall is and how much a travel ban will backfire, spectacularly, so I won't re-iterate here. Whenever you wonder why liberals get so angry and irritated over his comments, just flip it to Obama. If he said that radical Christianity was responsible for the murder of dozens of American citizens, most of the right would flip its collective ****. But I digress...

2. I've gone through these arguments many, many times before. The best I can do here, because I'm frankly not going to type out refutations that have been made by smarter people than I, is an analogy. Feminism (not the male genocide types, but the other 99.8% of feminists) presents as a serious, but not necessarily fatal condition, let's say Ebola. Feminism goes to a hospital, let's call it, Human Attention and Governmental Redress (HAGR). HAGR says, "woah, Feminism, that's a pretty nasty case of Ebola you've got there, let's get started on fixing this before it gets any worse." Suddenly, Men's Rights Activists show up. "Hey, HAGR, we were just on a run and my nipples got chaffed. I feel really uncomfortable in my shirt. Can you help me?" HAGR says, "sure MRA, but I need to sort out this Ebola thing first. By the way, we'll have a vaccine for Ebola at the end of this process, so both of you will benefit!" MRA then walks slowly outside (the nipple chaffing, you see) and sets fire to the hospital. Because HAGR is only fair, in their mind, if they treat both Ebola and chaffed nipples at the same time.

MRAs aren't invalid by definition. But in the scheme of human tragedy, human failing, and human oppression, women have been given short shrift for thousands of years. If you have a specific topic you're passionate about, I'll debate that. I just don't have the energy to take on the entirely of Molyneux's fanbase.

3. The strawliest of strawmen. I never said tax white people. I never said reparations. I never said anything other than PERSONAL acknowledgement that, IN THE AGGREGATE, being a white man will result in better material outcomes in the United States of America.

Affirmative Action, when applied appropriately and as intended, would result in the following:

College Application - Candidate 1 - Dan Smith. White, 18, 3.9 GPA from Wellington Prep, Somewhere, Vermont. Lacrosse team 3 years. Debate team 1 year. Eagle Scout.
Candidate 2 - De'Lonte Jackson. Black, 18. 3.8 GPA from PS 148, Bronx, NY. Basketball team 2 years. Big Brothers program 2 years.

Yale should take Candidate 2. Why? Despite the disadvantages one faces living in a highly urbanized area, De'Lonte has achieved nearly identical schooling marks, and participated in after-school activities. Who's the better student? Hard to say. Could very well be Dan Smith. But holistically? Considering the challenges endemic to De'Lonte's neighborhood, it very well could be him. It's also important to note that this isn't a case of 'this school or no school'. Dan Smith will have other opportunities. Where you went to school is less important than what you did while there anyway.

On a case by case basis, Affirmative Action can really suck. Again, I get it. Individual circumstances should dictate our impressions and decisions. But when it comes to national legislation on areas such as race or gender, the simplest application of these principles is (usually) what needs to be codified. There are historical reasons for this. Many of them involving black people. Hmmm, something about a Crow, and 3 Constitutional Amendments, and the National Guard needing to be deployed on multiple occasions, and domestic terrorism or something. Hmmm...

Goofle, I think I understand you. You're young, probably right around 21, if not younger, right? I'd bet we have very similar views on what is fair. I too think you should be judged on the, to quote Dr. King, the content of your character, rather than the color of your skin. And the good news is, we're getting there. Post-racial America is a real possibility. But we're not there. Political gerrymandering, disparity in journalism covering crime (thug vs. troubled youth, etc.), prison sentencing, etc. Affirmative Action is not a perfect solution. But it beats reparations. And it sure beats doing nothing.

Come on: it was a ****ty computer.
http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/assets/080...ment33_mid.jpg

ffs

Riseagainstrocks, without quoting your whole post, just wanted to say that though this is way above my head, you certainly have a way with words, with explaining and arguing issues, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were a college lecturer or professor or something. I reckon you and innerspaceboy could talk long into the night. Excellent posts.

It's style over substance. I first became suspect of this when I came across the word "myopia" in the opening post.

link was tl:dr atm

saying *** is perfectly acceptable as long as you say it right

the left wants to continue to pretend that it can only ever be a homophobic slur, ignoring the fact that *** has been used in other ways for a very long time now

they essentially rule out any other possible interpretation of the word, despite colloquial use, because ultimately their dictionary is derived from their ideology rather than from a genuine attempt to communicate honestly

as neo-stalinist swine, they predictably assert that reality must conform to ideology, and incessantly work to stamp out, shame and silence any signs of evidence to the contrary

Please, critique the substance.

And once again, multiple dictionaries disagree with your assertion that I misused "myopia". I'm honestly not sure if this is some "trolling" game you play because the point is so belabored and obviously wrong.

Myopic | Define Myopic at Dictionary.com
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myopic

But don't let me stop you making an ass of yourself.

Thanks, Trollheart. I studied writing and rhetoric in college. I find analogy and example to be better tools of persuasion than simple recitation of facts, which while important, seem to count for less these days. It's all about trying to shift someone's perspective, even if only for the space of a post on MB.

I am afraid that your assertion that "the dictionaries disagree with your assertion" is wrong, because the dictionary only reiterates my assertion that "myopia" is a condition of the eye.

No critique of any argument I've made. Check.

Continual misrepresentation of what I said, including purposefully cutting the quote short to make it look like I said myopia is not an eye condition (your assertion is that I misused myopia, not that I denied it has more than one meaning). Check.

Myopic view of the definition of myopia (OMG HATE CRIME), ignoring definitions 2 and 3 of the first link and definition 2 of the second link. Check.

Well, pat yourself on the back, because the troll worked? I engaged.

What are you going on about?

Myopia (Nearsightedness) Definition, Causes and Treatment

What is it with you and "myopia"? Why has it to be yours? Opia should be for all - your opia, her opia, their opia ... this possessiveness and greed for opia is frankly frightening...