Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Silvanus]

The court is saying if the "service" you reference is advancing communication, it is a constitutional right to decline.

I know. Which is a carve-out to allow discrimination and circumvent equal treatment, which is also supposedly constitutionally protected.

Some parts of the constitution matter more than others, it seems-- the parts that allow the Justices to indulge their prejudices, coincidentally.

 

[gorfias]

Not exactly on point, but a lot of people with whom I agree want "legacy" admissions ended. A buddy adds there is an issue of elite schools at which staff and faculty are able to get mediocre kids of theirs to get admitted as well. In the name of fairness, how we get this ended is a good question.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yes. It's very interesting that SCOTUS decides to accept the principles of affirmative action as legitimate... and then restrict their use.

It's definitely the kind of inherently hypocritical argument that can only fly on the Supreme Court. Any lesser court tries that and it's grounds for appealing to a higher court

 

[Trunkage]

Autism is a disorder, race isn't a disorder. I'm sure there's some very minor issues in wording for a question here and there, but it's also something you'd never be able to get completely rid of and tests are just needed for evaluation purposes. I'm sure a question that references sports will be ever-so-slightly be answered better overall for students that are into sports. The notion that tests are holding back minorities because of wording is, I'm sure, technically true but it's so minor compared to the much much much bigger reasons it's barely a drop in the bucket. Focusing on those much bigger reasons with also naturally smooth out the very minor test bias as well.

Also something like a liberal or conservative world view shouldn't be present in class let alone present on questions on a test.

I mean, too bad? A test will always have biased. Be especially wary of those people who say 'x world view shouldn't be present in a class' because that just means they are putting their world view in instead (exception like getting rid of anything actually hateful or something actually pornographic is acceptable.)

This does not have to be intentional, we are humans. We have biases. People tested if the SATs had biases and found out that it did. And I'm pretty sure that they haven't found out what specifically is biased yet because this happened in the last three years. Unintentional bias is generally way harder to find than intentional

Like, taking your example of sports, there are plenty of other subject areas that require knowledge that isn't related to maths or English (or whatever you are testing). Financial data set or even how to read a receipt. There are a bunch of science concepts that can go over students' heads. Statistical analysis can be confusing. You could even be topical and add something about Minecraft or Fortnite or even just any computer game and that fails to reach certain children. You could use something historical that certain children don't know about

Lastly, are you either for or against affirmative action?

Affirmative action is fine as long as it is raising children being disadvantaged in the system. Five problems
1) Those advantaged by the system are not happy that their mediocre child misses out. So they punish someone else - Asians. This is not a problem of Affirmative Action. It is a problem of the system. Affirmative Action does not fix it
2) I see what Harvard et al were doing. White people got to count clubs that benefit only white people and boost their scores. Other people should be able to do that too. They made the incorrect decision. Don't boost non-White clubs. Get rid of all the club bonus people get
3) This leads to the last problem. Affirmative Action can be abused. That doesn't mean you should get rid of it. EVERYTHING about the university entrance scheme
4) Affirmative Action affected a couple of percentages. Legacy Admission is a quarter to 30%. They, like normal, targeted the weaker group. Legacy Admissions are going to stay
5) Even if you got rid of Legacy Admissions, I would point you back to Number 1. Those with advantaged positions will just find a new rule that advantages them. Because they literally have access to that power

Getting rid of Affirmative Action will help no one, especially Asian students. It's helping the rich and powerful

 

[tstorm823]

Celebrating abuse is not exactly neutral or analogous to a wedding.

Plus, of course, we know the designer is fine with weddings. Their issue is the characteristics of the people it's for.

The designer is fine with weddings, but doesn't believe a gay wedding actually is one. The hypothetical designer might think conversion therapy is abuse, but the person celebrating their own obviously wouldn't.

 

[Trunkage]

Treat them like what? The cake owner was fine with selling them a cake. When you get into art, it is really a grey area because then you are forcing the artist to do something they may not want to.

Honest question. Not trying to trick you or anything. Have you worked in a workplace? Because...

Is a director able to force an actor/actress to get nude for a scene that wasn't previously agreed to?

They get fired if they don't. Probably what will more likely happen is that they quit. That's why SAG exists, to try and stop this from happening. Sometimes they get fired anyway

Firing them is supported by both Dems and Republicans. If they don't do the job requested of them, they should be fired. This is normal

(This doesn't mean I agree. It's just how American Capitalism works. Workers don't have rights)

Can you force a painter to paint a portrait of Hitler if they don't want to?

Gay marriage is not like Hitler. If you think it's like Hitler, that a you problem and the ACTUAL reason why anti-discrimination laws exist.

Discrimination is when you have a biased against a group of people and ban them from participating in society. Usually, this bias is unfounded. In other words, it's like canceling but worse

Hitler did a bunch of crimes, some of the worst in history. He is not a group. He is a single person. He has been proven to have organized these crimes. He is not being targeted because he is a German. Or because he's Caucasian. Or Christian. He is being discriminated against because he did crimes. You are allowed to discriminate against Hitler

Show me where all gay people did crimes (that weren't made up by religious institutions).

There are gay people who did specific crimes. And the punishment should be metered out based on the crimes, not because they are gay. That doesn't mean all gay people are criminals. We don't pretend all Germans are criminals because Hitler existed. That's not how this works. That's not how ANY of this works. I don't like religious institutions because they generally have brought death and destruction where they go. That does NOT mean I get to discriminate against any of them until they do crimes. Because that how this works. And most Christians are nice

Can you force a restaurant chef to make you some custom order that isn't on the menu? I'm sure in Chicago, there's hot dog places that won't put ketchup on a hot dog as that's a big thing in Chicago and I like a hot dog with just ketchup on it and nothing else. Am I able to force them to prepare a hot dog with ketchup if they don't want to? Can you force Taylor Swift to sing something she doesn't want to?

I'll put these together because they are similar
No, you can't force anyone who doesn't have something on their menu. That's also not the problem. It's because they do not like homosexuals. If you said, 'It's not on the menu' that fine. You can even still be a bigot if that is your desire. If you said, 'It's not on the menu because gays are bad.' That's discrimination

 

[Trunkage]

The designer is fine with weddings, but doesn't believe a gay wedding actually is one. The hypothetical designer might think conversion therapy is abuse, but the person celebrating their own obviously wouldn't.

So, if a person thinks that there isn't a God, they can discriminate against Christians?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I'm in an inter racial marriage myself but our government scares the hell out of me. I'm happy to see some curbs on their power, even if it is against my own interests.

And of course they'll draw the line at your toes, right? You'd better pray that's how it goes, because there are people who think that the government should make people like you dead.

 

[tstorm823]

So, if a person thinks that there isn't a God, they can discriminate against Christians?

No, but they can decline to build their church website.

 

[gorfias]

And of course they'll draw the line at your toes, right? You'd better pray that's how it goes, because there are people who think that the government should make people like you dead.

Oh yeah. Which ideology is more likely to shove me in an oven: a relatively libertarian one or a totalitarian one? One that will not support me, or one that can get me fired if I don't take an experimental drug that is more likely to kill me than help me? I think I know the answer to that one.

 

[Kwak]

So, if a person thinks that there isn't a God, they can discriminate against Christians?

No, intellectual disabilities are a protected class.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Oh yeah. Which ideology is more likely to shove me in an oven: a relatively libertarian one or a totalitarian one? One that will not support me, or one that can get me fired if I don't take an experimental drug that is more likely to kill me than help me? I think I know the answer to that one.

You'd rather a government that actively and willfully discriminates against you than a government that can theoretically make a wrong call during an emergency situation involving a mass-casualty event?

 

[Thaluikhain]

You'd rather a government that actively and willfully discriminates against you than a government that can theoretically make a wrong call during an emergency situation involving a mass-casualty event?

And one might note that one side is openly courting Nazis. For all the flaws of the Democrats (and there are many), they aren't the more totalitarian party.

 

[gorfias]

You'd rather a government that actively and willfully discriminates against you than a government that can theoretically make a wrong call during an emergency situation involving a mass-casualty event?

I don't think a libertarian society would actively and willfully discriminate. They're supposed to be pretty hands off. But they won't support me either, and some people could use support. Freedom can be scary.

But what happened with Covid? That was fascist. Government colluded with the private sector to force people to take the shot or get fired, even if they already had natural immunity. Back when he had dark hair, even Fauci said getting a shot after already having had the illness is a silly thing to do. More below.

And one might note that one side is openly courting Nazis. For all the flaws of the Democrats (and there are many), they aren't the more totalitarian party.

I've had this argument before and I think one party wants a larger more powerful government (Democrats) and the other in theory, smaller government (Republican). While a fascist could oppress their own people with a small government, I'd think it a ton easier to do with a larger one. As for openly courting Nazis, it is the Democratic party, the party of the KKK, that is perfecting race hate and tribalism. And maybe that is why this affirmative action decision is so important. One less tool in the race haters divisive tool kit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As for openly courting Nazis, it is the Democratic party, the party of the KKK, that is perfecting race hate and tribalism.

I've had this argument before and I think one party wants a larger more powerful government (Democrats) and the other in theory, smaller government (Republican). While a fascist could oppress their own people with a small government, I'd think it a ton easier to do with a larger one.

The Republican wants a small government only when it comes to things they want to do. When it comes to things they don't want others to do, such as gay marriage or abortion, suddenly the small government thing doesn't apply. Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I don't think a libertarian society would actively and willfully discriminate. They're supposed to be pretty hands off. But they won't support me either, and some people could use support. Freedom can be scary.

But what happened with Covid? That was fascist. Government colluded with the private sector to force people to take the shot or get fired, even if they already had natural immunity. Back when he had dark hair, even Fauci said getting a shot after already having had the illness is a silly thing to do. More below.


I've had this argument before and I think one party wants a larger more powerful government (Democrats) and the other in theory, smaller government (Republican). While a fascist could oppress their own people with a small government, I'd think it a ton easier to do with a larger one. As for openly courting Nazis, it is the Democratic party, the party of the KKK, that is perfecting race hate and tribalism. And maybe that is why this affirmative action decision is so important. One less tool in the race haters divisive tool kit.

My dude, when has the GOP ever, ever, led to having a smaller, less restrictive government? Does the KKK support the democrats? You're loopy, my dude

 

[Thaluikhain]

My dude, when has the GOP ever, ever, led to having a smaller, less restrictive government?

The GOP leads to less restrictions on how big business can abuse workers and the general public, in that sense it's true.

 

[Silvanus]

The designer is fine with weddings, but doesn't believe a gay wedding actually is one.

Meaning their specific issue is with the characteristics of the people. Making it discrimination.

The hypothetical designer might think conversion therapy is abuse, but the person celebrating their own obviously wouldn't.

They can think whatever they like, but it is. And abusive practices are obviously a different ballpark altogether, and should receive no constitutional protection.

 

[gorfias]

The Republican wants a small government only when it comes to things they want to do. When it comes to things they don't want others to do, such as gay marriage or abortion, suddenly the small government thing doesn't apply. Rules for thee, but not for me.

I am not registered to either party right now. They're both pretty bad.

My dude, when has the GOP ever, ever, led to having a smaller, less restrictive government? Does the KKK support the democrats? You're loopy, my dude

In theory Ronald Reagan cut taxes and ran up the deficit to starve the beast. But as I note above, I'm not registered. Both parties are pretty bad. EDIT: as for the KKK, I think there's only about 7 of them left, and 6 of them are glowies.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In theory Ronald Reagan cut taxes and ran up the deficit to starve the beast. But as I note above, I'm not registered. Both parties are pretty bad. EDIT: as for the KKK, I think there's only about 7 of them left, and 6 of them are glowies.

Ronald "cracked down on protests" Reagan? Ronald "War on Drugs" Reagan? Ronald "crushed the air traffic controller strike" Reagan is your champion of smaller government?

EDIT: Hell even his own library has to admit that his economic policies harmed minorities, if you want to keep trying for the "The democrats are th real racists" argument, though that probably doesn't matter as you're fine with the governmet discriminating against your actual relationship.