You've concocted a puzzle whereby Charlie's position is impossible. Anyone who claims that genuinely is actually really a dog whistle. And then you write that.
So, let's take your view that he was referring exclusively to those people and not using them as examples of a general notion he's selling. Why then would the people they "stole" their positions from necessarily be white?
Because that is their own perception of DEI. They categorized themselves as beneficiaries of DEI by sole virtue of being nonwhite, having that benefit over any other race would not inspire that statement, it must necessarily be over white people or they wouldn't call it DEI in the first place. Those women would call it overcoming white privilege rather than stealing from white people, but the whiteness factor in general is not gonna be disputed.
If you don't want to engage with an argument, just stay silent. These one-line fob-offs are just when you have no real point you can think of but don't want to admit it.
Let me summarise it simply for you. There are people out there happy and even eager to hear the likes of Charlie Kirk demean and belittle demographic groups, and Charlie Kirk was happy to oblige. As he would oblige these people, and as he would demean certain groups so regularly, and that this abuse aligned with certain dodgy ideological beliefs he held, then it's a very reasonable conclusion he was a bigot.
No, it's conservative perceptions of DEI that make his point.
For instance, we know via studies in the UK that for similar long-term education and career outputs, the average pupil who went to a private school gets two grades higher at age 18 assessment than one that went to a state school. So when a university course asks for AAA for admission, a private school student who gets AAA is statistically as good as a state school pupil with ABB... except the state school student doesn't even get on the degree course.
That is privilege in action. And the world is full of it.
One can query all sorts of things about DEI, and certainly shoddy application of corrective policies. However, the reality out there is that we have plentiful evidence of all manner of discrimination is embedded in society. A very substantial proportion of jobs will be filled by people who "stole" that job off someone more talented because they had advantages. Black people still earn on average what is it... ~80 cents in the dollar compared to whites? That's a lot of race-biased disadvantage given the impact of money on educational attainment. You can get an Ivy League degree like Jared Kushner did, because daddy made a big donation. You can get an Ivy League degree because mummy or daddy had one ("legacy admissions"): obviously, given the history and development of the USA, you'll understand why these would be overwhelmingly white.
Maybe Charlie Kirk had something critical to say about pasty-faced Kushner getting bought college admission and given gigabucks from dad, getting boosted into networking options with a load of rich Arabs through his father-in-law, Arabs who then invested a massive load into his property portfolio so he could become wildly richer. Feel free to point out if he did. But mostly he's on record for complaining that Michelle Obama and Ketanji Jackson are the frauds, despite their lifetime record of achievement. F-u-u-ck.
But the thing about conservatives is that they are generally the people who get the most from the existing societal order: that's a big reason that they want to conserve it. The conservative answer to the embedded societal advantages they hold approxmates to "Tough shit, losers: I got mine, fuck you." It's dressed up more sophisticatedly of course, such as "there's no such thing as systemic racism" and various other plainly bullshit claims that don't survive serious analysis.
So yeah, these black women might well say that DEI gave them their shot, but it's the racism of conservatives to insult them as incompetent for it. Because the truth is that a zillion of those same conservatives are where they are because they had privileges and advantages (chiefly I suspect family wealth), and yet for some reason don't think to apply that same logic to themselves.
I mean, Charlie Kirk: dad an architect, mother a stock market trader or something. It's not like he ever had to worry where his next meal was coming from, so he could dick around in college and take a punt at being an internet celeb.
I mean, they're telling on themselves when they say "you only got that position because of DEI", with the subtext that "you can't possibly have earned it in any way; just look at you".
Just admit you didn't care for the guy so you didn't pay him attention. That's a perfectly fine thing. You aren't required to have an informed opinion on every possible political person, nobody here is going to think less of you for not watching enough Charlie Kirk to say what he did or did not do regularly.
For instance, we know via studies in the UK that for similar long-term education and career outputs, the average pupil who went to a private school gets two grades higher at age 18 assessment than one that went to a state school.
So yeah, these black women might well say that DEI gave them their shot...
Three of the four women named came from reasonably well off families and went to private schools. As best as I can tell, only Sheila Jackson out of the 4 has a background worth even making such a comment. The rest all had family connections to politics and/or education that would have propelled them toward the Ivy League regardless. So why do you think they would all say something like that? What personal statement do you think these private school beneficiaries are making when they say they benefitted from DEI other than "I am black and was given additional support because of it"?
I have provided evidence to back up my claims whilst you have offered nothing at all. Then you demand I provide even more evidence, but we both know that you'd find some other excuse to ignore it (whilst you continue to provide none).
Thus whilst masquerading as a request for evidence, it's actually demonstrating your contempt for evidence.
I have provided evidence to back up my claims whilst you have offered nothing at all. Then you demand I provide even more evidence, but we both know that you'd find some other excuse to ignore it (whilst you continue to provide none).
Thus whilst masquerading as a request for evidence, it's actually demonstrating your contempt for evidence.
which is just what this has been. It's been an attempted character assassination of Dreiko base purely on personal grievance against them from other threads so you've felt fine to make baseless claims about their character.
I believe you either need to provide evidence for your claims and explain how this stream of ad hominem is relevant to the point Dreiko was raising and actually argue against their points or you owe him an apology.
which is just what this has been. It's been an attempted character assassination of Dreiko base purely on personal grievance against them from other threads so you've felt fine to make baseless claims about their character.
I believe you either need to provide evidence for your claims and explain how this stream of ad hominem is relevant to the point Dreiko was raising and actually argue against their points or you owe him an apology.
Considering I was the one hit over claims of insulting other users.
That means some people were seemingly clearly filing plenty of reports against me already before the thread was shut down. The thread being shut down due to lots of reports..........hhhhhmmmmm I wonder if I was being reported a lot?
So are you two going to continue to be butthurt you couldn't keep throwing veiled insults at people in that thread and keep that grievance going here or are you going to try to get on topic and make some actual cogent arguments?
Considering I was the one hit over claims of insulting other users.
That means some people were seemingly clearly filing plenty of reports against me already before the thread was shut down. The thread being shut down due to lots of reports..........hhhhhmmmmm I wonder if I was being reported a lot?
So are you two going to continue to be butthurt you couldn't keep throwing veiled insults at people in that thread and keep that grievance going here or are you going to try to get on topic and make some actual cogent arguments?
You know what's really funny? There hasn't been any moderation in this forum for like 2 years. I legitimately thought that all the mods had been laid off/left. No one here has actually been following any rules.
The fact that you showed up after having been gone for a year and immediately said something heinous enough to become the first person with a strike against them in the last 2 years just really denotes how unpleasant you are.
Sure dude. I just can't really forget all those threads where you said black people deserved to get shot by cops or vigilantes, even digging your feet in on cases where it's plain the black guy didn't do much wrong. I get what you mean with "antiracism... that rubs people the wrong way", but that doesn't absolve people who say problematic things of reflecting, acknowledging, learning and hell, maybe even sometimes apologising.
You can simultaneously think someone is an asshole and also not your enemy or the cause of bad things that are happening to you or in the world. A policy debate is not the venue for that and dismissing sound policy suggestions because you don’t like who is offering them when you on some level acknowledge that people desperately need them is, get ready for it, the sort of “privilege” that people who like to spam that term need to acknowledge. We don’t have time for that decadence any more. We are in too dire straits to care about where the live-saving salve hails from.
You can simultaneously think someone is an asshole and also not your enemy or the cause of bad things that are happening to you or in the world. A policy debate is not the venue for that and dismissing sound policy suggestions because you don’t like who is offering them when you on some level acknowledge that people desperately need them is, get ready for it, the sort of “privilege” that people who like to spam that term need to acknowledge. We don’t have time for that decadence any more. We are in too dire straits to care about where the live-saving salve hails from.
What do you mean "dismissing sound policy suggestions"? You blamed Obama for Biden. I explained, I think with fair reason that you never really objected to, that Biden is a natural product of the Democratic Party establishment, irrespective of Obama. If the Democratic Party hadn't picked Biden, it would have picked someone just like Biden - white, male, straight, moderate, etc.
When I think "sound policy suggestions", sometimes one of the most important things we need to do is stop thinking about individual people and instead start thinking about systems and institutions, because these tend to be far more powerful than individual people. When we say things like "It's Obama's fault" we end up missing the fact that the Democratic Party keeps serving up the same thing year after year and election after election. We've got to stop thinking that if we just get rid of person X then magically person Y is going to come in and do the right thing. No, they aren't. Person Y will be a product of the same system as person X, the system makes the person, and all we'll ever get is the system.
The fact that you showed up after having been gone for a year and immediately said something heinous enough to become the first person with a strike against them in the last 2 years just really denotes how unpleasant you are.
There is a good point in here that there are plenty of strong differences in opinion here and some harsh words, but by and large the regular users appear to be okay with how we treat each other. In a way, we have formed a sort of stable, successful community with shared standards. Although the pruning of users in years past by mods has likely contributed.
There is certainly some rough and tumble, so we are no shrinking violets. If there are a rash of reports suddenly pouring in along with new contributors, it suggests the problem lies with the new contributors - whether they are excessively aggravating everyone else, or of course being the ones trying to get everyone else in trouble.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
