National Guard called into Minneapolis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Houseman

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
510
111
48
You realize you just linked an opinion piece from the poster-boy for (conservative) partisan think-tanks?
Ahh yes, I forgot, it's not about what a person says or the facts that they cite, it's about who they are and who funded them. That's how you have to play the debate game in $CURRENT_YEAR. Attack the person, not the argument, is the rule.

Even through I broke down and restated the arguments, I guess none of that matters because it's not the arguments themselves that matter.

But here's their source:

https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec 137/Richard Sander on Affirmative Action in Law Schools.pdf

Start reading from page 426, or page 60 in the pdf.

It says, in part:
The data shows that blacks are heavily concentrated at the bottom of the grade distribution: 52% of all blacks, compared to 6% of all whites, are in the bottom decile. Put somewhat differently, this means that the median black student got the same first-year grades as the fifth- or sixthpercentile white student. Only 8% of the black students placed in the top half of their classes.
Based on the regression illustrated in Table 5.2 below, low black performance is not a result of test anxiety (the gap is similar or greater in legal writing classes) or some special difficulty blacks in general have with law school. It is a simple and direct consequence of the disparity in entering credentials between blacks and whites at elite schools.
In other words, the data show that if blacks were admitted to law school through race-neutral selection, they would perform as well as whites. As I have noted, there is nonetheless a very large black-white credentials gap among those applying to law school, and this gap does not disappear when one uses simple controls for such glib explanations as family income or primary-school funding. Researchers have made great strides over the past generation in accounting for the black-white gap in measured cognitive skills. The dominant consensus is that: (a) the gap is real, and shows up under many types of measurement; (b) the gap is not genetic, i.e., black infants raised in white households tend to have the same or higher cognitive skills as whites raised in the same conditions; and (c) there are a variety of cultural and parenting differences between American blacks and whites (e.g., time children spend reading with parents or watching television) that substantially contribute to measured skill gaps. On these points, see the excellent essays in THE BLACK-WHITE TEST SCORE GAP, supra note 143, particularly chapters one through five. Jim Lindgren has pointed out that in the National Survey data analyzed in Table 5.2, the “race” coefficients become at least weakly significant (and negative) if one does not include those not reporting race with white students. So far as I can determine (from other data provided by some participating schools), students not reporting race were predominantly white or Asian, which supports the approach taken in this table. In any case, the race effects are still extremely weak. Under any formulation, academic outcomes for all racial groups are dominated by academic credentials, not race.


The guy who wrote all this is Richard H Sander if you'd like to attack his character
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
322
60
33
I just typed "affirmative action hurts black students" into a search engine and this was the first result:

https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-affirmative-action-colleges-hurts-minority-students

People who benefit from affirmative action, as well as white students admitted as "legacies", are much more likely to get low grades and/or drop out. They didn't get in based on their academics, so they're not necessarily prepared for the rigorous standards that they are expected to meet, so they fail. It's like moving someone up two weight classes and then expecting them to compete at the same level.

It even mentions how prop 209 has been beneficial in reversing the problem the article points out, the very anti-discrimination law that BLM proponents are trying to repeal.

Something something learn from history something something doomed to repeat it.
So, let's say this is true.

Wouldn't the racist then have a field day? They can pretend they are helping people they hate (good PR) while actually hurting their chances of success
 

Houseman

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
510
111
48
Addressing one issue does not somehow obligate you to address all other issues.
And that's not what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing against discrimination within efforts that address a particular issue.

Fight modern slavery = 1 issue
Fight modern black slavery = discrimination within 1 issue.

Yes, but you're not complaining about an institution or organisation with discriminatory practices. You're complaining about a slogan, and the intention to address a specific racial disparity.
BLM is a non-profit organization that has a bank account associated with it and accepts donations, so yes, it counts.

Regardless, I'm not making a legal argument, I'm simply explaining to you where my criteria for what constitutes 'discrimination' comes from, and as it so happens, it comes from the law.

The issue that the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is intended to address is a racial disparity in treatment. That is the issue under discussion.

Can you establish that specific issue-- racist killings by US police forces-- equally affects white people?
I don't have to establish that this specific issue equally affects white people. It's discriminatory regardless. It's discriminatory, because it discriminates on the basis of race.
Getting homeless women, and only homeless women, off the streets, while leaving men to suffer, is discriminatory on the basis of sex, regardless of who homelessness affects more (men). So too would getting homeless men, and only homeless men, off the streets, be discriminatory.

So, let's say this is true.

Wouldn't the racist then have a field day? They can pretend they are helping people they hate (good PR) while actually hurting their chances of success
Sure, if they wanna be cartoonishly evil about it.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
383
69
33
Country
USA
So, let's say this is true.

Wouldn't the racist then have a field day? They can pretend they are helping people they hate (good PR) while actually hurting their chances of success
That logic applies to any unintuitive policy result no matter which perspective you take. That's been the Republican stance on Johnson's Great Society for decades, that he was a pretty unapologetic racist who pushed policies that pretend to be really good for minorities while effectively shoving them into corners and destroying their culture.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
304
92
33
Country
USA
Then you should feel no fear disputing the data he presents instead of just saying, "Nope, doesn't count".
That is the logic of Alex Jones. No, if you have no credibility, your claims don't get a hearing. That's how this works. Don't like it? Maybe you should stop relying on proven liars for your data.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
100
57
33
Country
4
Then you should feel no fear disputing the data he presents instead of just saying, "Nope, doesn't count".
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage which emphasizes the difficulty of debunking bullshit:[1] "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."[2][3]
 

Houseman

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
510
111
48
That is the logic of Alex Jones. No, if you have no credibility, your claims don't get a hearing. That's how this works. Don't like it? Maybe you should stop relying on proven liars for your data.
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage which emphasizes the difficulty of debunking bullshit:[1] "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."[2][3]
Well in case you missed it, I posted a 117 page .pdf which was the source that the Heritage Foundation used for their arguments, so I guess I'll see you when you get done reading that, or until you find something wrong with the author's political opinions, whichever comes first.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
304
92
33
Country
USA
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage which emphasizes the difficulty of debunking bullshit:[1] "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."[2][3]
Which is precisely why it mystifies me to see that more of you haven't just put Houseman on ignore. Bullshitters know that they're wasting your time and energy and that in wasting it you're legitimizing their shitty arguments. If someone has no credibility, they don't get a conversation. Easy as that.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
May 4, 2020
332
71
33
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
That is the logic of Alex Jones. No, if you have no credibility, your claims don't get a hearing. That's how this works. Don't like it? Maybe you should stop relying on proven liars for your data.
Well if you're free to disregard someone for no reason other than them being right wing then I'm free to disregard you for no reason.

Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage which emphasizes the difficulty of debunking bullshit:[1] "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."[2][3]
Sounds like an excuse to me.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
322
60
33
Well in case you missed it, I posted a 117 page .pdf which was the source that the Heritage Foundation used for their arguments, so I guess I'll see you when you get done reading that, or until you find something wrong with the author's political opinions, whichever comes first.
Firstly, in that 117 pages, I read about how students treated their fellow students different based on perceived unjust admission. Same with the university. Then completely ignores this to focus on race. Then it goes onto say that affirmative action would reduce black admission but that's okay because there are 'lesser' university out their for those students. It does also claim that blacks are on average about 170 points behind whites, which I have seen disproved elsewhere but I'll have to find it. It makes some assumptions that someone's skin colour will determine an outcome rather than looking at the underlying issues.

So here are some critiques of his work. It would have been great if they added proper citations, but it lists a bunch of articles that provide evidence against his work. You'll have to do some leg work.


Here is a book that agrees with Sanders. But looking for alternatives makes that whole thing way worse. https://books.google.com.au/books?i...etween academic index black and white&f=false

It suggests that Affirmative Actions is a side issue to the real one - poverty. If you deal with that, you don't have to worry about Affirmative Action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Houseman

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
510
111
48
Firstly, in that 117 pages, I read about how students treated their fellow students different based on perceived unjust admission. Same with the university. Then completely ignores this to focus on race. Then it goes onto say that affirmative action would reduce black admission but that's okay because there are 'lesser' university out their for those students. It does also claim that blacks are on average about 170 points behind whites, which I have seen disproved elsewhere but I'll have to find it. It makes some assumptions that someone's skin colour will determine an outcome rather than looking at the underlying issues.

So here are some critiques of his work. It would have been great if they added proper citations, but it lists a bunch of articles that provide evidence against his work. You'll have to do some leg work.


Here is a book that agrees with Sanders. But looking for alternatives makes that whole thing way worse. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=XciXDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=difference+between+academic+index+black+and+white&source=bl&ots=IGksKTVnY5&sig=ACfU3U3u0k6e3XQ_jEJHnGHscxn0mojtFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjemfKc-qfqAhViyDgGHT4iDjAQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=difference between academic index black and white&f=false

It suggests that Affirmative Actions is a side issue to the real one - poverty. If you deal with that, you don't have to worry about Affirmative Action.
It's good to have both sides of the issue represented, so thanks for that.

It's beyond me, and I think beyond any of us, to come to a conclusion one way or the other. The academics can duke it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
322
60
33
That logic applies to any unintuitive policy result no matter which perspective you take. That's been the Republican stance on Johnson's Great Society for decades, that he was a pretty unapologetic racist who pushed policies that pretend to be really good for minorities while effectively shoving them into corners and destroying their culture.
I mean, I've said on this forum that LBJ was just following JFK's legacy, not actually interested in helping blacks. (I also don't think the Civil Rights Act would have happened under JFK because he was deliberately procrasitining.)

But the assumption that they were being pushed into the corners? They were already in the corner from previous administrations. Even if the Great Society did help them, it definitely didn't make it worse.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
322
60
33
It's good to have both sides of the issue represented, so thanks for that.

It's beyond me, and I think beyond any of us, to come to a conclusion one way or the other. The academics can duke it out.
I would say that 'extra points for blacks' Harvard did a few years ago (I think it was Harvard) was wrong. Make it about socio-economic issues, not race
 

Revnak

Elite Member
May 25, 2020
356
213
48
Country
USA
I mean, I've said on this forum that LBJ was just following JFK's legacy, not actually interested in helping blacks. (I also don't think the Civil Rights Act would have happened under JFK because he was deliberately procrasitining.)

But the assumption that they were being pushed into the corners? They were already in the corner from previous administrations. Even if the Great Society did help them, it definitely didn't make it worse.
I’d add the routine disrespect toward Black Civil Rights leaders under his administration and the fact he just let Hoover keep executing people (honestly, he probably gave Hoover the most free reign of any president) makes LBJ one of the most racist presidents we ever had, he just got pressured into making concessions by protesters taking direct action.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
383
69
33
Country
USA
I’d add the routine disrespect toward Black Civil Rights leaders under his administration and the fact he just let Hoover keep executing people (honestly, he probably gave Hoover the most free reign of any president) makes LBJ one of the most racist presidents we ever had, he just got pressured into making concessions by protesters taking direct action.
I wouldn't call it pressured into action, as though his personal persuasions resisted. The man was pretty evil, but he didn't make his political decisions based on his own persuasions, he made his decisions for his own benefit. He saw which way the wind was blowing, accurately assessed what actions would be seen as to his credit, and acted on that. And if it looked like something would cut against him, he killed it.

There's a nice anecdote to illustrate this. Johnson appointed the Kerner Commission during the protests you would say pressured him to act. One of the people pushing for the commission was Fred Harris. Johnson called Harris to tell him he was going to be on the commission, but added (allegedly, and IIRC) "I want you to remember you're a Johnson man. If you don't, I'll take out my pocketknife and cut your peter off." And while you could argue Johnson ultimately took some advice from that commission, he publicly condemned its conclusions because he thought it made him look bad.

There are a lot of parallels between Johnson and Trump. Trump's like a slightly less racist, less brazen, and less penis-obsessed version of Lyndon Johnson. But then, Johnson was a pretty quintessential Democrat, you might get the idea that Trump is basically a Democrat by making that comparison.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
432
81
33
What’s up with (white) celebrities thinking they can “take responsibility for all the world’s sins” regarding race?



Why can’t people just start being real with each other, like this guy suggests

 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
399
100
48
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
What’s up with (white) celebrities thinking they can “take responsibility for all the world’s sins” regarding race?
Because white people invented racism, and only white people can be racist (according to some people).

I say that in jest (like a lot of things, there's a grain of truth in the idea of R = P + P, even if I disagree with it overall), but the video is just cringeworthy. If you're in a position of power and want to do something about racism, do more than make a damn video showing how woke you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
241
70
33
Country
United Kingdom
BLM is a non-profit organization that has a bank account associated with it and accepts donations, so yes, it counts.

Regardless, I'm not making a legal argument, I'm simply explaining to you where my criteria for what constitutes 'discrimination' comes from, and as it so happens, it comes from the law.
The Civil Rights Act already doesn't apply to forcing charities to address things outside of their purview or remit. The very idea of using the CRA to prevent people arguing against racism runs so counter to its purpose, it's almost grotesque.

There's a reason nobody has taken BLM to court over this. They would be laughed out of the room, as you're well aware; this is just facetiousness.

I don't have to establish that this specific issue equally affects white people. It's discriminatory regardless. It's discriminatory, because it discriminates on the basis of race.
Getting homeless women, and only homeless women, off the streets, while leaving men to suffer, is discriminatory on the basis of sex, regardless of who homelessness affects more (men). So too would getting homeless men, and only homeless men, off the streets, be discriminatory.
Yes, you rather do have to establish that it affects group A, if you want to argue that it's discriminatory not to include group A in the slogan. The movement is obviously only concerned with affected people. Like every movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.