Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Trunkage]

Are you seriously saying, "it's just a little racist, it's still good"?

Any policy that puts people from any race ahead (or behind) of people from another race is racism. It doesn't matter if it results in better outcomes, that is still racism. That is affirmative action. What you do policy-wise is uplift people "dealt a bad hand" to attempt to give them the same chance as someone else not dealt a bad hand. AA is not that at all.

Neither is capitalism, the police, schooling system, entrance policies doe universities, cars, photos, health care, housing, shipping, TSA, bankruptcy, citizenship, groceries, fuel, church, farming, air travel, roads, guns, news. They all intentionally or unintentionally place certain races behind others. They affect more people daily than AA

We still have these existing. Why aren't you calling for them to be removed?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Depends. If you are competent at reading comprehension, obviously I did not say that. If you are not competent at reading comprehension, you might think so.



Except we don't: our societies barely even try, and thus institutional disadvantage - including racism - grinds on generation after generation.

So what's your answer to that? People disadvantaged by racism can just suck it up for the next few hundred years as it very gradually evens out?

How is AA not racist? It's giving other races advantages, which means other races get disadvantaged. That is racism.

So because we don't give those help that are disadvantaged (yet we do), then we should use racism to fix other racism?

Nope, improve the current social safety net.

That is precisely the aim of affirmative action. You simply refuse to accept that huge amounts of poverty in the United States is racialized and has direct, racist ancestry

Is AA racist? Yes or No? Just answer the question or don't reply.

Neither is capitalism, the police, schooling system, entrance policies doe universities, cars, photos, health care, housing, shipping, TSA, bankruptcy, citizenship, groceries, fuel, church, farming, air travel, roads, guns, news. They all intentionally or unintentionally place certain races behind others. They affect more people daily than AA

We still have these existing. Why aren't you calling for them to be removed?

None are inherently racist. You're just doing the modern DEI bullshit and attaching racism to everything... I just saw today that saying "good morning" is racist now too...

 

[Silvanus]

Is AA racist? Yes or No? Just answer the question or don't reply.

But whenever someone does answer that question (like Agema), you just contradict them and insist otherwise. What's the point of answering?

I just saw today that saying "good morning" is racist now too...

No you didn't.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Is AA racist? Yes or No? Just answer the question or don't reply.
...
None are inherently racist. You're just doing the modern DEI bullshit and attaching racism to everything

Lol. Lmao.

I suppose that if you believed that all of the systematically racist things set up in the United States do not and have never existed, then yeah, you'd think affirmative action was racist. Incidently, the definition of systemic racism is a system that ends up being racist towards subsets of people regardless of intent. Although most of our systematic racism was 100% intended.

 

[Ag3ma]

How is AA not racist? It's giving other races advantages, which means other races get disadvantaged. That is racism.

If certain races have an unfair advantage due to various societal issues, it is extraordinarily questionable whether negating or compensating for that advantage qualifies as racist.

For instance, a simple AA policy might be an outreach programme, designed to increase awareness and improve recruitment but does not credibly disadvantage others because entry criteria are unchanged. Likewise forms of targetted staff development and support programmes, etc. do not necessarily give undue advantages to target groups because general support and development systems exist for everyone. Relaxation of selection criteria keeps a level playing field (everyone needs to reach the same level) but may improve access to disadvantaged groups. Similarly, forms of additional support systems - e.g. increased funding for economically deprived areas - may disproportionately benefit disadvantaged groups (who are over-represented amongst the deprived) despite not specifically selecting by race, gender, etc. Of course, if diversity can be demonstrated as a valuable trait for an organisation to possess, it should form a basis for valid recruitment criteria.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

But whenever someone does answer that question (like Agema), you just contradict them and insist otherwise. What's the point of answering?



No you didn't.

Agema said it's a little racist but OK...

Lol. Lmao.

I suppose that if you believed that all of the systematically racist things set up in the United States do not and have never existed, then yeah, you'd think affirmative action was racist. Incidently, the definition of systemic racism is a system that ends up being racist towards subsets of people regardless of intent. Although most of our systematic racism was 100% intended.

Yes or No?

If certain races have an unfair advantage due to various societal issues, it is extraordinarily questionable whether negating or compensating for that advantage qualifies as racist.

For instance, a simple AA policy might be an outreach programme, designed to increase awareness and improve recruitment but does not credibly disadvantage others because entry criteria are unchanged. Likewise forms of targetted staff development and support programmes, etc. do not necessarily give undue advantages to target groups because general support and development systems exist for everyone. Relaxation of selection criteria keeps a level playing field (everyone needs to reach the same level) but may improve access to disadvantaged groups. Similarly, forms of additional support systems - e.g. increased funding for economically deprived areas - may disproportionately benefit disadvantaged groups (who are over-represented amongst the deprived) despite not specifically selecting by race, gender, etc. Of course, if diversity can be demonstrated as a valuable trait for an organisation to possess, it should form a basis for valid recruitment criteria.

If a black person from Gary gets advantage and a white person from Gary doesn't, that's racism. They both need help and should get it.

Nobody complaining about AA is complaining about people getting help that need help. It's because it's race-based vs say income-based, that's the problem. Affirmative action is so obviously against the law and constitution of the US.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Posting through lead paint delirium is admirable in its own way I suppose.

 

[Silvanus]

Agema said it's a little racist but OK...

I think if you go back and reread, you'll notice that Agema gave a more nuanced and contextual answer, to which you just responded "nah is racist".

/facepalm

Jeff Mead is a conservative grifter. That's bait.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I think if you go back and reread, you'll notice that Agema gave a more nuanced and contextual answer, to which you just responded "nah is racist".



/facepalm

Jeff Mead is a conservative grifter. That's bait.

So this doesn't translate to AA being racist? There are no degrees of racism, it's either racist or not, and being like 1/10th racist isn't ok.

I would accept that some affirmative action policies can be racist to some degree.

You do realize that when people say AA is racist, they aren't referring to something like helping people with income under some level right? They are talking about the actual racist stuff.

I just saw a thumbnail of it. The point of all this is you all keep saying XYZ is racist or systemic racist (like the million things Trunkage rattled off) when it's not. Even if "good morning" was used 200 years ago as something white people would only say to slaves making fun of them, that doesn't mean saying "good morning" is racist NOW.

 

[Silvanus]

So this doesn't translate to AA being racist? There are no degrees of racism, it's either racist or not, and being like 1/10th racist isn't ok.

This is a perfect example of what I said you do when people answer your questions: misrepresent what they said and then just insist otherwise. So what's the point in answering?

 

[Trunkage]

Is AA racist? Yes or No? Just answer the question or don't reply.

That's easy. The legislation is in no shape or form racist

That's really got nothing to do with if it ends up being racist because....

None are inherently racist. You're just doing the modern DEI bullshit and attaching racism to everything... I just saw today that saying "good morning" is racist now too...

All these policies negatively affected minorities. They have way more data on this than AA. The Supreme Court is dumping AA over a couple of university using AA incorrectly

All I am using is the standard you use to call AA a racist policy

All these policies are written in a way that is not racist. At all. But that does not mean that all these policies can't be used in racist ways

AA is by far less destructive and racist policy than that whole entire list I wrote. But it's funny how AA is targeted over the actual problems... it's almost like a bunch of racists told us things that some now believe

And this comes from a person who thinks AA needs to be amended because of the problems it is causing

 

[Trunkage]

So this doesn't translate to AA being racist? There are no degrees of racism, it's either racist or not, and being like 1/10th racist isn't ok.

I mean, if this is the standard, I think we should just abandon society because all of it at least 1/10

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This is a perfect example of what I said you do when people answer your questions: misrepresent what they said and then just insist otherwise. So what's the point in answering?

Agema literally said AA policies can be racist, meaning they are racist... It's simple and plain english. I guess slavery isn't racist then because slave policies also CAN be racist as well.

That's easy. The legislation is in no shape or form racist

That's really got nothing to do with if it ends up being racist because....


All these policies negatively affected minorities. They have way more data on this than AA. The Supreme Court is dumping AA over a couple of university using AA incorrectly

All I am using is the standard you use to call AA a racist policy

All these policies are written in a way that is not racist. At all. But that does not mean that all these policies can't be used in racist ways

AA is by far less destructive and racist policy than that whole entire list I wrote. But it's funny how AA is targeted over the actual problems... it's almost like a bunch of racists told us things that some now believe

And this comes from a person who thinks AA needs to be amended because of the problems it is causing

When you prioritize any race over another, that is racism. AA policies do that.

If helping out people below some income point is AA and the Supreme Court declared AA unconstitutional, then why is stuff like food and health assistance still a thing? It's because, you know, they ruled against the racist AA policies, the stuff people said was racist. Nobody is talking about giving assistance to those who need it as racist policies, they are talking about the actual racism as being racist. Trying to make the conversation anything but that is being completely disingenuously.

Police are needed, they are not inherently racist. What country in the world doesn't have police? Just because something can lead to racism depending on its implementation doesn't mean that thing is racist. This is how you get to something like math being racist. If you want to say all this stuff is racist, then we literally can't have anything at all then; this is why everyone rolls their eyes at this stuff because it doesn't make sense, and it's just exhausting having conversations with such people (it's why the character Callie from Yellowjackets is hated by basically every fan of the show, she's THAT person). I bet you any money that if you were to pick the most ideal country to live right now, it would be a capitalist country, but according to you capitalism is inherently racist. And football is racist because there's not enough white people playing, and hockey is racist because there's not enough black people playing, and baseball is racist because there's not enough white or black people playing.

 

[Silvanus]

Agema literally said AA policies can be racist, meaning they are racist... It's simple and plain english. I guess slavery isn't racist then because slave policies also CAN be racist as well.

It is indeed simple and plain English. It is simple and plain English that "can be" and "are" have distinct meanings.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It is indeed simple and plain English. It is simple and plain English that "can be" and "are" have distinct meanings.

So was American slavery racist?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So was American slavery racist?

Dude, c'mon

 

[Silvanus]

So was American slavery racist?

Yes, obviously. What's the point of this?

 

[Ag3ma]

If a black person from Gary gets advantage and a white person from Gary doesn't, that's racism. They both need help and should get it.

Sure.

But let's imagine that due to various issues with societal racism, what the black person needs and the white person needs to compensate for their disadvantages are in certain ways different.

So, I take it, you are proposing that there must be a "one-size fits all" policy tailored to white people that leaves disadvantage for black people, or tailored to black people that leaves disadvantage for white people, or not tailored such that it inadequately compensates for the disadvantages of both.

 

[Satinavian]

Sure.

But let's imagine that due to various issues with societal racism, what the black person needs and the white person needs to compensate for their disadvantages are in certain ways different.

So, I take it, you are proposing that there must be a "one-size fits all" policy tailored to white people that leaves disadvantage for black people, or tailored to black people that leaves disadvantage for white people, or not tailored such that it inadequately compensates for the disadvantages of both.

Honestly, i do have some sympathy for rejecting AA on a basis of race when most of the glaring issues with uneven admission are about economic circumstances, connections and class.

Sure, doing AA race based does still help with that somewhat because there are correlations but it is pretty inefficient. The ones who would most likely profit are those who don't need it because they already have similar circumstances to the typical admitted persons despite their race.


But actually doing something about the privileges provided by wealth, getting rid of entrenched structures based on alumni/recommendations or anything else improving social mobility is just not done.

 

[Ag3ma]

Honestly, i do have some sympathy for rejecting AA on a basis of race when most of the glaring issues with uneven admission are about economic circumstances, connections and class.

It is simply absurd to think a known disadvantage must be ignored because a greater one exists. They can both be tackled.