If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

I guess it's important to specify what exactly is meant by the +230 and the +185, but it doesn't change anything. Universities have standards and those standards are shifted for non-asians because they generalize blacks and hispanics don't have legacy or enough violin or dance hours or whatever other silly metric they use and they do not account for non-model asians. This is a terrible practice and discriminatory. And again, I feel like any time we talk about bad leftist practices we focus on minute details instead of large systemic shortcomings because we're scared of the optics on black Americans.

Minneapolis police chief excluded

 

[Dak]

Extracurriculars shouldn't have any part in a university admissions process.

 

[rms]

outside of athletics I agree

 

[Dak]

outside of athletics I agree

Big 3 athletics need to be stripped from unis as well, but that's unlikely to happen.

 

[rms]

yeah. it will be interesting when hoops, football, soccer, baseball and hockey all leave colleges

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

BUSD teacher, activist Yvette Felarca arrested Tuesday

 

[CiG]

BUSD teacher, activist Yvette Felarca arrested Tuesday

Yoda really looks like shit these days.

 

[Einherjar86]

And again, I feel like any time we talk about bad leftist practices we focus on minute details instead of large systemic shortcomings because we're scared of the optics on black Americans.

Ha, this is funny to me, seeing as I'm typically accused of focusing on large systemic shortcomings.

And for what it's worth, it does change something. Having 50 points deducted from an SAT score is a more invasive offense than a combination of factors observed after the fact that correspond to approximately -50 points.

The former describes an intentional and determined attack on Asian Americans; the latter describes an unintentional and contingent effect of admissions procedures. They're two very different things.

 

[CiG]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/3e86ec78deb28d79ff88213a1f979127

Outgoing Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat blames the media for what he says is a false narrative about backlash against the casting of a woman in the show's title role.

"There has been so many press articles about the backlash among the Doctor Who fandom against the casting of a female Doctor," Moffat said Sunday at Comic-Con.

"There has been no backlash at all. The story of the moment is that the notionally conservative 'Doctor Who' fandom has utterly embraced that change completely - 80 per cent approval on social media, not that I check these things obsessively. And yet so many people wanted to pretend there's a problem. There isn't"

Jodie Whittaker will take over the role of the Doctor from Peter Capaldi beginning next season. Whitaker will be the 13th actor to play the character, and the first woman.

Doctor Who fans, Moffat said, "are more excited by the fact that there's going to be a brilliant actress playing the part than the fact that she's a woman. It's been incredibly progressive and enlightened and that's what really happened. I wish every single journalist who is writing the alternative would shut the hell up."

 

[rms]

the latter describes an unintentional and contingent effect of admissions procedures

this whole thing clearly demonstrates an intentional positive bias for black and hispanic applicants. i don't get how you can say this, universities don't 'edit' SAT scores from another agency.

 

[Dak]

It's clearly intentional.

 

[Einherjar86]

The only thing it clearly demonstrates is a positive bias for blacks and Hispanics. It doesn't clearly demonstrate intentionality during the process.

The original study, which the LA Times piece mis-characterizes, only states that a combination of factors correspond roughly to plus or minus a certain number of SAT points. This is an entirely descriptive claim, not prescriptive; it's not identifying a clear intent to disenfranchise Asian Americans, it's showing a clear tendency (or pattern) that we can recognize after the fact.

It's clearly intentional.

The study itself indicates no clear intention. That you're saying this signals to me that you're either being sarcastic, or you're consumed by your own predispositions and can't judge the study on its own merits.

I'd expect you of all people to acknowledge that intent cannot be proven or effectively demonstrated one way or another, based on the data provided by the study.

 

[Dak]

I'd expect you of all people to acknowledge that intent cannot be proven or effectively demonstrated one way or another, based on the data provided by the study.

I'm referring to Affirmative Action, or policies which may be referred to as such even if not specifically. For example:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...affirmative-action-college-admissions-n582981

A Texas law guarantees admission to the university for students in roughly the top ten percent of the graduating class of any Texas high school. To fill the remaining slots, about one fourth of each entering class, the school considers several other factors, including an applicant's race.

It's only a fourth, but it's still an example of intentional racism, and Clarence Thomas agrees:

Justice Clarence Thomas, in joining the dissent, said the decision "is irreconcilable with strict scrutiny, rests on pernicious assumptions about race

 

[Einherjar86]

But the school said The Top Ten percent plan can go only so far, because the Texas public school system remains largely segregated. It sought the flexibility to admit minority students who, though they were not in the top ten percent of their classes, have valuable experiences, such as an African-American student who was a student body president in a mostly white school.

Race is only one of several other factors. This is far from intentional racism, as the degree to which race comes into play varies, is buried or entangled with other considerations, and cannot be isolated as the sole point of determination. I know it's easy to claim intention in situations like this, but the intent is distributed among multiple people and throughout various rounds of automated and institutional filtering. If this constitutes intention, then it's not intention in the way we typically mean it. In fact, it's almost the opposite--it's systemic, not intentional.

There's an argument to be made concerning the troubling attention to race, but I'm still not sure it amounts to racism. This word has a history and cultural context, and unfortunately we can't just bandy it about as though it was birthed from a vacuum.

 

[CiG]

Given that, why are voter I.D. laws called racist and is it justified to call it so?

 

[rms]

Given that, why are voter I.D. laws called racist and is it justified to call it so?

no one talks about voter ID laws after studies showed that asians and native americans were the most effected btw

 

[rms]

it's systemic, not intentional.

don't get how the two are separated let alone always separate

There's an argument to be made concerning the troubling attention to race, but I'm still not sure it amounts to racism. This word has a history and cultural context, and unfortunately we can't just bandy it about as though it was birthed from a vacuum.

k. what's the word now since racism has at least 3 definitions now, that are all used today interchangeably.

 

[CiG]

no one talks about voter ID laws after studies showed that asians and native americans were the most effected btw

Oh interesting!

 

[Einherjar86]

Intention, or intent, is an individualistic premise. It refers to a continuity between action and psychic content. When we're dealing with large numbers of people, systemic or institutional organizations, it becomes logically tenuous (I'd say impossible) to make that kind of intentional claim. Hypothetically speaking, even if we said that a large group of people shared a universal intention, we would be applying the word "intention" to a complex body, not to an individual psyche. As soon as you begin moving away from an individual, intention becomes increasingly suspect.

As far as racism goes, I have a strict definition that derives from the historical and cultural effects of racial disparity. I don't think bigotry against whites constitutes racism, but that doesn't mean I don't see it as a problem. Additionally, I don't think the West is currently suffering intensely from racism against white people, although I think there are a LOT of white people who like to claim that (including outlets like Breitbart and Infowars, which generate a ton of followers). Racism has a history and a context. Adhering to this definition doesn't put whites in danger of falling victim to "reverse racism" or some other contemporary rhetorical phenomenon. Being as simple and reductive as possible, racism means long-term historical effects of social and governmental organization on non-European peoples.

This is absolutely a problematic definition, but I'm trying to be concise.

no one talks about voter ID laws after studies showed that asians and native americans were the most effected btw

Oh interesting!

That's not correct as far as I know. Hispanics are affected the most.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.d65a7bed2e49

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688343

 

[CiG]

The whole power + prejudice = racism thing?

Seems very convenient to me, I just prefer the universally agreed upon definition.