On June 14 2020 14:48 Loco wrote:
The answer is no. I don't think this point is the "gotcha" that you think it is. We are arguing two different things. But feel free to explain the perceived hypocrisy.
You're not trained in sociology. If you were you couldn't be a right-libertarian. You were just spoonfed a just-so story by daddy Peterson and still proud of it two years later while the complexities of this topic are well beyond you.
What do I have to explain? you want to handicap groups of people who do worse academically, men do worse than women should we give men advantages until we see an even distribution of men and women graduating?
strong argument there with the "you are not trained in sociology, these topic is beyond you" lol, also your typical these people who said the same thing you did also said these bad things, Reddit is impairing your abilities to debate, you are using the tactics of people who don't have the congitive habilities to engage in a discussion, do better.
On June 15 2020 19:16 Spitfiree wrote:
Yet the crime rate has somehow fallen by 60% in the past 30 years while immigration population went from 1% to 5% of the total
This thread really makes me think you guys are just not even trying at using statistics in any decent way. You can't be that stupid.
This is the 2nd time somebody has tried to use a dumb statistic to debunk another one.... this is even worse than Loco's one lol wtf Spitfiree you know both stats are not corelated and you didn't debunk anything right?
I mean, it would be meaningful if crimerate were static over time and also going from 99 to 95 is a very small change to see any overall trend change unless as i said the parameter were hugely static (crime rate) which it isn't.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 15/06/2020 23:16
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 15 2020 23:43. Posts 3096
On June 14 2020 17:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean, from what I saw a big reason for the statistics utilized to make the 'gender paradox point' is that it didn't include women who are housewives. Scandinavian countries have fewer of those. So it's like, Sweden Norway Finland Denmark have a higher % of women who work, and then a higher % of those work in traditional jobs, whereas other countries have bigger % of women who stay at home, but out of the ones who work, more are into STEM or whatever.
I don't care enough to really go into it or go digging for stats or articles right now, so those who don't consider my word worth much can feel free to ignore this, but I remember seeing some good critique indicating that the 'gender paradox' is based around some fairly cherry-picked statistics. As well as trying to make a point about biology that wouldn't necessarily be grounded even if the statistics were fully on point.
We could go into the details of that statistic, but why do you say that even if the statistic would be correct it wouldn't support the point of preference based on biological differences?
Because the 'culture of more gender-egalitarianism' isn't necessarily something that gives such straight forward results, because it's not such a straight forward 'culture'. The whole discerning between what is caused by biological factors and what is caused by cultural factors can appear like an important debate because seemingly it drives policy forward, but cultural factors can express themselves in all sorts of manners that aren't obvious or quantifiable, and this might have consequences for behavior that are nearly impossible to accurately predict and that you can't derive a valid conclusion based on. I get that sociology and various subjects under the humanities umbrella has a reputation for being politicized because so much research is dependent on the personal interpretation of qualitative data. To some degree, it's an accurate criticism. However, I also think it largely is how it is. It's not invalidating, however it demands caution, particularly in the form of replicated studies, in a way that more subjects that are more quantitative in nature do not. And much research within humanities can't be reduced to quantitative data, 'something' is lost in this process.
I'm not even saying that it's necessarily wrong that somehow, some part of the hormonal differences between males and females manifests itself through men somehow favoring STEM more than women do. It's possible. I think it's plausible that men to a somewhat greater degree have a somewhat more competitive 'biology' which correlates to somewhat greater willingness to delve into studies that demand more work but promise future higher pay, or some type of explanation of this sort. However, the statistic that women from countries with more gender-egalitarianism and thus more freedom to choose their future pathway on their own is not sufficient evidence of this. Even more so when the study forming the foundation of this claim comes with a later correction that 'outlined that the authors had created an previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees', and where 'even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented'.
awww yisss a reasonable argument without dogma and insane hyperbole that claims im a profund sexist if I disagree, inyect that directly into my veins.
I agree with almost any word you typed, I see a lot of value in the humanities and sociology but I think in its current state its rotten by political agenda and its sad because there is so much to learn and precisely on this kind of things, I agree that this study alone isn't proof of anything however it certainly should spike a lot of interest and subsecuent studies should be done but its not been done because doing studies that seem to be aiming to draw biological differences between the sexes is not kosher.
I think that the existence of biological and behavioral differences between sexes in our and other species are self evident, and you might wrongly guess that I'm for traditional roles in fact I've always been annoyed that there werent more women in engeneering, in poker and in racing, I hired a female worker for my furniture business in a manual labor job because I think women are better in many areas (more responsible and dedicated, more attention to detail) but I'm not gonna pretend she can lift as much weight as the guys or that she is being paid 30% less than her male counterparts, thats ideological bullshit that doesn't help anybody but alienate resonable people from the feminist movement.
On June 14 2020 14:48 Loco wrote:
The answer is no. I don't think this point is the "gotcha" that you think it is. We are arguing two different things. But feel free to explain the perceived hypocrisy.
You're not trained in sociology. If you were you couldn't be a right-libertarian. You were just spoonfed a just-so story by daddy Peterson and still proud of it two years later while the complexities of this topic are well beyond you.
What do I have to explain? you want to handicap groups of people who do worse academically, men do worse than women should we give men advantages until we see an even distribution of men and women graduating?
strong argument there with the "you are not trained in sociology, these topic is beyond you" lol, also your typical these people who said the same thing you did also said these bad things, Reddit is impairing your abilities to debate, you are using the tactics of people who don't have the congitive habilities to engage in a discussion, do better.
It's not an argument, it is an evidence-based claim. Your favorite retort, the one thing you always go back to, is this false idea that you have owned me on this particular subject of gender roles being based in biology. Meanwhile, the study you used never made the strong claims you made (I spent hours arguing with you in good faith about it which you now falsely claim I was dodging) and had a number of issues acknowledged by the authors, and on top of that--as if it wasn't enough already-- it could not replicate. Basing your worldview on one such study is incredibly amateurish. I'm only pointing out the obvious.
I've never said that I wanted to disadvantage "groups that do better." This lacks a modicum of context. And even just with that, there is a lot to unpack. What do we mean by "doing better"? How do we define it? Is one score good enough? What are SAT/ACT scores measuring? What are their origins? Who were they built to benefit the most? Are they good predictors of an individual's intelligence or success in the world? (and in what parts of that world?) I don't think they are very good to inform us about this, but I just frankly don't care to have a conversation exploring these things with a bad faith actor. I'll just leave it to these parting thoughts.
My position is that it is more moral to have a system that takes into account systemic oppression and systemic disadvantages than to have one that does not. That's pretty much it. You can twist it in however way you want to make yourself feel like the righteous one, I don't really care. And I don't care about these institutions in the first place. I know why they exist and who they serve and it's not in my interest with the politics that I have to defend them in any way. On top of it, if it is true that they are discriminating on the basis of race then they will face consequences because it is unconstitutional. So it makes it even more pointless to argue about it.
Your making a parallel between men and women just shows to me how you don't understand the argument in the first place. Men vs women is a meaningless distinction in that context. There is no clear socio-economic disparity between those groups. The goal of someone who is egalitarian-minded is not to achieve equality of outcome between all groups. It pertains to socio-economic disadvantages.
The data says that the main indicator of high SAT/ACT scores and therefore admissions is if you come from a highly privileged background. If you're upper class you will have more favorable circumstances that will lead to those highers scores than those who come from a slightly privileged background, and those with a slightly privileged background will have an advantage over those who don't have a privileged background. And that most of those from low-income are disproportionately Black and Latin American -- due primarily to the racist nature of the US--i.e long-term systemic discrimination-- not genetic or cultural differences.
So their lower scores don't indicate that they are dumber or backwards. That's the right-wing conception. In reality, if you do better than poor people because you were born into wealth it's largely attributable to the fact that you've gone to better, more well-funded schools, and because you could afford to eat 3 meals a day; it doesn't mean you are smarter. There were a lot of dumb people who went to Ivy universities. You think George Bush is smart? He went to Harvard like many other morons.
Being from a rich family is the main thing that will affect if you can get into an Ivy league school. It doesn't make you more deserving. In fact, it makes you less deserving. It allows you to benefit from things which you have never earned and you can pay to take multiple SATs (expensive tests for low income people). Also, the Wall Street Journal analyzed data from 9,000 public schools and found that students in affluent areas are most likely to get special "504 designations," typically provided to students with anxiety or ADHD, which allow special academic accommodations, like extra time or a private space when taking exams of all sorts — including the SAT.
The idea that a high score on some standardized test = the ultimate metric = meritocratic, and that you should not look at anything else is dumb and simplistic. It also doesn't mean that you are more likely to succeed later in life than someone who has been less favored and who'd be granted the same opportunity as you. Wealth has been shown to be a better indicator of success than academic scores. So on both points you are wrong, it's not "less qualified" people who "steal someone's spot because of the color of their skin".
What you are in essence advocating is that society belongs to the rich, period. (And it just so happens that most rich people in the US aren't brown or black, and that's perfectly OK because white people have merited their place at the top of the meritocratic hierarchy. It doesn't make you racist to be aware of this!) That's why you are a right-wing lib and arguing these things with you is completely pointless for me. This is the paradigm that you operate under and it will never change. Everything is predicated on that being the norm, and your reasoning supports it in every facet of life. Even when things are obvious and the data is strong. Even when it hits home. (NAFTA was good because "Mexican culture is backwards'').
You are in favor of a system that maintains social and cultural capital reproduction as it is. You don't truly recognize the effects that wealth has on every aspect of life under capitalism. Wealth, and all of the advantages that come from that are essentially self-justifying for you. We might as well be speaking two completely different languages.
The thing is, and that is the strangest thing for me to argue against: you don't apparently realize how harmful that is towards the myth of the American Dream. You don't realize what this does for social mobility. The main way that you can maintain such an unequal system of production is by selling the myth that you can "become your own man" to everyone -- including all minorities. It is absolutely vital that a strong majority believes that lie that everyone can make it, and that "hard work pays off," if you want capitalism to survive.
But if you build a society that functionally excludes black and brown groups from elite institutions, what do you think that does to perpetuate this (very necessary) myth? It will obviously just create more instability, which you don't want, because you like capitalism. So something like affirmative action should be something you support based on that alone: it gives more representation to more minorities which inspires them to orient their lives towards serving capital rather than, say, social justice interests.
In a very serious way, I could much prefer to have your system that further compounds on the discrimination towards brown and black people, because it would further highlight capitalism's inherent contradictions, its systemic racism, and accelerate its destruction. You're the one who should favor small concessions to groups that risk destabilizing the society you want to preserve. If you want to be greedy, you can't be too greedy. Isn't that one of daddy Peterson's lessons? Pareto distribution and all that? That the big rat has to lose on purpose at least a small percentage of the time if he wants to keep playing the game that makes him feel good with the weaker rat?
Seems like your thinking on this issue is extremely narrow-minded, as I'd expect if you got some talking points from Steven Crowder and Stephen Molyneux and you're just using them as "gotcha" points to own the libs and you never really reflected on their consequences.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 15 2020 19:16 Spitfiree wrote:
Yet the crime rate has somehow fallen by 60% in the past 30 years while immigration population went from 1% to 5% of the total
This thread really makes me think you guys are just not even trying at using statistics in any decent way. You can't be that stupid.
The rape spike is due to 2015 refugee crisis when we took 30k people from Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. We have had Tatar Muslims from Russia since forever, but I don't remember reading about them raping anyone. Also Estonians are over represented in rape statistics. I wonder why Sweden doesn't collect crime statistics by ethnicity...
On June 15 2020 19:16 Spitfiree wrote:
Yet the crime rate has somehow fallen by 60% in the past 30 years while immigration population went from 1% to 5% of the total
This thread really makes me think you guys are just not even trying at using statistics in any decent way. You can't be that stupid.
This is the 2nd time somebody has tried to use a dumb statistic to debunk another one.... this is even worse than Loco's one lol wtf Spitfiree you know both stats are not corelated and you didn't debunk anything right?
I mean, it would be meaningful if crimerate were static over time and also going from 99 to 95 is a very small change to see any overall trend change unless as i said the parameter were hugely static (crime rate) which it isn't.
Yes, I'm aware that my stats don't debunk anything, I'm just showing the alternative lame stats that you can view that don't prove anything, exactly to make the point that inserting some data in some random context to push a dumb statement is wasting your own time as well as everyone else's
That being said, the refugees coming from Afghanistan and Iraq can't even deal with something as basic as using a toilet (spoke to a teacher in Germany that taught the refugees - didn't believe it either) so it's no surprise they are a large part of reported crimes against women, since their societies still have women as slaves basically.
Perhaps we can blame the refugees, or perhaps we can blame a decade long policy of the West to destroy the region and prevent any type of development there. Either way the topic is much more complex than 'refugees are to blame'
Finland is probably the country the least ot blame about it since they've been trying to juggle Russia/EU/NATO/US relationships and have no time to deal with petty wars, but the result is the same nevertheless.
Last edit: 16/06/2020 11:08
0
hiems United States. Jun 16 2020 11:46. Posts 2979
On June 14 2020 14:48 Loco wrote:
The answer is no. I don't think this point is the "gotcha" that you think it is. We are arguing two different things. But feel free to explain the perceived hypocrisy.
You're not trained in sociology. If you were you couldn't be a right-libertarian. You were just spoonfed a just-so story by daddy Peterson and still proud of it two years later while the complexities of this topic are well beyond you.
What do I have to explain? you want to handicap groups of people who do worse academically, men do worse than women should we give men advantages until we see an even distribution of men and women graduating?
strong argument there with the "you are not trained in sociology, these topic is beyond you" lol, also your typical these people who said the same thing you did also said these bad things, Reddit is impairing your abilities to debate, you are using the tactics of people who don't have the congitive habilities to engage in a discussion, do better.
It's not an argument, it is an evidence-based claim. Your favorite retort, the one thing you always go back to, is this false idea that you have owned me on this particular subject of gender roles being based in biology. Meanwhile, the study you used never made the strong claims you made (I spent hours arguing with you in good faith about it which you now falsely claim I was dodging) and had a number of issues acknowledged by the authors, and on top of that--as if it wasn't enough already-- it could not replicate. Basing your worldview on one such study is incredibly amateurish. I'm only pointing out the obvious.
I've never said that I wanted to disadvantage "groups that do better." This lacks a modicum of context. And even just with that, there is a lot to unpack. What do we mean by "doing better"? How do we define it? Is one score good enough? What are SAT/ACT scores measuring? What are their origins? Who were they built to benefit the most? Are they good predictors of an individual's intelligence or success in the world? (and in what parts of that world?) I don't think they are very good to inform us about this, but I just frankly don't care to have a conversation exploring these things with a bad faith actor. I'll just leave it to these parting thoughts.
My position is that it is more moral to have a system that takes into account systemic oppression and systemic disadvantages than to have one that does not. That's pretty much it. You can twist it in however way you want to make yourself feel like the righteous one, I don't really care. And I don't care about these institutions in the first place. I know why they exist and who they serve and it's not in my interest with the politics that I have to defend them in any way. On top of it, if it is true that they are discriminating on the basis of race then they will face consequences because it is unconstitutional. So it makes it even more pointless to argue about it.
Your making a parallel between men and women just shows to me how you don't understand the argument in the first place. Men vs women is a meaningless distinction in that context. There is no clear socio-economic disparity between those groups. The goal of someone who is egalitarian-minded is not to achieve equality of outcome between all groups. It pertains to socio-economic disadvantages.
The data says that the main indicator of high SAT/ACT scores and therefore admissions is if you come from a highly privileged background. If you're upper class you will have more favorable circumstances that will lead to those highers scores than those who come from a slightly privileged background, and those with a slightly privileged background will have an advantage over those who don't have a privileged background. And that most of those from low-income are disproportionately Black and Latin American -- due primarily to the racist nature of the US--i.e long-term systemic discrimination-- not genetic or cultural differences.
So their lower scores don't indicate that they are dumber or backwards. That's the right-wing conception. In reality, if you do better than poor people because you were born into wealth it's largely attributable to the fact that you've gone to better, more well-funded schools, and because you could afford to eat 3 meals a day; it doesn't mean you are smarter. There were a lot of dumb people who went to Ivy universities. You think George Bush is smart? He went to Harvard like many other morons. Being rich is the main thing that will affect if you can get into an Ivy league school. It doesn't make you more deserving.
The idea that a high score on some standardized test = the ultimate metric = meritocratic, and that you should not look at anything else is dumb and simplistic. It also doesn't mean that you are more likely to succeed later in life than someone who has been less favored and who'd be granted the same opportunity as you. So on both points you are wrong, it's not "less qualified" people who "steal someone's spot because of the color of their skin".
What you are in essence advocating is that society belongs to the rich, period. (And it just so happens that most rich people in the US aren't brown or black, and that's perfectly OK because white people have merited their place at the top of the meritocratic hierarchy. It doesn't make you racist to be aware of this!) That's why you are a right-wing lib and arguing these things with you is completely pointless for me. This is the paradigm that you operate under and it will never change. Everything is predicated on that being the norm, and your reasoning supports it in every facet of life. Even when things are obvious and the data is strong. Even when it hits home. (NAFTA was good because "Mexican culture is backwards'').
You are in favor of a system that maintains social and cultural capital reproduction as it is. You don't truly recognize the effects that wealth has on every aspect of life under capitalism. Wealth, and all of the advantages that come from that are essentially self-justifying for you. We might as well be speaking two completely different languages.
The thing is, and that is the strangest thing for me to argue against: you don't apparently realize how harmful that is towards the myth of the American Dream. You don't realize what this does for social mobility. The main way that you can maintain such an unequal system of production is by selling the myth that you can "become your own man" to everyone -- including all minorities. It is absolutely vital that a strong majority believes that lie that everyone can make it, and that "hard work pays off," if you want capitalism to survive.
But if you build a society that functionally excludes black and brown groups from elite institutions, what do you think that does to perpetuate this (very necessary) myth? It will obviously just create more instability, which you don't want, because you like capitalism. So something like affirmative action should be something you support based on that alone: it gives more representation to more minorities which inspires them to orient their lives towards serving capital rather than, say, social justice interests.
In a very serious way, I could much prefer to have your system that further compounds on the discrimination towards brown and black people, because it would further highlight capitalism's inherent contradictions, its systemic racism, and accelerate its destruction. You're the one who should favor small concessions to groups that risk destabilizing the society you want to preserve. If you want to be greedy, you can't be too greedy. Isn't that one of daddy Peterson's lessons? Pareto distribution and all that? That the big rat has to lose on purpose at least a small percentage of the time if he wants to keep playing the game that makes him feel good with the weaker rat?
Seems like your thinking on this issue is extremely narrow-minded, as I'd expect if you got some talking points from Steven Crowder and Stephen Molyneux and you're just using them as "gotcha" points to own the libs and you never really reflected on their consequences.
Then why don't we base affirmative action on tax returns you DUMB-FUCK!
For what it is worth I don't like the idea of affirmative action based on tax-returns either, but we must take it one step at a time for you.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
Well yeah, that's why those institutions already have a holistic process that looks at individual socio-economic factors. But they still have to include race in elite institutions because diversity is considered an end in itself. It has nothing to do with morality, and when it has been examined by courts its not the thing that defines who gets in and who doesn't. With the possible exception of what happens with Asians apparently (for Harvard admissions) -- that their personal score (overall "grade'') is lower because their personalities are seen as less attractive on average. The traits they look at are "likability, courage, kindness and being widely respected". This is indeed discrimination but if you're a private institution... that's just capitalism fam. Also, if we were to just look at you as an example hiems, it would just be sound judgment, not discrimination.
I think black people could do just as well as Asians on those tests if they were given the same environment. Of course it's tricky because of the "model minority" mindset that so many Asian Americans inherit and which makes you guys into these heartless competitive bastards (who are often racists, in my experience) and is effectively child abuse. But yeah, most of it is about how well the schools that students attend are funded, the number of AP classes they attend, their access to tutors, whether they've taken standardized test preparation classes, etc.
Interestingly though, African immigrants are probably now outperforming Asian Americans in 2020:
"As of 2012, Asian Americans as a whole have obtained the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any racial and ethnic demographic in the country, a position in which African Immigrants, and their American-born offspring, have now started to outperform."
"African immigrants to the US are among the most educated groups in the United States. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is more than double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans."
It's pretty well accepted that this is why the minority model narrative was pushed by the US. It pits minorities against each other and allows Conservatives to deny systemic oppression against Brown and Black people when they can say "look, these Asians managed to do it, you people have no excuses". By fostering these prejudices it is easier for those in power to remain there. And in the worst case scenario the contrasting minorities are not just lazy or incompetent, they are criminals, or animals who breed too much and lack an instinct of self preservation and it's "in their blood" to be this way.
You have personally pushed this cultural racist narrative before and everyone who was on Discord at the time was exasperated with you, this is not me being unfair. It's just a fact that Asian Americans are often taught to think this way. I have an Asian American girlfriend who has many Asian American friends. They all recognized the same common racist talking points with their parents during BLM. The Chinese American WeChat community is apparently so bad that my Chinese American friend is making a video which she is planning to make Chinese subtitles for in order to try to explain to them that they are racists.
And yeah, the "strict father" model of parenting that puts all value of the child in their child's social status and career advancement is effectively child abuse.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 16/06/2020 17:09
0
hiems United States. Jun 16 2020 17:07. Posts 2979
On June 16 2020 16:03 Loco wrote:
It's pretty well accepted that this is why the minority model narrative was pushed by the US. It pits minorities against each other and allows Conservatives to deny systemic oppression against Brown and Black people when they can say "look, these Asians managed to do it, you people have no excuses". By fostering these prejudices it is easier for those in power to remain there. And in the worst case scenario the contrasting minorities are not just lazy or incompetent, they are criminals, and it's "in their blood".
You have personally pushed this cultural racist narrative before and everyone who was on Discord at the time was exasperated with you, this is not me being unfair. It's just a fact that Asian Americans are often thought to think this way. I have an Asian American girlfriend who has many Asian American friends. They all recognized the same common racist talking points. The Chinese American WeChat community is apparently so bad that my Chinese American friend is making a video which she is planning to make Chinese subtitles for in order to try to explain to them that they are racists.
And yeah, the "strict father" model of parenting that puts all value of the child in their child's social status and career advancement is effectively child abuse.
^ There are 0 fallacies in the above statement.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
"Though this may not be a task for your first conversation about race in the U.S., dismantling the model minority myth might help families understand how their own preconceived biases came to be.
“Asian Americans are fed this narrative,” Yamazaki said. “‘Look at Asian people, look at how well you’ve done.’ That narrative has been perpetuated by white people and internalized by Asian people.”
Though some Asians have long benefited from this idea, it’s a narrative designed to pit minority groups against one another, according to Iyer.
The stereotype was created to make geopolitical gains from the growing Asian immigrant population in the U.S. and wielded to stop black social movements, Ellen Wu, a historian and the author of “The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority,” told NBC Asian America last week.
White liberals in the 1960s weaponized the experiences of Japanese Americans post-internment, branding them as “success stories” and proof that people of color had equal opportunity. This tactic was employed as an attempt to weaken the civil rights movement, Wu said. Though it gave Asian Americans room for more social mobility than black Americans, it only fed into a system of white supremacy."
Think we've established that he doesn't read but only relies on his ultra original thoughts
0
hiems United States. Jun 16 2020 18:13. Posts 2979
On June 16 2020 16:20 Loco wrote:
"Though this may not be a task for your first conversation about race in the U.S., dismantling the model minority myth might help families understand how their own preconceived biases came to be.
“Asian Americans are fed this narrative,” Yamazaki said. “‘Look at Asian people, look at how well you’ve done.’ That narrative has been perpetuated by white people and internalized by Asian people.”
Though some Asians have long benefited from this idea, it’s a narrative designed to pit minority groups against one another, according to Iyer.
The stereotype was created to make geopolitical gains from the growing Asian immigrant population in the U.S. and wielded to stop black social movements, Ellen Wu, a historian and the author of “The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority,” told NBC Asian America last week.
White liberals in the 1960s weaponized the experiences of Japanese Americans post-internment, branding them as “success stories” and proof that people of color had equal opportunity. This tactic was employed as an attempt to weaken the civil rights movement, Wu said. Though it gave Asian Americans room for more social mobility than black Americans, it only fed into a system of white supremacy."
If reading is too hard, maybe this will do the trick
lol this is the dumbest shit ever. You are giving me a liberal's take on why liberal viewpoint is correct and trying the pass it along as "widely accepeted" rofl. I guess this "debunks" it once again. Seriously im tired of your dishonest arguing tactics / attempt for a pathetic comeback after I trashed u and ur dumbfuck liberal communist friends on here multiple already.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On June 14 2020 14:48 Loco wrote:
The answer is no. I don't think this point is the "gotcha" that you think it is. We are arguing two different things. But feel free to explain the perceived hypocrisy.
You're not trained in sociology. If you were you couldn't be a right-libertarian. You were just spoonfed a just-so story by daddy Peterson and still proud of it two years later while the complexities of this topic are well beyond you.
What do I have to explain? you want to handicap groups of people who do worse academically, men do worse than women should we give men advantages until we see an even distribution of men and women graduating?
strong argument there with the "you are not trained in sociology, these topic is beyond you" lol, also your typical these people who said the same thing you did also said these bad things, Reddit is impairing your abilities to debate, you are using the tactics of people who don't have the congitive habilities to engage in a discussion, do better.
It's not an argument, it is an evidence-based claim. Your favorite retort, the one thing you always go back to, is this false idea that you have owned me on this particular subject of gender roles being based in biology. Meanwhile, the study you used never made the strong claims you made (I spent hours arguing with you in good faith about it which you now falsely claim I was dodging) and had a number of issues acknowledged by the authors, and on top of that--as if it wasn't enough already-- it could not replicate. Basing your worldview on one such study is incredibly amateurish. I'm only pointing out the obvious.
I've never said that I wanted to disadvantage "groups that do better." This lacks a modicum of context. And even just with that, there is a lot to unpack. What do we mean by "doing better"? How do we define it? Is one score good enough? What are SAT/ACT scores measuring? What are their origins? Who were they built to benefit the most? Are they good predictors of an individual's intelligence or success in the world? (and in what parts of that world?) I don't think they are very good to inform us about this, but I just frankly don't care to have a conversation exploring these things with a bad faith actor. I'll just leave it to these parting thoughts.
My position is that it is more moral to have a system that takes into account systemic oppression and systemic disadvantages than to have one that does not. That's pretty much it. You can twist it in however way you want to make yourself feel like the righteous one, I don't really care. And I don't care about these institutions in the first place. I know why they exist and who they serve and it's not in my interest with the politics that I have to defend them in any way. On top of it, if it is true that they are discriminating on the basis of race then they will face consequences because it is unconstitutional. So it makes it even more pointless to argue about it.
Your making a parallel between men and women just shows to me how you don't understand the argument in the first place. Men vs women is a meaningless distinction in that context. There is no clear socio-economic disparity between those groups. The goal of someone who is egalitarian-minded is not to achieve equality of outcome between all groups. It pertains to socio-economic disadvantages.
The data says that the main indicator of high SAT/ACT scores and therefore admissions is if you come from a highly privileged background. If you're upper class you will have more favorable circumstances that will lead to those highers scores than those who come from a slightly privileged background, and those with a slightly privileged background will have an advantage over those who don't have a privileged background. And that most of those from low-income are disproportionately Black and Latin American -- due primarily to the racist nature of the US--i.e long-term systemic discrimination-- not genetic or cultural differences.
So their lower scores don't indicate that they are dumber or backwards. That's the right-wing conception. In reality, if you do better than poor people because you were born into wealth it's largely attributable to the fact that you've gone to better, more well-funded schools, and because you could afford to eat 3 meals a day; it doesn't mean you are smarter. There were a lot of dumb people who went to Ivy universities. You think George Bush is smart? He went to Harvard like many other morons.
Being from a rich family is the main thing that will affect if you can get into an Ivy league school. It doesn't make you more deserving. In fact, it makes you less deserving. It allows you to benefit from things which you have never earned and you can pay to take multiple SATs (expensive tests for low income people). Also, the Wall Street Journal analyzed data from 9,000 public schools and found that students in affluent areas are most likely to get special "504 designations," typically provided to students with anxiety or ADHD, which allow special academic accommodations, like extra time or a private space when taking exams of all sorts — including the SAT.
The idea that a high score on some standardized test = the ultimate metric = meritocratic, and that you should not look at anything else is dumb and simplistic. It also doesn't mean that you are more likely to succeed later in life than someone who has been less favored and who'd be granted the same opportunity as you. Wealth has been shown to be a better indicator of success than academic scores. So on both points you are wrong, it's not "less qualified" people who "steal someone's spot because of the color of their skin".
What you are in essence advocating is that society belongs to the rich, period. (And it just so happens that most rich people in the US aren't brown or black, and that's perfectly OK because white people have merited their place at the top of the meritocratic hierarchy. It doesn't make you racist to be aware of this!) That's why you are a right-wing lib and arguing these things with you is completely pointless for me. This is the paradigm that you operate under and it will never change. Everything is predicated on that being the norm, and your reasoning supports it in every facet of life. Even when things are obvious and the data is strong. Even when it hits home. (NAFTA was good because "Mexican culture is backwards'').
You are in favor of a system that maintains social and cultural capital reproduction as it is. You don't truly recognize the effects that wealth has on every aspect of life under capitalism. Wealth, and all of the advantages that come from that are essentially self-justifying for you. We might as well be speaking two completely different languages.
The thing is, and that is the strangest thing for me to argue against: you don't apparently realize how harmful that is towards the myth of the American Dream. You don't realize what this does for social mobility. The main way that you can maintain such an unequal system of production is by selling the myth that you can "become your own man" to everyone -- including all minorities. It is absolutely vital that a strong majority believes that lie that everyone can make it, and that "hard work pays off," if you want capitalism to survive.
But if you build a society that functionally excludes black and brown groups from elite institutions, what do you think that does to perpetuate this (very necessary) myth? It will obviously just create more instability, which you don't want, because you like capitalism. So something like affirmative action should be something you support based on that alone: it gives more representation to more minorities which inspires them to orient their lives towards serving capital rather than, say, social justice interests.
In a very serious way, I could much prefer to have your system that further compounds on the discrimination towards brown and black people, because it would further highlight capitalism's inherent contradictions, its systemic racism, and accelerate its destruction. You're the one who should favor small concessions to groups that risk destabilizing the society you want to preserve. If you want to be greedy, you can't be too greedy. Isn't that one of daddy Peterson's lessons? Pareto distribution and all that? That the big rat has to lose on purpose at least a small percentage of the time if he wants to keep playing the game that makes him feel good with the weaker rat?
Seems like your thinking on this issue is extremely narrow-minded, as I'd expect if you got some talking points from Steven Crowder and Stephen Molyneux and you're just using them as "gotcha" points to own the libs and you never really reflected on their consequences.
20 paragraphs and you dodged the question again, because you won't engage with a bad faith actor.
Pathetic you just can smell the body-slam coming so you keep dodging.
Contact Users: 822 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 12:34
