Social justice is absurd
in Politics

JuicyMelonTech · August 2017

The rise of social justice in college campuses is absolutely absurd.
Essentially, Social justice is the basic idea that justice should be based on groups such as Race, religion, gender and sexual orientation, Completely abandoning actual individual justice, in favor of reverse gender and race privileges. I don't want a white man wrongly convicted of a crime because of the complexion of his skin, or his gender. Isn't this what the civil rights movement fought to stop many years ago? Isn't this what the original feminist movement sought to stop? Yet these so called Social justice warriors are telling people that the color of their skin, or their gender decides the severity of their actions. This is absolutely absurd, and scouring through the vastness of the internet, there only seems to be one stupid argument in favor of social justice.

1. These minority groups have been known too be born in unfair starting positions In life, therefore in deciding justice, we should focus on minority groups instead of actual individual justice.

this is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. I cannot even begin to explain how bad this is. Life is not fair, that is an unchangeable premise of life. Everyone starts in different positions, but that doesn't mean you get to chop down those who are lucky.
Life is mostly about decisions, not environment. The decisions you make decide your level of success. Not your skin color, race or gender. This is not the 1930's, this is 2017, where equality of opportunity is almost absolute. I don't mean literal equality of opportunity, that is impossible, i mean personal equality of opportunity, the idea that if you have the drive and the guts to do something, race, gender and religion will not get in your way.

Social justice leads to a corrupt justice system not based on actions, but on race, gender and sexual orientation. It also perverts our young into sensitive, egg shell headed snowflakes who cannot engage in any kind of debate, or even simple conversation. We must instill in our young a sense of righteousness, drive and the guts to pursue their dreams. Not the lazy everybody is a winner attitude that leads them into social justice and blaming things instead of taking things into their own hands. I rest my case and i invite any angry SJW's that would like to oppose

Max_Air29 · August 2017

@JuicyMelonTech , I agree with you completely!

Colleges are now now picking students based on gender, race etc.

SilverishGoldNova · August 2017

@Max_Air29 Don't forget all of this white guilt nonsense

natbarons · August 2017

@SilverishGoldNova , I disagree. You made a good point with the White Guilt, but I see it as other races catching up with education and careers through the world.

JuicyMelonTech · August 2017

Well no, it does not even the playing field, it simply creates privileges for different groups. It's like saying that a matriarchal society is better than a patriarchal one. It also creates the danger of group justice, in which if a black woman is rightly accused of murder, she will not be convicted simply because she is part of a minority group, whereas when a white man is wrongly accused, he has a higher chance of getting convicted. It is the individual actions, not your minority groups that decide justice. Yes black people have been oppressed in the past, yes women have been oppressed in the past, but does that mean that all black people and women should be released from prison? Social justice is racist and sexist, yet minority groups tend to value it, why? Well because of a falsified idea of what it is.

JuicyMelonTech · August 2017

This is an example of a social justice warrior. If you truly believe this is what you want our youth to turn into, then I urge you to think again

SnakesOfferingApples · August 2017

I agree SJWs are not only ruining social interactions, our colleges, but even entire countries. Look at England now, the refugees are pouring in, and they are bringing in Shari'a law with them. The SJWs are doing this all in the name of acceptance, are they kidding allowing the refugees to bring in the most dictatorial moral code in the world?

CYDdharta · August 2017

SJWs are just another hate group

SilverishGoldNova · August 2017

@natbarons I'm talking about these people who think they need to apologize for something that happened 200 years ago.

joecavalry · August 2017

@SilverishGoldNova , good point you made.

JuicyMelonTech · August 2017

So, to further the argument, how can we stop the rise of social justice in college campuses?

CYDdharta · August 2017

JuicyMelonTech said:

So, to further the argument, how can we stop the rise of social justice in college campuses?

Reintroduce commonsense in schools and de-emphasize college education. Particularly in a tech-oriented society, the vast majority of what's taught on college campuses is totally useless. Courses on human sexuality and music appreciation are of no use to system designers, maintainers, and programmers.

JuicyMelonTech · August 2017

CYDdharta said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

So, to further the argument, how can we stop the rise of social justice in college campuses?

Reintroduce commonsense in schools and de-emphasize college education. Particularly in a tech-oriented society, the vast majority of what's taught on college campuses is totally useless. Courses on human sexuality and music appreciation are of no use to system designers, maintainers, and programmers.

I agree. I also suggest removing gender studies as a whole, from college campuses, as it is essentially useless to our society and contributes nothing to our economy

SilverishGoldNova · August 2017

Tbh, the SJW definition of racism is when someone who isnt white isnt given special privileges based on slavery that happened 200 years ago.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

The argument is simple.

People suffer from racism and are less likely to succeed because of it.

We know for a certainty that this happens because we can look at differences in populations and samples and see the difference when all factors aside from race are account we for. Here is one example: http://noblestatman.com/uploads/6/6/7/3/66731677/name.bias.study.pdf

If you can't be bothered to read it, CVs where sent out with different names - some with names that typically belong to racial minorities - but otherwise functionally identical. There were statistically significant differences in uptake with the CVs with stereotypically black names getting less uptake even though the skills and education were identical.

So we know racism effects people's ability to succeed. However there is no way to magically look at the exact level of discrimination people face on an individual basis not to look into the future and see the discrimination they will face. We can only deal in population and sample averages. Therefore we put in place more wide ranging schemes to just try and alleviate some of the discrimination. It gets us closer to equality than sitting back and doing nothing.

Vaulk · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect

I took the time to read the 40 page report from the NBER and after reading it I looked back over and skimmed for the control measures of the experiment which is where I found the major and unmistakable problem with the experiment. Before we get too far into that, I'd like to point out a difficult problem that arises when trying to compare any racial disparity between Black and White People.

1. In the United States, Black people make up approximately 13.3% of the total population in the United States. White People are approximately 76.9% of the total population.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

2. 2014 DOJ reports that White People in the United States were responsible for:
   a. 99,403 crimes against Black People. This is absolutely unacceptable and while it doesn't necessarily prove anything about racism, it certainly doesn't look good.

3. 2014 DOJ reports that Black People in the United States were responsible for:
   a. 560,600 crimes against White People.

Hold on a second, so according to the U.S. Census bureau, the last population record puts the U.S. at 323,127,513 human beings. 13.3% being Black People would equal 42,975,959.229. 76.9% being White People would equal 248,485,057. Yet somehow, Black People are committing crimes against White People at a rate that is approximately 5.6 times higher than White People against Black People.

Now some would argue that this is simply a case of their being more White People than Black people and therefor a higher likelihood of the crimes being proportioned in that manner. However, the Hispanic population is only 30% higher than the Black population and the Crime rate of Black People against Hispanic People represents another huge disparity. According to the DOJ Black people are 27 times more likely to attack a White Person and 8 times more likely to attack a Hispanic Person than the other way around. Is THIS not a racial disparity? Are White People not being targeted by Black People at a staggeringly higher rate than White against Black? Does this mean that there's a higher instance of Blacks on White racism? I honestly don't know the answer to the question however, with the evidence from the DOJ, FBI as well as State and Local agencies, there stands more than enough reason to be concerned.

https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf

Now I said all that so I can say this: The report that @AlwaysCorrect posted was very well written...but it was done in Boston and Chicago. Boston (According to the latest population count) is approximately 149,202 Black and 320,944 White. There are other races in the mix but these are the two Races indicated in the report from @AlwaysCorrect. Please note the disparity in numbers, Blacks being approximately half the population of Whites. Now see the reports below of Crime Rates in Boston for your disparity report so you can see just what might influence the minds of Employers in Boston when it comes to hiring.
http://www.bphc.org/healthdata/health-of-boston-report/Documents/HOB-2014-2015/11_Violence_HOB 2014-2015.pdf

I'm not going to do Chicago, the numbers are incredibly, substantially, staggering. It's embarrassing to even talk about Chicago and I'm stunned that any reputable research organization would use Chicago in a control measure for a Racial Disparity test...it's intellectually dishonest.

So let's take a moment to discuss Racial Prejudice. Is it Racially Prejudice to say that Black people have Black skin? No, it's not. Black people do have Black skin for the most part and the exceptions are the rarity to the case. So we've established that stating a fact regarding a Race is not Prejudice...Racially or otherwise. Prejudice is a preconceived notion, it's characterized by being unfair, baseless, without logic or just reasoning. Is it Racially Prejudice to believe that more crimes against White People are committed by Black People than vice a Versa? No, it's not. Because they do and it's a fact. So then consider all that this information entails and the second and third order effects of the facts that I'm talking about. When we boil it down to the bottom line...and this is unfortunate...but Black People are more likely to be Criminals than White People. Why...we could argue that all day, race, poverty, history, inequality...but at the moment the reason doesn't affect the subsequent behavior of those in question.

Employers are in the business of making money for the Companies that they either own or manage. It's the responsibility of the Employer to make the best decisions for the entirety of the Company in all aspects of duties and responsibilities in the Employer role. One of these responsibilities is "Hiring new Employees". So, in Boston and Chicago...the two cities that were used in this experiment, what considerations would you have to take into account when deciding who to hire? What risks can you afford to take with your company? What risks are acceptable? If most high school dropouts don't possess the skills necessary to fulfill the positions you're looking to hire for and you can justifiably deny that demographic employment...then what other demographics can you eliminate and for what reason? If a Black Person in Chicago is 6 times more likely to kill you than a White Person...who would you hire on the possibility that you might have to fire them eventually? If you're a White business owner and you're hiring for a new position and you know that a Black Person is 27 times more likely to attack a White Person than vice a versa, 31 times more likely to be arrested for murder, 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than vice a versa, AND you knew that Black People accounted for 85% of the 660,000 interracial violent crimes in the U.S.....then would you refuse to take any of that into account when hiring a Black Person? Let me ask you this...would you refuse to take into account the possibility that a high school dropout might not be skilled enough to handle whatever tasks you require from them in a business setting? While I understand there's a difference between the two and they can't stand side by side, the point I'm making is this:

If you can EASILY adopt the idea that a high school dropout most likely won't be a good fit for your business then how much harder would it be in Chicago, where the murder rate is ludicrous, to adopt the idea that hiring a Black Person might be dangerous?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/02/ambush-style-killings-police-up-300/93155124/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12065/black-lives-matter-2016-chicago-homicides-surge-57-john-nolte

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@Vaulk

I'm sorry, what is your argument here? You have been rather vague about the overall points but It seems to be that rather than judging people on their actual individual accomplishments, e.g. "is this black person a criminal?" we should discriminate against them based on their race?

Not only does that make your prior stance hypocritical, but it seems that the distinction between the kind of discrimination you will accept and not accept is whether it helps or hinders black people.

Vaulk · August 2017

Vaulk said:

@AlwaysCorrect

Now I said all that so I can say this: The report that @AlwaysCorrect posted was very well written...but it was done in Boston and Chicago. Boston (According to the latest population count) is approximately 149,202 Black and 320,944 White. There are other races in the mix but these are the two Races indicated in the report from @AlwaysCorrect. Please note the disparity in numbers, Blacks being approximately half the population of Whites. Now see the reports below of Crime Rates in Boston for your disparity report so you can see just what might influence the minds of Employers in Boston when it comes to hiring.
http://www.bphc.org/healthdata/health-of-boston-report/Documents/HOB-2014-2015/11_Violence_HOB 2014-2015.pdf

@AlwaysCorrect The argument I'm making is against your statement here:

AlwaysCorrect said:

The argument is simple.

People suffer from racism and are less likely to succeed because of it.

We know for a certainty that this happens because we can look at differences in populations and samples and see the difference when all factors aside from race are account we for. Here is one example: http://noblestatman.com/uploads/6/6/7/3/66731677/name.bias.study.pdf

Your provided evidence for your statement "We "Know" for a certainty that this happens" is the link above which is a very nice report done by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the problem with the reference material is that it's a study that was conducted with poor control measures. Conducting an experiment to attempt to confirm or deny the existence of Racial discrimination in the "Labor market" for all of the United States by conducting your measurement in BOSTON or CHICAGO of all places in the United States would be like trying to conduct an experiment to confirm or deny the Majority language spoken in Texas by polling in Brownsville...the results are going to be horrible skewed.

Granted I don't think you pointed out this evidence on purpose or used deception directly but that doesn't change the fact that the Research data does not represent an accurate measurement of the Labor Market for the entirety of the United States as it suggests.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@Vaulk

This type of experiment is one that has been conducted numerous times across all different places in a variety of countries, the link I gave being just one example. Take http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/identifying_discrimination_pager_western.pdf which as well as examining two experiments in particular, also lays out some of the background to the decades of research in this area.

In regards to my question of your argument, I was specifically questioning the majority of the post where you seem to be making the argument that it is okay to discriminate against people based on their race, judging them not on their personal qualities and achievements but by any deviation from national averages. Essentially that because the minority of black people who commit crimes is proportionally bigger than the minority of black people who commit crimes, it is therefore acceptable to judge all the black people who have not committed crimes worse.

1Hacker0 · August 2017

I agree. If anything it is more racist to allow some races or genders to have the upper hand. The colleges which give black people the upper hand against Asians (in California because Asians are more likely to meet the college standards) is basically implying that black people are idiots. The real reason is that Asians outnumber blacks.

Vaulk · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect, duly noted concerning the multitude of research in the area and you are correct in that the research is extensive and most likely does show at some point an undeniable racial disparity. Unfortunately in this case, the research you cited originally was disingenuous as no logical application of social science could ignore the almost certainty of biased results that would come from researching the possibility of racial discrimination in cities like Boston and Chicago. To clarify, I'm not saying that you had anything to do with it, but the researchers having conducted this experiment despite the obvious problems with the control measures speaks volumes about either their competency in research or their intent.

To clarify the rest of my point, which I admit was more of a rant than a focused debate of the issue...there is a point in my listed statistics that separates Racial discrimination from sound reasoning. I'll offer it in an example.

Mr. Red owns a liquor store in Metropolitanville. Mr. Red's business is somewhat successful and receives patrons ranging from all walks of life. There is no disparity in his patrons in regard to economic, ethnic or cultural background. Starting today, every day, at exactly 2:00pm, a White man will enter his establishment and attempt to kill him. Mr. Red will successfully avoid death each day but will none-the-less have to deal with the possibility of dying at the hands of a White Man...every day. It won't take long for Mr. Red to naturally become wary and anxious in the presence of White Men in his establishment around 2:00pm each day. Now let's remove the time constraint (We'll move to a more realistic possibility), instead of 2:00pm it will happen randomly every day. Mr. Red would undoubtedly become more and more suspicious, cautious and wary of White Men in his establishment...throughout the entire day for the fear of experiencing the attacks that are a daily frequency. Now let's back off the frequency to once per week (Substantially lower than the actual instances of crime in Chicago). So now Mr. Red can reasonably expect that he will receive an attack on his life once per week, from a White Man who will diligently attempt to kill him.

Let's analyze this:
1. Is Mr. Red committing Racial Discrimination by behaving in such a manner that is consistent with someone expecting to be attacked by a person of a specific Race?
In order to answer this we must first ask:
   a. Is it reasonable to expect that a White Man will attempt to kill Mr. Red? The answer is Yes.
   b. Is it unfair to expect that a White Man will attempt to kill Mr. Red? The answer is No.
   c. Is the notion that Mr. Red's life will be threatened by a White Man preconceived? The answer is No.
Then the answer to our first question: Is it Racial Discrimination...is No...it's not. There stands evidence, reason, rationale and good supporting arguments to convince any reasonable and prudent person of intellectual capacity that Mr. Red should be wary of White Men in his establishment.

So while my points were in more of a rant form, my original listing of these statistics prove without a shadow of a doubt that there stands substantial reason to believe that Black People (In Chicago) do pose a higher risk than other races. Now I'm not saying that all Black People are dangerous, I'm not saying that all Black People are bad people. I'm saying that "In Chicago" and other places like it...yes...there's a rational and reasonable thought process that would make anyone (Including other Black People) naturally wary and fearful of Black People. When the Murder rate in Chicago hits 762 in one year and 71% of the murderers are Black...you're no longer dealing with Racial Discrimination. Instead you're dealing with Human Beings who are prone to the intelligence to see unmistakable patterns in people and to naturally develop a sense of wariness as a built in defense mechanism. This same defense mechanism keeps us from driving through the bad parts of town, swimming out into deep water alone, and traveling to 3rd World Countries where Americans are kidnapped and ransomed. Do we avoid these circumstances because we're discriminatory in nature? No, we avoid them because there's rational logic behind staying away from them.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@Vaulk

So your argument is in fact that race based discrimination is okay and it is perfectly acceptable to judge people based not on their own individual abilities, achievements, skills, personality, etc but to automatically make negative assumptions on them based on their race?

Yeah, that's racial discrimination. That's not a flaw in the research and the fact you support this flags you as racist.

Vaulk · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Vaulk

So your argument is in fact that race based discrimination is okay and it is perfectly acceptable to judge people based not on their own individual abilities, achievements, skills, personality, etc but to automatically make negative assumptions on them based on their race?

Yeah, that's racial discrimination. That's not a flaw in the research and the fact you support this flags you as racist.

This is a deductive fallacy because you've stated as a fact (Not questioned) that my argument is that "Race based discrimination is ok" and you've further specified that my argument supports the acceptance of making "Negative assumptions" about people based on their race. And I never said that, it wasn't implied, suggested, inferred and cannot be drawn by process of logical deduction.

This is also a Red Herring because instead of addressing my argument (Which was not as you stated it was) you've stated that my argument is not only supportive of Racial Discrimination, but it flags me as a Racist.

Which brings me to the third logical fallacy, Ad hominem "Poisoning the well" and "Abusive Fallacy". Labeling me a Racist is a direct reference to my character and does nothing to support or refute my argument, therefor stating that I support Racial Discrimination and subsequently I'm flagged as a Racist is undeniably an Ad Hominem attack and is intellectually disingenuous. Even if I WAS a Racist...it still degrades the debate and could easily be handled effectively in any number of ways that don't include calling someone a "Racist".

Now I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you didn't do any of that on purpose for the sake of the debate because when the debate methodology breaks down...no one can benefit from a new or adjusted perspective. So instead of focusing on this I'm going to clarify for everyone here what discrimination is so that we can take it off the table, the usage in today's society is misleading from what it actually is and serves to make villains out of honest people who don't agree with mainstream ideologies.

Discrimination: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination

Prejudice: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prejudice

Now, to make sure we're all on the same page here, we're talking about Boston and Chicago exclusively...as this is what my original post was concerning and I did in fact specify that my reference in this matter was concerning these two cities and only these two cities.

I've suggested the following:

In Boston and Chicago, the idea that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes against other races than any other race is not unreasonable...it's a fact. It's not an opinion, it's not an allegation, this conclusion is the result of multiple Federal Departments conducting statistical analysis and collecting crime data for over six years. The idea isn't prejudice because it's not a preconceived opinion...it's not an opinion at all. It's not unreasonable...it's completely within the realm of reason. Any reasonable and prudent person would agree that it's a fair statement. Additionally, I never suggested in any way, shape or form that Black people should be treated differently than White people...ever. I made no reference to treating someone with discrimination or acting out against someone with discrimination or prejudice...I simply stated that people feeling wary or even fearful of Black people in Chicago and Boston aren't wrong for "Feeling" that way. Even my example of Mr. Red....I made no reference to him actually doing anything to the perpetrator in his establishment...I only noted that Mr. Red was anxious, wary, suspicious, scared and fearful for his life. You cannot discriminate against someone if you don't "Treat" them unjustly or with prejudice. I've made NO case for treating people of any race badly.

Lastly I suggested clearly that being wary, fearful or just downright terrified of Black people in Chicago or Boston is perfectly normal and that it's not prejudice that's doing it....it's the facts about what's happening there. If the facts are worrying you, legitimate, reasonable, certified facts...then it's not prejudice. Prejudice requires that there be a preconceived opinion (Not a fact) that is NOT based on reason or actual experience. So if you've got facts that tell you that something's dangerous or highly likely to be dangerous or that it's the highest likelihood of being dangerous compared to all related things...then is it prejudice to stay away from it? Is it prejudice to be fearful of it? The answer is no...no matter how much you don't like it...no matter how much you want to throw the race card on the top...it's not prejudice. In other places in the United States...possibly, but not in Chicago or Boston. A spade is a spade no matter how you try to spin it...words mean things. You cannot start calling something discrimination just because you feel like it is. Context can influence words but the idea of calling something discrimination because you feel like it is is again disingenuous and serves as a major flaw in the debating process.

To summarize: In order to discriminate against someone you must treat them unfairly or with prejudice. Treating someone unfairly or with prejudice would require that you take action against them either directly or indirectly. My argument makes no reference to treating anyone in any way, shape or form and specifically and intentionally excludes acting out towards Black People. If you don't act out then you cannot discriminate against anyone. I'm suggesting that the ideology that "Might" be behind the Racial disparity in job hiring in Boston and Chicago (Exclusively) is the idea that Black People are more dangerous than White People in these two areas and that you are at a much higher risk for loss of life in hiring a Black Person vs a White or Hispanic Person. This idea that you're more likely to be killed by a Black Person in Chicago or Boston isn't prejudice or discriminatory...it's based 100% on facts and statistics provided by Federal Organizations that have specifically and intentionally released these figures to the public as a matter of public awareness. Since it's based on facts, it cannot be considered prejudice.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@Vaulk

Quick question before I respond in depth, are you male?

Edit: Also is English your first language because my reply will be a whole lot more temperate if some of the stuff you're saying could be explained by a lower than normal grasp of English.

CYDdharta · August 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Vaulk

So your argument is in fact that race based discrimination is okay and it is perfectly acceptable to judge people based not on their own individual abilities, achievements, skills, personality, etc but to automatically make negative assumptions on them based on their race?

Yeah, that's racial discrimination. That's not a flaw in the research and the fact you support this flags you as racist.

That's what affirmative action does. It automatically assumes people will make negative assumptions based on their position in a company.

LOL, everyone is a racist to you.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@CYDdharta

Dude, apply a basic contextual analysis.

Vaulk · August 2017

@JuicyMelonTech, agreed,

JuicyMelonTech said:

Well no, it does not even the playing field, it simply creates privileges for different groups. It's like saying that a matriarchal society is better than a patriarchal one. It also creates the danger of group justice, in which if a black woman is rightly accused of murder, she will not be convicted simply because she is part of a minority group, whereas when a white man is wrongly accused, he has a higher chance of getting convicted. It is the individual actions, not your minority groups that decide justice. Yes black people have been oppressed in the past, yes women have been oppressed in the past, but does that mean that all black people and women should be released from prison? Social justice is racist and sexist, yet minority groups tend to value it, why? Well because of a falsified idea of what it is.

There's no justice in executing punishment for wrong doing based upon your group. I think everyone here can agree that Black People have been oppressed in the past but so has every Race of people on the Earth in some way shape or form. The victim mentality is entirely too prevalent in our Culture today and needs to be squashed in order to pave the way for a stronger and better Society.

JuicyMelonTech · August 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

The argument is simple.

People suffer from racism and are less likely to succeed because of it.

We know for a certainty that this happens because we can look at differences in populations and samples and see the difference when all factors aside from race are account we for. Here is one example:

If you can't be bothered to read it, CVs where sent out with different names - some with names that typically belong to racial minorities - but otherwise functionally identical. There were statistically significant differences in uptake with the CVs with stereotypically black names getting less uptake even though the skills and education were identical.

So we know racism effects people's ability to succeed. However there is no way to magically look at the exact level of discrimination people face on an individual basis not to look into the future and see the discrimination they will face. We can only deal in population and sample averages. Therefore we put in place more wide ranging schemes to just try and alleviate some of the discrimination. It gets us closer to equality than sitting back and doing nothing.

Why are you stating that the solution to racism, is reverse racism in favor of racial minorities?
Originally conceived as a means to redress racism, affirmative action has instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.

Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers. If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in "The bell curve" (By charles murray)

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

JuicyMelonTech said:

Why are you stating that the solution to racism, is reverse racism in favor of racial minorities?

Trying to frame affirmitive action as racist is completely ignorant, like saying that a serial killing an innocent is murder and a police officer shooting a serial killer to stop them killing an innocent is also murder, specifically "reverse murder".

Affirmative action is about mitigating the inequalities caused by racism. Does affirmitive action end up in favour of minorities? no, obviously not, look at stats for average income, education, etc by

Originally conceived as a means to redress racism, affirmative action has instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.

Empty unsupported claims.

Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers. If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

If you want to provide arguments, please source them. Also you seem to be arguing here in support of an expanded affirmative action, not against affirmative action.

another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in "The bell curve" (By charles murray)

What are you suggesting is the problem here?

CYDdharta · August 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

Why are you stating that the solution to racism, is reverse racism in favor of racial minorities?

Trying to frame affirmitive action as racist is completely ignorant, like saying that a serial killing an innocent is murder and a police officer shooting a serial killer to stop them killing an innocent is also murder, specifically "reverse murder".

Affirmative action is about mitigating the inequalities caused by racism. Does affirmitive action end up in favour of minorities? no, obviously not, look at stats for average income, education, etc by

That's a poor example. Police identify suspects who pose a specific threat before taking action. Affirmative action assumes everyone is guilty and indiscriminately punishes them. Sidestepping Godwin's law for the moment, the closest current example for your police officers with that would approximate affirmative action would be Duterte's war on drugs.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

Why are you stating that the solution to racism, is reverse racism in favor of racial minorities?

Trying to frame affirmitive action as racist is completely ignorant, like saying that a serial killing an innocent is murder and a police officer shooting a serial killer to stop them killing an innocent is also murder, specifically "reverse murder".

Affirmative action is about mitigating the inequalities caused by racism. Does affirmitive action end up in favour of minorities? no, obviously not, look at stats for average income, education, etc by

That's a poor example. Police identify suspects who pose a specific threat before taking action. Affirmative action assumes everyone is guilty and indiscriminately punishes them. Sidestepping Godwin's law for the moment, the closest current example for your police officers with that would approximate affirmative action would be Duterte's war on drugs.

You've misunderstood my point and actually just accepted my argument.

As I said in my previous post to you "Dude, apply a basic contextual analysis."

The point is not that shootings and affirmative actions are directly analogous with each other - it's an example of contextual analysis. With the shooting, the basic event of "a guy gets shot" is the same in either scenario. To decide if it's right or wrong, you have to look at the situation and look at the 'how' and 'why' this action happened. You yourself make this argument thinking that you are disputing my point rather than affirming it!

Of course anyone who tried to make the claim "All shootings are automatically the same regardless of context" would be thought of as superficial and childish because context matters. Yet you and JuciyMelonTech make exactly that kind of immature argument - the very kind that you have now implicitly accepted is ineligible.

I will ignore your semantics about affirmative action "guilt" and "punishment" as irrelevant.

northsouthkorea · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect , you made some good points in your argument!

CYDdharta · August 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

Why are you stating that the solution to racism, is reverse racism in favor of racial minorities?

Trying to frame affirmitive action as racist is completely ignorant, like saying that a serial killing an innocent is murder and a police officer shooting a serial killer to stop them killing an innocent is also murder, specifically "reverse murder".

Affirmative action is about mitigating the inequalities caused by racism. Does affirmitive action end up in favour of minorities? no, obviously not, look at stats for average income, education, etc by

That's a poor example. Police identify suspects who pose a specific threat before taking action. Affirmative action assumes everyone is guilty and indiscriminately punishes them. Sidestepping Godwin's law for the moment, the closest current example for your police officers with that would approximate affirmative action would be Duterte's war on drugs.

You've misunderstood my point and actually just accepted my argument.

As I said in my previous post to you "Dude, apply a basic contextual analysis."

The point is not that shootings and affirmative actions are directly analogous with each other - it's an example of contextual analysis. With the shooting, the basic event of "a guy gets shot" is the same in either scenario. To decide if it's right or wrong, you have to look at the situation and look at the 'how' and 'why' this action happened. You yourself make this argument thinking that you are disputing my point rather than affirming it!

Of course anyone who tried to make the claim "All shootings are automatically the same regardless of context" would be thought of as superficial and childish because context matters. Yet you and JuciyMelonTech make exactly that kind of immature argument - the very kind that you have now implicitly accepted is ineligible.

I will ignore your semantics about affirmative action "guilt" and "punishment" as irrelevant.

My point seems to have completely eluded you. Affirmative action doesn't look at individual cases, it assumes everyone is guilty and demands everyone take corrective action. Since the action demanded is based on race and assumes guilt, affirmative action, by definition, is racist.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

Why are you stating that the solution to racism, is reverse racism in favor of racial minorities?

Trying to frame affirmitive action as racist is completely ignorant, like saying that a serial killing an innocent is murder and a police officer shooting a serial killer to stop them killing an innocent is also murder, specifically "reverse murder".

Affirmative action is about mitigating the inequalities caused by racism. Does affirmitive action end up in favour of minorities? no, obviously not, look at stats for average income, education, etc by

That's a poor example. Police identify suspects who pose a specific threat before taking action. Affirmative action assumes everyone is guilty and indiscriminately punishes them. Sidestepping Godwin's law for the moment, the closest current example for your police officers with that would approximate affirmative action would be Duterte's war on drugs.

You've misunderstood my point and actually just accepted my argument.

As I said in my previous post to you "Dude, apply a basic contextual analysis."

The point is not that shootings and affirmative actions are directly analogous with each other - it's an example of contextual analysis. With the shooting, the basic event of "a guy gets shot" is the same in either scenario. To decide if it's right or wrong, you have to look at the situation and look at the 'how' and 'why' this action happened. You yourself make this argument thinking that you are disputing my point rather than affirming it!

Of course anyone who tried to make the claim "All shootings are automatically the same regardless of context" would be thought of as superficial and childish because context matters. Yet you and JuciyMelonTech make exactly that kind of immature argument - the very kind that you have now implicitly accepted is ineligible.

I will ignore your semantics about affirmative action "guilt" and "punishment" as irrelevant.

My point seems to have completely eluded you. Affirmative action doesn't look at individual cases, it assumes everyone is guilty and demands everyone take corrective action. Since the action demanded is based on race and assumes guilt, affirmative action, by definition, is racist.

Now take this basic superficial analysis and apply some of that contextual analysis like we were just talking about. Also repeating semantic arguments isn't going to make them more relevant.

CYDdharta · August 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

Now take this basic superficial analysis and apply some of that contextual analysis like we were just talking about. Also repeating semantic arguments isn't going to make them more relevant.

I'm applying just as much contextual analysis as the studies you cited. There was no in-depth analysis about why employers why they made the choices they made, they just reported the numbers and a couple anecdotes. That's a shame, because why employers feel the way they do would be much more informative than anything in the studies you've posted.

What point are you trying to make? Is discrimination never to be tolerated? Then affirmative action must end, because by its very nature it is discriminatory. Or is discrimination just fine and dandy as long as it aids a group you think could use the help?

...and FYI; dodging the points I'm making doesn't strengthen your position.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@CYDdharta

So your claim is there is no difference in context between creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race and creating greater equality by providing benefits to people to balance out a portion of the damage done by racism? Even though those are clearly different contexts where the goals are 180 opposites?

Vaulk · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

So your claim is there is no difference in context between creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race and creating greater equality by providing benefits to people to balance out a portion of the damage done by racism? Even though those are clearly different contexts where the goals are 180 opposites?

I believe you've just shown why @CYDdharta is correct. In the cases where Affirmative Action denies an opportunity to a person because of their Race in order to offer the same opportunity to another person of a different race...that's a point blank example of racial discrimination.

If I told a Purple Woman that she can't have the job I'm offering because it's reserved for a Pink Woman instead...then I've denied her the opportunity to even apply for the job in question exclusively on the grounds of her Race. What else would you call it when you deny someone an opportunity because of their Race?

Your summary is also missing a critical element as you've excluded (Conveniently) that in both cases someone will be treated "Worse" because of their race. A proper summary would look something like this:

"So your claim is there is no difference in context between creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race and creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race in order to provide benefits to other races of people to balance out a portion of damage done by racism".

The problem with the summary above though, is that it would essentially acknowledge that it's the NAACP's function to treat people worse than other people based on their race in order to repair damage done by racism...or in layman's terms "It's ok to commit racial discrimination in order to apologize for racial discrimination".

Or...hell...I don't know, maybe you're trying to say "It's not racial discrimination to deny someone an opportunity based on their race as long as the purpose of doing so is to further the advancement of another race that's perceived to be at a disadvantage". I want to give the benefit of the doubt here because this is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard but it honestly sounds like what you're trying to say.

randal · August 2017

@alwayscorrect , good arguments.

CYDdharta · August 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

So your claim is there is no difference in context between creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race and creating greater equality by providing benefits to people to balance out a portion of the damage done by racism? Even though those are clearly different contexts where the goals are 180 opposites?

What I'm saying is that you can't get rid of racial discrimination by discriminating based on race.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

Vaulk said:

@AlwaysCorrect

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

So your claim is there is no difference in context between creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race and creating greater equality by providing benefits to people to balance out a portion of the damage done by racism? Even though those are clearly different contexts where the goals are 180 opposites?

I believe you've just shown why @CYDdharta is correct. In the cases where Affirmative Action denies an opportunity to a person because of their Race in order to offer the same opportunity to another person of a different race...that's a point blank example of racial discrimination.

If I told a Purple Woman that she can't have the job I'm offering because it's reserved for a Pink Woman instead...then I've denied her the opportunity to even apply for the job in question exclusively on the grounds of her Race. What else would you call it when you deny someone an opportunity because of their Race?

Your summary is also missing a critical element as you've excluded (Conveniently) that in both cases someone will be treated "Worse" because of their race. A proper summary would look something like this:

"So your claim is there is no difference in context between creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race and creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race in order to provide benefits to other races of people to balance out a portion of damage done by racism".

The problem with the summary above though, is that it would essentially acknowledge that it's the NAACP's function to treat people worse than other people based on their race in order to repair damage done by racism...or in layman's terms "It's ok to commit racial discrimination in order to apologize for racial discrimination".

Or...hell...I don't know, maybe you're trying to say "It's not racial discrimination to deny someone an opportunity based on their race as long as the purpose of doing so is to further the advancement of another race that's perceived to be at a disadvantage". I want to give the benefit of the doubt here because this is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard but it honestly sounds like what you're trying to say.

Why are you just repeating the same superficial points rather than addressing the points I've raised?

Not only that, but this position is mutually exclusive with the position you held in the previous post. In your previous post you defended racial discrimination as long as there was a rationale for it. Now you say that racial discrimination is not applicable in any circumstances even if there is a rationale for it. Please decide which of your mutually exclusive arguments you actually believe in, then I'll respond.

Also if you still hold to your initial argument, are you male?

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

So your claim is there is no difference in context between creating inequality by treating people worse because of their race and creating greater equality by providing benefits to people to balance out a portion of the damage done by racism? Even though those are clearly different contexts where the goals are 180 opposites?

What I'm saying is that you can't get rid of racial discrimination by discriminating based on race.

That's a nice sounding homily but not an actual argument.

CYDdharta · August 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

That's a nice sounding homily but not an actual argument.

OTOH, affirmative action is no solution

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

That's a nice sounding homily but not an actual argument.

OTOH, affirmative action is no solution

Still not an actual argument. A child could say "I am right". An adult can explain why they're right.

CYDdharta · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect ...and a fool can say "that's not an argument". If discrimination isn't to be tolerated, then affirmative action, which is discriminatory, must be ended.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@CYDdharta

Yes, it takes no great intelligence to point out that someone just reiterating the same pointless claim and refusing to actually engage with the debate is a time-wasting idiot.

CYDdharta · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect Mirrors really can post on the internet.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@CYDdharta

So you've accepted my proposition that merely making baseless claims is useless? Then please go back and engage with the original point like an adult.

There is a lot of room for interesting conversation here, weighing up the mutual benefits and disadvantages of the individual difficulties versus the overall racial benefits to affirmative action. Of course that involves actually looking at how the entire process works, not simply repeating the same point over and over again like a catechism.

CYDdharta · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect I accept that the claims you are making are baseless and useless. I'm pointing out the fundamental weakness of affirmative action which you refuse to address. Only when you address the core flaw can we have a discussion.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@CYDdharta

You are acting like a child. You are literally doing the equivalent of "No, you're a doo -doo head". I'm not insulted because I think both my posts AND your posts make you look bad and incapable of forming a real argument.

My argument is based on the most fundamental aspects of debate and arguing in good faith, that when someone claims something they need to back it up and support it - the burden of proof. Hence why I am asking you to back up your arguments. Feel free to google or wiki or if you realyl insist I'll do it for you, but this is the very basics of having an open and honest argument. So when you say that something is such and such a way, you need to back it up. otherwise all it is is your opinion which might mean a lot to you but is worthless in a debate. See how even now I'm walking you through the logic of how my argument is relevant, not simply stating my opinion? That's the difference.

If this fundamental weakness to my argument exists, why can you not prove it? Why do you just merely repeat your opinion by making claims rather than presenting evidence, reasoning or logic?

In fact the only thing that is required for a debate to progress is for two people to argue in good faith. You are refusing to do that.

CYDdharta · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect ; Lots of rambling and ad hominems, but once again, you fail to address my simple point. How does discriminating against people based on their race help end racism?

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@CYDdharta

If you would like to claim that my points don't make sense or are as hominems, please back this up. Again you have just made unsupported claims.

In regards to your question, this relies on unsupported premise which you refuse to back up. There is no need for me to reply to points which rely on unproven claims.

I'll be nice and do you a favour though and walk you through the basics.

There is overall inequality between black and white people with white people doing better and black people doing worse, yes?

If we intervene and promote black people somewhat to better their chances, what does this do to the net level of of inequality? It decreases. White people still do better, but the overall inequality gap closes.

Vaulk · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect,

I'll be happy to hook you up.

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

You are acting like a child.

This an Ad Hominem. By directing your response against @CYDdharta instead of his position and overtly, outwardly and blatantly attacking his character by asserting that his behavior is "Like a child", you've committed a logical fallacy which undermines your entire subsequent argument. This example (As well as several others) is why I don't respond to your arguments anymore and the reason why (If you continue to do this sort of thing) a majority of the members here will eventually refuse to do debate business with you. Nobody wants to debate if their character is going to come into play, if someone's going to start slinging mud or if someone simply can't respect the debating method.

"Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies".
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

The Gilgo Beach Serial Killings

In this Debate

Social justice is absurd
in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

The Gilgo Beach Serial Killings

In this Debate

Social justice is absurdin Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Social justice is absurd
in Politics