Do you concur with any race-based ideas articulated/acted on/held by white supremacist groups?

Rickeroo said:

I understand where you're coming from - that middle class neighborhoods tend to be white, and people don't move there because they favor the white race - they move there because of other reasons. The mechanics of the safety of the area, the mechanics of the quality of education, etc. I'd agree with this and I'm on your side here. This is 'merit-based' thinking regardless of race.

However, while we defend our right to live in middle class neighborhoods based on merit, which as a consequence are non-diverse, we condemn employers and police that treat minorities more harshly because of higher crime rates or a lack of job qualification / education. This gives rise to the concept that minorities should be treated with different rules: they are less educated because of racism, therefore they deserve 50 points on the SAT, they deserve to be hired rather than a more qualified white person. Lower standards set in, worsening the social segregation that minorities suffer.

It comes down to whether one thinks a tech company is racist/sexist by having more Asians, less women and less blacks. Merit-based arguments here would be that those that are good at math/programming happen to be Asian - the company isn't hiring them based on their race, they are hiring them because of their performance. If we condemn the tech company, we must also condemn ourselves: take ourselves out of the merit-based thinking on where to live, and choose to live in more 'diverse' areas.

Click to expand...

• I've come by many folks and groups who/that say racism is a key reason minorities have and have long had less opportunity to become well educated, and as a consequence are, as a segment of society, less well educated. That's a very different assertion from the one you, in "red," have attributed to whoever it be you think claims extant the "red" notion you've expressed.
  • What people, liberals, strive to obtain for minorities is equality in opportunity to become well educated, not equality in realized outcomes. Liberals take that stance because they realize that even today, and more so in even the not too distant past, racism and its accompaniments have interacted materially in the allocation and marshalling of resources -- tangible and intangible -- used to educate young Americans. Recognizing that to be so, liberals attempt to mitigate that "front-end" disparity via reparations made at a later point in young minorities' development.
• Economic Marxists seek equality of outcomes, but few, if any, US liberals, and none of the mainstream ones, propone such a notion.

ecofarm said:

False and racist.

We consider overcoming adversity to be a quality, a qualification. We seek the best and brightest for our universities. Recognizing the character, motivation and discipline to overcome obstacles is part of our evaluation. It's a part of the evaluation that you totally misunderstand. It's pathetic that you can't grasp what's actually happening, and your misinformed rationalizations are racist as ****.

Click to expand...

Rickeroo said:

I want to make sure I know where you're coming from. In terms of college entry, a black student who scored 50 points less on the SAT or lower GPA could be chosen over a white (or Asian) student with stronger academics. From the college's perspective, the 50 point deficit is more than made up for by the adversity the black student had to overcome, namely racism. This can continue with employers, as they hire black graduates who may have less GPA than white or Asian applicants, due to factoring in the adversity endured. Let me know if you agree with this, because the rest of my post assumes that you do.

Imagine for a moment, everyone is the same race, their skin is blue. This way, we aren't blinded by overwhelming preconceptions. Some blue people are less advantaged than others - some are poor, some come from broken homes. This subset of blue people doesn't score well on entrance exams, and employers don't want to hire them. Society champions the cause of the underserved blue people, and metrics such as overcoming adversity are applied to disadvantaged blues, allowing them to enter college or get jobs that they wouldn't otherwise qualify for.

Since everyone is blue, colleges and employers have a hard time whether to apply merit-based or overcoming-adversity based standards to applicants. The blue people come up with the idea that those who need to be judged less on merit and more on adversity will be tattooed on the forehead: "Overcame adversity: I need less actual merit to qualify".

If I were a disadvantaged blue person, would I want that tattoo? Would you want the tattoo?

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Red:
Who says that?

• I've come by many folks and groups who/that say racism is a key reason minorities have and have long had less opportunity to become well educated, and as a consequence are, as a segment of society, less well educated. That's a very different assertion from the one you, in "red," have attributed to whoever it be you think claims extant the "red" notion you've expressed.

Click to expand...

• 
  
  I don't see these two statements as contradictory:
  
  Your statement: Minorities have less opportunity to get well educated because of racism, and as a consequence as a segment of society, less well educated.
  
  My statement: Minorities are less well educated because of racism.
  
  Both statements come to the same conclusion: minorities are considered less well educated. By extension, white people are considered more educated. This sets up an undercurrent of esteem and respect, an estimation of capability, based on race. Indeed, the only reason that we can say minorities are 'less educated' is by comparing them to the 'more educated'. My statement that minorities are less well educated, which I consider a racist sentiment, is only generated for discussion purposes - painting an entire, racially recognizable subset of people as "less well educated", and thus less capable, is something that I wouldn't want myself subjected to, as the exercise in post #277 demonstrates.

Do you concur with any race-based ideas articulated/acted on/held by white supremacist groups?

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

When we're talking bottom of the barrel acceptance (which is where AA comes in), surviving and even thriving in a hostile environment with no resources is way more smart points than 50 sat.

It's pathetic that someone can't see qualifications beyond test scores. Well, pathetic or racist.

You're also ignorant of the history of why AA exists and its purpose. You apparenly have no idea that racism exists or that slavery still has impacts. You're totally unaware of the purpose and goals being reached. Complete ignorance. Yet you spew paragraphs of racist idiotic garbage.


Overcoming adversity is merit. What kind of racist idiocy is required to not see that. A completely and totally moronic and wrong view of AA - and racist. Big surprise.

Do us a favor and cry some more about how black people get all the breaks. What racist slimeball scumbaggery.

Click to expand...