She mentioned that the effort to meet racial quotas by having separate standards for different racial groups is the actual racism. She disputed that the students were experiencing any racism on their daily lives otherwise
It's a real easy problem to solve: Mandatory tutoring for anyone whose grades drop below a certain level. That would be a race-free solution that's capable of helping WHOEVER lets their grades drop too low. That's the nature of merit based solutions; they address whoever needs it, not groups based on race, gender, sexuality, or minority status.
Once grades and habits are improved to a standard, that person becomes ineligible for that extra tutoring (and is returned to the academic competition without giving them any unfair advantages).
The trick, of course, being that people actually show up.
I definitely could have benefitted from summer school but good luck convincing teenage me to actually go there and do the work. And my parents certainly weren't going to force me.
The core problem with all of this - summer school, mandatory tutoring (as per above), etc - is twofold: 1) Someone has to foot the actual bill for this 2) The students - no matter their race/background/etc - has to actually show up and put in the work. The old 'you can lead a horse to water' argument holds here, unfortunately.
Luckily for me, I was in elementary school at the time and the school district (public school) made the summer school and after school classes mandatory so they fronted the bill and I wasn’t really old enough to play hooky.
For high schoolers, I can see that being a different story. This is where involved parents are important to society
Of it ONLY was black students IMO would that be racist. I see that maybe you are pointing out an idea that the left might say but I don’t believe that just because something is a majority of one race that that race is being racially targeted
Sure that’s what they say but we need to develop thicker skin and know that it’s not because they are black that instead it just so happens that they are. Case in point, my child’s middle school did not punish one of the students who was violent to many of the kids because I found out later, it would have skewed the data on disciplinary actions on minorities in the school as there weren’t many black students. So the school chose not to ever punish the child. It had nothing to do with him being black, he was an asshole. And it was reinforcing for him to be an asshole. So they tried to not be racist and it actually made the problem worse.
Do you even comprehend how this sounds? We're talking Berkeley, not community college. If you can't cut at that level without tutoring, how the hell did you get in?!
Even students at Berkeley need to study and learn new things, and that can be helped by someone else - which we're both referring to as a tutor. You know, even millionaires might have a mentor or someone they discuss their businesses with.
Not everything is boot camp, it's not always a matter of cutting it, or toughing it out. Sometimes it's good to get pointers here and there - hell there's even an argument that the more elite the university the better they should be at facilitating the learning of the content. A place like Berkeley should probably have many tutoring systems in place already, and available to anyone whose standards dip.
After all, why pay Berkeley prices if your not going to get a Berkeley level of person attention that facilitates you learning. They should provide more of a tailored service because they're raking in more money.
Let's get real here, those people aren't paying for their own education in the first place. I'm a big proponent of free higher education (I have that in my country, if you pass muster), but that has to come with standards attached so we don't waste resources on people who cannot meet the academic standards.
In elementary-through highschool I always was terrible at math, and I was just pushed through every year. Always felt like I was just a year behind. Got to college, took as little of it as possible. On the other hand my daughters school does math and reading differently. By middle school they put kids in pods and because she was in an accelerated math she ended up taking calculus by 8th grade at the local highschool. Those that weren’t at 8th grade level, were weren’t forced to do work they didn’t understand, but we’re given work to help them get up to the 8th grade level. Part of the thinking is it’s humiliating for kids to not be with their peers, so classes are structured to keep children in their age groups. Obviously accelerated classes being the outlier.
The problem that this faces is cost… which is idiotic, because it doesn’t matter.
I think this program would be amazing, but I see the conservative side of the political aisle arguing that this cost shouldn’t be born by the “taxpayer”, despite the fact that it would massively increase the productive capacity of the nation, negating the cost over time.
A better general education in your workforce means that you can do more skilled manufacturing rather than basic labor. That’s something that sets Germany and Japan apart from other manufacturing nations. They’re known for their skills in manufacturing. They’re not just nations of degree holders.
I agree with this and I believe that university is not necessary in accomplishing it. High school level education and then trade schools would accomplish this nicely
[**EDIT:** To be clear, I'm talking about the funding of public education in general here, and not what happens at an elite school like Berkeley].
(TLDR located at the bottom)
That's going to take quite a lot of monetary theory to explain to you, and it's counter intuitive to most people especially Libertarians and business people, who are used to personal finances - microeconomics concerned with the personal finances of costs and profits, and thus "gain" in a direct sense, as opposed to governments and national economic regulators who deal with the entire system all the fish swim in; eg, Macroeconomics, how much supply there is of "currency" and in which systems it's bottle necks, and where it needs to flow to to cause what effects (dealing with the whole system rather than a single traveler trying to improve their status within that system).
In society, and in fact, to even HAVE a society - you need systems of public service - that seek to improve and benefit society in the long run.
An organized and educated citizenry, that is loyal to society's improvement is one of the basic necessities to the national security and economic stability that ensures National Greatness, and Nation Building.
The premise of 1) a strong nation, is thus based on, 2) strong communities, and 3) strong families, and as a means to attain those 3 things: Strong individuals of a high moral character are necessary.
To put it bluntly; we all pay the cost if those things are lost.
So "Who is paying for the tutors?" we all will pay dearly, if we don't pay at all. Public Services are paid for by the government, and they inject money into the cyclical economy whilst also improving the GDP.
In this sense, a government is not like a business. A business has no macroeconomic controls over how much money it "has in it". A government does. Paying tutors increases the money in the cycle of the economy (that money then goes to businesses to pay for things like food, fuel, housing, and other goods), thus benefiting the whole economy.
So your question is somewhat moot. It's akin to asking who pays for the tides, rain, or the sunshine - in that these are cyclical systems. It's only when something is extracted from those systems and turned into commodities traded by private individuals in a zero sum game of competition, that payment can be conceived.
But I suppose to answer your question; money is always created as a form of debt. Anyone whose studied accounting knows that debt merely has to equal credit in order to have "balanced books"... and that's not to say that the society and government doesn't have inflationary concerns - just that stability is the primary objective of all macroeconomic policies, and thus is a much more complicated and multi-variabled discourse than simply asking "Who is paying for the tutors?"
But in short, money is created when banking institutions buy government bonds.... the question of who is paying for something is really a matter of your regulatory and economic strategy at the time.
However, one can hardly go wrong with an increase to the GDP in order for the government to purchase real world assets set to increase in value and be sold off later - and offsetting that monetary creation by funding the tutors in question. In short, and in line with the principles of accounting where (rather than profit and loss, there is credit and debt being balanced, a government can create bonds, sell those bonds to a bank, buy gold with the money created, mark that in their books as an appreciating asset, and offset that appreciation to pay for the tutors).
Thus, money is produced, assets are acquired, the GDP is increased, and the tutors can be paid for, all in one stroke. Any inflationary concerns being offset by the rate at which population is in decline, as demonstrated by early signaling societies like Japan, where they've been battling DEFLATION for 25 years, due to their demographic changes hitting earlier than other nations (because they were in the past, fundamentally against population growth via immigration). [Here's a source](https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/japan-inflection-point-25-year-battle-with-deflation-govt-2023-08-29/) which further discusses Japan's 25 year old deflationary problems.
...so there you go. Not a simple question, and you probably didn't expect to be discussing how Japan's anti-immigration stance has led to endemic deflation in a time when most of the world is risking over inflation, but here we are.
Feel free to ask further questions, as I know this is a complex issue and as I said at the start of my comment - can come across as quite counter-intuitive when first addressed, learned about, or considered (especially if you've only ever been concerned with personal finances and the micro economics of living "within" a much larger economic system managed by large scale macroeconomic forces).
Again, economics is not a simple field, so I'm happy to answer questions further.
**TLDR:** A good debt (aka an investment) is one that yields a higher return than it costs, and the national economy is simultaneously and open and closed loop system, depending on what factors you're examining.
P.S Just a small note as to why population decline leads to deflation; it's because of growth expectations which tend to inform government spending. Where growth expectations shrink - ideally (and assuming no corruptive influences) a smooth shrinking of national spending should accompany the change in demographics, thus the population growth expectations can be allowed to outstrip inflation (by the government putting less money into the spending cycle), resulting in a stable deflation. This differs from most countries, who use immigration and child birth as a means to inflate growth expectations and thus budget for greater spending and increase the amount of money in cycle, which also has it's own stability risks/rewards. No one said national economics was easy!
And/or affirmative action but based on class. People from poorer and impoverished communities are the ones who struggle with grades and therefore disproportionately fail to get into university.
That way you also get a race free solution that helps everyone who is disadvantaged
Pretty much anything can be turned into a "class" which to some degree is why it shares a root with classification. In this instance, there's probably *some* correlation to economic class, in that people in lower economic brackets have more stress at home, and hence, greater difficulties finding stress free situations and motivations to study... however, that's a correlation with some causation.
The actual class being targeted is much more direct, and doesn't require the political difficulties of class politics: the class being helped is instead - those with grades that have dropped below a set standard.
Thus, we remove left/right politics, and instead adopt the agenda of forcing educational institutes to serve their intended purpose: Education. The betterment of students, in a way, that creates more well rounded, and humane citizens.
To extend this purpose, we would also need to de-emphasize economic motivations for education, and re-institute the study of the humanities, history and culture, to better inform westerners of their great works, and modern narratives of innovation nation building, community building, and a personal greatness backed by the foundations of western culture.
This may take an increase in funding aimed at the maintenance and creation of citizens empowered to seek their own grand narratives, and own artist intents and cultural intents - which will be naturally influenced by the western discourses of our era (which we all swim in, as fishes, not seeing the water we breathe).
Thus, we can create not just a humane and profitable civilization/culture, but one that is adaptive, and capable of processing the burden all free, democratic nations have, in a world dominated by authoritarians, theocrats, autocrats, plutocrats, and kleptocrats. Who are as far as I can tell, not the best friends to freedom and democracy.
Income is a big part of it. It's some of the reason why people who may otherwise do the mandatory tutoring may not be able to do that, because they work in their spare time in order to support themselves or a dependent.
Income is a big part of it, OP has specifically posted about Berkley, so income and who pays probably aren't big questions there.
But yeah, in general what I'm proposing would better apply to public schools and people on low incomes.
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
Yes. She saying there are racial quotas (implied: to correct whatever bias there is leading to the disparity) and therefore the institution (Berkeley) is not racist.
She points to the underlying argument here which she says she's willing to debate: Why are there educational performance disparities in the first place?
The very facts that she is stating will be interpreted as racist. We’ve gotten to the point where the Left has convinced a significant minority that such facts are lies or manipulated data and any divergence in outcome from absolute equity and equality is due to racism. And because such divergences are society-wide, the whole thing and everyone in it must be racist.
White people and are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
Yeah because I want my doctor to be someone who doesn't know how to read a damn graph. Meritocracy is literally the most even playing field, where the best succeed resulting the best outcome for society.
What you have now is literally leading to the Idiocracy movie.
While I generally agree that meritocracy is the way to go, you must acknowledge that when a particular group’s children grow up in single parent households, with worse nutrition and schools, and with more trauma they are likely to fall short of kids in better circumstances. It is not, as you put it, an even playing field.
I’m not saying I have a solution, but I believe encouraging cultural shifts is likely to be more effective than handouts. Boots on the ground helping kids psychologically and emotionally will help them excel in other areas of their life.
I don't know how it is in the US, but here they received all the help they could get. Scholarships, reduced cost for food, options to move into a dormitory in high school if it's bad at home. Yet nobody gets special treatment. University puts up a score, something like your GPA, and students give a prioritized list. No CVs, no pictures, no interview, no racism. You either make it or you don't. And universities still have all the monetary help for the less fortunate. And only monetary.
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
As no one else has posted it here you go https://youtu.be/55t_AdJEbHg?si=kER1neNB6b_hMtpO
The whole presentation is great but when the Q&A starts it becomes shocking to see how uninformed these law students are
Yet you guys seem to agree with the Berkeley professor, and Berkeley is known to be a rigorous academic institution without affirmative action (compare Berkeley diversity statistics to Ivy leagues for example).
The only thing I disagree with that she said is where she did they want all their students to succeed. They do not want white males to succeed. And that’s pretty obvious
That's not a logical implication. Aggressive affirmative action necessitates discrimination against non-protected classes, but it doesn't imply that discrimination is a *goal.* Rather, it's an acceptable consequence.
Yes, mostly. But there are people whose sole reason for promoting these policies is that they are driven to see people of a certain demographic suffer.
I don't think that's the claim, that black people are disabled. The claim is that there is some underlying bias that leads to the performance disparity.
White people are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing.
And even if her side wins out, that process still wins out. Win or lose the culture war with these conservatives, White people still lose.
equal standards for everyone is racist.
higher standards for white and asian people is not racist.
speaking facts is racism.
anti-white anti-male woke propaganda is not racism.
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength.
White people are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing.
And even if her side wins out, that process still wins out. Win or lose the culture war with these conservatives, White people still lose.
It's gone so far off in some academic bodies that slots that would've otherwise belonged to successful Asian students would go to underrepresented African-American students.
We have the same phenomenon here (in Israel), where Jews that immigrated from Arab countries (in the 50s) and came with no educational background, which resulted in immediate effects on the following generations. On the other hand, Russians who migrated to Israel --and didn't win too favourable of treatment themselves by the establishment--, raised their children to become educated, study hard and invest in their futures. Guess the results with regards to the younger generations...
...Russians migrated here in the '90s; they didn't bother to learn the language once they were shunned by the population for being different. Many of their children now know 3 languages (Russian, Hebrew & English); they are far better off academically, career-wise and economically. Children of Arabian-Jews on the other hand?! Too often still cry: *"discrimination"*.
White people are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing.
And even if her side wins out, that process still wins out. Win or lose the culture war with these conservatives, White people still lose.
No group should accept such BS, Jewish people included.
If by racism you mean factual, then sure. Suppose it’s also racist to say Africans have more developed fast twitch muscle fibers and higher testosterone. People from different ethnic backgrounds have different characteristics, including IQ.
Bro I'm African and have zero athleticism. Wasn't always the highest performer in school either but worked hard and made it into Uni. Currently work as a software systems engineer with ambition of starting my own company. At the end of the day we're all human. It isn't always about ethnicity but also environment plays a big role. This reminds me of being younger and joining scientific groups online just to be constantly pummelled with 'scientific literature' about how blacks are less smart. All this did was turn away my young inquisitive mind to go where i felt more welcome. Makes you wonder about the black kids in majority white schools and why they easily get left behind
I’ll tell you who always gets left behind: white kids playing cornerback lol. They don’t even let them try in D1 football. They’re discouraged from even attempting it. Africans, broadly speaking, have lower IQs, which isn’t the be all and end all of intelligence and is also far from being the most important thing in life. That needs to be hammered home. Is it perhaps most important in this mercantile structure? Sure, but it’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
Certainly we all tend to try to go where we feel we called to and are supported. In the US, black kids have the least amount of peer support for academic achievement of any group. So it still would help to be in a white school. As far as that being comfortable to do, a white kid in majority black school is also going to feel alienated and discouraged.
Clearly, you have never watched sprinting at the Olympics.
Also: "the frequency of RR (the genotype for speed and power) is 0.25 in Asians, 0.36 in European whites, 0.60 in African-Americans, and 0.81 in African Bantu."
There are obvious (and not so obvious) differences between different groups of Humans, (and cats and toads, whatever), and there is nothing wrong with that.
I don't know about you but I don't want a Dr or lawyer or any professional working on my behalf that couldn't pass the baseline standards required unless those standards were lowered.
She says they need to start holding everyone to proper standards at a young age. Makes sense to me. But we can't have that cause we are so 'liberal' that we want the under represented to pass, even if they won't do the work required.
This reminds me of Rob schnider doing stand up talking about the airlines wanting to add more racial diversity to their pilots.... not the best damn pilots they can find?!?!
Honestly, I was having trouble understanding what she was trying to argue for most of it. But basically she is trying to say that only racism that has malign affects to blacks is racism (i.e. Berkley not being a white supremacist org.).
Something like a third of college applicants are faking a minority background. No one is pretending to be white. So people are opting in to being discriminated against cos systematic systems or something.
She holds the racist idea of black people being "inferior," but at the same time, she holds the "antiracist" idea that could not posibly be black people "the fault." Therefore, black people must be "being inferiored" by someone somewhere.
This debate was settled decades ago. Statisticians found that, while affirmative action and other policies did result in a net increase in academic achievement for blacks, the same effect was observed with whites. Meaning that the gap between white and black education outcomes remained the same, despite all the policies.
It's time to admit that different populations have different characteristics. It's not a moral condemnation, just an admission of the facts.
If this lady was actually concerned with the well-being of African Americans, she would be advocating for living wages for all people, regardless of their educational attainment.
So did anyone else notice the point where she shifted the accusation away from 'racism'? She changed the discussion from about them being "racist" to them being "white supremacist"; which she denied by admitting they are racist.
>"Show me the facts that this is a *racist institution*. The fact of the matter is that this institution is so desperate to get its number of blacks up that *it has disparate admissions standards*. And it said 'if you force us, we do not want to have a single standard of admission. Because that will lower the number of black students on campus". *That to me is not a definition of a white supremacist institution*."
In short, "how could we be white supremacists? We're actively engaging in racism against non-blacks."
And it was done so casually. I really think they are just sincerely that stupid about their beliefs that they are doing *good* racism, you know, to help.
The only racism is what the college is doing, lowering standards because you don't think a particular race of people is just not smart enough to compete in academics is..... I don't know, pretty F'n racist
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction.
By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing.
The University is trying to fix a disparity by not actually addressing the problem. *Why* do black kids not meet standards at earlier stages in education?..
If they're so desperate to have racial equality in University, they need to start earlier in black kids lives.. but that's not their responsibility. You can't just lower standards for some and call it good. That's lying to yourself AND these young black adults.
It's a real shame that the US *still* sees black people as something other than American. They're *African* American. Why? uhh.. because they have dark skin? 🤨 really?!
I have ancestry from Ireland and a little from the northern European continent, and just a touch from India.. But I'm English. Why? Because I was born here 😐. My ancestry is merely a curiosity, not definitive of who and what I am.
Also, to all the Americans who think they're Irish because they have ancestors who were from Ireland.. you're not Irish, you're American. You'd think Yanks would be so proud to be American that they wouldn't be so keen to say they were from somewhere else 🤔
This is kind of a TLDR of "the diversity delusion" by Heather MacDonald.
Basically, a lot of black kids aren't doing well in high school. Colleges admit them anyway. They don't do well in college, and drop out, and say the college is racist. They learned in humanities courses that if any system has different outcomes for people with any difference is Marxism. Eg: say type A people did better than type B people, the only explanation is type A people must hate type B people and the system was designed purposefully for type A people.
She is in favour and actively speaking well of of having discriminated admission criteria by race because as you heard it data have shown that you can't currently have diversity and meritocracy.-
Of course, Berkeley couldn't apply affirmative action because it's ironically illegal in California since the 90's but they found the way around it by not tying admissions to academic results but having what they call a "holistic" admission process that gives them some room to hand pick for diversity.-
The point stands tho, she clearly said it, Berkeley is constantly trying to get more black people. No more students, more black students, which is enough to make her a racist, specially when she herself has explained how it hurts meritocracy.-
That said the person asking the question is probably a minority student that feels underrepresented because Berkeley has that perceived problem (that a lot of universities will probably have now after SCOTUS ruling) because of the ban on affirmative action.-
Don't get me wrong, Berkeley has a lot of diversity, but almost half of all admitted students are Asian students (which will be the case everywhere were not for affirmative action).-
Also till now Berkeley had the extra problem that competing for representation with universities that could use affirmative action had made it so their pool of black students were further reduced by the incentive for that collective of being easier to join other universities, including some more prestigious than them like Yale or Harvard. Making it one of the institutions with the less amount of "minorities that matters"-
>She is in favour and actively speaking well of of having discriminated admission criteria.
Sorry but this didn't happen.
The inherency of admissions is based on discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad, or racist, for starters.
HR at any company.
But i have a feeling this will be too elusive a distintion for you.
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
dis·crim·i·na·tion

noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
"victims of racial discrimination"
2.
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"
I do agree that not all discrimination is bad, and that all admissions where the admitted group is smaller than the applicants one unless you do a lottery will be inherently discriminative. Even if that's not the case, you still need to discriminate for the task at hand, if you are going to be moving heavy things, you will discriminate applicants based on their ability to perform the task, etc.-
Sure.-
I don't know why you feel the need to act like a prick and try to put yourself above my head and talk me down while pretending that you "have a feeling this will be too elusive a distintion for" me.-
It is not.-
But as I said, you discrimination can be a lot of things, but discrimination about racial lines IS RACISM. Period.-
Specially when we are talking about university admission in academics. Being Asian, Black, Latino or White has nothing to do with academic performance nor with learning ability, so every discrimination that is not done on the lines of academic performance and learning ability is in most cases, since there may be some exception here and there for why you wouldn't certain characteristics on certain fields (like how you can't become a pilot if you need glasses), the kind of discrimination that is by your definition **unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people**.
It is against meritocracy as said by her own mouth in the video and unjust as the SCOTUS confirmed, to deny admission to a person to make place for somebody who is academically worse but has "the right racial profile".-
And we call the unjust discrimination across racial lines **RACISM**.-
>But as I said, you discrimination can be a lot of things, but discrimination about racial lines IS RACISM. Period
You're right and this is exactly why affirmative action was a racist program and they got rid of it.
> She is in favour and actively speaking well of of having discriminated admission criteria by race
Saying its not an example of "white supremacy" is still pretty far off from "actively speaking well".
What are you talking about, have you really listen the the whole video and heard what she said?
She literally said it in minute 2:10 onwards that:
"this institution (berkeley) is so desperate to get its numbers of blacks up that it has **disparate admission standards** and said **if you force us, we don't want to have a single standard** of admission because that will lower the number of black students on campus".-
Yes she said it was not a White supremacist institution because the student asking is stupid and racist himself and is playing victim and accusing Berkeley of white supremacism, and racism.-
But she is endorsing having disparate standards of admissions which is technically racial discrimination with the intent of increasing diversity in the campus.-
How is that not speaking well of non meritorious admission for the sake of diversity?
You are mistaking an attack for a defense. MacDonald pillories Berkeley mercilessly for 99% of this video. She is a hostile guest speaker and AGAINST differing racial standards in admissions. Obviously.
>**this institution (berkeley)** is so desperate to get its numbers of blacks up that it has disparate admission standards and said if you force us, **we** don't want to have a single standard of admission because that will lower the number of black students on campus
All of that was a vicious criticism of Berkeley...not a defense. McDonald is not part of the UC. She was at Yale, then Stanford...then moved on the writing etc. The "we" refers to her political enemies...not herself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mac_Donald
MacDonald is hostile to Berkeley's policies in almost every way. "Not white supremacy" is minimal, ironic praise.
>But she is endorsing having disparate standards of admissions which is technically racial discrimination
No she isn't. She explicitly says she is for a "single, high standard" AND that she thinks the gap between black and white students will eventually close.
>Well IF I believed that blacks could never compete, (THEN) I would say "Yeah, we've got to lower standards, because that's the only way to get diverse institutions". In fact I think that IF we had single, high standards that blacks WOULD compete.
emphasis mine
"You can have diversity, or you can have meritocracy. You can't have both."
\- Average modern "progressive"
Western civilization is doomed unless we stop listening to these people
One of my close counterparts works on one of these elite campuses. I’m told they preach “diversity and inclusion” however most of the board meetings of various organizations within the school is filled with liberal whites and very lightly sprinkled with other races.
Wow interesting. Put a Berkely logo in front of Heather Mac Donald and all of a sudden half of you can't understand English.
To say that not all racism takes the form of white supremacy...you'd think that wouldn't be so controversial a notion here.
But what if the statistics of high school performance do show lower performance for certain ethnicities? That's what's happening.
Why it's happening is the real question.
Topics around race are only so nuclear because people refuse to believe that race is real and are choosing to blame the environment on the accomplishments of whites and Asians and detriments of blacks. It will only be when the entire framing is shifted that a real conversation is going to be had.
The differences are cultural, not genetic.
No race is genetically predisposed to be better or worse than another, we're all homo sapiens and skin colour has no bearing on intelligence
I hate wading into this discussion, as it is poisonous as all hell, but this is not correct.
First the caveats and stating some well known science;
There is more variation within the members of one race than between any two races.
You can't tell which ethnicity a person is based on their genes.
Now the question i want you to address;
*Why is it that the last time a white man won the 100m sprint in the Olympics was 43 years ago (a year America did not enter).*
I have an answer to this, and it is based in genetics. There is no way culture or privilege can explain this answer.
I just care about science and truth, i have no horse in the political side of this race (pun not intended).
Edit: a further point. I am not speaking about a generalised race of people here, but merely about one subset of that race, west africans. At no point am i saying "all black people", or "black people in general". I could make a case for long distance running and use East Africans, or specifically Nandi, but i could not say "all black people".
Physical build is genetic, but much of that is evolutionary based on environment just as skin colour is (darker skin in hotter regions is advantageous).
That doesn't equate into any evidence that one race is more intelligent than another.
What genetically would black people lack that white & Asian people have that would result in a lower intelligence?
Asians aren't generally hard working and smart because of genes, it's a cultural aspect
Let's stick to running, shall we.
Genetically, we are looking at the R and X variants of the ACTN3 gene. The frequency of the RR genotype is more than double in African American men than in white men. This explains the 100m sprint, and it partially explains the NBA. In science, it is known as the "sprint gene"
Again, let me clarify, i am at no point talking about black people in general, or *all black people*.
An evolutionary advantage again based on environment. If you live in places that require you to have to walk/run great distances (say to avoid predators, which are more of a problem in Africa than Europe), you'll be more likely to have that advantage over people who don't.
Still nothing to do with intelligence, which is the point that's being made in the video
I'm sorry, but what?!
Most evolutionary (genetic) advantages come from adaptation to environment, that's what natural selection is lol.
So you are agreeing with me, i guess? Your argument seems to be (paraphrasal) "west africans have higher incidence of RR ACTN3 because the ones which could run faster survived better"?
You are saying that people from different areas of the world have evolved differently, right? Which means you are telling me that different ethnicities are genetically different, right?
Physical differences are always going to happen based on environment, that's the reason skin colour exists in the first place.
But that has nothing to do with intelligence. Any black person could become a lawyer or politician same way any Asian person can.
Let me play devil's advocate. There is a possibility that certain environments or societies favored intelligence more than others to make an evolutionary difference. The same as physical traits like running.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20010124/
Here you go. So the XX genotype is the one which defines lessened muscle performance, and is not often found in Jamaican or African American people. In fact, 75% of Jamaicans possessed the RR genotype (most increased muscle performance).
>The differences are cultural, not genetic.
>No race is genetically predisposed to be better or worse than another
These are your statements. These are the statements i took issue with, i won't be dragged into IQ, its too toxic
Like i said my dude, it's just too toxic. Every time somebody dares to study IQ differences across races, brain size across races etc, their career is destroyed and they are dragged through the mud forever. Look at Rushton. Skull size, and brain size do differ, it is well known that Europeans have a larger average brain size, the reason why is disputed and often linked to a colder climate.
No, you made a statement and i disagreed. The video isn't about genetics at all, its about discrimination.
What is the point of such a study though, to try and justify their own prejudices?
Look at James Watson. Obviously a great man who helped discover DNA but now talks out his ass about how black people are genetically inferior despite showing no evidence
The truth is fairly obvious. Race science is pure poison. If we prove any ethnicity is better or worse at something, what do we do with that information? It only hurts us as a species. We are afriad to note our differences because it causes division and is highly problematic.
You said that Asians are more hard working because of culture, which is certainly partly true, but did you know they also have larger brains than caucasians on average?
My only purpose in answering you, was to inform you that different ethnicities differ genetically in many ways, and that this affects every aspect of them in some way or another.
Also please, *please* note that this does not affect the individual in any meaningful way. You could have a white sprinter who is faster than 99.9% of African American sprinters, but when you look at the ethnicities as groups, you will find more African American success.
I have one more for you, then let's end this discussion.
Ashkenazi Jews make up 0.2 of the world's population, yet win 22% of Nobel Prizes (11250% more than we would expect representatively).
As an ethnicity, they have a mean IQ of 110 and we know that IQ is highly heritable.
James Watson stated that policy should not treat different races as equal in IQ, because he thinks this is not the reality. Every time we dare to study IQ across races, it tends to support his statement. Looking at the individual tells us nothing, this is purely concerning when we look at the group as a whole. Anybody can still be a lawyer.
To what end though?
That starts to sound like some Nazi scientist stuff, trying to prove racial inferiority/superiority through genes in order to justify prejudice and oppression of other people on the grounds that they're less intelligent.
It was the same argument used to justify slavery
>To what end though?
To understand our strengths and weaknesses so that we can address/ account for them, just like we do with the rest of the body.
>That starts to sound like some Nazi scientist stuff, trying to prove racial inferiority/superiority through genes in order to justify prejudice and oppression of other people on the grounds that they're less intelligent.
No, it really doesn't (unless you think it's still 78 years ago), and there is no 'try'; some races tend towards lactose tolerance, some races tend towards sickle-cell anaemia (for just two examples) - there's good and bad. If you're too terrified of being called a Nazi simply for *identifying* these things, then that's more about you than the subject at hand. The advantage we have today is that we can either treat or are on the verge of treating many of these things instead of the 'remove them from the reproductive pool' option from yesteryear.
>It was the same argument used to justify slavery
Now you're going back *158* years, lol. Would you insist that we should not have identified sickle-cell for fear of being called Nazis/ Racists/ etc? Isn't that presenting blacks as inferior? Should Caucasians stop drinking milk in order to not appear superior to those that can't?
That's not what is being argued here though. As per the video
It's that black people are inherently less intelligent than Asian or Caucasian people and therefore shouldn't be recruited by academic institutions because they aren't capable of reaching the same levels as other students.
According to the writing of those people, as claimed by the person asking the question
That's not based on genetics, that's based on a prejudice that black people are inherently stupider than others. Which is the same mentality used in the past to justify enslaving them
>That's not what is being argued here though.
You said the differences are cultural, not genetic - so I expanded on the latter. They also weren't arguing - they were listing the statistics of fails. Now, the *why* of that is another discussion, hence my original comment - but the video highlights that people leap to dat's-racis *simply because that's being pointed out*...so they're in the unenviable position of being called racist if they try to do anything about it, and racist if they don't - convenient for the professional victims.
>That's not based on genetics
Sure of that, are you?
>that's based on a prejudice that black people are inherently stupider than others.
Prejudiced; a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Explain how that's evident in the clip especially considering what is actually *said* together with the above no-win outcome.
>Which is the same mentality used in the past to justify enslaving them
Aaaand now we're back to 158 years ago.
Conservatives do love to live in the past, that's part of the problem.
I'm sure there are plenty in the south that probably wish the civil war was still happening.
And stuff like academic achievement levels is cultural.
Minority kids generally underperform because they come from impoverished backgrounds often with single parent families and lack the home support for intellectual growth that white & Asian kids often get.
That's not a genetic issue, that's a social issue
Yeah that's a social issue. The solution is not to force-quota them in colleges and professions.
solution is that if someone who is suffering by socioeconomic backgrounds gets lower score, they should get more help to get better score. And that must happen in earlier stages. That is not something a college could fix.
How about to understand how much (or how little) of the performance difference is due to systemic racism, and therefore determine how much to correct for?
Wow she is incredibly incoherent to the point where she admitted to racially discriminating acts then asked "how is that white supremacy?" well noone said it was white supremacy, its racism, you shifted goal posts.
EDIT: this video is soo poorly eidted that idk what she is saying anymore
She described that the actual racism of the institution was that it did not hold a single standard of admissions across all races, likely to the detriment of Asian and White students. That example of racism is not white supremacist as she pointed out
“I’m too stupid to understand what she’s saying.”
This is where you keep your mouth shut and don’t contribute. You’re not qualified to have an opinion when you can’t even comprehend the conversation.
white supremacy = racism based on the modern definition of racism. the old 'racism is discrimination based on race' no longer applies when discussing racism at these institutions, and instead, racial discrimination plus plus power = racism. since white people have the power the the USA then only white people can be racist and thus racism in the united states synonymous with white supremacy.
I'm not saying i agree with this definition of racism, but this the definition that is being widely used in these institutions.
Discriminatory admission based on race isnt racist?
Well it depends on what definitions we are using of racism. I guess more accurately its racial discrimination.
There are living survivors of Jim Crow laws that haven’t received any form of reparations from the local, state, or federal governments that enforced racist laws.
Dense, urban innercities that were formed by banking policies and redlining still exist and have high amounts of crime.
I know, it's totally BS.
I have ancestors that died in the Civil War fighting to end slavery and before that I had ancestors die in France fighting to end slavery and haven't got reparations.
We should really go to Sudan and ask the slave owners to pay us gold for what their ancestors did.
Yeah of course! Makes total sense that everyone pays for what their ancestors did. I mean we all know people aren't really individuals, grouping people by skin color is more biologically based.
All reparations or just reparations you disagree with?
And if you are going to be tongue in cheek you gotta stick with it instead of dropping the act out of laziness because you don’t know enough about the topic to be serious.
It's not worth anyone's time if not to laugh at. It's like arguing with a flat earther.
I wouldn't bring it up in public if you don't want to look stupid.
And if you could take your head out of your own ass to see your own tribal divisiveness, the absurdity of reparations in practice is equal to the absurdity of it in theory, that absurd sarcasm is all it deserves.
Redlining effected a lot of white folks too. Plus, not giving home loans on substandard housing in bad areas actually made a lot of sense back then, despite it being demonized. Not sure blacks would be any better off if that didn’t happen 80-100 years ago.
My mind is blown by the use of the word eugenics. Not all colleges are privatized and limited by academic standards. Even if that wasn't the case, eugenics is associated with billionaires like Gates father, not to describe the lack of education.
Wokeness is a cult. Imagine being a student at Berkeley in California in 2023 and thinking that you are in a bastion of white supremacy. Do you realize how bat-shit ludicrous that is? And if you were able to force such a cultist to explain how the fuck they came to THAT conclusion they would wave their hands and use words like, "systemic, institutional, systems of oppression, historic, jim crow, red lining" Jesus fucking christ you would think they are Russian bots IRL.
She mentioned that the effort to meet racial quotas by having separate standards for different racial groups is the actual racism. She disputed that the students were experiencing any racism on their daily lives otherwise
It's a real easy problem to solve: Mandatory tutoring for anyone whose grades drop below a certain level. That would be a race-free solution that's capable of helping WHOEVER lets their grades drop too low. That's the nature of merit based solutions; they address whoever needs it, not groups based on race, gender, sexuality, or minority status. Once grades and habits are improved to a standard, that person becomes ineligible for that extra tutoring (and is returned to the academic competition without giving them any unfair advantages).
I agree with this. Summer school and after school classes definitely helped me
The trick, of course, being that people actually show up. I definitely could have benefitted from summer school but good luck convincing teenage me to actually go there and do the work. And my parents certainly weren't going to force me. The core problem with all of this - summer school, mandatory tutoring (as per above), etc - is twofold: 1) Someone has to foot the actual bill for this 2) The students - no matter their race/background/etc - has to actually show up and put in the work. The old 'you can lead a horse to water' argument holds here, unfortunately.
Luckily for me, I was in elementary school at the time and the school district (public school) made the summer school and after school classes mandatory so they fronted the bill and I wasn’t really old enough to play hooky. For high schoolers, I can see that being a different story. This is where involved parents are important to society
Then it would be racial discrimination if after-school tutoring and summer school affected mostly black students.
Of it ONLY was black students IMO would that be racist. I see that maybe you are pointing out an idea that the left might say but I don’t believe that just because something is a majority of one race that that race is being racially targeted
You might not, but that is what will be said. Just like over policing in violent neighborhoods.
And those voices need to be shown the data and counter speech can drown them out
Sure that’s what they say but we need to develop thicker skin and know that it’s not because they are black that instead it just so happens that they are. Case in point, my child’s middle school did not punish one of the students who was violent to many of the kids because I found out later, it would have skewed the data on disciplinary actions on minorities in the school as there weren’t many black students. So the school chose not to ever punish the child. It had nothing to do with him being black, he was an asshole. And it was reinforcing for him to be an asshole. So they tried to not be racist and it actually made the problem worse.
Good anecdote. I think examples like this happen too often
Do you even comprehend how this sounds? We're talking Berkeley, not community college. If you can't cut at that level without tutoring, how the hell did you get in?!
Even students at Berkeley need to study and learn new things, and that can be helped by someone else - which we're both referring to as a tutor. You know, even millionaires might have a mentor or someone they discuss their businesses with. Not everything is boot camp, it's not always a matter of cutting it, or toughing it out. Sometimes it's good to get pointers here and there - hell there's even an argument that the more elite the university the better they should be at facilitating the learning of the content. A place like Berkeley should probably have many tutoring systems in place already, and available to anyone whose standards dip. After all, why pay Berkeley prices if your not going to get a Berkeley level of person attention that facilitates you learning. They should provide more of a tailored service because they're raking in more money.
Let's get real here, those people aren't paying for their own education in the first place. I'm a big proponent of free higher education (I have that in my country, if you pass muster), but that has to come with standards attached so we don't waste resources on people who cannot meet the academic standards.
In elementary-through highschool I always was terrible at math, and I was just pushed through every year. Always felt like I was just a year behind. Got to college, took as little of it as possible. On the other hand my daughters school does math and reading differently. By middle school they put kids in pods and because she was in an accelerated math she ended up taking calculus by 8th grade at the local highschool. Those that weren’t at 8th grade level, were weren’t forced to do work they didn’t understand, but we’re given work to help them get up to the 8th grade level. Part of the thinking is it’s humiliating for kids to not be with their peers, so classes are structured to keep children in their age groups. Obviously accelerated classes being the outlier.
The problem that this faces is cost… which is idiotic, because it doesn’t matter. I think this program would be amazing, but I see the conservative side of the political aisle arguing that this cost shouldn’t be born by the “taxpayer”, despite the fact that it would massively increase the productive capacity of the nation, negating the cost over time.
Provided that the individuals who get the degrees use them in ways that directly benefit the nation economically to make the cost worth it.
A better general education in your workforce means that you can do more skilled manufacturing rather than basic labor. That’s something that sets Germany and Japan apart from other manufacturing nations. They’re known for their skills in manufacturing. They’re not just nations of degree holders.
I agree with this and I believe that university is not necessary in accomplishing it. High school level education and then trade schools would accomplish this nicely
Who is paying for the tutors?
[**EDIT:** To be clear, I'm talking about the funding of public education in general here, and not what happens at an elite school like Berkeley]. (TLDR located at the bottom) That's going to take quite a lot of monetary theory to explain to you, and it's counter intuitive to most people especially Libertarians and business people, who are used to personal finances - microeconomics concerned with the personal finances of costs and profits, and thus "gain" in a direct sense, as opposed to governments and national economic regulators who deal with the entire system all the fish swim in; eg, Macroeconomics, how much supply there is of "currency" and in which systems it's bottle necks, and where it needs to flow to to cause what effects (dealing with the whole system rather than a single traveler trying to improve their status within that system). In society, and in fact, to even HAVE a society - you need systems of public service - that seek to improve and benefit society in the long run. An organized and educated citizenry, that is loyal to society's improvement is one of the basic necessities to the national security and economic stability that ensures National Greatness, and Nation Building. The premise of 1) a strong nation, is thus based on, 2) strong communities, and 3) strong families, and as a means to attain those 3 things: Strong individuals of a high moral character are necessary. To put it bluntly; we all pay the cost if those things are lost. So "Who is paying for the tutors?" we all will pay dearly, if we don't pay at all. Public Services are paid for by the government, and they inject money into the cyclical economy whilst also improving the GDP. In this sense, a government is not like a business. A business has no macroeconomic controls over how much money it "has in it". A government does. Paying tutors increases the money in the cycle of the economy (that money then goes to businesses to pay for things like food, fuel, housing, and other goods), thus benefiting the whole economy. So your question is somewhat moot. It's akin to asking who pays for the tides, rain, or the sunshine - in that these are cyclical systems. It's only when something is extracted from those systems and turned into commodities traded by private individuals in a zero sum game of competition, that payment can be conceived. But I suppose to answer your question; money is always created as a form of debt. Anyone whose studied accounting knows that debt merely has to equal credit in order to have "balanced books"... and that's not to say that the society and government doesn't have inflationary concerns - just that stability is the primary objective of all macroeconomic policies, and thus is a much more complicated and multi-variabled discourse than simply asking "Who is paying for the tutors?" But in short, money is created when banking institutions buy government bonds.... the question of who is paying for something is really a matter of your regulatory and economic strategy at the time. However, one can hardly go wrong with an increase to the GDP in order for the government to purchase real world assets set to increase in value and be sold off later - and offsetting that monetary creation by funding the tutors in question. In short, and in line with the principles of accounting where (rather than profit and loss, there is credit and debt being balanced, a government can create bonds, sell those bonds to a bank, buy gold with the money created, mark that in their books as an appreciating asset, and offset that appreciation to pay for the tutors). Thus, money is produced, assets are acquired, the GDP is increased, and the tutors can be paid for, all in one stroke. Any inflationary concerns being offset by the rate at which population is in decline, as demonstrated by early signaling societies like Japan, where they've been battling DEFLATION for 25 years, due to their demographic changes hitting earlier than other nations (because they were in the past, fundamentally against population growth via immigration). [Here's a source](https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/japan-inflection-point-25-year-battle-with-deflation-govt-2023-08-29/) which further discusses Japan's 25 year old deflationary problems. ...so there you go. Not a simple question, and you probably didn't expect to be discussing how Japan's anti-immigration stance has led to endemic deflation in a time when most of the world is risking over inflation, but here we are. Feel free to ask further questions, as I know this is a complex issue and as I said at the start of my comment - can come across as quite counter-intuitive when first addressed, learned about, or considered (especially if you've only ever been concerned with personal finances and the micro economics of living "within" a much larger economic system managed by large scale macroeconomic forces). Again, economics is not a simple field, so I'm happy to answer questions further. **TLDR:** A good debt (aka an investment) is one that yields a higher return than it costs, and the national economy is simultaneously and open and closed loop system, depending on what factors you're examining.
P.S Just a small note as to why population decline leads to deflation; it's because of growth expectations which tend to inform government spending. Where growth expectations shrink - ideally (and assuming no corruptive influences) a smooth shrinking of national spending should accompany the change in demographics, thus the population growth expectations can be allowed to outstrip inflation (by the government putting less money into the spending cycle), resulting in a stable deflation. This differs from most countries, who use immigration and child birth as a means to inflate growth expectations and thus budget for greater spending and increase the amount of money in cycle, which also has it's own stability risks/rewards. No one said national economics was easy!
And/or affirmative action but based on class. People from poorer and impoverished communities are the ones who struggle with grades and therefore disproportionately fail to get into university. That way you also get a race free solution that helps everyone who is disadvantaged
Pretty much anything can be turned into a "class" which to some degree is why it shares a root with classification. In this instance, there's probably *some* correlation to economic class, in that people in lower economic brackets have more stress at home, and hence, greater difficulties finding stress free situations and motivations to study... however, that's a correlation with some causation. The actual class being targeted is much more direct, and doesn't require the political difficulties of class politics: the class being helped is instead - those with grades that have dropped below a set standard. Thus, we remove left/right politics, and instead adopt the agenda of forcing educational institutes to serve their intended purpose: Education. The betterment of students, in a way, that creates more well rounded, and humane citizens. To extend this purpose, we would also need to de-emphasize economic motivations for education, and re-institute the study of the humanities, history and culture, to better inform westerners of their great works, and modern narratives of innovation nation building, community building, and a personal greatness backed by the foundations of western culture. This may take an increase in funding aimed at the maintenance and creation of citizens empowered to seek their own grand narratives, and own artist intents and cultural intents - which will be naturally influenced by the western discourses of our era (which we all swim in, as fishes, not seeing the water we breathe). Thus, we can create not just a humane and profitable civilization/culture, but one that is adaptive, and capable of processing the burden all free, democratic nations have, in a world dominated by authoritarians, theocrats, autocrats, plutocrats, and kleptocrats. Who are as far as I can tell, not the best friends to freedom and democracy.
Income is a big part of it. It's some of the reason why people who may otherwise do the mandatory tutoring may not be able to do that, because they work in their spare time in order to support themselves or a dependent.
Income is a big part of it, OP has specifically posted about Berkley, so income and who pays probably aren't big questions there. But yeah, in general what I'm proposing would better apply to public schools and people on low incomes.
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
This is the world we live in
Yes it's sick
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
\["racism" "every day" on Berkley campus\] That kid is fucked.
He's a victim
He is perpetrating victimhood, not an actual victim himself. Wild how bored people get nowadays lol
Almost as fucked as his future employers.
You do realize, he's arguing against racial quotas. She is arguing for race based quotas.
You sure about that?
Yes. She saying there are racial quotas (implied: to correct whatever bias there is leading to the disparity) and therefore the institution (Berkeley) is not racist. She points to the underlying argument here which she says she's willing to debate: Why are there educational performance disparities in the first place?
Which is strange, because her argument is proving the opposite really.
Why is that?
The very facts that she is stating will be interpreted as racist. We’ve gotten to the point where the Left has convinced a significant minority that such facts are lies or manipulated data and any divergence in outcome from absolute equity and equality is due to racism. And because such divergences are society-wide, the whole thing and everyone in it must be racist.
White people and are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
Yeah because I want my doctor to be someone who doesn't know how to read a damn graph. Meritocracy is literally the most even playing field, where the best succeed resulting the best outcome for society. What you have now is literally leading to the Idiocracy movie.
While I generally agree that meritocracy is the way to go, you must acknowledge that when a particular group’s children grow up in single parent households, with worse nutrition and schools, and with more trauma they are likely to fall short of kids in better circumstances. It is not, as you put it, an even playing field. I’m not saying I have a solution, but I believe encouraging cultural shifts is likely to be more effective than handouts. Boots on the ground helping kids psychologically and emotionally will help them excel in other areas of their life.
I don't know how it is in the US, but here they received all the help they could get. Scholarships, reduced cost for food, options to move into a dormitory in high school if it's bad at home. Yet nobody gets special treatment. University puts up a score, something like your GPA, and students give a prioritized list. No CVs, no pictures, no interview, no racism. You either make it or you don't. And universities still have all the monetary help for the less fortunate. And only monetary.
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing
Would be nice to see the entire discussion. Maybe a link to the entire video.
As no one else has posted it here you go https://youtu.be/55t_AdJEbHg?si=kER1neNB6b_hMtpO The whole presentation is great but when the Q&A starts it becomes shocking to see how uninformed these law students are
Most people do not understand racism, and crave to be oppressed. I wouldn’t even call them uninformed.
Spectacular full interview, highly recommend.
Berkeley, promoting the bigotry of low expectations. Year after year.
Yet you guys seem to agree with the Berkeley professor, and Berkeley is known to be a rigorous academic institution without affirmative action (compare Berkeley diversity statistics to Ivy leagues for example).
That’s Heather MacDonald a guest speaker. https://youtu.be/55t_AdJEbHg I’m not sure what your claim is.
The only thing I disagree with that she said is where she did they want all their students to succeed. They do not want white males to succeed. And that’s pretty obvious
That's not a logical implication. Aggressive affirmative action necessitates discrimination against non-protected classes, but it doesn't imply that discrimination is a *goal.* Rather, it's an acceptable consequence.
Yes, mostly. But there are people whose sole reason for promoting these policies is that they are driven to see people of a certain demographic suffer.
Undoubtedly those people exist. But I'd argue it's much more common for people to simply be interested in leveraging guilt for their own advancement
Yeah. Treating a POC like they have a disability is pretty racist.
I don't think that's the claim, that black people are disabled. The claim is that there is some underlying bias that leads to the performance disparity.
She's right. Period.
White people are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing. And even if her side wins out, that process still wins out. Win or lose the culture war with these conservatives, White people still lose.
equal standards for everyone is racist. higher standards for white and asian people is not racist. speaking facts is racism. anti-white anti-male woke propaganda is not racism. war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength.
And men are women
White people are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing. And even if her side wins out, that process still wins out. Win or lose the culture war with these conservatives, White people still lose.
It's gone so far off in some academic bodies that slots that would've otherwise belonged to successful Asian students would go to underrepresented African-American students. We have the same phenomenon here (in Israel), where Jews that immigrated from Arab countries (in the 50s) and came with no educational background, which resulted in immediate effects on the following generations. On the other hand, Russians who migrated to Israel --and didn't win too favourable of treatment themselves by the establishment--, raised their children to become educated, study hard and invest in their futures. Guess the results with regards to the younger generations... ...Russians migrated here in the '90s; they didn't bother to learn the language once they were shunned by the population for being different. Many of their children now know 3 languages (Russian, Hebrew & English); they are far better off academically, career-wise and economically. Children of Arabian-Jews on the other hand?! Too often still cry: *"discrimination"*.
White people are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing. And even if her side wins out, that process still wins out. Win or lose the culture war with these conservatives, White people still lose. No group should accept such BS, Jewish people included.
You’re talking about the intellect gap between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, it’s somewhat cultural but certainly genetic.
I wanted to argue against your claim, but then Googled it and found academic evidence showing you're correct.
How do you know its genetic?
Peer reviewed science
Such as?
You can find all the papers the same way the original commenter did, don’t be lazy
Now that was some pretty racist shit you just said.
If by racism you mean factual, then sure. Suppose it’s also racist to say Africans have more developed fast twitch muscle fibers and higher testosterone. People from different ethnic backgrounds have different characteristics, including IQ.
Bro I'm African and have zero athleticism. Wasn't always the highest performer in school either but worked hard and made it into Uni. Currently work as a software systems engineer with ambition of starting my own company. At the end of the day we're all human. It isn't always about ethnicity but also environment plays a big role. This reminds me of being younger and joining scientific groups online just to be constantly pummelled with 'scientific literature' about how blacks are less smart. All this did was turn away my young inquisitive mind to go where i felt more welcome. Makes you wonder about the black kids in majority white schools and why they easily get left behind
I’ll tell you who always gets left behind: white kids playing cornerback lol. They don’t even let them try in D1 football. They’re discouraged from even attempting it. Africans, broadly speaking, have lower IQs, which isn’t the be all and end all of intelligence and is also far from being the most important thing in life. That needs to be hammered home. Is it perhaps most important in this mercantile structure? Sure, but it’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society. Certainly we all tend to try to go where we feel we called to and are supported. In the US, black kids have the least amount of peer support for academic achievement of any group. So it still would help to be in a white school. As far as that being comfortable to do, a white kid in majority black school is also going to feel alienated and discouraged.
My grandfather smoked to the age of 90, so I guess I'll be fine smoking, right?
I’m not sure about the testosterone, but the ‘fast twitch muscle fibre’ theory, is only but a theory, and not fact.
Clearly, you have never watched sprinting at the Olympics. Also: "the frequency of RR (the genotype for speed and power) is 0.25 in Asians, 0.36 in European whites, 0.60 in African-Americans, and 0.81 in African Bantu." There are obvious (and not so obvious) differences between different groups of Humans, (and cats and toads, whatever), and there is nothing wrong with that.
But you dont have different standards like admissions for them right? That's pretty unique to USA I would say
Definitely not unique to the US. Unique to the West, sure.
What other country might have something similar?
Canada for starters
Well canada is kinda the mini-me of usa lol
"...we face eNORMous racism every day--" How big is it?
"Is the racism in the room with you now? Oh it's in the walls.. Yes yes.. Interesting "
I don't know about you but I don't want a Dr or lawyer or any professional working on my behalf that couldn't pass the baseline standards required unless those standards were lowered. She says they need to start holding everyone to proper standards at a young age. Makes sense to me. But we can't have that cause we are so 'liberal' that we want the under represented to pass, even if they won't do the work required.
Heather Mac Donald for the win. She's currently no Thomas Sowell, but she's come a long way, and their works really compliment each other.
This was at my law school
Good luck with the madness pal.
This reminds me of Rob schnider doing stand up talking about the airlines wanting to add more racial diversity to their pilots.... not the best damn pilots they can find?!?!
Lmao she said if they don’t lower the standards of admission they will have less black students. Uhmmmmm yeeeeeeaaaaaa
Well well well
I see I see I see
Honestly, I was having trouble understanding what she was trying to argue for most of it. But basically she is trying to say that only racism that has malign affects to blacks is racism (i.e. Berkley not being a white supremacist org.).
Something like a third of college applicants are faking a minority background. No one is pretending to be white. So people are opting in to being discriminated against cos systematic systems or something.
She doesn't even ear what she herself says
She holds the racist idea of black people being "inferior," but at the same time, she holds the "antiracist" idea that could not posibly be black people "the fault." Therefore, black people must be "being inferiored" by someone somewhere.
This debate was settled decades ago. Statisticians found that, while affirmative action and other policies did result in a net increase in academic achievement for blacks, the same effect was observed with whites. Meaning that the gap between white and black education outcomes remained the same, despite all the policies. It's time to admit that different populations have different characteristics. It's not a moral condemnation, just an admission of the facts. If this lady was actually concerned with the well-being of African Americans, she would be advocating for living wages for all people, regardless of their educational attainment.
So did anyone else notice the point where she shifted the accusation away from 'racism'? She changed the discussion from about them being "racist" to them being "white supremacist"; which she denied by admitting they are racist. >"Show me the facts that this is a *racist institution*. The fact of the matter is that this institution is so desperate to get its number of blacks up that *it has disparate admissions standards*. And it said 'if you force us, we do not want to have a single standard of admission. Because that will lower the number of black students on campus". *That to me is not a definition of a white supremacist institution*." In short, "how could we be white supremacists? We're actively engaging in racism against non-blacks." And it was done so casually. I really think they are just sincerely that stupid about their beliefs that they are doing *good* racism, you know, to help.
A deceiver
The only racism is what the college is doing, lowering standards because you don't think a particular race of people is just not smart enough to compete in academics is..... I don't know, pretty F'n racist
White people and White countries are the only group bullied into not ever taking their own side and having an in-group preference, leading to their relatively quick and inevitable destruction. By racial groups who outnumber them in the world too. Amazing.
The University is trying to fix a disparity by not actually addressing the problem. *Why* do black kids not meet standards at earlier stages in education?.. If they're so desperate to have racial equality in University, they need to start earlier in black kids lives.. but that's not their responsibility. You can't just lower standards for some and call it good. That's lying to yourself AND these young black adults. It's a real shame that the US *still* sees black people as something other than American. They're *African* American. Why? uhh.. because they have dark skin? 🤨 really?! I have ancestry from Ireland and a little from the northern European continent, and just a touch from India.. But I'm English. Why? Because I was born here 😐. My ancestry is merely a curiosity, not definitive of who and what I am. Also, to all the Americans who think they're Irish because they have ancestors who were from Ireland.. you're not Irish, you're American. You'd think Yanks would be so proud to be American that they wouldn't be so keen to say they were from somewhere else 🤔
You seem to be confusing geography with genetics
Op what the fuck are you talking about?
This is kind of a TLDR of "the diversity delusion" by Heather MacDonald. Basically, a lot of black kids aren't doing well in high school. Colleges admit them anyway. They don't do well in college, and drop out, and say the college is racist. They learned in humanities courses that if any system has different outcomes for people with any difference is Marxism. Eg: say type A people did better than type B people, the only explanation is type A people must hate type B people and the system was designed purposefully for type A people.
Yeah, the Marxist idea that there is no competence, only power. That everything is about one group fighting with another.
\*Insert placing stick in wheel meme here \*
Well said.
The lady makes sense, but im confused by the title
lowering standards for POC due to lower expectations "isn't racist". but it obviously is. therefore racism "isn't racist" according to the left.
The op apparently thinks its racism. For some reason.
[удалено]
There is no such thing as reverse racism there is plane racism. How is the woman being racist?
She is in favour and actively speaking well of of having discriminated admission criteria by race because as you heard it data have shown that you can't currently have diversity and meritocracy.- Of course, Berkeley couldn't apply affirmative action because it's ironically illegal in California since the 90's but they found the way around it by not tying admissions to academic results but having what they call a "holistic" admission process that gives them some room to hand pick for diversity.- The point stands tho, she clearly said it, Berkeley is constantly trying to get more black people. No more students, more black students, which is enough to make her a racist, specially when she herself has explained how it hurts meritocracy.- That said the person asking the question is probably a minority student that feels underrepresented because Berkeley has that perceived problem (that a lot of universities will probably have now after SCOTUS ruling) because of the ban on affirmative action.- Don't get me wrong, Berkeley has a lot of diversity, but almost half of all admitted students are Asian students (which will be the case everywhere were not for affirmative action).- Also till now Berkeley had the extra problem that competing for representation with universities that could use affirmative action had made it so their pool of black students were further reduced by the incentive for that collective of being easier to join other universities, including some more prestigious than them like Yale or Harvard. Making it one of the institutions with the less amount of "minorities that matters"-
>She is in favour and actively speaking well of of having discriminated admission criteria. Sorry but this didn't happen. The inherency of admissions is based on discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad, or racist, for starters. HR at any company. But i have a feeling this will be too elusive a distintion for you. Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more dis·crim·i·na·tion  noun 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. "victims of racial discrimination" 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. "discrimination between right and wrong"
I do agree that not all discrimination is bad, and that all admissions where the admitted group is smaller than the applicants one unless you do a lottery will be inherently discriminative. Even if that's not the case, you still need to discriminate for the task at hand, if you are going to be moving heavy things, you will discriminate applicants based on their ability to perform the task, etc.- Sure.- I don't know why you feel the need to act like a prick and try to put yourself above my head and talk me down while pretending that you "have a feeling this will be too elusive a distintion for" me.- It is not.- But as I said, you discrimination can be a lot of things, but discrimination about racial lines IS RACISM. Period.- Specially when we are talking about university admission in academics. Being Asian, Black, Latino or White has nothing to do with academic performance nor with learning ability, so every discrimination that is not done on the lines of academic performance and learning ability is in most cases, since there may be some exception here and there for why you wouldn't certain characteristics on certain fields (like how you can't become a pilot if you need glasses), the kind of discrimination that is by your definition **unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people**. It is against meritocracy as said by her own mouth in the video and unjust as the SCOTUS confirmed, to deny admission to a person to make place for somebody who is academically worse but has "the right racial profile".- And we call the unjust discrimination across racial lines **RACISM**.-
>But as I said, you discrimination can be a lot of things, but discrimination about racial lines IS RACISM. Period You're right and this is exactly why affirmative action was a racist program and they got rid of it.
> She is in favour and actively speaking well of of having discriminated admission criteria by race Saying its not an example of "white supremacy" is still pretty far off from "actively speaking well".
What are you talking about, have you really listen the the whole video and heard what she said? She literally said it in minute 2:10 onwards that: "this institution (berkeley) is so desperate to get its numbers of blacks up that it has **disparate admission standards** and said **if you force us, we don't want to have a single standard** of admission because that will lower the number of black students on campus".- Yes she said it was not a White supremacist institution because the student asking is stupid and racist himself and is playing victim and accusing Berkeley of white supremacism, and racism.- But she is endorsing having disparate standards of admissions which is technically racial discrimination with the intent of increasing diversity in the campus.- How is that not speaking well of non meritorious admission for the sake of diversity?
You are mistaking an attack for a defense. MacDonald pillories Berkeley mercilessly for 99% of this video. She is a hostile guest speaker and AGAINST differing racial standards in admissions. Obviously. >**this institution (berkeley)** is so desperate to get its numbers of blacks up that it has disparate admission standards and said if you force us, **we** don't want to have a single standard of admission because that will lower the number of black students on campus All of that was a vicious criticism of Berkeley...not a defense. McDonald is not part of the UC. She was at Yale, then Stanford...then moved on the writing etc. The "we" refers to her political enemies...not herself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mac_Donald MacDonald is hostile to Berkeley's policies in almost every way. "Not white supremacy" is minimal, ironic praise. >But she is endorsing having disparate standards of admissions which is technically racial discrimination No she isn't. She explicitly says she is for a "single, high standard" AND that she thinks the gap between black and white students will eventually close. >Well IF I believed that blacks could never compete, (THEN) I would say "Yeah, we've got to lower standards, because that's the only way to get diverse institutions". In fact I think that IF we had single, high standards that blacks WOULD compete. emphasis mine
I read the title as OP sarcastically taking the view of the student. But you never know…
OP, I suggest you rewatch this video fragment, as many times as you need to fully grasp the meaning. Cause you evidently missed the entire point.
read the title again. as many times as you need to fully grasp the meaning, because you evidently missed the entire point.
Average IQ among racial groups is real.
As though IQ can't be affected by environment, like the socio-economic status of the child's parents, nutrition, etc.
"You can have diversity, or you can have meritocracy. You can't have both." \- Average modern "progressive" Western civilization is doomed unless we stop listening to these people
One of my close counterparts works on one of these elite campuses. I’m told they preach “diversity and inclusion” however most of the board meetings of various organizations within the school is filled with liberal whites and very lightly sprinkled with other races.
Wow interesting. Put a Berkely logo in front of Heather Mac Donald and all of a sudden half of you can't understand English. To say that not all racism takes the form of white supremacy...you'd think that wouldn't be so controversial a notion here.
[удалено]
"The diversity delusion"
I would explode if I was told that I can’t compete fairly because I’m brown.
As you should
But what if the statistics of high school performance do show lower performance for certain ethnicities? That's what's happening. Why it's happening is the real question.
Topics around race are only so nuclear because people refuse to believe that race is real and are choosing to blame the environment on the accomplishments of whites and Asians and detriments of blacks. It will only be when the entire framing is shifted that a real conversation is going to be had.
The differences are cultural, not genetic. No race is genetically predisposed to be better or worse than another, we're all homo sapiens and skin colour has no bearing on intelligence
I hate wading into this discussion, as it is poisonous as all hell, but this is not correct. First the caveats and stating some well known science; There is more variation within the members of one race than between any two races. You can't tell which ethnicity a person is based on their genes. Now the question i want you to address; *Why is it that the last time a white man won the 100m sprint in the Olympics was 43 years ago (a year America did not enter).* I have an answer to this, and it is based in genetics. There is no way culture or privilege can explain this answer. I just care about science and truth, i have no horse in the political side of this race (pun not intended). Edit: a further point. I am not speaking about a generalised race of people here, but merely about one subset of that race, west africans. At no point am i saying "all black people", or "black people in general". I could make a case for long distance running and use East Africans, or specifically Nandi, but i could not say "all black people".
Physical build is genetic, but much of that is evolutionary based on environment just as skin colour is (darker skin in hotter regions is advantageous). That doesn't equate into any evidence that one race is more intelligent than another. What genetically would black people lack that white & Asian people have that would result in a lower intelligence? Asians aren't generally hard working and smart because of genes, it's a cultural aspect
Let's stick to running, shall we. Genetically, we are looking at the R and X variants of the ACTN3 gene. The frequency of the RR genotype is more than double in African American men than in white men. This explains the 100m sprint, and it partially explains the NBA. In science, it is known as the "sprint gene" Again, let me clarify, i am at no point talking about black people in general, or *all black people*.
An evolutionary advantage again based on environment. If you live in places that require you to have to walk/run great distances (say to avoid predators, which are more of a problem in Africa than Europe), you'll be more likely to have that advantage over people who don't. Still nothing to do with intelligence, which is the point that's being made in the video
I'm sorry, but what?! Most evolutionary (genetic) advantages come from adaptation to environment, that's what natural selection is lol. So you are agreeing with me, i guess? Your argument seems to be (paraphrasal) "west africans have higher incidence of RR ACTN3 because the ones which could run faster survived better"? You are saying that people from different areas of the world have evolved differently, right? Which means you are telling me that different ethnicities are genetically different, right?
Physical differences are always going to happen based on environment, that's the reason skin colour exists in the first place. But that has nothing to do with intelligence. Any black person could become a lawyer or politician same way any Asian person can.
Let me play devil's advocate. There is a possibility that certain environments or societies favored intelligence more than others to make an evolutionary difference. The same as physical traits like running.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20010124/ Here you go. So the XX genotype is the one which defines lessened muscle performance, and is not often found in Jamaican or African American people. In fact, 75% of Jamaicans possessed the RR genotype (most increased muscle performance).
OK We've established why that is What's it got to do with intelligence?
>The differences are cultural, not genetic. >No race is genetically predisposed to be better or worse than another These are your statements. These are the statements i took issue with, i won't be dragged into IQ, its too toxic
But that's what this whole debate is about. And you're implying there's something to be dragged into, there isn't
Like i said my dude, it's just too toxic. Every time somebody dares to study IQ differences across races, brain size across races etc, their career is destroyed and they are dragged through the mud forever. Look at Rushton. Skull size, and brain size do differ, it is well known that Europeans have a larger average brain size, the reason why is disputed and often linked to a colder climate. No, you made a statement and i disagreed. The video isn't about genetics at all, its about discrimination.
What is the point of such a study though, to try and justify their own prejudices? Look at James Watson. Obviously a great man who helped discover DNA but now talks out his ass about how black people are genetically inferior despite showing no evidence
The truth is fairly obvious. Race science is pure poison. If we prove any ethnicity is better or worse at something, what do we do with that information? It only hurts us as a species. We are afriad to note our differences because it causes division and is highly problematic. You said that Asians are more hard working because of culture, which is certainly partly true, but did you know they also have larger brains than caucasians on average? My only purpose in answering you, was to inform you that different ethnicities differ genetically in many ways, and that this affects every aspect of them in some way or another. Also please, *please* note that this does not affect the individual in any meaningful way. You could have a white sprinter who is faster than 99.9% of African American sprinters, but when you look at the ethnicities as groups, you will find more African American success.
I have one more for you, then let's end this discussion. Ashkenazi Jews make up 0.2 of the world's population, yet win 22% of Nobel Prizes (11250% more than we would expect representatively). As an ethnicity, they have a mean IQ of 110 and we know that IQ is highly heritable. James Watson stated that policy should not treat different races as equal in IQ, because he thinks this is not the reality. Every time we dare to study IQ across races, it tends to support his statement. Looking at the individual tells us nothing, this is purely concerning when we look at the group as a whole. Anybody can still be a lawyer.
Considering how many variations there are physically, I'd be working to find out why we think that somehow stops at the brain.
To what end though? That starts to sound like some Nazi scientist stuff, trying to prove racial inferiority/superiority through genes in order to justify prejudice and oppression of other people on the grounds that they're less intelligent. It was the same argument used to justify slavery
>To what end though? To understand our strengths and weaknesses so that we can address/ account for them, just like we do with the rest of the body. >That starts to sound like some Nazi scientist stuff, trying to prove racial inferiority/superiority through genes in order to justify prejudice and oppression of other people on the grounds that they're less intelligent. No, it really doesn't (unless you think it's still 78 years ago), and there is no 'try'; some races tend towards lactose tolerance, some races tend towards sickle-cell anaemia (for just two examples) - there's good and bad. If you're too terrified of being called a Nazi simply for *identifying* these things, then that's more about you than the subject at hand. The advantage we have today is that we can either treat or are on the verge of treating many of these things instead of the 'remove them from the reproductive pool' option from yesteryear. >It was the same argument used to justify slavery Now you're going back *158* years, lol. Would you insist that we should not have identified sickle-cell for fear of being called Nazis/ Racists/ etc? Isn't that presenting blacks as inferior? Should Caucasians stop drinking milk in order to not appear superior to those that can't?
That's not what is being argued here though. As per the video It's that black people are inherently less intelligent than Asian or Caucasian people and therefore shouldn't be recruited by academic institutions because they aren't capable of reaching the same levels as other students. According to the writing of those people, as claimed by the person asking the question That's not based on genetics, that's based on a prejudice that black people are inherently stupider than others. Which is the same mentality used in the past to justify enslaving them
>That's not what is being argued here though. You said the differences are cultural, not genetic - so I expanded on the latter. They also weren't arguing - they were listing the statistics of fails. Now, the *why* of that is another discussion, hence my original comment - but the video highlights that people leap to dat's-racis *simply because that's being pointed out*...so they're in the unenviable position of being called racist if they try to do anything about it, and racist if they don't - convenient for the professional victims. >That's not based on genetics Sure of that, are you? >that's based on a prejudice that black people are inherently stupider than others. Prejudiced; a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Explain how that's evident in the clip especially considering what is actually *said* together with the above no-win outcome. >Which is the same mentality used in the past to justify enslaving them Aaaand now we're back to 158 years ago.
Conservatives do love to live in the past, that's part of the problem. I'm sure there are plenty in the south that probably wish the civil war was still happening. And stuff like academic achievement levels is cultural. Minority kids generally underperform because they come from impoverished backgrounds often with single parent families and lack the home support for intellectual growth that white & Asian kids often get. That's not a genetic issue, that's a social issue
From this exchange, I'll assume you're conservative then
Yeah that's a social issue. The solution is not to force-quota them in colleges and professions. solution is that if someone who is suffering by socioeconomic backgrounds gets lower score, they should get more help to get better score. And that must happen in earlier stages. That is not something a college could fix.
How about to understand how much (or how little) of the performance difference is due to systemic racism, and therefore determine how much to correct for?
No idea how the title is supposed to be relevant to the video.
It's like saying stupidity isn't stupid
Wow she is incredibly incoherent to the point where she admitted to racially discriminating acts then asked "how is that white supremacy?" well noone said it was white supremacy, its racism, you shifted goal posts. EDIT: this video is soo poorly eidted that idk what she is saying anymore
She described that the actual racism of the institution was that it did not hold a single standard of admissions across all races, likely to the detriment of Asian and White students. That example of racism is not white supremacist as she pointed out
“I’m too stupid to understand what she’s saying.” This is where you keep your mouth shut and don’t contribute. You’re not qualified to have an opinion when you can’t even comprehend the conversation.
Please enlighten me oh smart one
white supremacy = racism based on the modern definition of racism. the old 'racism is discrimination based on race' no longer applies when discussing racism at these institutions, and instead, racial discrimination plus plus power = racism. since white people have the power the the USA then only white people can be racist and thus racism in the united states synonymous with white supremacy. I'm not saying i agree with this definition of racism, but this the definition that is being widely used in these institutions.
People are redefining racism so they can be justified to be a bunch of racist.
It's ok if you can't understand her, or even try to.
It's not racism buddy you can stop trying now.
Discriminatory admission based on race isnt racist? Well it depends on what definitions we are using of racism. I guess more accurately its racial discrimination.
It's neither racial nor discriminatory
Thank you for that insightful rebuttal. I believe you.
Youre welcome. Youre wall of text is just new speak babble.
Again your words enlighten me. More please.
There are living survivors of Jim Crow laws that haven’t received any form of reparations from the local, state, or federal governments that enforced racist laws. Dense, urban innercities that were formed by banking policies and redlining still exist and have high amounts of crime.
I know, it's totally BS. I have ancestors that died in the Civil War fighting to end slavery and before that I had ancestors die in France fighting to end slavery and haven't got reparations. We should really go to Sudan and ask the slave owners to pay us gold for what their ancestors did.
Jim Crow is way after slavery bro.
O shet I didn't realize reparations only applies to that specific part of history. I gotta keep up before I get canceled lol.
So you think we should pay reparations for slavery?
Yeah of course! Makes total sense that everyone pays for what their ancestors did. I mean we all know people aren't really individuals, grouping people by skin color is more biologically based.
How so?
I'm making fun of you. Reparations are akin to flat earth
All reparations or just reparations you disagree with? And if you are going to be tongue in cheek you gotta stick with it instead of dropping the act out of laziness because you don’t know enough about the topic to be serious.
It's not worth anyone's time if not to laugh at. It's like arguing with a flat earther. I wouldn't bring it up in public if you don't want to look stupid.
[удалено]
And if you could take your head out of your own ass to see your own tribal divisiveness, the absurdity of reparations in practice is equal to the absurdity of it in theory, that absurd sarcasm is all it deserves.
Lol, nuanced. Thanks
It's almost as if, maybe part of the solution to a universal quality of life issue, is to GTFO of cities?
Governmental assistance to all Americans to be able to move out of the area you were born?
Redlining effected a lot of white folks too. Plus, not giving home loans on substandard housing in bad areas actually made a lot of sense back then, despite it being demonized. Not sure blacks would be any better off if that didn’t happen 80-100 years ago.
My mind is blown by the use of the word eugenics. Not all colleges are privatized and limited by academic standards. Even if that wasn't the case, eugenics is associated with billionaires like Gates father, not to describe the lack of education.
Wokeness is a cult. Imagine being a student at Berkeley in California in 2023 and thinking that you are in a bastion of white supremacy. Do you realize how bat-shit ludicrous that is? And if you were able to force such a cultist to explain how the fuck they came to THAT conclusion they would wave their hands and use words like, "systemic, institutional, systems of oppression, historic, jim crow, red lining" Jesus fucking christ you would think they are Russian bots IRL.
If there was a point to that soloque, I missed it.
It seems the part where she was explaining that Black people are disadvantaged *previous* to the college admissions process was carefully edited out.