UPenn Law Professor Amy Wax: US "better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative.

+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club.

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes.

I still don't get this idea that Asian Republicans are being "used". How exactly am I being used, as an Asian American who is also a Republican? My fellow republicans are fighting to protect the ideals of classical liberalism - not all of them, but most. They are also trying to fight against the systemic racist policy that is Affirmative Action. They are trying to implement merit-based immigration, which will help fellow Asians - such as the wonderful student we hosted over Christmas who ponders what his life would be if he did not get a spot in the lottery. He is studying data analytics and would love to apply his abilities in the US than back in Asia. It was such a difficult conversation to have with him, to sense the genuine desire, the ability to do good in society, but can't because of the luck of the draw.

On the other side, we have people like Ted Liu who has stated "I support affirmative action. I also support the use of race in college admissions."

Gee, such a tough choice.

Hello! I have some oceanfront property in Utah you might be interested in.

Worthless brainless response with no content. Typical.

And yet, you felt the need to add a worthless and brainless retort. Seems like I struck a nerve by pointing out that only a rube would believe what you wrote!

Republicans don't fight for classical liberal ideals. That's a laughable assertion. Republicans fight for lower taxes, but primarily for the already-wealthy, hardly a goal of classical liberalism. Republicans fight for protectionist policies, and fought against the Trans Pacific Partnership for little reason other than Hillary Clinton supported it. Republicans love legislating their moral values - look no further than the GOP's bathroom bills, abortion restrictions, opposition to legalizing marijuana, opposition to transgender rights, opposition to gay rights, and so on. Republicans say they love a free market, but are quite happy to distort the market extend subsidies to companies and industries with whom they are politically aligned.

There. Much more thought out than the screed that your freshman year English teacher would be embarrassed to hear that you wrote. In the meantime, you might want to read the works of political philosophers like John Rawls, who did an excellent job squaring classical liberalism with the need to build institutions that are rational and foster a just society.

Republicans fight for lower taxes overall. But because it's mostly the wealthy who are paying for most of our taxes, they tend to benefit more. Imagine if the country implemented a program to promote better health by reducing obesity, and you are there screaming on the sidelines "this only helps the fat people!" Yea, you are that guy. The rest of your "thoughts" are along this same vein, twisted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Republican positions. You should have just stayed silent instead of replying to remove all doubt.

John Rawls thought too much and did too little. His contention on the effects of egalitarian social policies and inequality was proven wrong. When a country is made more egalitarian, the inequalities increase, not decrease. Such is the potential folly of someone who relies too much on academic philosophy and too little on real-world human nature. But sure, you celebrate him all you want.

Well this reads like something pulled right out of 1984.

Hint - society exists in shades of grey. There is no perfectly "egalitarian" or "unequal" society. But right now so many of our institutions and facets of the economy are woefully inefficient at a societal level due to entrenched interests and political capture.

Well, which is why I said *MORE* egalitarian, and not "perfectly egalitarian" or just "egalitarian". If you don't trust me, then perhaps you trust Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899

Tell me, using your own words, what you think this article indicates.

As a society becomes more egalitarian, that is, with more equality of rights and opportunities, what we generally regard as inequality, such as differences in education, career choice, leadership and political representation, and income, increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative.

+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club.

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes.

I still don't get this idea that Asian Republicans are being "used". How exactly am I being used, as an Asian American who is also a Republican? My fellow republicans are fighting to protect the ideals of classical liberalism - not all of them, but most. They are also trying to fight against the systemic racist policy that is Affirmative Action. They are trying to implement merit-based immigration, which will help fellow Asians - such as the wonderful student we hosted over Christmas who ponders what his life would be if he did not get a spot in the lottery. He is studying data analytics and would love to apply his abilities in the US than back in Asia. It was such a difficult conversation to have with him, to sense the genuine desire, the ability to do good in society, but can't because of the luck of the draw.

On the other side, we have people like Ted Liu who has stated "I support affirmative action. I also support the use of race in college admissions."

Gee, such a tough choice.

Gee, you are blind to your own words.

You don't embrace or agree with every R or their policies, but you think ALL Dems agree with ALL Dem policies? I stated upthread, CA passed Prop 209. Do you know what that is? A liberal state passed a law that prevented universities there from using race as a factor. So, you see, not all liberals agree with affirmative action.

Tell your friend who ponders what his life would be like if he doesn't get in by lottery that he'll figure it out as milions of other people do. The former first lady came here on an HlB as "extraordinary talent" -- snort. Gimme a break. Like the US doesn't have enough models so we had to import them? There are thousands of other would be models around the world who would love an HlB visa to the US. Why shouldn't they have gotten one instead of Melania, who isn't even all that great looking and only modeled in catalogs and men's magazine in soft porn photos.

My family came here via family connections, as did thousands upon thousands of others, white, black, brown, etc.. I suppose to you that should never have happened, right?

Most Asian Americans realize that the R party today aren't supportive of Asian immigrants, nor are they really all that supportive of Asian Americans in general. They only seem to support merit based immigration as a way to exclude certain demographics. As Trump stated, why can't we import more Norwegians rather than people from sh1thole countrles? You think he wants more Chinese or Indians? Sure, he wants rich people because he's an elitist. He doesn't want an HlB Chinese or Indian tech worker, that's for sure.

You are being used as a patsy. Do you know what that means? You are convient for them when they want your support, but once they get what they want, they will turn on you.

We saw Trump do the same thing to people who supported him but didn't agree with everything he said or did. He would turn on them in a heartbeat. That's how Rs operate now.

Do you think the vast majority of Asian Americans are blind and dumb to vote Dem, and only the select few like you are smart and see the light and so you vote R? Ok, sure. If that makes you feel better.

Stop making stuff up. I never said that. I applaud CA's ban on affirmative action but they tried to repeal it and failed. It was on the ballot. And none of this change the fact that affirmative action is alive and well supported in other areas of the county, backed by Democrats who spend money defending it in court, with the support of Asian politicians like Ted Liu. This is sickening. They are racist and proud of it. Not all Democrats, but it is a broadly supported position among Democrats.

You keep ignoring facts placed right in front of you, and just go on repeating the same tired biased opinions based on your personal feelings. I am not going to repeat myself for your benefit. Enjoy supporting affirmative action.

yes, the repeal of 209 failed because LIBERALs didn't want to overturn it.

You also ignore facts placed right in front of you, my friend. You ignored everything I wrote about, and even your response to 209 repeal shows that not all liberals support affirmative action.

You are in the minority right now. Majority of Asian Americans, even the educated ones, don't support Rs these days. Maybe if they swing back to the moderate days Asian Americans might go back. Of course, if the Dem party swings way too left, you might see more Asian Americans becoming Independent and voting whoever is the least extreme.

For the last time, I never said all lierals support Affirmative Action. Learn English, it's not that hard.

So, if you agree, that not all liberals support aa, then why shouldn't Asian Americans vote Dem if not all Dems support aa?

You realize that not all Asian Americans are one issue voters, right? We care about education in general, quality and access to healthcare -- all things that Dems support, but R policies seem to want to kill. They support the only "if you can afford it" policies; today's R party don't support family immigration (even though they used to be the party of family values). You do realize that a lot of Asian Americans came here via family connections, right?

We are talking in circles. I'm not going to respond anymore. I've said all of this before. You can reread the thread if you are at all interested in seeing what I've to say on this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As for Kamala Harris, I have never felt a shred of connection with her as a person with Asian ancestry. She might have indicated her Asian ancestry in tweets or article quotes, but she certainly did not demonstrate any of it. None of her Asian experiences are her own, they are simply relays of stories from her relatives. As far as I can tell, she lived a typical African American life. There is nothing wrong with that, just stop claiming that she has a connection with me because her mom happen to be born on the same continent as me. Oh yea, Kamala harris also supports affirmative action, the very racist policy that discriminates against people with Asian ancestry. At least she can put down "Black" when she fills out her forms. Other Asians like my sons don't have that choice.

Shameful.

Oh, Harris apparently is "not Asian enough" for you. Just like some used to argue that Obama "was not Black enough". That in itself is a pretty bigoted position to take. After her parents separated when she was 7, Harris was raised by her Indian mom. That is far from the "typical African American life".

Your almost total fixation on affirmative action is interesting and you almost make it the determining factor about whether someone is acceptable or not. Support for affirmative action is enough for you declare an Asian to be non-Asian or at least not worthy of consideration. That is a strange obsession and ignores that anyone -- Asian or otherwise -- might have perfectly valid reasons for supporting affirmative action.

Thank you for this! Ironically, I’m not sure I’m 100% in support of affirmative action moving forward. BUT as a black person in this country, its INCREDIBLY insulting when a group of individuals who were largely unaffected and have no historical connection ( according to pew: most Asian Adults in the US are foreign born) with WHY the practice was put into place are trying to tear it down when they are doing fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative.

+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club.

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes.

I still don't get this idea that Asian Republicans are being "used". How exactly am I being used, as an Asian American who is also a Republican? My fellow republicans are fighting to protect the ideals of classical liberalism - not all of them, but most. They are also trying to fight against the systemic racist policy that is Affirmative Action. They are trying to implement merit-based immigration, which will help fellow Asians - such as the wonderful student we hosted over Christmas who ponders what his life would be if he did not get a spot in the lottery. He is studying data analytics and would love to apply his abilities in the US than back in Asia. It was such a difficult conversation to have with him, to sense the genuine desire, the ability to do good in society, but can't because of the luck of the draw.

On the other side, we have people like Ted Liu who has stated "I support affirmative action. I also support the use of race in college admissions."

Gee, such a tough choice.

Hello! I have some oceanfront property in Utah you might be interested in.

Worthless brainless response with no content. Typical.

And yet, you felt the need to add a worthless and brainless retort. Seems like I struck a nerve by pointing out that only a rube would believe what you wrote!

Republicans don't fight for classical liberal ideals. That's a laughable assertion. Republicans fight for lower taxes, but primarily for the already-wealthy, hardly a goal of classical liberalism. Republicans fight for protectionist policies, and fought against the Trans Pacific Partnership for little reason other than Hillary Clinton supported it. Republicans love legislating their moral values - look no further than the GOP's bathroom bills, abortion restrictions, opposition to legalizing marijuana, opposition to transgender rights, opposition to gay rights, and so on. Republicans say they love a free market, but are quite happy to distort the market extend subsidies to companies and industries with whom they are politically aligned.

There. Much more thought out than the screed that your freshman year English teacher would be embarrassed to hear that you wrote. In the meantime, you might want to read the works of political philosophers like John Rawls, who did an excellent job squaring classical liberalism with the need to build institutions that are rational and foster a just society.

Republicans fight for lower taxes overall. But because it's mostly the wealthy who are paying for most of our taxes, they tend to benefit more. Imagine if the country implemented a program to promote better health by reducing obesity, and you are there screaming on the sidelines "this only helps the fat people!" Yea, you are that guy. The rest of your "thoughts" are along this same vein, twisted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Republican positions. You should have just stayed silent instead of replying to remove all doubt.

John Rawls thought too much and did too little. His contention on the effects of egalitarian social policies and inequality was proven wrong. When a country is made more egalitarian, the inequalities increase, not decrease. Such is the potential folly of someone who relies too much on academic philosophy and too little on real-world human nature. But sure, you celebrate him all you want.

Well this reads like something pulled right out of 1984.

Hint - society exists in shades of grey. There is no perfectly "egalitarian" or "unequal" society. But right now so many of our institutions and facets of the economy are woefully inefficient at a societal level due to entrenched interests and political capture.

Well, which is why I said *MORE* egalitarian, and not "perfectly egalitarian" or just "egalitarian". If you don't trust me, then perhaps you trust Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899

Tell me, using your own words, what you think this article indicates.

As a society becomes more egalitarian, that is, with more equality of rights and opportunities, what we generally regard as inequality, such as differences in education, career choice, leadership and political representation, and income, increase.

Just as I suspected. You are quite unjustifiably trying to extrapolate a very narrow finding (i.e., there is evidence that higher levels of economic development and gender equality lead to differentiation in gender preferences) in a vain effort to justify your ill-informed priors (i.e., higher levels of egalitarianism increases inequality). Alas, you are out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative.

+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club.

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes.

I still don't get this idea that Asian Republicans are being "used". How exactly am I being used, as an Asian American who is also a Republican? My fellow republicans are fighting to protect the ideals of classical liberalism - not all of them, but most. They are also trying to fight against the systemic racist policy that is Affirmative Action. They are trying to implement merit-based immigration, which will help fellow Asians - such as the wonderful student we hosted over Christmas who ponders what his life would be if he did not get a spot in the lottery. He is studying data analytics and would love to apply his abilities in the US than back in Asia. It was such a difficult conversation to have with him, to sense the genuine desire, the ability to do good in society, but can't because of the luck of the draw.

On the other side, we have people like Ted Liu who has stated "I support affirmative action. I also support the use of race in college admissions."

Gee, such a tough choice.

Hello! I have some oceanfront property in Utah you might be interested in.

Worthless brainless response with no content. Typical.

And yet, you felt the need to add a worthless and brainless retort. Seems like I struck a nerve by pointing out that only a rube would believe what you wrote!

Republicans don't fight for classical liberal ideals. That's a laughable assertion. Republicans fight for lower taxes, but primarily for the already-wealthy, hardly a goal of classical liberalism. Republicans fight for protectionist policies, and fought against the Trans Pacific Partnership for little reason other than Hillary Clinton supported it. Republicans love legislating their moral values - look no further than the GOP's bathroom bills, abortion restrictions, opposition to legalizing marijuana, opposition to transgender rights, opposition to gay rights, and so on. Republicans say they love a free market, but are quite happy to distort the market extend subsidies to companies and industries with whom they are politically aligned.

There. Much more thought out than the screed that your freshman year English teacher would be embarrassed to hear that you wrote. In the meantime, you might want to read the works of political philosophers like John Rawls, who did an excellent job squaring classical liberalism with the need to build institutions that are rational and foster a just society.

Republicans fight for lower taxes overall. But because it's mostly the wealthy who are paying for most of our taxes, they tend to benefit more. Imagine if the country implemented a program to promote better health by reducing obesity, and you are there screaming on the sidelines "this only helps the fat people!" Yea, you are that guy. The rest of your "thoughts" are along this same vein, twisted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Republican positions. You should have just stayed silent instead of replying to remove all doubt.

John Rawls thought too much and did too little. His contention on the effects of egalitarian social policies and inequality was proven wrong. When a country is made more egalitarian, the inequalities increase, not decrease. Such is the potential folly of someone who relies too much on academic philosophy and too little on real-world human nature. But sure, you celebrate him all you want.

Well this reads like something pulled right out of 1984.

Hint - society exists in shades of grey. There is no perfectly "egalitarian" or "unequal" society. But right now so many of our institutions and facets of the economy are woefully inefficient at a societal level due to entrenched interests and political capture.

Well, which is why I said *MORE* egalitarian, and not "perfectly egalitarian" or just "egalitarian". If you don't trust me, then perhaps you trust Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899

Tell me, using your own words, what you think this article indicates.

As a society becomes more egalitarian, that is, with more equality of rights and opportunities, what we generally regard as inequality, such as differences in education, career choice, leadership and political representation, and income, increase.

Just as I suspected. You are quite unjustifiably trying to extrapolate a very narrow finding (i.e., there is evidence that higher levels of economic development and gender equality lead to differentiation in gender preferences) in a vain effort to justify your ill-informed priors (i.e., higher levels of egalitarianism increases inequality). Alas, you are out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

Sigh... did you actualy read the study? It's already been established that the difference in preferences is what leads to social inequalities:

Understanding determinants of gender differences in economic and social domains has been of interest, both in academic and public debates. Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others.

This study is trying to find out why those differences in preferences come about, and what it found is that the more egalitarian a society it becomes (gender equality index), the more difference there is in preferences, and therefore by extension, more inequality interms of economic outcomes, etc.

If you want to actually engage in a meaningful way, I'm willing to continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative.

+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club.

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes.

I still don't get this idea that Asian Republicans are being "used". How exactly am I being used, as an Asian American who is also a Republican? My fellow republicans are fighting to protect the ideals of classical liberalism - not all of them, but most. They are also trying to fight against the systemic racist policy that is Affirmative Action. They are trying to implement merit-based immigration, which will help fellow Asians - such as the wonderful student we hosted over Christmas who ponders what his life would be if he did not get a spot in the lottery. He is studying data analytics and would love to apply his abilities in the US than back in Asia. It was such a difficult conversation to have with him, to sense the genuine desire, the ability to do good in society, but can't because of the luck of the draw.

On the other side, we have people like Ted Liu who has stated "I support affirmative action. I also support the use of race in college admissions."

Gee, such a tough choice.

Hello! I have some oceanfront property in Utah you might be interested in.

Worthless brainless response with no content. Typical.

And yet, you felt the need to add a worthless and brainless retort. Seems like I struck a nerve by pointing out that only a rube would believe what you wrote!

Republicans don't fight for classical liberal ideals. That's a laughable assertion. Republicans fight for lower taxes, but primarily for the already-wealthy, hardly a goal of classical liberalism. Republicans fight for protectionist policies, and fought against the Trans Pacific Partnership for little reason other than Hillary Clinton supported it. Republicans love legislating their moral values - look no further than the GOP's bathroom bills, abortion restrictions, opposition to legalizing marijuana, opposition to transgender rights, opposition to gay rights, and so on. Republicans say they love a free market, but are quite happy to distort the market extend subsidies to companies and industries with whom they are politically aligned.

There. Much more thought out than the screed that your freshman year English teacher would be embarrassed to hear that you wrote. In the meantime, you might want to read the works of political philosophers like John Rawls, who did an excellent job squaring classical liberalism with the need to build institutions that are rational and foster a just society.

Republicans fight for lower taxes overall. But because it's mostly the wealthy who are paying for most of our taxes, they tend to benefit more. Imagine if the country implemented a program to promote better health by reducing obesity, and you are there screaming on the sidelines "this only helps the fat people!" Yea, you are that guy. The rest of your "thoughts" are along this same vein, twisted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Republican positions. You should have just stayed silent instead of replying to remove all doubt.

John Rawls thought too much and did too little. His contention on the effects of egalitarian social policies and inequality was proven wrong. When a country is made more egalitarian, the inequalities increase, not decrease. Such is the potential folly of someone who relies too much on academic philosophy and too little on real-world human nature. But sure, you celebrate him all you want.

Well this reads like something pulled right out of 1984.

Hint - society exists in shades of grey. There is no perfectly "egalitarian" or "unequal" society. But right now so many of our institutions and facets of the economy are woefully inefficient at a societal level due to entrenched interests and political capture.

Well, which is why I said *MORE* egalitarian, and not "perfectly egalitarian" or just "egalitarian". If you don't trust me, then perhaps you trust Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899

Tell me, using your own words, what you think this article indicates.

As a society becomes more egalitarian, that is, with more equality of rights and opportunities, what we generally regard as inequality, such as differences in education, career choice, leadership and political representation, and income, increase.

Just as I suspected. You are quite unjustifiably trying to extrapolate a very narrow finding (i.e., there is evidence that higher levels of economic development and gender equality lead to differentiation in gender preferences) in a vain effort to justify your ill-informed priors (i.e., higher levels of egalitarianism increases inequality). Alas, you are out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

Sigh... did you actualy read the study? It's already been established that the difference in preferences is what leads to social inequalities:

Understanding determinants of gender differences in economic and social domains has been of interest, both in academic and public debates. Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others.

This study is trying to find out why those differences in preferences come about, and what it found is that the more egalitarian a society it becomes (gender equality index), the more difference there is in preferences, and therefore by extension, more inequality interms of economic outcomes, etc.

If you want to actually engage in a meaningful way, I'm willing to continue.

You still don't get it, do you? You cannot extrapolate the finding that women make different choices when they have better access to resources and education to your broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative.

+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club.

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes.

I still don't get this idea that Asian Republicans are being "used". How exactly am I being used, as an Asian American who is also a Republican? My fellow republicans are fighting to protect the ideals of classical liberalism - not all of them, but most. They are also trying to fight against the systemic racist policy that is Affirmative Action. They are trying to implement merit-based immigration, which will help fellow Asians - such as the wonderful student we hosted over Christmas who ponders what his life would be if he did not get a spot in the lottery. He is studying data analytics and would love to apply his abilities in the US than back in Asia. It was such a difficult conversation to have with him, to sense the genuine desire, the ability to do good in society, but can't because of the luck of the draw.

On the other side, we have people like Ted Liu who has stated "I support affirmative action. I also support the use of race in college admissions."

Gee, such a tough choice.

Hello! I have some oceanfront property in Utah you might be interested in.

Worthless brainless response with no content. Typical.

And yet, you felt the need to add a worthless and brainless retort. Seems like I struck a nerve by pointing out that only a rube would believe what you wrote!

Republicans don't fight for classical liberal ideals. That's a laughable assertion. Republicans fight for lower taxes, but primarily for the already-wealthy, hardly a goal of classical liberalism. Republicans fight for protectionist policies, and fought against the Trans Pacific Partnership for little reason other than Hillary Clinton supported it. Republicans love legislating their moral values - look no further than the GOP's bathroom bills, abortion restrictions, opposition to legalizing marijuana, opposition to transgender rights, opposition to gay rights, and so on. Republicans say they love a free market, but are quite happy to distort the market extend subsidies to companies and industries with whom they are politically aligned.

There. Much more thought out than the screed that your freshman year English teacher would be embarrassed to hear that you wrote. In the meantime, you might want to read the works of political philosophers like John Rawls, who did an excellent job squaring classical liberalism with the need to build institutions that are rational and foster a just society.

Republicans fight for lower taxes overall. But because it's mostly the wealthy who are paying for most of our taxes, they tend to benefit more. Imagine if the country implemented a program to promote better health by reducing obesity, and you are there screaming on the sidelines "this only helps the fat people!" Yea, you are that guy. The rest of your "thoughts" are along this same vein, twisted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Republican positions. You should have just stayed silent instead of replying to remove all doubt.

John Rawls thought too much and did too little. His contention on the effects of egalitarian social policies and inequality was proven wrong. When a country is made more egalitarian, the inequalities increase, not decrease. Such is the potential folly of someone who relies too much on academic philosophy and too little on real-world human nature. But sure, you celebrate him all you want.

Well this reads like something pulled right out of 1984.

Hint - society exists in shades of grey. There is no perfectly "egalitarian" or "unequal" society. But right now so many of our institutions and facets of the economy are woefully inefficient at a societal level due to entrenched interests and political capture.

Well, which is why I said *MORE* egalitarian, and not "perfectly egalitarian" or just "egalitarian". If you don't trust me, then perhaps you trust Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899

Tell me, using your own words, what you think this article indicates.

As a society becomes more egalitarian, that is, with more equality of rights and opportunities, what we generally regard as inequality, such as differences in education, career choice, leadership and political representation, and income, increase.

Just as I suspected. You are quite unjustifiably trying to extrapolate a very narrow finding (i.e., there is evidence that higher levels of economic development and gender equality lead to differentiation in gender preferences) in a vain effort to justify your ill-informed priors (i.e., higher levels of egalitarianism increases inequality). Alas, you are out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

Sigh... did you actualy read the study? It's already been established that the difference in preferences is what leads to social inequalities:

Understanding determinants of gender differences in economic and social domains has been of interest, both in academic and public debates. Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others.

This study is trying to find out why those differences in preferences come about, and what it found is that the more egalitarian a society it becomes (gender equality index), the more difference there is in preferences, and therefore by extension, more inequality interms of economic outcomes, etc.

If you want to actually engage in a meaningful way, I'm willing to continue.

You still don't get it, do you? You cannot extrapolate the finding that women make different choices when they have better access to resources and education to your broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

No, YOU still don't get it. It's not me, it's the study saying this. It was already established different preferences lead to increased social outcome inequality. This study established that better access to resources and education, as evident in a more egalitarian society with better gender equality, leads to increased differences in preferences. This is the exact conclusion of the study, and I quote "This finding suggests that greater availability of and gender-equal access to material and social resources favor the manifestation of gender-differentiated preferences across countries."

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm simply quoting the study. If you have a problem with the study, you can critique it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
No, YOU still don't get it. It's not me, it's the study saying this. It was already established different preferences lead to increased social outcome inequality. This study established that better access to resources and education, as evident in a more egalitarian society with better gender equality, leads to increased differences in preferences. This is the exact conclusion of the study, and I quote "This finding suggests that greater availability of and gender-equal access to material and social resources favor the manifestation of gender-differentiated preferences across countries."

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm simply quoting the study. If you have a problem with the study, you can critique it.

There is a lot of abstract language being used in that article which I think you are taking advantage of to draw conclusions that are not necessarily supported.

That article suggests that as gender equality increases, differences in gender preference also increase. The article further claims that gender differences in economic preferences explain differences in economic outcomes. But, this flies in the face of our lived experience. Which of these two scenarios is likely to have the greater economic outcome differences:

1) A society in which women are unequal to men, do not have their own wealth, and are confined to either staying at home as parents and home keepers or pursing low-paying jobs; or

2) A society in which women have greater equality, are free to pursue advanced education, and are able to obtain high-paying jobs.

I think it is clear that differences in economic outcomes between men and women are decreased in the second scenario.

But, I really am not sure what any of this has to do with whether or not the US should have fewer Asians or how it relates to affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. Asian Americans are in an uncomfortable position.

Harvard and all the elite schools heavily discriminate against Asian Americans, and Harvard even goes as far to say it's because Asian Americans have no personality. All the ending of gifted and talented programs and schools like Thomas Jefferson disproportionately affect Asian Americans and South Asians. And once you do finally get your degrees and apply, you're told you're not diverse enough for the DEI committees who'd rather hire a less qualified person of a different race because, at the end of the day, Asians really don't count as people of color.

Work hard, study hard, start businesses, get ahead in life = you're now all told it's just white supremacy. Meritocracy apparently is racist

You stretch yourself to buy a house in a top rated school district only to be rezoned for a lower ranked school in the name of equity, and when you protest, you're accused of white supremacy.

Most of the Asian-American hate crimes were committed by non-whites, but that apparently doesn't matter. It's still white supremacy.

So what do you do: keep voting for the Democrats, who are the face of the woke progressive left and keep enforcing these double standards on the Asian Americans.

Which, I suppose, is Amy Wax's point. If Asian Americans aren't willing to stand up for themselves, then what's the point in having more Asian Americans to blindly vote for the political party that judges and belittles and sneers at them at every possible opportunity while grabbing all their votes?

The Republicans are just less hypocritical than the Democrats because the Democrats don't practice what they preach while the Republicans are fairly consistent on one thing: curbing immigration.

I'm asian and I agree with this.

The republicans are consistent on another thing: white supremacy.

Enjoy that - I’m sure it’ll work out great for ya!

Exactly what “white supremacy” are you talking about?

The kind when the Republican pro panda channel goes on and on abt the “great replacement” where “legacy Americans” are replaced with foreigners.

Do you think your friend Tucker views you as a “legacy American”?


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacy-1231248/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative.

+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club.

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.

That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes.

I still don't get this idea that Asian Republicans are being "used". How exactly am I being used, as an Asian American who is also a Republican? My fellow republicans are fighting to protect the ideals of classical liberalism - not all of them, but most. They are also trying to fight against the systemic racist policy that is Affirmative Action. They are trying to implement merit-based immigration, which will help fellow Asians - such as the wonderful student we hosted over Christmas who ponders what his life would be if he did not get a spot in the lottery. He is studying data analytics and would love to apply his abilities in the US than back in Asia. It was such a difficult conversation to have with him, to sense the genuine desire, the ability to do good in society, but can't because of the luck of the draw.

On the other side, we have people like Ted Liu who has stated "I support affirmative action. I also support the use of race in college admissions."

Gee, such a tough choice.

Hello! I have some oceanfront property in Utah you might be interested in.

Worthless brainless response with no content. Typical.

And yet, you felt the need to add a worthless and brainless retort. Seems like I struck a nerve by pointing out that only a rube would believe what you wrote!

Republicans don't fight for classical liberal ideals. That's a laughable assertion. Republicans fight for lower taxes, but primarily for the already-wealthy, hardly a goal of classical liberalism. Republicans fight for protectionist policies, and fought against the Trans Pacific Partnership for little reason other than Hillary Clinton supported it. Republicans love legislating their moral values - look no further than the GOP's bathroom bills, abortion restrictions, opposition to legalizing marijuana, opposition to transgender rights, opposition to gay rights, and so on. Republicans say they love a free market, but are quite happy to distort the market extend subsidies to companies and industries with whom they are politically aligned.

There. Much more thought out than the screed that your freshman year English teacher would be embarrassed to hear that you wrote. In the meantime, you might want to read the works of political philosophers like John Rawls, who did an excellent job squaring classical liberalism with the need to build institutions that are rational and foster a just society.

Republicans fight for lower taxes overall. But because it's mostly the wealthy who are paying for most of our taxes, they tend to benefit more. Imagine if the country implemented a program to promote better health by reducing obesity, and you are there screaming on the sidelines "this only helps the fat people!" Yea, you are that guy. The rest of your "thoughts" are along this same vein, twisted misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Republican positions. You should have just stayed silent instead of replying to remove all doubt.

John Rawls thought too much and did too little. His contention on the effects of egalitarian social policies and inequality was proven wrong. When a country is made more egalitarian, the inequalities increase, not decrease. Such is the potential folly of someone who relies too much on academic philosophy and too little on real-world human nature. But sure, you celebrate him all you want.

Well this reads like something pulled right out of 1984.

Hint - society exists in shades of grey. There is no perfectly "egalitarian" or "unequal" society. But right now so many of our institutions and facets of the economy are woefully inefficient at a societal level due to entrenched interests and political capture.

Well, which is why I said *MORE* egalitarian, and not "perfectly egalitarian" or just "egalitarian". If you don't trust me, then perhaps you trust Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899

Tell me, using your own words, what you think this article indicates.

As a society becomes more egalitarian, that is, with more equality of rights and opportunities, what we generally regard as inequality, such as differences in education, career choice, leadership and political representation, and income, increase.

Just as I suspected. You are quite unjustifiably trying to extrapolate a very narrow finding (i.e., there is evidence that higher levels of economic development and gender equality lead to differentiation in gender preferences) in a vain effort to justify your ill-informed priors (i.e., higher levels of egalitarianism increases inequality). Alas, you are out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

Sigh... did you actualy read the study? It's already been established that the difference in preferences is what leads to social inequalities:

Understanding determinants of gender differences in economic and social domains has been of interest, both in academic and public debates. Previous research has shown that gender differences in fundamental economic preferences are important in explaining gender differences in economic outcomes, such as for occupational choice, financial investment, or educational decisions, among many others.

This study is trying to find out why those differences in preferences come about, and what it found is that the more egalitarian a society it becomes (gender equality index), the more difference there is in preferences, and therefore by extension, more inequality interms of economic outcomes, etc.

If you want to actually engage in a meaningful way, I'm willing to continue.

You still don't get it, do you? You cannot extrapolate the finding that women make different choices when they have better access to resources and education to your broader thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality.

No, YOU still don't get it. It's not me, it's the study saying this. It was already established different preferences lead to increased social outcome inequality. This study established that better access to resources and education, as evident in a more egalitarian society with better gender equality, leads to increased differences in preferences. This is the exact conclusion of the study, and I quote "This finding suggests that greater availability of and gender-equal access to material and social resources favor the manifestation of gender-differentiated preferences across countries."

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm simply quoting the study. If you have a problem with the study, you can critique it.

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. Asian Americans are in an uncomfortable position.

Harvard and all the elite schools heavily discriminate against Asian Americans, and Harvard even goes as far to say it's because Asian Americans have no personality. All the ending of gifted and talented programs and schools like Thomas Jefferson disproportionately affect Asian Americans and South Asians. And once you do finally get your degrees and apply, you're told you're not diverse enough for the DEI committees who'd rather hire a less qualified person of a different race because, at the end of the day, Asians really don't count as people of color.

Work hard, study hard, start businesses, get ahead in life = you're now all told it's just white supremacy. Meritocracy apparently is racist

You stretch yourself to buy a house in a top rated school district only to be rezoned for a lower ranked school in the name of equity, and when you protest, you're accused of white supremacy.

Most of the Asian-American hate crimes were committed by non-whites, but that apparently doesn't matter. It's still white supremacy.

So what do you do: keep voting for the Democrats, who are the face of the woke progressive left and keep enforcing these double standards on the Asian Americans.

Which, I suppose, is Amy Wax's point. If Asian Americans aren't willing to stand up for themselves, then what's the point in having more Asian Americans to blindly vote for the political party that judges and belittles and sneers at them at every possible opportunity while grabbing all their votes?

The Republicans are just less hypocritical than the Democrats because the Democrats don't practice what they preach while the Republicans are fairly consistent on one thing: curbing immigration.

I'm asian and I agree with this.

The republicans are consistent on another thing: white supremacy.

Enjoy that - I’m sure it’ll work out great for ya!

Exactly what “white supremacy” are you talking about?

The kind when the Republican pro panda channel goes on and on abt the “great replacement” where “legacy Americans” are replaced with foreigners.

Do you think your friend Tucker views you as a “legacy American”?


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacy-1231248/amp/

I said several pages back that minority Republicans baffle me. No matter what you do, you will never be in the club, ever. They might throw you a bone here and there - and the GOP opposition to affirmative action is basically a bone - but you will never, ever qualify for the club. You are fulfilling LBJ’s famous quote about picking pockets, and you are actively engaging in pushing down other minorities because… you think it will elevate you to the club? Nah. You’re being used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. Asian Americans are in an uncomfortable position.

Harvard and all the elite schools heavily discriminate against Asian Americans, and Harvard even goes as far to say it's because Asian Americans have no personality. All the ending of gifted and talented programs and schools like Thomas Jefferson disproportionately affect Asian Americans and South Asians. And once you do finally get your degrees and apply, you're told you're not diverse enough for the DEI committees who'd rather hire a less qualified person of a different race because, at the end of the day, Asians really don't count as people of color.

Work hard, study hard, start businesses, get ahead in life = you're now all told it's just white supremacy. Meritocracy apparently is racist

You stretch yourself to buy a house in a top rated school district only to be rezoned for a lower ranked school in the name of equity, and when you protest, you're accused of white supremacy.

Most of the Asian-American hate crimes were committed by non-whites, but that apparently doesn't matter. It's still white supremacy.

So what do you do: keep voting for the Democrats, who are the face of the woke progressive left and keep enforcing these double standards on the Asian Americans.

Which, I suppose, is Amy Wax's point. If Asian Americans aren't willing to stand up for themselves, then what's the point in having more Asian Americans to blindly vote for the political party that judges and belittles and sneers at them at every possible opportunity while grabbing all their votes?

The Republicans are just less hypocritical than the Democrats because the Democrats don't practice what they preach while the Republicans are fairly consistent on one thing: curbing immigration.

I'm asian and I agree with this.

The republicans are consistent on another thing: white supremacy.

Enjoy that - I’m sure it’ll work out great for ya!

Exactly what “white supremacy” are you talking about?

The kind when the Republican pro panda channel goes on and on abt the “great replacement” where “legacy Americans” are replaced with foreigners.

Do you think your friend Tucker views you as a “legacy American”?


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacy-1231248/amp/

I said several pages back that minority Republicans baffle me. No matter what you do, you will never be in the club, ever. They might throw you a bone here and there - and the GOP opposition to affirmative action is basically a bone - but you will never, ever qualify for the club. You are fulfilling LBJ’s famous quote about picking pockets, and you are actively engaging in pushing down other minorities because… you think it will elevate you to the club? Nah. You’re being used.

I am not sure if you understand, Republican is not a "club". No one is accepted into it. A person doesn't even have to call themselves a Republican to be one. It's a framework of ideas. That's all. I identify as a Republican and have never felt the need that I needed to be a part of some social circle to validate my Republican-ness.

If you get the feeling that the only way to validate your political beliefs is whether or not you are accepted into the group, then you are the one being used, not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Your response indicates that you really, truly have no idea what you're talking about, you have a flippant disregard for logic and intellectual rigor, or are discussing this in bad faith (or perhaps all three!). You are indeed the one making the extrapolation that more egalitarian societies are more unequal.

To be more concrete, here is an example that is supported by the article:

In a poor country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are limited, there is less gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, both men and women are similarly risk-averse, patient, altruistic, etc.
In a richer country in which both educational opportunities and material resources are more widely available and evenly distributed, there is more gender-based differentiation in preferences. That is, men may be systematically more risk-seeking, less patient, less altruistic, etc, than women.

You are trying to take this specific and narrow evidence and take it as proof of your thesis that egalitarianism leads to inequality. You cannot do that. I cannot emphasize enough that this paper does not make that generalizable argument.

Again, it's not me. It's the authors of the study making the conclusion. I can't help it if you won't acknowledge plain English. I just hope others can read and find the information interesting as I did. Good evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. Asian Americans are in an uncomfortable position.

Harvard and all the elite schools heavily discriminate against Asian Americans, and Harvard even goes as far to say it's because Asian Americans have no personality. All the ending of gifted and talented programs and schools like Thomas Jefferson disproportionately affect Asian Americans and South Asians. And once you do finally get your degrees and apply, you're told you're not diverse enough for the DEI committees who'd rather hire a less qualified person of a different race because, at the end of the day, Asians really don't count as people of color.

Work hard, study hard, start businesses, get ahead in life = you're now all told it's just white supremacy. Meritocracy apparently is racist

You stretch yourself to buy a house in a top rated school district only to be rezoned for a lower ranked school in the name of equity, and when you protest, you're accused of white supremacy.

Most of the Asian-American hate crimes were committed by non-whites, but that apparently doesn't matter. It's still white supremacy.

So what do you do: keep voting for the Democrats, who are the face of the woke progressive left and keep enforcing these double standards on the Asian Americans.

Which, I suppose, is Amy Wax's point. If Asian Americans aren't willing to stand up for themselves, then what's the point in having more Asian Americans to blindly vote for the political party that judges and belittles and sneers at them at every possible opportunity while grabbing all their votes?

The Republicans are just less hypocritical than the Democrats because the Democrats don't practice what they preach while the Republicans are fairly consistent on one thing: curbing immigration.

I'm asian and I agree with this.

The republicans are consistent on another thing: white supremacy.

Enjoy that - I’m sure it’ll work out great for ya!

Exactly what “white supremacy” are you talking about?

The kind when the Republican pro panda channel goes on and on abt the “great replacement” where “legacy Americans” are replaced with foreigners.

Do you think your friend Tucker views you as a “legacy American”?


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-great-replacement-white-supremacy-1231248/amp/

I said several pages back that minority Republicans baffle me. No matter what you do, you will never be in the club, ever. They might throw you a bone here and there - and the GOP opposition to affirmative action is basically a bone - but you will never, ever qualify for the club. You are fulfilling LBJ’s famous quote about picking pockets, and you are actively engaging in pushing down other minorities because… you think it will elevate you to the club? Nah. You’re being used.

I am not sure if you understand, Republican is not a "club". No one is accepted into it. A person doesn't even have to call themselves a Republican to be one. It's a framework of ideas. That's all. I identify as a Republican and have never felt the need that I needed to be a part of some social circle to validate my Republican-ness.

If you get the feeling that the only way to validate your political beliefs is whether or not you are accepted into the group, then you are the one being used, not me.

“Framework of ideas”


HOLY SH!T DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?

So please do tell, what’s the framework exactly? Deny science, drink bleach, eat horse dewormer, overthrow elections, grab pussies and then lie about all of the foregoing?

Some framework you got there.

Look - you can identify as a republican all you want. If you aren’t white, there is a GD good chance their policies will harm you or your family some day. Just wait until you fall into the hands of the wrong cop at a traffic stop. Until then, enjoy your framework while democrats actually work to protect your rights, your family, your democracy, your health and your country. God love ya!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure if you understand, Republican is not a "club". No one is accepted into it. A person doesn't even have to call themselves a Republican to be one. It's a framework of ideas. That's all. I identify as a Republican and have never felt the need that I needed to be a part of some social circle to validate my Republican-ness.

If you get the feeling that the only way to validate your political beliefs is whether or not you are accepted into the group, then you are the one being used, not me.

I’m not sure you do understand that to an extent, everything is a club. I guess with the GOP we could say it’s a tribe, really. The benefits accrue to those in the tribe. True belonging, true protection: these only belong to those who are members of the tribe. They’ll let you ride a horse along with them, they’ll let you fight their battles, but when the winter is long and resources short, someone is going to be shoved out of the longhouse. And it’s going to be Asian Republicans, Latino Republicans and Black Republicans.

Keep supporting the framework of hatred, short sightedness, anti-scientific thinking, etc, thinking it puts you somewhere above others; you’ll never be in the club. You’re supporting a party of hatred, and they will sell you out the first chance they get. Literally read what this woman said about you.