Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I still fail to see what is racist about my initial proposal - top 5% of every high school in the country, with family incomes under $100,000 (or maybe lower) will be beneficiaries of AA and, to solve the "free college for everyone" impossibility, also qualify for a free ride to the 4-year university in their state. It addresses so many issues at once:

1) Black children from low-income families with uneducated parents, who obviously started life at a disadvantage to the middle class, get an "assist" via AA and free state college IF they are among the top 5% in their high schools. The beauty of this proposal is that we go high school-by-high school, so kids from impoverished, primarily black inner-city schools will compete only against each other, and not the more affluent suburban high school students who, regardless of race, clearly had a running start in life.

2) Granted, this will not help the black child of professional parents earning high salaries (unless she is among the exceptional top 5%). This is fair. Assuming that AA was started to reverse the discrimination toward black students generations earlier - and that the effect of that discrimination has impacted black kids today - affluent black children are not among that group. Their parents, or even grandparents, went to college.

3) On the white side, the children living in poor rural areas OR in the inner-city (since not everyone in the inner-city is black) will also gain. They too have been disadvantaged in life via their poor, uneducated parents - and the top 5% of them, who got top grades and entrance scores despite the hardships, should also benefit from an "assist".

4) Combining academic achievement (the 5%) with low SES (the income requirement) helps the students that a FAIR-MINDED individual would want to help, black, white, or green.

5) To those arguing that this is an attempt to keep blacks "in their place," how so? To the contrary, a low SES hits black families to a much greater degree than white families, and thus this proposal would still see that AA policies disproportionally assist them. Beyond that, the proposal would PAY for their college!

6) Finally, the only black kids this would adversely affect are the ones, who I mentioned, whose parents are educated professionals. These kids have advantages that the poor - white and black - do not have, including access to private tutors if needed and even better caliber private schools.

I still say this proposal is much more fair than the current AA policies. It factors together low SES and academic achievement and still, indirectly, disproportionately provides an assist to blacks. It merely gives poor whites (those who have excelled in high schoo) better access to higher education, which could otherwise be beyond their reach due to financial pressures.

Why does your post sound racist?
- You are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc.

- Because you could propose this plan and still keep race as a factor. You want to completely eliminate it as if there still isn't a great amount of underlying racism in our country. We still have huge opportunity/achievement gaps.

I've explained that a gazillion times. Policies based on race are racist, pure and simple, and I am proposing a way we can eliminate need it - while STILL not harming the black kids who are disadvantaged. In fact, my proposal would help them more fully by providing free college. So it doesn't eliminate opportunities for blacks - it increases them. Your problem is that it would have the impact of helping poor whites as well, as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped in that they are somehow more "deserving" than poor whites. Now THAT is racist....making sure any new proposal doesn't help poor whites ("white trash" according to some of your racists).

High-achieving blacks from poor homes will be still advantaged by the new proposed "race-neutral" rules. The only people who will be disadvantaged are the affluent black kids, who obviously do not suffer from opportunity/achievement gaps given the wonderful opportunities provided by their educated parents.

As an aside, I think policies should be religion-neutral as well. It is awful that schools have decided they have enough Jews (or Asians, in the case of race) and close the gate to bright, hard-working Jews or Asians from poor families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

What many anglos don't seem to realize is that most Hispanics are fully or partially white on racial terms, so this anti-white obsession sounds completely foreign (and quite stupid) to us.

Do you think 08:14 considers Hispanics to be white?

Do you think Trump considers the illegal aliens to be white?

Do you think the white supremacists and garden-variety racists consider Hispanics to be white?

While Obama deported 4 million immigrants, largely Hispanic and Asian, do you think Dems and the media and YOU viewed us as people of color?

Point is, we don't fall neatly into your racist thinking. The world doesn't fall neatly into outdated US racist thinking.

Time to, as OP says, prioritize SES over skin color in affirmative action.

So should I assume your answers are "no" to my three questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I still fail to see what is racist about my initial proposal - top 5% of every high school in the country, with family incomes under $100,000 (or maybe lower) will be beneficiaries of AA and, to solve the "free college for everyone" impossibility, also qualify for a free ride to the 4-year university in their state. It addresses so many issues at once:

1) Black children from low-income families with uneducated parents, who obviously started life at a disadvantage to the middle class, get an "assist" via AA and free state college IF they are among the top 5% in their high schools. The beauty of this proposal is that we go high school-by-high school, so kids from impoverished, primarily black inner-city schools will compete only against each other, and not the more affluent suburban high school students who, regardless of race, clearly had a running start in life.

2) Granted, this will not help the black child of professional parents earning high salaries (unless she is among the exceptional top 5%). This is fair. Assuming that AA was started to reverse the discrimination toward black students generations earlier - and that the effect of that discrimination has impacted black kids today - affluent black children are not among that group. Their parents, or even grandparents, went to college.

3) On the white side, the children living in poor rural areas OR in the inner-city (since not everyone in the inner-city is black) will also gain. They too have been disadvantaged in life via their poor, uneducated parents - and the top 5% of them, who got top grades and entrance scores despite the hardships, should also benefit from an "assist".

4) Combining academic achievement (the 5%) with low SES (the income requirement) helps the students that a FAIR-MINDED individual would want to help, black, white, or green.

5) To those arguing that this is an attempt to keep blacks "in their place," how so? To the contrary, a low SES hits black families to a much greater degree than white families, and thus this proposal would still see that AA policies disproportionally assist them. Beyond that, the proposal would PAY for their college!

6) Finally, the only black kids this would adversely affect are the ones, who I mentioned, whose parents are educated professionals. These kids have advantages that the poor - white and black - do not have, including access to private tutors if needed and even better caliber private schools.

I still say this proposal is much more fair than the current AA policies. It factors together low SES and academic achievement and still, indirectly, disproportionately provides an assist to blacks. It merely gives poor whites (those who have excelled in high schoo) better access to higher education, which could otherwise be beyond their reach due to financial pressures.

Why does your post sound racist?
- You are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc.

- Because you could propose this plan and still keep race as a factor. You want to completely eliminate it as if there still isn't a great amount of underlying racism in our country. We still have huge opportunity/achievement gaps.

I've explained that a gazillion times. Policies based on race are racist, pure and simple, and I am proposing a way we can eliminate need it - while STILL not harming the black kids who are disadvantaged. In fact, my proposal would help them more fully by providing free college. So it doesn't eliminate opportunities for blacks - it increases them. Your problem is that it would have the impact of helping poor whites as well, as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped in that they are somehow more "deserving" than poor whites. Now THAT is racist....making sure any new proposal doesn't help poor whites ("white trash" according to some of your racists).

High-achieving blacks from poor homes will be still advantaged by the new proposed "race-neutral" rules. The only people who will be disadvantaged are the affluent black kids, who obviously do not suffer from opportunity/achievement gaps given the wonderful opportunities provided by their educated parents.

As an aside, I think policies should be religion-neutral as well. It is awful that schools have decided they have enough Jews (or Asians, in the case of race) and close the gate to bright, hard-working Jews or Asians from poor families.

1) "as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped"
I have repeatedly said that I think adding SES would be good. In addition to race. Stop lying.

2) You are framing this as poor whites vs. middle class blacks. Please provide some evidence that with our current model that those two populations are vying for the same spots. And helping one is truly harming the other. You are speculating on the demographics and it just seems like race baiting.

3) AGAIN, you are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc. You can't see how that seems racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

That's what liberals have been doing for three years. It's especially ridiculous when they accuse Jewish posters of being neo-Nazis (which, yes....I have seen on this forum) if they don't agree with Democratic socialism. (Ironic, in a way....demonizing Jews by calling them Nazis while at the same time essentially criticizing Nazis for demonizing Jews.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I still fail to see what is racist about my initial proposal - top 5% of every high school in the country, with family incomes under $100,000 (or maybe lower) will be beneficiaries of AA and, to solve the "free college for everyone" impossibility, also qualify for a free ride to the 4-year university in their state. It addresses so many issues at once:

1) Black children from low-income families with uneducated parents, who obviously started life at a disadvantage to the middle class, get an "assist" via AA and free state college IF they are among the top 5% in their high schools. The beauty of this proposal is that we go high school-by-high school, so kids from impoverished, primarily black inner-city schools will compete only against each other, and not the more affluent suburban high school students who, regardless of race, clearly had a running start in life.

2) Granted, this will not help the black child of professional parents earning high salaries (unless she is among the exceptional top 5%). This is fair. Assuming that AA was started to reverse the discrimination toward black students generations earlier - and that the effect of that discrimination has impacted black kids today - affluent black children are not among that group. Their parents, or even grandparents, went to college.

3) On the white side, the children living in poor rural areas OR in the inner-city (since not everyone in the inner-city is black) will also gain. They too have been disadvantaged in life via their poor, uneducated parents - and the top 5% of them, who got top grades and entrance scores despite the hardships, should also benefit from an "assist".

4) Combining academic achievement (the 5%) with low SES (the income requirement) helps the students that a FAIR-MINDED individual would want to help, black, white, or green.

5) To those arguing that this is an attempt to keep blacks "in their place," how so? To the contrary, a low SES hits black families to a much greater degree than white families, and thus this proposal would still see that AA policies disproportionally assist them. Beyond that, the proposal would PAY for their college!

6) Finally, the only black kids this would adversely affect are the ones, who I mentioned, whose parents are educated professionals. These kids have advantages that the poor - white and black - do not have, including access to private tutors if needed and even better caliber private schools.

I still say this proposal is much more fair than the current AA policies. It factors together low SES and academic achievement and still, indirectly, disproportionately provides an assist to blacks. It merely gives poor whites (those who have excelled in high schoo) better access to higher education, which could otherwise be beyond their reach due to financial pressures.

Why does your post sound racist?
- You are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc.

- Because you could propose this plan and still keep race as a factor. You want to completely eliminate it as if there still isn't a great amount of underlying racism in our country. We still have huge opportunity/achievement gaps.

I've explained that a gazillion times. Policies based on race are racist, pure and simple, and I am proposing a way we can eliminate need it - while STILL not harming the black kids who are disadvantaged. In fact, my proposal would help them more fully by providing free college. So it doesn't eliminate opportunities for blacks - it increases them. Your problem is that it would have the impact of helping poor whites as well, as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped in that they are somehow more "deserving" than poor whites. Now THAT is racist....making sure any new proposal doesn't help poor whites ("white trash" according to some of your racists).

High-achieving blacks from poor homes will be still advantaged by the new proposed "race-neutral" rules. The only people who will be disadvantaged are the affluent black kids, who obviously do not suffer from opportunity/achievement gaps given the wonderful opportunities provided by their educated parents.

As an aside, I think policies should be religion-neutral as well. It is awful that schools have decided they have enough Jews (or Asians, in the case of race) and close the gate to bright, hard-working Jews or Asians from poor families.

1) "as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped"
I have repeatedly said that I think adding SES would be good. In addition to race. Stop lying.

2) You are framing this as poor whites vs. middle class blacks. Please provide some evidence that with our current model that those two populations are vying for the same spots. And helping one is truly harming the other. You are speculating on the demographics and it just seems like race baiting.

3) AGAIN, you are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc. You can't see how that seems racist?

Before I respond, why you the lovely liberal who called me a "racist POS" for my well-thought out proposal, going school-by-school to capture the top 5% from low-income families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I still fail to see what is racist about my initial proposal - top 5% of every high school in the country, with family incomes under $100,000 (or maybe lower) will be beneficiaries of AA and, to solve the "free college for everyone" impossibility, also qualify for a free ride to the 4-year university in their state. It addresses so many issues at once:

1) Black children from low-income families with uneducated parents, who obviously started life at a disadvantage to the middle class, get an "assist" via AA and free state college IF they are among the top 5% in their high schools. The beauty of this proposal is that we go high school-by-high school, so kids from impoverished, primarily black inner-city schools will compete only against each other, and not the more affluent suburban high school students who, regardless of race, clearly had a running start in life.

2) Granted, this will not help the black child of professional parents earning high salaries (unless she is among the exceptional top 5%). This is fair. Assuming that AA was started to reverse the discrimination toward black students generations earlier - and that the effect of that discrimination has impacted black kids today - affluent black children are not among that group. Their parents, or even grandparents, went to college.

3) On the white side, the children living in poor rural areas OR in the inner-city (since not everyone in the inner-city is black) will also gain. They too have been disadvantaged in life via their poor, uneducated parents - and the top 5% of them, who got top grades and entrance scores despite the hardships, should also benefit from an "assist".

4) Combining academic achievement (the 5%) with low SES (the income requirement) helps the students that a FAIR-MINDED individual would want to help, black, white, or green.

5) To those arguing that this is an attempt to keep blacks "in their place," how so? To the contrary, a low SES hits black families to a much greater degree than white families, and thus this proposal would still see that AA policies disproportionally assist them. Beyond that, the proposal would PAY for their college!

6) Finally, the only black kids this would adversely affect are the ones, who I mentioned, whose parents are educated professionals. These kids have advantages that the poor - white and black - do not have, including access to private tutors if needed and even better caliber private schools.

I still say this proposal is much more fair than the current AA policies. It factors together low SES and academic achievement and still, indirectly, disproportionately provides an assist to blacks. It merely gives poor whites (those who have excelled in high schoo) better access to higher education, which could otherwise be beyond their reach due to financial pressures.

Why does your post sound racist?
- You are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc.

- Because you could propose this plan and still keep race as a factor. You want to completely eliminate it as if there still isn't a great amount of underlying racism in our country. We still have huge opportunity/achievement gaps.

I've explained that a gazillion times. Policies based on race are racist, pure and simple, and I am proposing a way we can eliminate need it - while STILL not harming the black kids who are disadvantaged. In fact, my proposal would help them more fully by providing free college. So it doesn't eliminate opportunities for blacks - it increases them. Your problem is that it would have the impact of helping poor whites as well, as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped in that they are somehow more "deserving" than poor whites. Now THAT is racist....making sure any new proposal doesn't help poor whites ("white trash" according to some of your racists).

High-achieving blacks from poor homes will be still advantaged by the new proposed "race-neutral" rules. The only people who will be disadvantaged are the affluent black kids, who obviously do not suffer from opportunity/achievement gaps given the wonderful opportunities provided by their educated parents.

As an aside, I think policies should be religion-neutral as well. It is awful that schools have decided they have enough Jews (or Asians, in the case of race) and close the gate to bright, hard-working Jews or Asians from poor families.

1) "as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped"
I have repeatedly said that I think adding SES would be good. In addition to race. Stop lying.

2) You are framing this as poor whites vs. middle class blacks. Please provide some evidence that with our current model that those two populations are vying for the same spots. And helping one is truly harming the other. You are speculating on the demographics and it just seems like race baiting.

3) AGAIN, you are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc. You can't see how that seems racist?

Before I respond, why you the lovely liberal who called me a "racist POS" for my well-thought out proposal, going school-by-school to capture the top 5% from low-income families?

….oh, and another question: are you the lovely liberal who just called another poster "David Duke"?

I just want to know how hateful a person you are before I continue with this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

Let's just say that I rewrote my response several times and that was the only response that wouldn't get my post deleted or me banned.

White men would have accomplished very little without the blood/sweat of others.

Why are white men so angry these days? They feel inadequate without a whip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

That's what liberals have been doing for three years. It's especially ridiculous when they accuse Jewish posters of being neo-Nazis (which, yes....I have seen on this forum) if they don't agree with Democratic socialism. (Ironic, in a way....demonizing Jews by calling them Nazis while at the same time essentially criticizing Nazis for demonizing Jews.)

Yes, and how can the David Duke PP explain away that most of the world would kill to live in the US, Canada, Europe, or Australia (majority white places)? Hmmm...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

That's what liberals have been doing for three years. It's especially ridiculous when they accuse Jewish posters of being neo-Nazis (which, yes....I have seen on this forum) if they don't agree with Democratic socialism. (Ironic, in a way....demonizing Jews by calling them Nazis while at the same time essentially criticizing Nazis for demonizing Jews.)

Yes, and how can the David Duke PP explain away that most of the world would kill to live in the US, Canada, Europe, or Australia (majority white places)? Hmmm...

Sorry, I have to go vomit. Did you really just write that? And you really think that.



We have much bigger issues that affirmative action. WTAF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

Let's just say that I rewrote my response several times and that was the only response that wouldn't get my post deleted or me banned.

White men would have accomplished very little without the blood/sweat of others.

Why are white men so angry these days? They feel inadequate without a whip.

Don’t think so, honey. They have their brains, their creativity and their innovation and the whole world has benefited in some way from it. Ever heard of medicines, vaccines, technology, institutions, aid programs, universities? The iPhone you are typing your racist hatred on? And plenty of white men and women have worked their fingers to the bone without the blood and sweat of others. Maybe you should pick up a book and educate your little pea brain. Or, if you feel that strongly, why don’t you rid yourself of all of the things you own and enjoy that a white man has invented. Good luck honey!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I still fail to see what is racist about my initial proposal - top 5% of every high school in the country, with family incomes under $100,000 (or maybe lower) will be beneficiaries of AA and, to solve the "free college for everyone" impossibility, also qualify for a free ride to the 4-year university in their state. It addresses so many issues at once:

1) Black children from low-income families with uneducated parents, who obviously started life at a disadvantage to the middle class, get an "assist" via AA and free state college IF they are among the top 5% in their high schools. The beauty of this proposal is that we go high school-by-high school, so kids from impoverished, primarily black inner-city schools will compete only against each other, and not the more affluent suburban high school students who, regardless of race, clearly had a running start in life.

2) Granted, this will not help the black child of professional parents earning high salaries (unless she is among the exceptional top 5%). This is fair. Assuming that AA was started to reverse the discrimination toward black students generations earlier - and that the effect of that discrimination has impacted black kids today - affluent black children are not among that group. Their parents, or even grandparents, went to college.

3) On the white side, the children living in poor rural areas OR in the inner-city (since not everyone in the inner-city is black) will also gain. They too have been disadvantaged in life via their poor, uneducated parents - and the top 5% of them, who got top grades and entrance scores despite the hardships, should also benefit from an "assist".

4) Combining academic achievement (the 5%) with low SES (the income requirement) helps the students that a FAIR-MINDED individual would want to help, black, white, or green.

5) To those arguing that this is an attempt to keep blacks "in their place," how so? To the contrary, a low SES hits black families to a much greater degree than white families, and thus this proposal would still see that AA policies disproportionally assist them. Beyond that, the proposal would PAY for their college!

6) Finally, the only black kids this would adversely affect are the ones, who I mentioned, whose parents are educated professionals. These kids have advantages that the poor - white and black - do not have, including access to private tutors if needed and even better caliber private schools.

I still say this proposal is much more fair than the current AA policies. It factors together low SES and academic achievement and still, indirectly, disproportionately provides an assist to blacks. It merely gives poor whites (those who have excelled in high schoo) better access to higher education, which could otherwise be beyond their reach due to financial pressures.

Why does your post sound racist?
- You are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc.

- Because you could propose this plan and still keep race as a factor. You want to completely eliminate it as if there still isn't a great amount of underlying racism in our country. We still have huge opportunity/achievement gaps.

I've explained that a gazillion times. Policies based on race are racist, pure and simple, and I am proposing a way we can eliminate need it - while STILL not harming the black kids who are disadvantaged. In fact, my proposal would help them more fully by providing free college. So it doesn't eliminate opportunities for blacks - it increases them. Your problem is that it would have the impact of helping poor whites as well, as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped in that they are somehow more "deserving" than poor whites. Now THAT is racist....making sure any new proposal doesn't help poor whites ("white trash" according to some of your racists).

High-achieving blacks from poor homes will be still advantaged by the new proposed "race-neutral" rules. The only people who will be disadvantaged are the affluent black kids, who obviously do not suffer from opportunity/achievement gaps given the wonderful opportunities provided by their educated parents.

As an aside, I think policies should be religion-neutral as well. It is awful that schools have decided they have enough Jews (or Asians, in the case of race) and close the gate to bright, hard-working Jews or Asians from poor families.

1) "as you seem determined that only blacks should be helped"
I have repeatedly said that I think adding SES would be good. In addition to race. Stop lying.

2) You are framing this as poor whites vs. middle class blacks. Please provide some evidence that with our current model that those two populations are vying for the same spots. And helping one is truly harming the other. You are speculating on the demographics and it just seems like race baiting.

3) AGAIN, you are focused on eliminating opportunities/preferences ONLY for blacks. Not other URMs, athletes, legacies, musicians, women, etc. You can't see how that seems racist?

Before I respond, why you the lovely liberal who called me a "racist POS" for my well-thought out proposal, going school-by-school to capture the top 5% from low-income families?

Timestamps of the two posts you are referring to? I've been off and on this thread for days. That isn't ringing a bell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

That's what liberals have been doing for three years. It's especially ridiculous when they accuse Jewish posters of being neo-Nazis (which, yes....I have seen on this forum) if they don't agree with Democratic socialism. (Ironic, in a way....demonizing Jews by calling them Nazis while at the same time essentially criticizing Nazis for demonizing Jews.)

Yes, and how can the David Duke PP explain away that most of the world would kill to live in the US, Canada, Europe, or Australia (majority white places)? Hmmm...

Sorry, I have to go vomit. Did you really just write that? And you really think that.



We have much bigger issues that affirmative action. WTAF.

Why are you so morally outraged? Do you follow the news or is it too hard for you to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

Let's just say that I rewrote my response several times and that was the only response that wouldn't get my post deleted or me banned.

White men would have accomplished very little without the blood/sweat of others.

Why are white men so angry these days? They feel inadequate without a whip.

Don’t think so, honey. They have their brains, their creativity and their innovation and the whole world has benefited in some way from it. Ever heard of medicines, vaccines, technology, institutions, aid programs, universities? The iPhone you are typing your racist hatred on? And plenty of white men and women have worked their fingers to the bone without the blood and sweat of others. Maybe you should pick up a book and educate your little pea brain. Or, if you feel that strongly, why don’t you rid yourself of all of the things you own and enjoy that a white man has invented. Good luck honey!

OK. Maybe you're just a troll. No one is actually that delusional. I name you Whip Troll.

[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:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

That's what liberals have been doing for three years. It's especially ridiculous when they accuse Jewish posters of being neo-Nazis (which, yes....I have seen on this forum) if they don't agree with Democratic socialism. (Ironic, in a way....demonizing Jews by calling them Nazis while at the same time essentially criticizing Nazis for demonizing Jews.)

Yes, and how can the David Duke PP explain away that most of the world would kill to live in the US, Canada, Europe, or Australia (majority white places)? Hmmm...

Sorry, I have to go vomit. Did you really just write that? And you really think that.



We have much bigger issues that affirmative action. WTAF.

Why are you so morally outraged? Do you follow the news or is it too hard for you to understand?

I'm good - got it now, Whip Troll.