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

[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: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.

Go vomit but accept the reality that white countries are the wealthy desirable countries that everyone wants. My DH’s Hong Kong colleagues are scrambling to get out of Hong Kong to Australia, Canada, or the States.

Now this really is clear to me. You are just a racist looking for a forum.

OK. Why don’t you pack up and move. to a nonwhite country? Come on, get going now! What’s the problem? You don’t want to go?

Since when is this a “white” country? Slaves built this country and whites profited.

Had traders not purchased enslaved humans from their African captors, and no such slaves come to the US, plantations would have been just fine with indentured and/or low-paid European immigrants, or perhaps something modeled on the feudal system. (NY and NE had Feudal Manors -- with "Lords" and tenants, until the revolutionary war). Recall that Europe was teaming with desperate peasants.

Perhaps we all would have been happier and better off that way.

The whole economy wouldn't have flourished without the perpetual supply of slave labor.

[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:

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.

Go vomit but accept the reality that white countries are the wealthy desirable countries that everyone wants. My DH’s Hong Kong colleagues are scrambling to get out of Hong Kong to Australia, Canada, or the States.

Now this really is clear to me. You are just a racist looking for a forum.

OK. Why don’t you pack up and move. to a nonwhite country? Come on, get going now! What’s the problem? You don’t want to go?

Since when is this a “white” country? Slaves built this country and whites profited.

Slavsry was wrong, but let's not go overboard and credit slaves foe building the entire country. And let's give fair credit to whites who also made substantial contributions to the building of this country, and its inventions and discoveries. To hear you talk, you'd think only blacks contributed anything and all whites just went along for the ride.

Most innovation in the last hundred years was Jewish. If you subtract African labor and Jewish innovation, there's not so much for you to brag about as you apparently think.

I love how Americans know nothing about nothing. Esp world history, eastern civilizations. Lemme guess, you only took 6th grade western CIV— that’s the extent of your history education.

+1.

It is surreal

Our very own David Duke should give us the "history" lesson. Please explain how white men are far superior to all others.

Yet their lives are over if they don't admitted to Harvard.

[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?

Still no response?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problem is, folks, that we’re talking about the white man’s structurally racist education system. Let’s create something else.

Based on your other musings, I’m sure that that would be brilliant.

What other musings?

Huh?

[Anonymous]

“You didn’t build that!”

— Barak Hussein Obama

[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?

Still no response?

I've answered you a gazillion times. I'm not going to keep explaining myself, especially since you are targeting your animosity toward me - rather than the bigots calling people "white trash" and saying the poor White Billy should be satisfied with community college. "Cause I'll tell you what....I have seen a lot of racist remarks on this thread, and most of them are anti-white, with plenty of demeaning comments.

My proposal for a race-neutral AA policy is the answer we need. Anyone insisting that we should use skin color as a determinant in awarding admissions is being a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“You didn’t build that!”

— Barak Hussein Obama

Neither did his African ancestors who stayed in Africa. Does what his white ancestors did count? For starters, we might say raising him and educating him as done by his white mother and grandparents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still no response?

I've answered you a gazillion times. I'm not going to keep explaining myself, especially since you are targeting your animosity toward me - rather than the bigots calling people "white trash" and saying the poor White Billy should be satisfied with community college. "Cause I'll tell you what....I have seen a lot of racist remarks on this thread, and most of them are anti-white, with plenty of demeaning comments.

My proposal for a race-neutral AA policy is the answer we need. Anyone insisting that we should use skin color as a determinant in awarding admissions is being a racist.

No, you haven't answered my questions. If you think you have, please provide a timestamp for the response to #2 and #3.

I'm not the thread police or your personal servant. Feel free to report any offensive posts yourself.

[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: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.

Go vomit but accept the reality that white countries are the wealthy desirable countries that everyone wants. My DH’s Hong Kong colleagues are scrambling to get out of Hong Kong to Australia, Canada, or the States.

Now this really is clear to me. You are just a racist looking for a forum.

OK. Why don’t you pack up and move. to a nonwhite country? Come on, get going now! What’s the problem? You don’t want to go?

Since when is this a “white” country? Slaves built this country and whites profited.

Had traders not purchased enslaved humans from their African captors, and no such slaves come to the US, plantations would have been just fine with indentured and/or low-paid European immigrants, or perhaps something modeled on the feudal system. (NY and NE had Feudal Manors -- with "Lords" and tenants, until the revolutionary war). Recall that Europe was teaming with desperate peasants.

Perhaps we all would have been happier and better off that way.

The whole economy wouldn't have flourished without the perpetual supply of slave labor.

That explains Canada's prosperity....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Problem is, folks, that we’re talking about the white man’s structurally racist education system. Let’s create something else.

Asians seem to succeed under it.

Then again a person with high future time orientation and high impulse control tends to do better in an academic setting. Those attributes aren't evenly distributed across all populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problem is, folks, that we’re talking about the white man’s structurally racist education system. Let’s create something else.

Asians seem to succeed under it.

Then again a person with high future time orientation and high impulse control tends to do better in an academic setting. Those attributes aren't evenly distributed across all populations.

The dumb Asians don’t make it to the US, at least among those that emigrated within the last 50 years or so. Even if they did not have a formal education, they had streets smarts or entrepreneurial talents.

I grew up in Southern California and knew a lot of Japanese and Chinese-Americans who could trace their lineage in the US back to the late 1800s. Those kids had all the same issues you see in white and black populations that have been in the US forever: drug abuse, lack of focus on the education, obsession with pop culture/music/sports ahead of studying, truancy, minor crime, etc. Tons of Asian gangs in California, many of whom have lived in the US for a couple generations.

So when you say “Asians have succeeded!” you’re typically talking about a group with a high degree of selection bias. They had to have the money, intelligence, and/or social capital to get to the US in the 20th century. They are dissimilar from those they left behind in their home countries.

[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:

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.

Go vomit but accept the reality that white countries are the wealthy desirable countries that everyone wants. My DH’s Hong Kong colleagues are scrambling to get out of Hong Kong to Australia, Canada, or the States.

Now this really is clear to me. You are just a racist looking for a forum.

OK. Why don’t you pack up and move. to a nonwhite country? Come on, get going now! What’s the problem? You don’t want to go?

Since when is this a “white” country? Slaves built this country and whites profited.

Had traders not purchased enslaved humans from their African captors, and no such slaves come to the US, plantations would have been just fine with indentured and/or low-paid European immigrants, or perhaps something modeled on the feudal system. (NY and NE had Feudal Manors -- with "Lords" and tenants, until the revolutionary war). Recall that Europe was teaming with desperate peasants.

Perhaps we all would have been happier and better off that way.

The whole economy wouldn't have flourished without the perpetual supply of slave labor.

That explains Canada's prosperity....

Certainly part of it. Canada had African and indigenous slaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problem is, folks, that we’re talking about the white man’s structurally racist education system. Let’s create something else.

Asians seem to succeed under it.

Then again a person with high future time orientation and high impulse control tends to do better in an academic setting. Those attributes aren't evenly distributed across all populations.

The dumb Asians don’t make it to the US, at least among those that emigrated within the last 50 years or so. Even if they did not have a formal education, they had streets smarts or entrepreneurial talents.

I grew up in Southern California and knew a lot of Japanese and Chinese-Americans who could trace their lineage in the US back to the late 1800s. Those kids had all the same issues you see in white and black populations that have been in the US forever: drug abuse, lack of focus on the education, obsession with pop culture/music/sports ahead of studying, truancy, minor crime, etc. Tons of Asian gangs in California, many of whom have lived in the US for a couple generations.

So when you say “Asians have succeeded!” you’re typically talking about a group with a high degree of selection bias. They had to have the money, intelligence, and/or social capital to get to the US in the 20th century. They are dissimilar from those they left behind in their home countries.

Not in terms of behavior, disposition and iq.

Check our nation masters stats gleaned from UN and various academic datasets.

What you refer to may be true with respect to South Asians, but is untrue of East Asians.

[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:

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.

Go vomit but accept the reality that white countries are the wealthy desirable countries that everyone wants. My DH’s Hong Kong colleagues are scrambling to get out of Hong Kong to Australia, Canada, or the States.

Now this really is clear to me. You are just a racist looking for a forum.

OK. Why don’t you pack up and move. to a nonwhite country? Come on, get going now! What’s the problem? You don’t want to go?

Since when is this a “white” country? Slaves built this country and whites profited.

Had traders not purchased enslaved humans from their African captors, and no such slaves come to the US, plantations would have been just fine with indentured and/or low-paid European immigrants, or perhaps something modeled on the feudal system. (NY and NE had Feudal Manors -- with "Lords" and tenants, until the revolutionary war). Recall that Europe was teaming with desperate peasants.

Perhaps we all would have been happier and better off that way.

The whole economy wouldn't have flourished without the perpetual supply of slave labor.

That explains Canada's prosperity....

Certainly part of it. Canada had African and indigenous slaves.

Sure, I will concerns at least .00000000005%.

And no more than 1%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problem is, folks, that we’re talking about the white man’s structurally racist education system. Let’s create something else.

Asians seem to succeed under it.

Then again a person with high future time orientation and high impulse control tends to do better in an academic setting. Those attributes aren't evenly distributed across all populations.

The dumb Asians don’t make it to the US, at least among those that emigrated within the last 50 years or so. Even if they did not have a formal education, they had streets smarts or entrepreneurial talents.

I grew up in Southern California and knew a lot of Japanese and Chinese-Americans who could trace their lineage in the US back to the late 1800s. Those kids had all the same issues you see in white and black populations that have been in the US forever: drug abuse, lack of focus on the education, obsession with pop culture/music/sports ahead of studying, truancy, minor crime, etc. Tons of Asian gangs in California, many of whom have lived in the US for a couple generations.

So when you say “Asians have succeeded!” you’re typically talking about a group with a high degree of selection bias. They had to have the money, intelligence, and/or social capital to get to the US in the 20th century. They are dissimilar from those they left behind in their home countries.

No, you are absolutely incorrect. Most of the Asian immigrants in the last 40 years or so (Asians were not allowed to come until the late 1960s) came under the family based immigrant visas not skilled (bachelors degrees or higher) employment based immigrant visas or investor visas. In addition, many refugees from SE Asian countries who came in 1970s and 1980s were definitely not highly educated or had wealth. Many also came under "unskilled worker" category of the employment based immigration and then used family based immigrant visas once they obtained citizenship.

So no, it's absolutely false that most Asian immigrants to US in the last 40-50 years had "money, intelligence, and/or social capital". I would say that most Asians actually go into the opposite category.