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:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

??

You're dumb as a rock, skin color Slut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

Do you call all the black girls having babies without husbands "slut"? You're disgusting. (And obviously angry because the truth is being discussed here - and that's that bias is not working against blacks' college admissions chances.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

Do you call all the black girls having babies without husbands "slut"? You're disgusting. (And obviously angry because the truth is being discussed here - and that's that bias is not working against blacks' college admissions chances.)

+1

+1

= +2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

They do, but somehow black immigrants manage to make it even in the presence of implicit racial bias compounded by xenophobia...

Ok. Thanks for actually answering.

Quite telling how long that took for someone to admit it.

Given the quantifiable negative differential of black admits at Harvard vs. other races (and no, quant metrics aren’t the exclusive measure of intelligence), affirmative action reinforces the implicit bias that black students were only admitted because of AA. Kind of sucks for the black kids that would have been admitted in a race blind environment or for that matter the big law partner that would have been promoted regardless of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

I keep asking and no one has answered. Not even you.

How about your answering my question (in bold)?

And I DID answer your question: there is some bias against blacks but much of it is due to their own behavior, although some of it is implicit. Still doesn't explain why the implicit bias against Jews hasn't hurt THEM none. They're more successful than whites! And while Hitler was murdering their relatives yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

Do you call all the black girls having babies without husbands "slut"? You're disgusting. (And obviously angry because the truth is being discussed here - and that's that bias is not working against blacks' college admissions chances.)

Nope. I save the “slut” expression for the +1 Sluts of the world who +1 total crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

Do you call all the black girls having babies without husbands "slut"? You're disgusting. (And obviously angry because the truth is being discussed here - and that's that bias is not working against blacks' college admissions chances.)

Nope. I save the “slut” expression for the +1 Sluts of the world who +1 total crap.

-1, slut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

They do, but somehow black immigrants manage to make it even in the presence of implicit racial bias compounded by xenophobia...

Ok. Thanks for actually answering.

Quite telling how long that took for someone to admit it.

You are welcome. Now crawl back into your safe space and whine about discrimination while others who look like you get ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

They do, but somehow black immigrants manage to make it even in the presence of implicit racial bias compounded by xenophobia...

Ok. Thanks for actually answering.

Quite telling how long that took for someone to admit it.

Given the quantifiable negative differential of black admits at Harvard vs. other races (and no, quant metrics aren’t the exclusive measure of intelligence), affirmative action reinforces the implicit bias that black students were only admitted because of AA. Kind of sucks for the black kids that would have been admitted in a race blind environment or for that matter the big law partner that would have been promoted regardless of race.

Yes, agree. The two biggest losers of AA are 1) blacks who would have gotten in under the more stringent "white" standards, and 2) whites who didn't make the cut because blacks with lower grades/scores were admitted ahead of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

I keep asking and no one has answered. Not even you.

How about your answering my question (in bold)?

And I DID answer your question: there is some bias against blacks but much of it is due to their own behavior, although some of it is implicit. Still doesn't explain why the implicit bias against Jews hasn't hurt THEM none. They're more successful than whites! And while Hitler was murdering their relatives yet.

Finally - a partial answer!

And racism against blacks? Does that exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

Do you call all the black girls having babies without husbands "slut"? You're disgusting. (And obviously angry because the truth is being discussed here - and that's that bias is not working against blacks' college admissions chances.)

Nope. I save the “slut” expression for the +1 Sluts of the world who +1 total crap.

In other words, you call people who point out the obvious truth you don't want to hear "slut," and the real "sluts" - the girls with four babies with four baby daddies - you will defend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

They do, but somehow black immigrants manage to make it even in the presence of implicit racial bias compounded by xenophobia...

Ok. Thanks for actually answering.

Quite telling how long that took for someone to admit it.

You are welcome. Now crawl back into your safe space and whine about discrimination while others who look like you get ahead.

Who looks like me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

Do you call all the black girls having babies without husbands "slut"? You're disgusting. (And obviously angry because the truth is being discussed here - and that's that bias is not working against blacks' college admissions chances.)

Nope. I save the “slut” expression for the +1 Sluts of the world who +1 total crap.

In other words, you call people who point out the obvious truth you don't want to hear "slut," and the real "sluts" - the girls with four babies with four baby daddies - you will defend.

No, people who +1 any stupid comment on DCUM. No standards at all. And they do it all day long.

Are you calling single mothers “sluts”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

I keep asking and no one has answered. Not even you.

How about your answering my question (in bold)?

And I DID answer your question: there is some bias against blacks but much of it is due to their own behavior, although some of it is implicit. Still doesn't explain why the implicit bias against Jews hasn't hurt THEM none. They're more successful than whites! And while Hitler was murdering their relatives yet.

Finally - a partial answer!

And racism against blacks? Does that exist?

Yeah, except you're not only ignoring the other part of the answer - that much of the bias/racism against blacks is due to their own behavior - as well as ignoring the flip question: Are blacks in any way contributing to bias against them by their own choices and behavior?


You've railed on and on that nobody answered your question. Now answer mine. (And other posters have asked the same question....I just jumped on it.)

[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:Are the racists really trying to deny implicit bias? And racism?

That’s rich.

I'm trying to figure out who you mean by racists? You mean the racists who are all about giving unfair advantages to middle-class black children while telling poor Johnnie-with-the-much-better grades (or whatever name they came up with) that he can go to community college? The obvious implication is that community college is "good enough" for poor whites, even if they've excelled in high school, because blacks who aren't as academically inclined deserve to go to the stellar university.

Yes, it really is rich that those racists are denying the racism involved where LaTwanda from Arlington with the so-so grades gets into a good university, and Billy-Bob from a coal-mining town in WV who has significantly higher grades ends up in community college because, well.....wrong color.

Skin-based AA is racist. Period.

Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

It’s a simple question: Do you think that implicit bias and racism negatively affect black people today?

You do realize you're asking the same question to many different posters.

And your question seems to imply that black people's failures (or comparative lack of success, relative to whites, Jews, and Asians) is due entirely or even primarily to racism. It's not. And even if it were, that doesn't mean "so-so" LaTwanda should get booted up ahead of Billy-with-the-As. All it means is that we make sure that LaTwanda, should she have the higher grades and scores, doesn't get stepped over in favor of Billy.

Now, I answered your question. Wil you be brave enough to answer mine: Do you think that black people's choices and behavior are at least somewhat responsible to any bias against them (or is it all someone else's fault)?

+1

Really, +1 Slut? You’re going to +1 this post? Your standards are really dropping.

Do you call all the black girls having babies without husbands "slut"? You're disgusting. (And obviously angry because the truth is being discussed here - and that's that bias is not working against blacks' college admissions chances.)

Nope. I save the “slut” expression for the +1 Sluts of the world who +1 total crap.

In other words, you call people who point out the obvious truth you don't want to hear "slut," and the real "sluts" - the girls with four babies with four baby daddies - you will defend.

No, people who +1 any stupid comment on DCUM. No standards at all. And they do it all day long.

Are you calling single mothers “sluts”?

Nobody said that. But a 21-year-old with four babies, and four different fathers, who her first one at 15, IS a slut. Sorry.

OTOH, a person who points out that it is unfair for LaTwanda with the 'so-so' grades to get bumped up ahead of Billy with all A's, is not a slut. Maybe she's a virgin, waiting for marriage, even! I don't see what her sex practices have to do with pointing out that black people contribute to negative attitudes toward themselves by their bad behavior.

(Or is that the new liberal insult? Yell "slut" at people?)