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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

How does having relatives murdered in another country affect American Jews ability to get ahead in America? Of course, American blacks were also having their relatives murdered in Africa. You know about the original German Holocaust?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/world/africa/germany-genocide-namibia-holocaust.html

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

How does having relatives murdered in another country affect American Jews ability to get ahead in America? Of course, American blacks were also having their relatives murdered in Africa. You know about the original German Holocaust?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/world/africa/germany-genocide-namibia-holocaust.html

Are you f'in kidding me? You anti-white racists are railing on and on about how slavery from 150 years ago has made it hard for middle-class black kids to get into college, when DURING THE 1940's!!, while their relatives were being murdered, poor Jewish teenagers pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, studied hard, and got the excellent grades to get into college. And they did it all with the worst racism stealing their family.

You just can't stand the truth. Jews succeeded in the face of horrible racism, and for some reason, blacks cannot even come up to average (speaking as an entire group). So something other than bigotry is at play. It has to do with choices: if my mommy or daddy had a baby out-of-wedlock instead of going to college, it would have been a terrible "shonde". But among blacks, that seems to be a common path. And THAT is why they are not succeeding to the degree Jews are: they are simply making very, very poor choices.

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

How does having relatives murdered in another country affect American Jews ability to get ahead in America? Of course, American blacks were also having their relatives murdered in Africa. You know about the original German Holocaust?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/world/africa/germany-genocide-namibia-holocaust.html

Are you f'in kidding me? You anti-white racists are railing on and on about how slavery from 150 years ago has made it hard for middle-class black kids to get into college, when DURING THE 1940's!!, while their relatives were being murdered, poor Jewish teenagers pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, studied hard, and got the excellent grades to get into college. And they did it all with the worst racism stealing their family.

You just can't stand the truth. Jews succeeded in the face of horrible racism, and for some reason, blacks cannot even come up to average (speaking as an entire group). So something other than bigotry is at play. It has to do with choices: if my mommy or daddy had a baby out-of-wedlock instead of going to college, it would have been a terrible "shonde". But among blacks, that seems to be a common path. And THAT is why they are not succeeding to the degree Jews are: they are simply making very, very poor choices.

Did you read about the German genocide in Africa?

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

Traditional “slut” = will F many men, not very discriminating
+1 “slut” = will +1 many posts, not very discriminating

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

Traditional “slut” = will F many men, not very discriminating
+1 “slut” = will +1 many posts, not very discriminating

You’re an idiot.

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

Traditional “slut” = will F many men, not very discriminating
+1 “slut” = will +1 many posts, not very discriminating

You’re an idiot.

Next time have some self respect and think about what you +1 before you do it. You don’t know where those other posts have been.

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

Traditional “slut” = will F many men, not very discriminating
+1 “slut” = will +1 many posts, not very discriminating

You’re an idiot.

Next time have some self respect and think about what you +1 before you do it. You don’t know where those other posts have been.

Ok, let me expand on that. You’re the saddest kind of idiot because you’re too stupid to understand how unintelligent you are. Utter imebecile.

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

Traditional “slut” = will F many men, not very discriminating
+1 “slut” = will +1 many posts, not very discriminating

You’re an idiot.

Next time have some self respect and think about what you +1 before you do it. You don’t know where those other posts have been.

Ok, let me expand on that. You’re the saddest kind of idiot because you’re too stupid to understand how unintelligent you are. Utter imebecile.

Seriously. You might catch something from those MAGAs. I think their stupidity is contagious.

Watch where you put your +1! Guard it like the special gift it is.

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

Traditional “slut” = will F many men, not very discriminating
+1 “slut” = will +1 many posts, not very discriminating

You’re an idiot.

Next time have some self respect and think about what you +1 before you do it. You don’t know where those other posts have been.

Ok, let me expand on that. You’re the saddest kind of idiot because you’re too stupid to understand how unintelligent you are. Utter imebecile.

+1.

Great summary

[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: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?)

Uh. It’s a metaphor.

What do liberals say about MAGA’s intelligence?

NO. It's not a metaphor. The hateful liberal called the poster a "slut" for disagreeing with her opinion. A new low among DCUM libsters.

Traditional “slut” = will F many men, not very discriminating
+1 “slut” = will +1 many posts, not very discriminating

You’re an idiot.

Next time have some self respect and think about what you +1 before you do it. You don’t know where those other posts have been.

Ok, let me expand on that. You’re the saddest kind of idiot because you’re too stupid to understand how unintelligent you are. Utter imebecile.

+1.

Great summary

Whoomp, there it is!
Whoomp, there it is!
Whoomp, there it is!
Whoomp, there it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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?)

Gosh, you are a bitch
There are laws against having sex with underage girls
That slut you are talking about is a human being. You have no idea what she has been through.
Fortunately that is not a common story, but stories like that are possible.

I do not see what you think you can accomplish with your slut shaming

[Anonymous]

I believe current policies contribute to the problem
Poorer and densely populated areas are policed less, as the number of police men an area gets is not calculated by number of people
Poorer tend to live in older homes that have lead paint
Poorer have sub-bar schools as they are short on resources, school funding is dependent on the wealth of the PTA
Poor do not have access to legal representation
For the great majority, access to opportunities to better themselves are scarce
Without a car it is very difficult in some parts, access to larger grocery stores with lower prices is difficult
Every kid does not live in a home with internet or a computer

Access to library is also linked to the wealth of the community

[Anonymous]

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.

No college is taking a kid that would struggle academically unless that kid has the money to pay out of pocket.

Race only becomes a factor when you have 5000 applicants who are approximately equal in terms of motivation and academic ability and someone says, "Well we can't just pick the white ones." It is really absurd to insist that academically superior white students are being forced to go to community college because sub-par black students are taking their spots at university. Anyone saying that this is the outcome of Affirmative Action is lying.