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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b]Asian citizens are kidding themselves if they think they aren't included in the various POC conservatives want out of the US. [/b]It's a big reason most of my family (not me) is conservative. [/quote]
+1 You’re not White, you will never be White. White supremacy applies to you, too, guys. White supremacy was set up to favor Whites, end of story. Not model Asians, not anyone else. You will never be accepted in the club any more than White women are in the club - a token, here or there, but not of the club. [/quote]

Given in the recent VA election, Rs elected a white man, a black woman, and a Cuban man, I don’t know how these statements can hold. They were highly supported by conservatives.[/quote]
That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. It doesn’t mean they’re in the club. Diamond and Silk are also highly supported by conservatives; it doesn’t mean they think those two women are people entitled to full rights. But hey if Republican minorities feel that the practices of the GOP are acceptable and want to let themselves be used, they’re welcome to throw away their votes. [/quote]

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

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

Gee, such a tough choice. [/quote]

Hello! I have some oceanfront property in Utah you might be interested in.[/quote]

Worthless brainless response with no content. Typical. [/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

[/quote]

Well this reads like something pulled right out of 1984.

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

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

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aas9899
[/quote]

Tell me, using your own words, what you think this article indicates.[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics