Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

DP. Oh, please. You are extrapolating and attributing things PP never said. Also, I think you really do support Trump because he is pandering to your fears and bias.

PP is on the money.

You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison.
--Agreed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Was it worth the civil unrest and chaos of the 1960s to stop legal discrimination against blacks?
Sure this isn't nearly as bad but it's still racial discrimination and it's certainly worth destroying harvard over.

I bet if you just lined up test scores and GPA, it wouldn't look as bad between men and women at caltech as the difference between blacks and asians at harvard.
I personally don't think we should have gender preferences either but the gap is not obscene

Here's another thing about places like caltech and mit and women. Do you notice anything they have in common?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the people against Harvard - if you get cancer will you be seeking the latest treatments and research? I don’t understand why you’d want to disrupt our nation’s most amazing asset (or research industry).

Perhaps there is an ideological cancer they are more urgently concerned about

I have no doubt that those funds can go to another university which isn’t stuffed with a 97% leftist faculty.

Cal tech faculty has one God, science and engineering. They do not worship at the altar of woke.

By all means, survey the faculty of Caltech and MIT and see what percentage of them support Trump. I'm willing to wager you'll be very disappointed.

Correct!

As someone educated in logical thought at these very institutions, I will add, patiently, that the opposite of being “woke” is not supporting Trump. As such, the fraction being mentioned here has no bearing on this debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

BS absolute BS you don't get to rewrite history. Jan 6th 141 members of the Capital Police were attacked. They would have raped women in Congress, they hung gallows. This was an attack on the US government a coup no mental gymnastics will there be anything but. There is no reality there are alternate electors that BS by John Eastman, Hawley & Cruz is utter BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

No one claimed BLM riots weren’t violent. Someone claimed MAGA hasn’t been, but only cause they narrowed the window.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard has hundreds of billions in endowments. They can support their own programs without 9 biillion in government funds.

Ok. And they will keep and retain all rights to their medical innovations, cancer treatments, etc., going forward. No more cheap labor for the government and no more technology available to them. Harvard can retain all rights. Public can no longer re rice the benefits or vaccines developed by this private institution.

Harvard is not the only does that in the world. Government can have better deal elsewhere anytime.

Tell us where and how, with specifics.

For a starter, there are more than 300 R1 and R2 research universities.

BWT vaccines will be developed by AIs now. Government should invest in Google, Microsoft, etc. instead.

AI research comes out of those very same schools. Quantum computing. Etc. All of the foundational grunt work is done at these schools because it is decades away from being useful in the market.

+1

Graduate students paid $30k are doing all the work. It was the bargain of the century.

+100

Scientific discoveries are built upon prior minor discoveries. It takes decades of time.

$18k- first job as a grad student researcher / then NIH

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

You truly do not get it. There's a lot more at stake than Harvard. Colleges like Hillsdale are fine because they don't do cutting edge research that costs millions of dollars year in and year out. You are supporting the tactics of an authoritarian regime that is telling scholars and students what and how they should think, and allowing the mobs to take out people with whom you disagree. If you are in favor of these cuts because you are fearful of antisemitism or you think that Harvard is full of antisemites, you are foolish. Putin and Orban, and Mao all used these oppressive tactics. You're siding with the Devil, who will have no scruples turning on Jews when convenient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

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:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

You truly do not get it. There's a lot more at stake than Harvard. Colleges like Hillsdale are fine because they don't do cutting edge research that costs millions of dollars year in and year out. You are supporting the tactics of an authoritarian regime that is telling scholars and students what and how they should think, and allowing the mobs to take out people with whom you disagree. If you are in favor of these cuts because you are fearful of antisemitism or you think that Harvard is full of antisemites, you are foolish. Putin and Orban, and Mao all used these oppressive tactics. You're siding with the Devil, who will have no scruples turning on Jews when convenient.

Exactly this. Jews have just become a convenient excuse for repression and censorship by budding fascists and their right-wing toadies.

I want to see more Jews (I am Jewish) speak out about this. Stop using the historic hatred of Jews as a tool in fascism! I want nothing to do with this.

Also the way these people conflate anti-semitism with opposition to the current Israeli government does not in any way make me, a Jew, feel safer. I also oppose the actions of the current Israeli government. If I speak out about that, am I an anti-Semite?

We need to stop this.

I can't tell you how many Jewish people I know who believe this. You aren't allowed to saying ANYTHING negative about Israel ever.

+1. I am horrified by my otherwise progressive, liberal Jewish friends (even those who went to law school!) who would rather squelch free speech and academic freedom than have to tolerate criticism of Israel, or have their children be exposed to this on college campuses. They cannot comprehend intellectually the distinction between criticism of Israel's actions and antisemitism, even though there are tens of thousands of Israeli Jews who are publicly protesting against Netanyahu and the ongoing war in Gaza. It's short-sighted at best. The problem, of course, is that accepting the immediate relief offered by Trump's strong-arming of colleges comes with a very, very high price tag. Trump is not out to protect the Jews; he's courting the favor of White evangelical Christians who believe that they need to support Jews to hasten the second coming of Christ. When that happens, Jews who have not accepted Christ as their savior will be annihilated, which should strike terror in every Jew.

Because it comes from the same will spring as antisemitism. No other country has been held to the impossible standard that Israel has been held to. That comes from antisemitism.

Israel has declared war on Hamas. Their conduct of this war is no worse than our prosecution of the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. No worse than any number of other wars.

The Japanese killed 2000 at Pearl harbor. We proceeded to kill 2 million Japanese including civilian casualties in two atomic explosions. This war ends the moment Hamas unconditionally surrender.

Do not compare what the US did to what Israel is doing. Israel had kill over 200 Palestinians before Oct 7. Israel commits an Oct 7 every year. Now Israel is suppressing American in the US. In your comparison Israel is Japan not the US.

Meh. That's your opinion. This is war. A war that Hamas started. FAFO.

Hamas did not start this. Israel was created using violence in 1948.

Who started the violence in 1948? Israel was pretty happy to just have a country and was hoping everyone would just let them be. They had to fight off a seven nation army.

Hamas started it Israel will finish it. That is a fact.

Trump is not pro Jew. Trump is pro Trump any Jew that voted for Trump is not a Jew that is also a fact.

Utter BS Trump is pro Israel he is pro dictatorships and cons and laundering monies.

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the people against Harvard - if you get cancer will you be seeking the latest treatments and research? I don’t understand why you’d want to disrupt our nation’s most amazing asset (or research industry).

Perhaps there is an ideological cancer they are more urgently concerned about

I have no doubt that those funds can go to another university which isn’t stuffed with a 97% leftist faculty.

Cal tech faculty has one God, science and engineering. They do not worship at the altar of woke.

By all means, survey the faculty of Caltech and MIT and see what percentage of them support Trump. I'm willing to wager you'll be very disappointed.

Correct!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.