https://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...t-to-2-per-day
https://blisty.cz/art/78746-deport-a...e-borders.html
Interesting - America isn't alone in looking at Middle Eastern asylum seeks with a wary eye.
Printable View
https://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...t-to-2-per-day
https://blisty.cz/art/78746-deport-a...e-borders.html
Interesting - America isn't alone in looking at Middle Eastern asylum seeks with a wary eye.
I don't know how to tell you this but you're endorsing xenophobes and white supremacists. How long have you been consorting with the slimeballs at Defend Europa and Czech neo-nazis to own the libs?
I see you're now praising rabid anti-Semites and Putinists.
*Insert obligatory joke about Corbynistas*
Extremism makes strange bedfellows.
I don't make it a point to to study Italian and Eastern European politics. But in any event even people with different ideologies may find common ground on issues. For example I'm pretty far on the Right but I prefer drugs to be legalized something that many people on the Left also agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."
"Pretty far on the right"
You're increasingly difficult to distinguish from your garden variety authoritarian white supremacist. You may try to disguise your position as being "on the right", but everyone here knows which axis it is that really defines your worldview. This lame excuse about not following local European politics is a red herring. We both know you spend your time perusing unsavory sites where you can engage with some of the western world's most repugnant people, many of whom are of course from European countries.
Yes the person who believes everyone should be judged by their actions and not based on their skin color is the white supremacist. Meanwhile people on this *very board* advocate for race based admission policies to college campuses. Get your head out of your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Citation needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Affirmative Action, every time its brought up multiple board members are ok with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Lewk, you and I both know what you are. Even if you were to argue that everyone else here is also racist, that doesn't change what YOU are, ya giant wuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'll need a quote. I don't believe I've seen anyone here support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...rmative+actionQuote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Proves my point, conclusion of the people who contributed to that thread is that it is a bad idea.
So you're projecting untrue beliefs upon members of this board to create a strawman.
I'm perfectly willing to give affirmative action due consideration, but I believe it is a policy that is fraught with practical, political and philosophical problems that we might never be able to resolve. The thread he linked to shows my rejection of the clueless notion that the injustices intended to be corrected by affirmative action policies still exist, contrary to the vapid claims of those purportedly "colourblind" galaxy-brains who believe racism in hiring decisions (or uni admissions) is an uncommon problem. Whether or not that makes affirmative action an appropriate remedy is another question, but that there is something to remedy is undeniable from the perspective of many men with Arab names trying to apply for jobs in a Western country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Lewk is trying to make a point about how something that is wrong is always wrong and unacceptable; that people who oppose racism while supporting affirmative action are racists themselves, and thus have double standards--that they are hypocrites. As I pointed out in another recent thread, not even Lewk believes that something that is wrong is always wrong; it is a disingenuous argument that he makes in bad faith. Even Lewk understands the modifying role of context. Even Lewk understands the concept of "necessary evil". Like most of us, Lewk has grown up among humans, and has over the course of his life developed an intuitive understanding of the notion that sometimes two wrongs can make something that is more right, eg. when the second wrong is used as a remedy & reparation, as righteous punishment, as a deterrent etc.
So I don't think we should let these amateur-hour debate tactics from a Fox & Friends reject crowd us into some sort of rhetorical corner that doesn't actually exist. I am willing to give consideration to a great deal of things that are wrong, as are both you and Lewk. I am willing to countenance the kidnapping and forced confinement of many people popularly known as "criminals" who have been "found guilty" by a "court"; I am willing to forgive the theft of some of my hard-earned income through the unconscionable act of highway robbery known as "taxation", even when it is used to fund an organization that frequently kidnaps or even kills "criminals"--or, indeed, innocent people in far-off countries; I am even willing to acknowledge the occasional need to murder a person in the course of a perverse act--that offends the sensibilities of all righteous humans--known as "self defense"--and so on. I am not intimidated by Lewk's facile bad-faith argumentation, and neither should you be.
Racism in dealing with applications absolutely is a problem. How to fix that is not easy but I don't believe it is via further racism.
Economically and corporately it is financially prudent and entirely rational to go out if your way to hire a larger share of discriminated against minorities.
The obvious implication of this view in the context of findings from many studies is, of course, that the vast majority of employers in western countries are irrational fools.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Easy to say for those who benefited and continue to benefit from the racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It does indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Absolutely agreed. And employers who disproportionately hire more minorities are entirely rational actors and not because of affirmative action. Because when we do that we're doing the right thing - for not just the employees but the employers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You assume Affirmative Action actually helps. For example the kid who really shouldn't have qualified for a program ends up going, getting student loans and failing. Did AA make his life better, or worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Extraordinarily (and characteristically) narrow analysis. Any such cases must be weighted against counterfactuals eg. those who succeed and those who find themselves in the same situation even without affirmative action. Hypotheticals that aren't informed are often not very informative, and this is one such case of an uninformative hypothetical.
https://www.heritage.org/courts/comm...ority-studentsQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
To give everyone some context, the heritage foundation is the group that got DeVos into the position she currently holds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yes, they've been touting Sander's research and advocacy on the mismatch hypothesis for over a decade, but evidence in support of a strong negative effect of overmatching due to AA is scant and weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Several reviews of the empirical literature on the mismatch hypothesis conducted over the past decade find that evidence in support of Sander's work is weak, that there is considerable evidence that contradicts his findings, that his conclusions are not supported by his own research, and that, to the extent that there is an effect of AA-related overmatching, it may be beneficial.
Academic reviews and analyses:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...49089X06000226
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...04070507800402
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...38040713500772
https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/worki...8rothstein.pdf
http://www.margaritamooney.com/wp-co...tiveaction.pdf
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files...sHispanics.pdf
https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-con...empert-D64.pdf
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...ty_scholarship
From the case referred to by Heritage:
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...091098&EXT=pdf
Overviews for laymen:
https://psmag.com/news/affirmative-a...e-thomas-61276
https://www.brookings.edu/research/a...mative-action/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mative-action/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/o...ch-theory.html
The empirical data does not support your appealing common-sense intuition. Even if the evidence were more favorable to your position, Sander's data (for example) obscures important details. A black law student with low grades at a prestigious law school is not only different from his or her white peers due to their grades and test scores at admission but also due to their circumstances, that may subject them to substantially greater economic pressures as well as to other social and psychological pressures in the form of eg. discrimination at school, lower ability to network, lower access to mentoring etc. Even today, American law schools are very white, and very fucked-up. For an overview of the different pressures experienced by law students of different racial backgrounds, see: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu...&context=bjalp
It's possible that many of these students that are allegedly dangerously overmatched would be less thoroughly prepped than many of their peers. While one solution to that might be to shut out the potentially overmatched students (questionable if only considering overall harm vs benefit, as we see there might be overall benefit), another solution is to simply help them prep more thoroughly, so as to even the playing field for those who do not enter higher education from privileged backgrounds: https://nypost.com/2015/12/28/the-mi...rity-students/
I'm sorry but your argument is simply not persuasive. The empirical data does not support it but, rather, contradicts it. The analyses you rely on are flawed. The assumptions you make are misleading. So I don't think I can buy what you're selling.