SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Los Angeles Times is running an article describing the challenges faced by Asian Americans as they apply for acceptance to top colleges.
The article describes the impact that their race and ethnicity has on their SAT scores:
Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth.
She points to the first column. African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column. “Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps. Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
A core tenet of the American philosophy, even from before the days of the Founding Fathers, is that through hard work and excellence one should be able to obtain success in life. But is this ideal even possible when certain underachieving groups are given artificial advantages, while those with the most merit are artificially held back?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marneus68 on Monday March 02 2015, @08:51AM
It's not at all surprising to see this kind of behavior from a generation that was always told to believe in "equality" without adding the "of chances" at the end.
This whole "bonus" system is revolting. Gotta love reverse racism.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:56AM
"I am not a racist because I am opposed to reverse racism" That's one!
I would like to say you win a prize, but those are reserved for those that try harder.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Monday March 02 2015, @09:07AM
It's not "reverse racism", it's just racism.
That's why you see this meme pushed so hard, trying to tell us that you can't be racist against white people. The social justice redefinition of the word racism is that racism = power + prejudice. Since minorities are not, under the Social Justice world view, the dominant group in our society it is impossible for them to be racist. They've redefined the word so that racism is exclusively white character defect. Any behavior by or on behalf of minorities that appears racist under the conventional definition is just a correction of injustice, or lashing out at oppressors, or corrective action for past mistreatment of minorities by previous generations of whites.
It's crucial that we don't allow these words to be redefined. Reject the new definition of racism.
Then, on the other side of the fence are the disgusting white supremacists who take things too far in the other direction. People who are "proud" of their race usually come off as creepy racists, no matter what color they are. Sadly, the only people who seem willing to stand up and fight the Social Justice Warriors are these horrible ultra-nationalists. That should be troubling. I hate standing up against the SJW loonies and seeing that the only people who have the courage of their convictions are racists. You see the same phenomenon with regards to radical Islam. Only the Right is willing to speak the truth (in large numbers) that not all religions are created equal. Look at people like Sam Harris, a liberal by any measure, who has been slammed by the Left for daring to say that some religions are inherently more violent than other--an assertion which is trivial to prove both in the generality and in the particular.
I know there are plenty of liberals who think like I do. They stay quiet because they're afraid of being called racist, or bigoted. If there's one thing I envy in the political Right, it's that they have more personal courage when they defend their ideas and principles. I wish my liberal friends could find their balls and join me.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:14AM
"It's not racism because it is reverse discriminating against Asians, not white people." That's two! Wow, the competition here is fierce! May the best "not a racist" win!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 02 2015, @10:01AM
I'm not raceist because I didn't join the competition here.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @10:09AM
Thank you. I posted much the same thing, but less eloquently. Good job!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:00PM
> The social justice redefinition of the word racism is that racism = power + prejudice.
> It's crucial that we don't allow these words to be redefined.
Why? Seriously, why does this "redefinition" need to be rejected?
Prejudice without power is just a character defect. Just like thousands of other kinds of character defects that are part of being human.
Prejudice with power creates inequal opportunities, and that is the problem and always has been.
Your whole "impossible to be racist" complaint is just a strawman argument grounded in nothing more rigorous than dictionary pedantry.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:04PM
Because nobody has zero power. Millions of racist minority people add up. Add in the self-hating white SJWs and you've got yourself a pretty powerful lobby which has successfully managed to make it okay to discriminate against white people. It is not harmless or okay to be racist; not against any race.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @04:25PM
> Because nobody has zero power. Millions of racist minority people add up.
Together a million ants is nothing compared to a million elephants.
> It is not harmless or okay to be racist; not against any race.
And fixing that is a completely unachievable goal.
Who knew buzz was actually the most flaming, innumerate, unrealistic liberal on the site?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @05:51PM
Libertarian, TYVM. I'm an individualist above all else and individualism is the opposite of racism. It is simply logically impossible to judge someone on their race if you believe everyone should be judged solely on their own merits and failings.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @06:14PM
> I'm an individualist above all else and individualism is the opposite of racism.
Above all else? What are you doing using the internet? It was created by the collectivist US government.
Do you generate all your own electricity?
Grow all your own food?
Drive only on your own roads?
You are like a fish who can't recognize water because he's never been without it.
You are so completely dependent on the structure of society and yet feel no obligation to tend it even going so far as to accuse the people who do tend to it of being uncle toms.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @07:16PM
Of course not, I trade money I've received for my labor for them either through direct trade or forced taxes. Either way, I get absolutely diddly for free, same as you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @07:25PM
> Either way, I get absolutely diddly for free, same as you.
Never said it was free. I said it wouldn't exist without the collective effort of society.
You seem happy to leave the direction of that effort up to the whims of the powerful.
That the people with more power not only get a bigger vote they deserve a bigger vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @07:38PM
I'm an individualist above all else and individualism is the opposite of racism.
Ignoring the fact that people of some races get an unearned leg up over people of other races isn't the "opposite of racism," it is enabling racism.
if you believe everyone should be judged solely on their own merits and failings.
Who is doing the judging? The idea that the criteria for making that judgement exists in a vacuum and is completely impartial is a pipe dream.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 02 2015, @08:04PM
Ignoring the fact that people of some races get an unearned leg up over people of other races isn't the "opposite of racism," it is enabling racism.
Ok, so why is it that a small minority, Asians, are given a penalty relative to other races (blacks and Hispanics) which have far higher numbers in our society? How the hell is that not racism?
Favoring one group over another, solely due to race, to try to make up for the fact that some people of some races get an unearned leg up, is itself racism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:27PM
to try to make up for the fact that some people of some races get an unearned leg up, is itself racism.
The day the world is perfect is the day we can argue about how the existence of outliers disproves the common case.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:16PM
You'd better ignore it, it's utter bullshit. Nobody ever got a damned thing given to them for being white. Discrimination should be punished but helping anyone because of their race is by definition racial discrimination and not a damned thing you think or say will ever change that fact.
Me. Individualist, remember?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:24PM
Ignoring the fact that people of some races get an unearned leg up over people of other races isn't the "opposite of racism," it is enabling racism.
Nobody ever got a damned thing given to them for being white.
I hope people mod your post all the way up to +5 so that everyone can see it for themselves.
Such an obviously counter-factual statement is straight out of the most racist corners of the internet like stormfront. [stormfront.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:31PM
You think so, eh? Go try it, my SJW friend. Ask for everything you can think of and make sure to explain it's because you're white. Dollars to donuts you don't get a single thing you haven't earned. So, no, nobody has ever been given anything simply for being white.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:42PM
Go try it, my SJW friend. Ask for everything you can think of and make sure to explain it's because you're white.
I already did and I got more than enough to make it into the 1% of because it. My leg up was the opportunity to go to private schools that were 90% white, and work in an industry where I easily integrated into company cultures because I looked like, sounded like and had the same background as everyone else there.
Your inability to recognize that intangibles lead to tangible benefits is baffling. You are like a programmer who can't understand pointers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:57PM
So give me a solution that doesn't answer racial discrimination with even more racial discrimination. I consider all intentional racial discrimination, even when it's trying to be helpful or correct perceived unfairness, as an ethical and moral non-starter. I'd rather have the current system, because at least it's not intentionally racist. I'm fine with a racial bias in the outcome of some system, as long as race was not an input criteria. Understand? Do what is right, though the world may perish. Even if affirmative action could produce a better society, I'd still be against it on principle. And it can't produce a better society, it never has whenever it's been tried, it just magnifies whatever animosity already exists between the races.
And no, I'm not white.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:07PM
So give me a solution that doesn't answer racial discrimination with even more racial discrimination.
When did you stop hitting your wife?
Affirmative action can't produce a better society, it never has whenever it's been tried,
What country do you live in? Affirmative action was working until the war on drugs reversed the gains made in the previous two decades.
If it weren't for that, we might even be to the point where affirmative action was no longer needed.
it just magnifies whatever animosity already exists between the races.
No, it spreads the animosity around more evenly. The people who lose the unearned benefits of a rigged system get pissed, but the people who no longer have the boot of society on their neck feel a whole fuckton better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:14PM
You didn't actually answer my main point. Your solution requires more racial discrimination, which I consider to be evil, even if it's well intentioned, even if it works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:18PM
Your solution requires more racial discrimination, which I consider to be evil, even if it's well intentioned, even if it works.
So what matters to you is idealogical purity, not results.
I guess we know where you stand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:44PM
Where I stand is that racism is evil. Much harm has been done by well-intentioned racists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:46PM
No, you literally said that the results don't matter.
That is evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:51PM
No, I said I don't care how good your results are if you got to them by using evil means. I care about results, and I care about the path we take to achieve them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:58PM
You arbitrarily define affirmative action as evil and then declare the fact that it works to be irrelevant.
At best you are just begging the question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:16PM
You arbitrarily define affirmative action as evil
That's not my thought process. Treating people better or worse based on their race is evil, it's the definition of racism. Affirmative action treats people of different races preferentially. So I'm against it. And I don't accept the assertion that it works, I'm saying that if it did, I'd still be against it. All the evidence points to it NOT working to achieve its goals, and there are numerous injurious side-effects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:41PM
Treating people better or worse based on their race is evil, it's the definition of racism
Clue for you: that's completely arbitrary.
Until you can explain why it is evil instead of simply declaring it to be evil, you've got no leg to stand on.
Maybe in the future, you'll have figured out what makes racism evil and can explain yourself. But frankly, I'm done responding. Clearly you've never thought about it before so anything you could come up with in the next 20 minutes isn't going to be particularly insightful anyway. You can start with that original post - why racism without power is more than just a character defect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:03PM
Let me use another example to try and make my point clearer. Capital punishment. I'm against it. Always, and in all cases. Even if the speculated deterrence effect worked, it wouldn't change the fact that capital punishment is immoral.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:57PM
I do not understand it because those intangibles do not exist. How whites are treated in the US is the baseline. None are ever given anything because they are white, someone has to earn everything they ever get. Which is how it should be for everyone but you SJW types simply can't deal with that because it means you can't treat minorities special just because some people are assholes. You can't assuage your unearned guilt. So you twist reason to the breaking point to justify your racism. Yes, racism. You are racist if you discriminate in favor of any race, no matter their situation. No exceptions, no excuses.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:14PM
I do not understand it because those intangibles do not exist.
Well, I certainly can't argue with that!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:04PM
But did you get free donuts?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 02 2015, @05:05PM
Well, sure. Christianity is inherently far more violent than Buddhism. That doesn't stop violent Buddhist extremist groups from forming.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @06:54PM
You're just making Harris's point for him by pointing that out. Find me a violent extremist Jain (follower of Jainism). You probably can't. Even if you could, it would be impossible to reconcile their actions with recourse to their religion. If someone is committing violence in the name of Jainism, they're being a bad Jain. They're not acting in harmony with their religion's teachings. With Islam, it's a different story. There are times when violence is acceptable, even commanded, under Islamic teachings.
To the extent that Muslims are non-violent in these circumstances, it's because (like Christians and Jews) they've accepted that there are parts of their religion that must be ignored to bring them into alignment with modernity. Islam and Christianity both prescribe violent death for certain crimes, such as the stoning of adulterers. Christians have given up the practice. Islam is having a harder time letting go of such things.
Or, maybe it's not having a harder time letting go. One explanation, suggested by the late Christopher Hitchens, is that Islam is the youngest of the modern religions and still going through the process of transformation that Judaism and Christianity had to undertake in order to adjust to secular, pluralistic, society. There are doctrinal aspects to Islam that make this progression slower, more painful, and which cause temporary local reversals in progress. Islam is unique in that it claims to be the final solution to life, covering all aspects of the human condition. It also claims to be the last and perfect revelation from God. I don't think these are insurmountable difficulties, but they don't help.
Islam's older brothers had a head start, and in the fullness of time it will catch up. That moment can not come soon enough, but for tens of thousands of Muslims, it will have come too late.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @07:57PM
Jaynists would have a field day with Jainists. The hero of Canton believes in grenades, guns, girls, and lots of them.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 02 2015, @08:01PM
Yep, this is easily the biggest factor that makes it hard for me to self-identify as a "liberal". I'm totally for things like social welfare systems so people aren't living under bridges, and proper regulation for industries, fuel-economy standards, strong environmental protection policies, reproductive rights, and I even like the idea of the Basic Income. But this racism-is-OK-if-you're-not-white stuff really turns my stomach.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 02 2015, @09:17PM
I'm with you on this. There is an unfortunate postmodern streak in the "liberal" movement in the US, where emotion is elevated above reason and people start with a conclusion and attempt to spin the facts to fit it. I've spent years and years battling this in the apologetics movement, so it chaps my ass to see it coming from "my side." People want to feel instead of think, because it's easier. It's time we faced the hard truth about the Abrahamic religions though; Judaism is almost extinct, Christianity is a mass of errors and varies wildly from Jesus' frothing apocalyptic rantings, and Islam never had an "enlightenment" that stuck; they're mired in the dark ages
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:54PM
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/23/the-social-justice-warrior-racist-reading-challenge-a-fisking/ [monsterhunternation.com]
Enjoy!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:20AM
This is not a reverse racism. It is just a racism against the Asians. The similar was practiced against the Jews.
Funny thing. Jews had been discriminated against. After the Nazi genocide, however, anyone who says pips against the Jews, however reasonable, is now shunned.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:23AM
Shut up, Ethanol-fueled! This is not even a "I am not a racist because. . ." post!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday March 02 2015, @02:24PM
I didn't post that, but I would like to point out that Asians are good students because they're beat like dogs and excommunicated from the family if they get anything less than straight-A's.
I know, because I lived next door to an Asian family once. They had like 4 generations living in a 1-bedroom apartment and they were all sitting all over the floor on rugs drinking tea all day. And when their kids came home with anything less than straight A's, all you would hear was, "ChingachongabungbangdongtakamakaHAIIIEEEE!" *Crash!* *Bang!*
It sounded a lot like that noise Mortal Kombat's Raiden [xboxachievements.com] makes when he does that flying-through-the-air move.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:01PM
Well, at least Asian parents still have *expectations* of their kids.... it's been pointed out that when we stopped having expectations and started treating 'em as special snowflakes, that's when education started failing our kids.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Marneus68 on Monday March 02 2015, @09:25AM
>It is just a racism against the Asians.
And against whites too apparently. Depending on the bonus they get.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @10:07AM
There is no such thing as "reverse racism". A black man who is racist is simply RACIST. An Asian who is racist is simply RACIST. A caucasian who is racist, is also simply RACIST.
This idea of "reverse racism" only helps to validate the worthless SOB's in the world who think that it is somehow "right" to advance other people at the expense of white, male, heterosexual, Christian people.
Racists and bigots are nothing more and nothing less than racists and bigots. Don't dignify the rat bastards with some kind of qualifier, such as "reverse".
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @01:45PM
This idea of "reverse racism" only helps to validate the worthless SOB's in the world who think that it is somehow "right" to advance other people at the expense of white, male, heterosexual, Christian people.
Let me take a wild guess.. you are 1) white, 2) male, 3) heterosexual, and 4) Christian
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @02:27PM
None of which would affect the validity of his arguments.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:04PM
If one thinks the poster's race, gender, orientation, or religion affects the validity of his arguments -- how is that not racism?
Flip it around. Does "black, female, lesbian, pagan" sound like it should affect same?
If that inverse makes you sputter with indignation, consider that it's an invalid criterion in BOTH directions.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @02:59PM
As AC has already stated - none of those facts affects the validity of my statement.
What - do you also suspect that because black people complained about slavery, their complaints were invalid because they were black? Come on, dude, get a grip on reality.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:22PM
Well, it reminds me of a charity mailing for spinal cord injury research I received a long time ago. Their spokesperson was Christopher Reeve, he wrote the letter, I think it was for his foundation. "Can you possibly imagine, me walking again and enjoying a full life" was part of the pitch, although it was more elegantly put.
I didn't donate to his charity.
I thought if he was smart, he would be a spokeperson for a different kind of medical research (ALS for example), explaining in graphic detail some of the hardships the victims and their caregivers are going through, which people like himself never have to deal with. That would impress people because he would've demonstrated capacity for empathy, and not just for others in the exact same situation (spinal cord injury) that he was in.
Empathy is impressive. Just saying WAAAAAHHHH, I deserve this and that! I'm way more qualified than they are, that's no fair!! is not, except maybe to Slashdot and SN mods. It's pathetic really.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:09PM
Oh? Valuing a person's argument because of the color of their skin isn't racist as nine kinds of hell is what you're saying? I respectfully disagree.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 02 2015, @07:59PM
Actually, I thought he made a good spokesman. He clearly knew what he was talking about. (He as also well known, and already wealthy enough to be able to afford all the palliative care available.)
You make a good logical point, but people are basically emotional reasoners. Logic is too slow. and our brains aren't well adapted to it. Emotionally he was appealing in the same way a baby seal is. (Well, ok, not quite the same way, but he appealed to the same general parts of our thinking. It was part of why he made a good actor.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by TWX on Monday March 02 2015, @02:42PM
I think that the point of using the label, "reverse racism," is that it's racism that probably does more harm to the racist or to those of the race of the racist than racism by the majority does.
If members of a majority race that are in a position of being mainstream and having a major degree of power or authority are racist to a a member of a minority race that has less power and whose culture isn't mainstream, then the person that's the minority is usually fairly strongly affected.
If members of a minority race that aren't mainstream and have only limited power are racist toward the majority race, then it hurts other members of the minority race as it reinforces stereotypes held by racists in the majority race, and may even contribute to racism in those that aren't particularly bigoted to start with.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS...
and everywhere the language went, it was a total loss.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @03:01PM
You seem to be looking at things from a very academic viewpoint. Yeah - I think you're "correct", but damned near no person in real life sees things that way.
Racism is just to damned ugly a thing for either the perpetrators or the victims to view so clinically.
(Score: 1) by TWX on Monday March 02 2015, @03:30PM
It is ugly, but when one strips it back to the calculus one can begin to understand why it's so ugly and what it might take to stop it. Unfortunately it doesn't take very much to perpetuate it either, on the part of either group, even if only one of those groups is significantly affected by it.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS...
and everywhere the language went, it was a total loss.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @04:05PM
With any luck, you'll be ready to tackle all the tribal feuds that plague the mideast, much of south-west Asia, and other regions of the world. Good luck with that! I can imagine that without tribal feuds, the mideast would have become the cultural center of the world long ago!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:15PM
Not bloody likely. Every nation in the mid-east except Israel by law and culture oppresses or kills people for being anything outside the heterosexual-male-muslim demographic. And those are the "moderates" we keep hearing about. Hate of everyone unlike you is not a solid foundation for a center of culture.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @07:42PM
How can you even say that? Their culture is DURABLE. It lasts. Remember when all of (or at least the vast majority) Europeans were laboring under an oppressive church, suffering with all kinds of crazy superstitions, sleeping in rat-infested houses, shitting in the streets? The Mideast didn't go through those dark ages along with Europe.
Islam has withstood the test of time better than Christianity has, truth be told.
Now, FFS, don't take that to mean that I like or respect Islam. I'm merely pointing out facts.
For the MOST durable civilization known to man, look to China. India is no laggard in durability either. Europeans? Just recent upstarts, on the grand scale of things.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:18PM
You missed the important part... "civilization" requires that you be civilized. They are not. Civilized societies do not push their ideals upon others via force.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:48PM
Civilized adj
See: Us
Barbaric adj
See: Them
It's all relative. They may be forcing their ideals of theocratic law on others via localized violence while we force our ideals of capitalistic boot-licking on them via globalized violence.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:59PM
Wait, have we been invading countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody told me? Seems to me it was the whole Arab Spring thing where the people demanded what they wanted all through the region that got us where we are now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Thexalon on Monday March 02 2015, @04:08PM
Another way to gut-check this issue: If you're white or Asian, and you had the option of becoming black or Hispanic, would you take it? And how about the reverse?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:20PM
It was a nice try but you're horribly, horribly wrong. The worst damage from any kind of racism is the spreading of hatred. You discriminate against any demographic and they are going to hate you for it. Social Justice has without question set back racial relations worse than anything since slavery.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday March 02 2015, @05:00PM
Tell that to a family of somebody who was killed because they were a black. And then told it was "justified", even though there is video demonstrating that is total nonsense. And then having all the political leaders line up in support of the killers. And then having a large number of people donating money to the killer(s).
The only way your argument makes any kind of sense is if you're saying that resentment over reverse racism is the primary reason that racist attacks on black people happen. But that claim utterly fails to hold any kind of water, because racist murders of black people happened for decades before the concept of "affirmative action" was invented.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @05:19PM
I can be against racially motivated police brutality AND affirmative action--both spread hatred and resentment.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @05:57PM
^^ What the AC said. I still stand by my statement. Spreading hatred is worse than killing; it is the root cause of all related killings and ensures that they and all other hate-based activities will never end.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday March 02 2015, @07:36PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Monday March 02 2015, @08:38PM
Buddhist friends tell me this is far from an original concept.
That's right; I remember Yoda already said that way back
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:39AM
Eh, OK, as soon as such a person exists.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday March 02 2015, @09:05PM
It's also called "positive discrimination." It was very fashionable in the UK in the 70s and 80s especially among lefty-types. The Labour Party used it famously in their all-women shortlists, to get more female MPs elected. So it was used to counter traditional sexism as well as racism.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].