nobodylikesyou

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

how do we advance inclusion without discriminating for minorities (as apposed to the current systemic system discriminating against minorities)?

Here's a suggestion: invest more money in education and provide economic help to these under represented minorities so that they have a better chance of getting in without a handicap, seems like the obvious choice to me? rather than dumping down the process for their sake, why don't we try to get these minorities to increase their competency levels so that if they got in it was because they actually had the scores to do so and not because of the color of their skins?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure, i agree that both are wrong, my other comments were geared towards the people who believe AA is justified somehow.

There's a non small number of people believe that in older to compensate minorities who suffered discrimination in the past, we should discriminate people today as a form of payment to these minorities, in other words, to apply racism but in favor of minorities, and the people who argue for this actually believe they have the moral high ground and that this is justifiable, when in reality they behave exactly as the racist of the past, just with a different motivation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Nah, i'm good, thanks

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, i don't think you're well in the head if you actually believe this... so i'm going to say no.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did you know 2 things can be wrong at the same time, meaning both AA and legacy admissions can be both wrong at the same time? meaning that even if they didn't turn down LA it doesn't mean turning down AA wasn't the right thing to do?

Shocking right!? that 2 things can be bad at the same time.

Lol, if your best argument against this ruling is "oh they only did because they racist because they didn't also do the other thing" that's how you know the ruling is correct, you aren't attacking the argument against AA, you're attacking the judges because they took a decision you didn't like

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No one is denying that these things did happen, but the problem here is that your "solution" for systemic racism, is to apply systemic racism to other races in benefit of minorities, now if you want to argue "oh but we must do so because every bad thing that happened to these minorities!" then you aren't actually fighting to end systemic racism, what you actually want is to have that power for yourselves, you want to be able to discriminate and suffer no consequences for this, in other words, this is pretty much revenge for what happened back then.

Two wrongs don't make a right, if you support committing injustice just to compensate the victims of previous injustices, you're no different than the original criminal.

You people are hypocrites

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Which is what affirmative action is meant to correct. Otherwise qualified applicants denied admission into universities because of their race.

Without affirmative action, you get state universities where the state population is something like 30% minority, and the population on campus is something like 1%, if that.

So your solution for racism to be racism yourselves and make these minorities the beneficiaries of it instead of getting rid of it, in order words, you replaced racism you didn't like, with racism you do like.

Hypocrite.

view more: next ›