nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i don't see the irony because no one is saying that
GDT Sun 7/29, Dodgers
- Thread starter salmagundy
- Start date
i don't see the irony because no one is saying that
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Man imagine the backtracking you'll have to do if a majority of white men ever start voting the same way you do. You'll be able to pen an article of woke enlightenment worthy of DailyKos!
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
You both deflected here instead of defending your position that it is okay to denigrate some groups of people but not others. I understand why you did it, your position is indefensible, I just thought it should be pointed out.
Some animals are more equal than others, it seems.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
actually my position has to do with not all derogatory words being equal
and i discussed the reasons why
in terms of treating people, i am 100% an individualist...people are individuals before they are black, white, straight or gay...i am against affirmative action predicated on race...i am in favor of helping people with things like college admissions if they come from disadvantaged backgrounds and show that they have a capacity to overcome that...and yes poor white people often from rural backgrounds should be among those we should give a bit of help to...they have gotten lost in the shuffle
Last edited:
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
Omg. This topic has gone on for four pages. Seriously. Has anyone read the stupid tweets. Nothing was hateful or mean. That was tame to what most kids that age talk like. I know I call my friends gay all the time, and I have a gay nephew who I am close to. Hell he calls me gay sometimes. This is so stupid. Instead of talking about Newk’s great game. You guys are bickering about hate speech.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i don't think what Newk did is a big deal and he handled it fine...but i think the discussion about whether this is an example of the PC police gone wild in an attempt to keep the straight white man down is one worth having...it really isn't about what Newk did
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Nice post. I will apologize now for getting out of hand on this topic. I've done some work to help poor rural whites and poor urban blacks, and this double standard age that we live in sets me off. No two groups have more in common than the trailer parks and the projects, but they are too often thought of and treated completely differently.
People joking about white privilege really need to drive through the hills of eastern Kentucky sometime, the site of people living in broken down cars under tarps is enlightening.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Southcack77
Well-known member
He didn't say "lol that's gay" ... or at least that's not all he said. He called people "f*gs" repeatedly.
Either way, he isn't suffering very much for it and apologized quickly to put it behind him and likely won't be doing it again. An altogether adult way of handling the problem.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Some of it is part of Appalachia.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
yes...geologically and socially
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
It's really more about the response to the response. Policing of language is a hot topic with some believing language shouldn't be policed at all to those who believe any word that is considered derogatory (and the list continues to grow) should be scrubbed from the common parlance.
I'm largely with nsacpi. People are people. I know both decent rednecks and lousy gay people. I'm of the center-left, but I can think of a lot of conservative Republicans I'd rather have lunch with than people with similar opinions to mine (comes with the territory of being a lobbyist I guess). There is a sense of tribalism that continues to grow in this country that is divorcing common decency from ideological bent, where people excuse bad behavior because they agree with the person's beliefs. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Incivility is incivility.
That's well beyond Newcomb's high school musings, but it does bring up the point that you've blurred somewhat. What people do in their own private or familial spheres is different than what should happen in public (or in different realms of the public). Would you have exchanges similar to those you have with your nephew with people you don't really know? Locker room banter is often cruel and insensitive, but it is contained in the locker room. As I said earlier, when the banter goes outside the locker room and goes on public display, the folks posting it are going to be called to answer for it. If anything, this should serve as an object lesson for young athletes with reasonable chances of becoming a high-profile performer to think before they post.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Affirmative action in my view has a very low cost. It's worth debating whether it has shown a whole lot of success.
The criticism of it, far far outweighs the actual impact on white people, but it does give a lot of people who aren't successes an avenue to claim they were denied something because of it. Imagine thinking in your heart that you didn't get something because of the two black guys that got into school through an affirmative action program. The thinking here is that zero black people should be in the program? And that obviously the person complaining was the next in line? Here's an idea. Don't be the last guy on the margin if you want to get somewhere.
But I've thought for a long time that simply making the help more socio-economic need-based would perhaps remove some of the stigma and perhaps be more fair. Then again, that doesn't work for other government programs that largely benefit whites but are viewed as black programs by a certain sector of white folks.
msstate7
Well-known member
What about Asians getting screwed by Harvard? They're no where near the margin, yet not accepted bc harvard doesn't want to be too Asian
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Its undeniable there is something to the complaint there. So there are examples of where certain groups, white or Asians, are being hurt by a form of a quota system. It might not be a hard and fast quota, but the data strongly indicate that certain schools have capped the percentage of Asian students. And as worthy as some of their objectives, I don't think a school that accepts money from the federal government should be allowed to do that. If they were an entirely private institution not receiving any federal funding that might be a different matter when it comes to the law. Maybe the legal eagles can chime in on that. But as a matter of public policy the federal government should not subsidize institutions that do this.
Btw a lot of the Asians being hurt by this come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Last edited:
Southcack77
Well-known member
You know I haven't really followed that story much so I don't know the particulars.
Seems like it is the reverse of affirmative action. Basically suppressing the numbers of minorities admitted despite their qualification. Almost like an immigration cap.
I probably need to look at it and give it some thought.
msstate7
Well-known member
Taken from The Observer (no idea how credible they are)...
"...The complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, alleges that for Asian-American students to gain admission, they have to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than African-American students...."
http://observer.com/2015/06/asian-a...ng-screwed-by-harvard-but-not-how-they-think/
If true, this is just wrong
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think the giveaway is the Asian percentage hovering in a narrow range over the years.
There are a lot of problems with admissions at elite schools. The biggest one is the legacy points system. There are some very good schools (like MIT) that do not award legacy points. More schools need to move in that direction. Enough with rich alumni effectively buying a spot for their kids.
The other big problem is not enough effort to support disadvantaged kids after they get admitted. There are poor white and Asian kids who have a very difficult time socially fitting in. It would be very helpful for them to have more of a support system.
Last edited:
It's called false moral equivalency, and many people fall victim to it.
It's the main fallacy that invalidates the white nationalist movement, and this "oh, what about the poor rednecks" argument is a watered down version of it. Rednecks are the very group who caused the bulk of these historical injustices in the first place.
Yes, whenever gross moral injustices are corrected (vs women, or minorities, or gays, or whomever), the pendulum almost always swings a little too far in the opposite direction for a period of time. That period of time sucks a little bit for the straight white male. However, claiming that the pendulum being too far the other way for a while is somehow making the straight white male the victim is laughable.