On June 16 2020 16:20 Loco wrote:
"Though this may not be a task for your first conversation about race in the U.S., dismantling the model minority myth might help families understand how their own preconceived biases came to be.
“Asian Americans are fed this narrative,” Yamazaki said. “‘Look at Asian people, look at how well you’ve done.’ That narrative has been perpetuated by white people and internalized by Asian people.”
Though some Asians have long benefited from this idea, it’s a narrative designed to pit minority groups against one another, according to Iyer.
The stereotype was created to make geopolitical gains from the growing Asian immigrant population in the U.S. and wielded to stop black social movements, Ellen Wu, a historian and the author of “The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority,” told NBC Asian America last week.
White liberals in the 1960s weaponized the experiences of Japanese Americans post-internment, branding them as “success stories” and proof that people of color had equal opportunity. This tactic was employed as an attempt to weaken the civil rights movement, Wu said. Though it gave Asian Americans room for more social mobility than black Americans, it only fed into a system of white supremacy."
If reading is too hard, maybe this will do the trick
lol this is the dumbest shit ever. You are giving me a liberal's take on why liberal viewpoint is correct and trying the pass it along as "widely accepeted" rofl. I guess this "debunks" it once again. Seriously im tired of your dishonest arguing tactics / attempt for a pathetic comeback after I trashed u and ur dumbfuck liberal communist friends on here multiple already.
Pretty sure that what is historically true doesn't belong on a side or another of the political spectrum. Your attempt at invalidating historical facts by associating them to some broad category that you dislike is the only biased and dishonest thing here.
Here are quotes from a centrist website if that makes it more helpful for you:
"Selective immigration
One possible cause of the higher performance of Asian Americans as a group is that they represent a small population in America so those who are chosen to move to America often come from a selective group of Asians. The relative difficulty of emigrating and immigrating into the United States has created a selective nature of the process with the U.S. often choosing the wealthier and more highly educated out of those with less resources, motivation or ability to immigrate."
"Often overlooked is the direct contrast of model minorities with Black Americans. Model minorities are used as a tool to discriminate against Black people with the mantra "If they can do it, why can't you?." This argument is often viewed as logical, because, at the surface, there doesn't seem to be a clearcut explanation as to why Jewish, Asian, and Irish Americans are able to thrive after experiencing racism, while Blacks still seem to be disenfranchised.[71]"
"According to Gordon H. Chang, the reference to Asian Americans as model minorities has to do with the work ethic, respect for elders, and high valuation of education, family and elders present in their culture.[50] The model minority stereotype also comes with an underlying notion of their apoliticality. Such a label one-dimensionalizes Asian Americans as having only traits based around stereotypes and no other human qualities, such as vocal leadership, negative emotions (e.g. anger or sadness), sociopolitical activeness, risk taking, ability to learn from mistakes, desire for creative expression, intolerance towards oppression or being overlooked of their acknowledgements and successes. Asian Americans are labeled as model minorities because they have not been as much of a "threat" to the U.S. political establishment as blacks, due to a smaller population and less political advocacy. This label seeks to suppress potential political activism through euphemistic stereotyping.[50]
Another effect of the stereotype is that American society may tend to ignore the racism and discrimination Asian Americans still face. Complaints are dismissed with the claim that the racism which occurs to Asian Americans is less important than or not as bad as the racism faced by other minority races, thus establishing a systematic racial hierarchy. Believing that due to their success and that they possess so-called "positive" stereotypes, many[who?] assume they face no forms of racial discrimination or social issues in the greater American society, and that their community is fine, having "gained" social and economic equality.[51][52][53]
Racial discrimination can take subtle forms such as through microaggression. The stereotyping of Asian Americans as a model minority and perfidious foreigner influences people's perceptions and attitudes towards Asians[54] and also negatively affects students' academic outcomes, relationships with others, and psychological adjustments. For instance, discrimination and model minority stereotyping are linked to Asian American students' lower valuing of school, lower self-esteem, and higher depressive symptoms.[55] Furthermore, the psychological distress of failing to meet the model minority image, such as feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt, shame, and embarrassment, is exacerbated due to the differential treatment associated with being stereotyped as a model minority and perpetual foreigner.
Furthermore, the model minority image can be a threat to underachieving Asian American students' academic experience and educational advancement. It promotes invisibility and disguises the academic barriers and psychological problems students may encounter. This is problematic because it creates a barrier for educators to better understand and assist struggling students' educational and mental health needs in order to optimize students' academic experience and social emotional development.
Asian Americans may also be commonly stereotyped by the general public as being studious, intelligent, successful, elitist, brand name conscious, yet paradoxically passive. As a result, higher and unreasonable expectations are often associated with Asian Americans.[citation needed] Also due to the model minority image, Asian American students are viewed as "problem-free" and academically competent students who can succeed with little support and without special services.[56] This emphasis that Asian Americans are being denial by their racial reality because of the assumption that "Asians are the new Whites"; therefore, they are being dismissed by their intelligence and experiences.[57] Thus, educators may overlook the instructional needs and psychological concerns of underachieving Asian American students. The model minority stereotype can also contribute to teachers' having a "blaming the victims" perspective. This means that teachers blame students, their culture, or their families for students' poor performance or misbehavior in school. This is problematic because it shifts responsibility away from schools and teachers and misdirects attention away from finding a solution to improve students' learning experience and alleviate the situation. Furthermore, the model minority stereotype has a negative impact on the home environment. Parents' expectations place high pressure on students to achieve, creating a stressful, school-like home environment. Parents' expressed worry and frustration can also place emotional burdens and psychological stress on students.[56] "
"The model minority stereotype is emotionally damaging to many Asian Americans, since there are unjustified expectations to live up to stereotypes of high achievement. The pressures from their families to achieve and live up to the model minority image have taken a tremendous mental and psychological toll on young Asian Americans.[59][60] The model minority stereotype also influences Asian American students' psychological outcomes and academic experience. The model minority image can lead underachieving Asian American students to minimize their own difficulties and experience anxiety or psychological distress about their academic difficulties. Asian American students also have more negative attitudes toward seeking academic or psychological help[61] due to fear of shattering the high expectations of teachers, parents, and classmates.[62]"
On June 14 2020 14:48 Loco wrote:
The answer is no. I don't think this point is the "gotcha" that you think it is. We are arguing two different things. But feel free to explain the perceived hypocrisy.
You're not trained in sociology. If you were you couldn't be a right-libertarian. You were just spoonfed a just-so story by daddy Peterson and still proud of it two years later while the complexities of this topic are well beyond you.
What do I have to explain? you want to handicap groups of people who do worse academically, men do worse than women should we give men advantages until we see an even distribution of men and women graduating?
strong argument there with the "you are not trained in sociology, these topic is beyond you" lol, also your typical these people who said the same thing you did also said these bad things, Reddit is impairing your abilities to debate, you are using the tactics of people who don't have the congitive habilities to engage in a discussion, do better.
It's not an argument, it is an evidence-based claim. Your favorite retort, the one thing you always go back to, is this false idea that you have owned me on this particular subject of gender roles being based in biology. Meanwhile, the study you used never made the strong claims you made (I spent hours arguing with you in good faith about it which you now falsely claim I was dodging) and had a number of issues acknowledged by the authors, and on top of that--as if it wasn't enough already-- it could not replicate. Basing your worldview on one such study is incredibly amateurish. I'm only pointing out the obvious.
I've never said that I wanted to disadvantage "groups that do better." This lacks a modicum of context. And even just with that, there is a lot to unpack. What do we mean by "doing better"? How do we define it? Is one score good enough? What are SAT/ACT scores measuring? What are their origins? Who were they built to benefit the most? Are they good predictors of an individual's intelligence or success in the world? (and in what parts of that world?) I don't think they are very good to inform us about this, but I just frankly don't care to have a conversation exploring these things with a bad faith actor. I'll just leave it to these parting thoughts.
My position is that it is more moral to have a system that takes into account systemic oppression and systemic disadvantages than to have one that does not. That's pretty much it. You can twist it in however way you want to make yourself feel like the righteous one, I don't really care. And I don't care about these institutions in the first place. I know why they exist and who they serve and it's not in my interest with the politics that I have to defend them in any way. On top of it, if it is true that they are discriminating on the basis of race then they will face consequences because it is unconstitutional. So it makes it even more pointless to argue about it.
Your making a parallel between men and women just shows to me how you don't understand the argument in the first place. Men vs women is a meaningless distinction in that context. There is no clear socio-economic disparity between those groups. The goal of someone who is egalitarian-minded is not to achieve equality of outcome between all groups. It pertains to socio-economic disadvantages.
The data says that the main indicator of high SAT/ACT scores and therefore admissions is if you come from a highly privileged background. If you're upper class you will have more favorable circumstances that will lead to those highers scores than those who come from a slightly privileged background, and those with a slightly privileged background will have an advantage over those who don't have a privileged background. And that most of those from low-income are disproportionately Black and Latin American -- due primarily to the racist nature of the US--i.e long-term systemic discrimination-- not genetic or cultural differences.
So their lower scores don't indicate that they are dumber or backwards. That's the right-wing conception. In reality, if you do better than poor people because you were born into wealth it's largely attributable to the fact that you've gone to better, more well-funded schools, and because you could afford to eat 3 meals a day; it doesn't mean you are smarter. There were a lot of dumb people who went to Ivy universities. You think George Bush is smart? He went to Harvard like many other morons.
Being from a rich family is the main thing that will affect if you can get into an Ivy league school. It doesn't make you more deserving. In fact, it makes you less deserving. It allows you to benefit from things which you have never earned and you can pay to take multiple SATs (expensive tests for low income people). Also, the Wall Street Journal analyzed data from 9,000 public schools and found that students in affluent areas are most likely to get special "504 designations," typically provided to students with anxiety or ADHD, which allow special academic accommodations, like extra time or a private space when taking exams of all sorts — including the SAT.
The idea that a high score on some standardized test = the ultimate metric = meritocratic, and that you should not look at anything else is dumb and simplistic. It also doesn't mean that you are more likely to succeed later in life than someone who has been less favored and who'd be granted the same opportunity as you. Wealth has been shown to be a better indicator of success than academic scores. So on both points you are wrong, it's not "less qualified" people who "steal someone's spot because of the color of their skin".
What you are in essence advocating is that society belongs to the rich, period. (And it just so happens that most rich people in the US aren't brown or black, and that's perfectly OK because white people have merited their place at the top of the meritocratic hierarchy. It doesn't make you racist to be aware of this!) That's why you are a right-wing lib and arguing these things with you is completely pointless for me. This is the paradigm that you operate under and it will never change. Everything is predicated on that being the norm, and your reasoning supports it in every facet of life. Even when things are obvious and the data is strong. Even when it hits home. (NAFTA was good because "Mexican culture is backwards'').
You are in favor of a system that maintains social and cultural capital reproduction as it is. You don't truly recognize the effects that wealth has on every aspect of life under capitalism. Wealth, and all of the advantages that come from that are essentially self-justifying for you. We might as well be speaking two completely different languages.
The thing is, and that is the strangest thing for me to argue against: you don't apparently realize how harmful that is towards the myth of the American Dream. You don't realize what this does for social mobility. The main way that you can maintain such an unequal system of production is by selling the myth that you can "become your own man" to everyone -- including all minorities. It is absolutely vital that a strong majority believes that lie that everyone can make it, and that "hard work pays off," if you want capitalism to survive.
But if you build a society that functionally excludes black and brown groups from elite institutions, what do you think that does to perpetuate this (very necessary) myth? It will obviously just create more instability, which you don't want, because you like capitalism. So something like affirmative action should be something you support based on that alone: it gives more representation to more minorities which inspires them to orient their lives towards serving capital rather than, say, social justice interests.
In a very serious way, I could much prefer to have your system that further compounds on the discrimination towards brown and black people, because it would further highlight capitalism's inherent contradictions, its systemic racism, and accelerate its destruction. You're the one who should favor small concessions to groups that risk destabilizing the society you want to preserve. If you want to be greedy, you can't be too greedy. Isn't that one of daddy Peterson's lessons? Pareto distribution and all that? That the big rat has to lose on purpose at least a small percentage of the time if he wants to keep playing the game that makes him feel good with the weaker rat?
Seems like your thinking on this issue is extremely narrow-minded, as I'd expect if you got some talking points from Steven Crowder and Stephen Molyneux and you're just using them as "gotcha" points to own the libs and you never really reflected on their consequences.
20 paragraphs and you dodged the question again, because you won't engage with a bad faith actor.
Pathetic you just can smell the body-slam coming so you keep dodging.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
By the way, I think it's fair to assume that those unhealthy coping mechanisms that you've adopted and your extremely strong conviction that psychological counseling is a scam probably comes from that long-standing trauma. I have no doubt that you have been abused as a child to feed into the model minority myth and it's pretty tragic if you never get any help for that.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
0
hiems United States. Jun 17 2020 04:14. Posts 2979
On June 16 2020 16:20 Loco wrote:
"Though this may not be a task for your first conversation about race in the U.S., dismantling the model minority myth might help families understand how their own preconceived biases came to be.
“Asian Americans are fed this narrative,” Yamazaki said. “‘Look at Asian people, look at how well you’ve done.’ That narrative has been perpetuated by white people and internalized by Asian people.”
Though some Asians have long benefited from this idea, it’s a narrative designed to pit minority groups against one another, according to Iyer.
The stereotype was created to make geopolitical gains from the growing Asian immigrant population in the U.S. and wielded to stop black social movements, Ellen Wu, a historian and the author of “The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority,” told NBC Asian America last week.
White liberals in the 1960s weaponized the experiences of Japanese Americans post-internment, branding them as “success stories” and proof that people of color had equal opportunity. This tactic was employed as an attempt to weaken the civil rights movement, Wu said. Though it gave Asian Americans room for more social mobility than black Americans, it only fed into a system of white supremacy."
If reading is too hard, maybe this will do the trick
lol this is the dumbest shit ever. You are giving me a liberal's take on why liberal viewpoint is correct and trying the pass it along as "widely accepeted" rofl. I guess this "debunks" it once again. Seriously im tired of your dishonest arguing tactics / attempt for a pathetic comeback after I trashed u and ur dumbfuck liberal communist friends on here multiple already.
Pretty sure that what is historically true doesn't belong on a side or another of the political spectrum. Your attempt at invalidating historical facts by associating them to some broad category that you dislike is the only biased and dishonest thing here.
Here are quotes from a centrist website if that makes it more helpful for you:
"Selective immigration
One possible cause of the higher performance of Asian Americans as a group is that they represent a small population in America so those who are chosen to move to America often come from a selective group of Asians. The relative difficulty of emigrating and immigrating into the United States has created a selective nature of the process with the U.S. often choosing the wealthier and more highly educated out of those with less resources, motivation or ability to immigrate."
"Often overlooked is the direct contrast of model minorities with Black Americans. Model minorities are used as a tool to discriminate against Black people with the mantra "If they can do it, why can't you?." This argument is often viewed as logical, because, at the surface, there doesn't seem to be a clearcut explanation as to why Jewish, Asian, and Irish Americans are able to thrive after experiencing racism, while Blacks still seem to be disenfranchised.[71]"
"According to Gordon H. Chang, the reference to Asian Americans as model minorities has to do with the work ethic, respect for elders, and high valuation of education, family and elders present in their culture.[50] The model minority stereotype also comes with an underlying notion of their apoliticality. Such a label one-dimensionalizes Asian Americans as having only traits based around stereotypes and no other human qualities, such as vocal leadership, negative emotions (e.g. anger or sadness), sociopolitical activeness, risk taking, ability to learn from mistakes, desire for creative expression, intolerance towards oppression or being overlooked of their acknowledgements and successes. Asian Americans are labeled as model minorities because they have not been as much of a "threat" to the U.S. political establishment as blacks, due to a smaller population and less political advocacy. This label seeks to suppress potential political activism through euphemistic stereotyping.[50]
Another effect of the stereotype is that American society may tend to ignore the racism and discrimination Asian Americans still face. Complaints are dismissed with the claim that the racism which occurs to Asian Americans is less important than or not as bad as the racism faced by other minority races, thus establishing a systematic racial hierarchy. Believing that due to their success and that they possess so-called "positive" stereotypes, many[who?] assume they face no forms of racial discrimination or social issues in the greater American society, and that their community is fine, having "gained" social and economic equality.[51][52][53]
Racial discrimination can take subtle forms such as through microaggression. The stereotyping of Asian Americans as a model minority and perfidious foreigner influences people's perceptions and attitudes towards Asians[54] and also negatively affects students' academic outcomes, relationships with others, and psychological adjustments. For instance, discrimination and model minority stereotyping are linked to Asian American students' lower valuing of school, lower self-esteem, and higher depressive symptoms.[55] Furthermore, the psychological distress of failing to meet the model minority image, such as feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt, shame, and embarrassment, is exacerbated due to the differential treatment associated with being stereotyped as a model minority and perpetual foreigner.
Furthermore, the model minority image can be a threat to underachieving Asian American students' academic experience and educational advancement. It promotes invisibility and disguises the academic barriers and psychological problems students may encounter. This is problematic because it creates a barrier for educators to better understand and assist struggling students' educational and mental health needs in order to optimize students' academic experience and social emotional development.
Asian Americans may also be commonly stereotyped by the general public as being studious, intelligent, successful, elitist, brand name conscious, yet paradoxically passive. As a result, higher and unreasonable expectations are often associated with Asian Americans.[citation needed] Also due to the model minority image, Asian American students are viewed as "problem-free" and academically competent students who can succeed with little support and without special services.[56] This emphasis that Asian Americans are being denial by their racial reality because of the assumption that "Asians are the new Whites"; therefore, they are being dismissed by their intelligence and experiences.[57] Thus, educators may overlook the instructional needs and psychological concerns of underachieving Asian American students. The model minority stereotype can also contribute to teachers' having a "blaming the victims" perspective. This means that teachers blame students, their culture, or their families for students' poor performance or misbehavior in school. This is problematic because it shifts responsibility away from schools and teachers and misdirects attention away from finding a solution to improve students' learning experience and alleviate the situation. Furthermore, the model minority stereotype has a negative impact on the home environment. Parents' expectations place high pressure on students to achieve, creating a stressful, school-like home environment. Parents' expressed worry and frustration can also place emotional burdens and psychological stress on students.[56] "
"The model minority stereotype is emotionally damaging to many Asian Americans, since there are unjustified expectations to live up to stereotypes of high achievement. The pressures from their families to achieve and live up to the model minority image have taken a tremendous mental and psychological toll on young Asian Americans.[59][60] The model minority stereotype also influences Asian American students' psychological outcomes and academic experience. The model minority image can lead underachieving Asian American students to minimize their own difficulties and experience anxiety or psychological distress about their academic difficulties. Asian American students also have more negative attitudes toward seeking academic or psychological help[61] due to fear of shattering the high expectations of teachers, parents, and classmates.[62]"
On June 14 2020 14:48 Loco wrote:
The answer is no. I don't think this point is the "gotcha" that you think it is. We are arguing two different things. But feel free to explain the perceived hypocrisy.
You're not trained in sociology. If you were you couldn't be a right-libertarian. You were just spoonfed a just-so story by daddy Peterson and still proud of it two years later while the complexities of this topic are well beyond you.
What do I have to explain? you want to handicap groups of people who do worse academically, men do worse than women should we give men advantages until we see an even distribution of men and women graduating?
strong argument there with the "you are not trained in sociology, these topic is beyond you" lol, also your typical these people who said the same thing you did also said these bad things, Reddit is impairing your abilities to debate, you are using the tactics of people who don't have the congitive habilities to engage in a discussion, do better.
It's not an argument, it is an evidence-based claim. Your favorite retort, the one thing you always go back to, is this false idea that you have owned me on this particular subject of gender roles being based in biology. Meanwhile, the study you used never made the strong claims you made (I spent hours arguing with you in good faith about it which you now falsely claim I was dodging) and had a number of issues acknowledged by the authors, and on top of that--as if it wasn't enough already-- it could not replicate. Basing your worldview on one such study is incredibly amateurish. I'm only pointing out the obvious.
I've never said that I wanted to disadvantage "groups that do better." This lacks a modicum of context. And even just with that, there is a lot to unpack. What do we mean by "doing better"? How do we define it? Is one score good enough? What are SAT/ACT scores measuring? What are their origins? Who were they built to benefit the most? Are they good predictors of an individual's intelligence or success in the world? (and in what parts of that world?) I don't think they are very good to inform us about this, but I just frankly don't care to have a conversation exploring these things with a bad faith actor. I'll just leave it to these parting thoughts.
My position is that it is more moral to have a system that takes into account systemic oppression and systemic disadvantages than to have one that does not. That's pretty much it. You can twist it in however way you want to make yourself feel like the righteous one, I don't really care. And I don't care about these institutions in the first place. I know why they exist and who they serve and it's not in my interest with the politics that I have to defend them in any way. On top of it, if it is true that they are discriminating on the basis of race then they will face consequences because it is unconstitutional. So it makes it even more pointless to argue about it.
Your making a parallel between men and women just shows to me how you don't understand the argument in the first place. Men vs women is a meaningless distinction in that context. There is no clear socio-economic disparity between those groups. The goal of someone who is egalitarian-minded is not to achieve equality of outcome between all groups. It pertains to socio-economic disadvantages.
The data says that the main indicator of high SAT/ACT scores and therefore admissions is if you come from a highly privileged background. If you're upper class you will have more favorable circumstances that will lead to those highers scores than those who come from a slightly privileged background, and those with a slightly privileged background will have an advantage over those who don't have a privileged background. And that most of those from low-income are disproportionately Black and Latin American -- due primarily to the racist nature of the US--i.e long-term systemic discrimination-- not genetic or cultural differences.
So their lower scores don't indicate that they are dumber or backwards. That's the right-wing conception. In reality, if you do better than poor people because you were born into wealth it's largely attributable to the fact that you've gone to better, more well-funded schools, and because you could afford to eat 3 meals a day; it doesn't mean you are smarter. There were a lot of dumb people who went to Ivy universities. You think George Bush is smart? He went to Harvard like many other morons.
Being from a rich family is the main thing that will affect if you can get into an Ivy league school. It doesn't make you more deserving. In fact, it makes you less deserving. It allows you to benefit from things which you have never earned and you can pay to take multiple SATs (expensive tests for low income people). Also, the Wall Street Journal analyzed data from 9,000 public schools and found that students in affluent areas are most likely to get special "504 designations," typically provided to students with anxiety or ADHD, which allow special academic accommodations, like extra time or a private space when taking exams of all sorts — including the SAT.
The idea that a high score on some standardized test = the ultimate metric = meritocratic, and that you should not look at anything else is dumb and simplistic. It also doesn't mean that you are more likely to succeed later in life than someone who has been less favored and who'd be granted the same opportunity as you. Wealth has been shown to be a better indicator of success than academic scores. So on both points you are wrong, it's not "less qualified" people who "steal someone's spot because of the color of their skin".
What you are in essence advocating is that society belongs to the rich, period. (And it just so happens that most rich people in the US aren't brown or black, and that's perfectly OK because white people have merited their place at the top of the meritocratic hierarchy. It doesn't make you racist to be aware of this!) That's why you are a right-wing lib and arguing these things with you is completely pointless for me. This is the paradigm that you operate under and it will never change. Everything is predicated on that being the norm, and your reasoning supports it in every facet of life. Even when things are obvious and the data is strong. Even when it hits home. (NAFTA was good because "Mexican culture is backwards'').
You are in favor of a system that maintains social and cultural capital reproduction as it is. You don't truly recognize the effects that wealth has on every aspect of life under capitalism. Wealth, and all of the advantages that come from that are essentially self-justifying for you. We might as well be speaking two completely different languages.
The thing is, and that is the strangest thing for me to argue against: you don't apparently realize how harmful that is towards the myth of the American Dream. You don't realize what this does for social mobility. The main way that you can maintain such an unequal system of production is by selling the myth that you can "become your own man" to everyone -- including all minorities. It is absolutely vital that a strong majority believes that lie that everyone can make it, and that "hard work pays off," if you want capitalism to survive.
But if you build a society that functionally excludes black and brown groups from elite institutions, what do you think that does to perpetuate this (very necessary) myth? It will obviously just create more instability, which you don't want, because you like capitalism. So something like affirmative action should be something you support based on that alone: it gives more representation to more minorities which inspires them to orient their lives towards serving capital rather than, say, social justice interests.
In a very serious way, I could much prefer to have your system that further compounds on the discrimination towards brown and black people, because it would further highlight capitalism's inherent contradictions, its systemic racism, and accelerate its destruction. You're the one who should favor small concessions to groups that risk destabilizing the society you want to preserve. If you want to be greedy, you can't be too greedy. Isn't that one of daddy Peterson's lessons? Pareto distribution and all that? That the big rat has to lose on purpose at least a small percentage of the time if he wants to keep playing the game that makes him feel good with the weaker rat?
Seems like your thinking on this issue is extremely narrow-minded, as I'd expect if you got some talking points from Steven Crowder and Stephen Molyneux and you're just using them as "gotcha" points to own the libs and you never really reflected on their consequences.
20 paragraphs and you dodged the question again, because you won't engage with a bad faith actor.
Pathetic you just can smell the body-slam coming so you keep dodging.
The answer to the question was provided in the previous post: no, I don't think men should be given an advantage over women as it stands. Go read that post again if you don't remember. The answer to your follow up question about even distribution is the same, I said it's not about achieving an equality of outcome between all groups.
Please do commit to the "body slam" and impress your audience (which seems to only be hiems and some other racist), I don't mind you having the last word. I've said enough.
And yes, it's true that you are a bad faith actor. The facts are there. I'm not asking you to like it, but saying blatantly false things like I've been dodging the gender paradox thing and I'm scared of you owning me like you did that time is lying. The objective facts about this are there for anyone interested.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Depends where you're talking about. In Japan many of the top schools only have around 20% female representation. But I know the trend is reversed in other places. The short and lazy answer is cultural reasons. I don't know to what extent the schools themselves are responsible in part for it.
I think for men it happens early and it shapes their future. There is more rebellion, more desire to not seem to care about school in general. Being a bad boy is cool. It appeals to girls. The drug culture is another big part and in my experience fewer women were doing lots of drugs compared to boys. There aren't many male role models for young students who went to higher education (or at least where the connection is explicitly made that they did). The risks of a higher education don't seem to be worth it for a lot of men. They would rather become their own man early and make money as fast as possible. And there are a lot of things reinforcing that within their environment, especially in lower income communities.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I think for black people it happens early and it shapes their future. There is more rebellion, more desire to not seem to care about school in general. Being a bad boy is cool. It appeals to girls. The drug culture is another big part and in my experience fewer women were doing lots of drugs compared to boys. There aren't many male role models for young students who went to higher education (or at least where the connection is explicitly made that they did). The risks of a higher education don't seem to be worth it for a lot of men. They would rather become their own man early and make money as fast as possible. And there are a lot of things reinforcing that within their environment, especially in lower income communities.
You see that perfectly applies to black people too? So why does this group based on race should be handicapped in University entries, yet this other group based on gender which experiences the same cultural disadvantages should not recieve the same handicap?
No, I don't see how it "perfectly applies." something cultural does not equal victim of systemic oppression. Though those two things can overlap and patriarchy affects everyone and is systemic.
Are white men being lynched from trees right now? How does that perfectly apply? That's a rhetorical question by the way.
By the way, it has been established that Asians are not discriminated upon based on race per se, in those high profile cases from the Harvard lawsuit, but on (perceived) cultural factors, so you're getting it wrong to begin with and your argument falls on its face as a result. You haven't presented any hard evidence of discrimination where race in itself is the sole or determining factor.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Baal when he is trying to justify his personal prejudices/ableism and shames people for living in the US/Canada to invalidate their suffering:
On June 03 2020 06:49 Baalim wrote:
Also that 30k is after being an employee for years and risking his life savings starting a business, and he was able to do so because my grandfather was an orphan who was a railroad worker, turns out this is a multi-generational game and now you want generations of hard work to support your ass because you are too depressed to flip some fucking pizzas? fuck off...
Baal when he is making covert racist arguments:
"The reason why Black people struggle and perform poorly in this game has nothing to do with multigenerational disenfranchisement and trauma from hundreds of years of systemic oppression that continues to this day. No, it's because of their culture."
We could continue with the logical extension of this and say, "You see, slavery was self-imposed. They actually wanted to be oppressed. They were thinking about the long-term benefits they'd have with affirmative action!"
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 17 2020 06:40 Loco wrote:
Though those two things can overlap and patriarchy affects everyone and is systemic.
So you claim there is a systemic disadvantage (patriarchy) to men in regards to school performance compared to women, then how come you don't support a handicap to correct this?
Perhaps you will, when men are hanging from trees... waaaaaaaaaait.
On June 17 2020 08:04 Loco wrote:
That's just you not being able to read properly. The sentence you quoted says "patriarchy affects everyone [negatively]".
And according to you it systematically disadvantages men academically yet you don't want to handicap this because it doesn't fit your dogma of who is a victim and who isn't regardless of what data shows.
Blacks underpeforming academically = problem that needs handicap
Men underperforming academically = not a problem
Blacks get longer sentences than whites for the same crime = problem
Men get longer sentences than women for the same crime = not a problem
Blacks get killed more than whites per/capita by cops = not caused by higher crame rate, but overpolicing and racist cops
Men are 97% of deaths caused by a cop = Men just commit most of the crime.
On June 17 2020 07:55 Loco wrote:
"The reason why Black people struggle and perform poorly in this game has nothing to do with multigenerational disenfranchisement and trauma from hundreds of years of systemic oppression that continues to this day. No, it's because of their culture."
We could continue with the logical extension of this and say, "You see, slavery was self-imposed. They actually wanted to be oppressed. They were thinking about the long-term benefits they'd have with affirmative action!"
Again you dogmatism gets in the way of your thinking and you leap to stupid assumptions of how I see things.
I'm aware that black culture is the result of multigenerational disenfranchisement and trauma, all cultures are shaped through the generations by the events that happen, I'm sure we are going to disagree to the extent of how that continues today, but the main disagreement is how to solve it, you want reparations, handicaps and advantages over others and I think that's the wrong approach, it widens the gaps between us, its a contradictory message to send "the are no races" yet legislate advantages and disadvantages in what you percieve as fair, I think the "Morgan Freeman" approach is much better, simply stop talking about it, stop calling people black man, white women, jew etc, it takes the power away from racism, it's nothing but the color of the skin and baggage from dead people, the sjw hyper-focus on race only worsened race relation and gives power back to racists, a big example of the emphasis in the word "nigger", the word is more powerful than ever becaues of what people like you have done over the decades, you think its a victory that newscasters say "N-word" like children but in reality you just sharpened that weapon for racist.
So to be specific regarding to blacks getting longer sentences you might think a sentence handicap is in order (I remember reading Vanessa Selbs advocating for a handicap in the Oscars lol) and I believe we should try to create a color-blind system, it can be done through removing judges with a clearn biased pattern of sentences and other things and the cultural problem that indeed was caused by hundreds of years of abuse, that should be fixed from the inside.
On June 17 2020 12:08 Loco wrote:
Baal, can you give me some details on who these people are and what they did in Mexico?
If I remember correctly Cheran is a town in Michoacán with autodefensas, which means the town gets fed-up with the cartels in the area so they take arms and expell them and the police who is always colluded with the cartels, there are many towns like this in México.
In general rural areas in Mexico are like that, they are partially self-governed, they distrust the state and are sadly manipulated for votes by giving them food and they don't need autodefensas since there aren't cartel presence in most of the towns.
