Welcome to being (situationally) white. You had a good run, but you've been on track to join the jews in assimilation limbo for quite some time.
My point is about being treated as white when it's convenient, and being treated as non-white when convenient. All depending on the biggot's current goal at any one point in time. It's the limbo state for any group that assimilates but retain distinguishing characteristics that make them stand out from the pool of caucasians (a group that used to have deep seated strife over country of heritage, but now are treated as one due to their more amorphous distinguishing characteristics).
You really have no point. You were trying to evoke some fist shaking gentile mad at them thar jews and gooks. It doesn't exist, and in fact the gentile is getting steamrolled.
Jesus Christ dude, quit putting words in my mouth.
Saying "welcome to being white" wasn't saltiness, I was making a glib comment Asians have assimilated enough, they're going to get treated more like white people (e.g. "diversity" in tech (and now, apparently, higher ed) changing from "less whites" to "less whites and Asians").
I don't think my posts harbor any resentment toward Asians or the Jewish, I was trying to be sympathetic toward them by hedging my glib blanket comment and acknowledging the fact they're exposed to the worst of both worlds as bigots' prerogative will treat them in whatever context that best serves their end.
I should have bailed when you said "victimology" and name dropped Unz.
I'm not here to break out my A Beautiful Mind corkboard and reinvent tolerance from first principles. I was just commiserating with a point that it sucks to be on the receiving end of "the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity".
Having grandparents who were treated as subhumans by the grandparents of the people who are now telling you that you are too privileged to be treated equally.
But if you move to the middle of no where in the deep south, in 20 years, you might not get police beating you as violently when they arrest you, if you're rich.
And you're racist if you bring that up.
Speaking as an Eastern European.
Asian-Americans score great in standardized tests, (for both genetic and cultural reasons), but high SAT scores soon becomes a problem of 'overfitting', where SAT scores are a great indicator of success in life, they are still only one dimension of success indicator.
If you create a system where it accepts/rejects candidates only on one dimension (SAT scores), you will soon end up with a flawed system. Also, spending all your time in studying standardized tests, will make you overfitted in one dimension. Real life is not one giant standardized test.
AI 102
As for colleges they should have a transparent admission criteria, as right now it is very subjective and will be obviously been seen as flawed.
Eg.
30% is SAT Scores
30% is your high school gpa
20% is you curriculum and activities
20% is other shit we think is important, etc...
then you will know where you stand
>"Generally speaking, the SAT is not very important," said Marilyn McGrath, director of undergraduate admissions at No. 1 ranked Harvard College.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/admiss...
From my experience, both being an Asian and being surrounded by them, Asians are good at getting into universities/jobs/whatever because they very consciously try to play the "game".
It could be SAT scores, algorithm questions, vocabulary, ability to play an instrument, etc.
All of my friends knew or at least thought they knew what universities cared about, and then got extra schooling to prepare exactly those things. Some people even hire people to help them write their essays who I guess are "experts" at writing applications.
Or maybe I am naive
If that is true, then the suit has merit.
The "fair thing" is the matter of perspective that's being debated.
I don't think that comment could be any more centered at the heart of this debate. Thanks.
The problem with your reasoning though, is that it starts in the middle. It wipes away history and fast-forwards us to a state of egalitarianism that doesn't exist. That is, it really just begs the question by assuming the very reality we seek to create.
So, where we agree is that any sort of consideration of race is lamentable. Where we depart is in the idea that we address that fact by discounting the history that got us here and also ignoring that we're actually still here.
In other words, this idea that we just do nothing and hope that people will suddenly stop discriminating completely offloads the burden of unfairness to those who have already been systematically and inter-generationally disenfranchised/disadvantaged; and so can least afford such a laissez-faire approach. It's easy to say "hey, let's just all love one another". But, what are generations of systematically disenfranchised people supposed to eat while we're waiting patiently for our society to get there?
Which leads to...
>At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group
No fun answer here, but here's what it comes down to: Yes, individuals in the latter group may experience some "unfairness". But, as a whole, which group can best weather a bit of "unfairness"? Is it the group that has other options because they won the birth lottery or those who are hanging on by a thread due to a host of complicated historical reasons that essentially boil down to their complexion? This is a cold truth and it churns my stomach to posit it, but it's the hard reality of the reasoning.
I want to qualify my "birth lottery" comment though. Because, what is incorrect is the idea that every member of the majority has these tremendous advantages simply by being a member. What I'd really like to see is a system that acknowledges people's station in life and history, irrespective of race.
For instance, if we were to say that coal-miners in West Virginia are having a rough go of it and set aside some educational opportunities and jobs specifically to transition those folks, I think most of us can get behind that. And, we would accept as the cost that "a Kid in the Suburbs" might lose a scholarship as a result.
Affirmative action is no different. A harder irony is that it is deliberately ginned-up racial animus that has birthed much of the discrimination that created the need for affirmative action and simultaneously generated resentment for those who benefit from it.
> Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.
But the thing is, it's not meaningless right? Diversity has been shown to be good for performance, or at least I assume that's why they care.
I'm very curious how this will turn out. In my mind, the question is now whether it's still considered discrimination even though it's no longer a case of "all else being equal".
But making the leap that this somehow means that skin/gender diversity equates to higher performance is quite a leap.
The instructor’s argument went something like this. “A bunch of studies show diversity improves outcome. A bunch of studies show people are racist against these populations. Therefore since having more of this population increases diversity, we need program XYZ.”
The class was infuriating, because the instructor kept using these studies as evidence and then directly linking it to a call for increased representation through positive discrimination for a few select minorities. Many questions were flippantly dismissed as “they’ll get their turn.” Of course this frustrates the different minorities who also wanted to be included.
I never got stuck on the logical leap of “If A then B. If C then D. Therefore A = D.”
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-011-9250-x
> By diversity, we mean differences in how agents build problem representations which allow them to access various solutions. We deploy the concept of diversity along two dimensions: knowledge amplitude, which accounts for the level of available knowledge allowing access to poorer or richer problem representations (compared with complete problem representations), and knowledge variety, which pertains to the differences in the constituents of agents’ representations.
So it just further demonstrates the logical gap between A=B and C=D, since the studies didn't even show A=B, they showed E=F
Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.