yettee wrote: ↑
1 month ago
But what I am saying is that it is in reaction to other unfair discrimination, legacy admissions.
And by the way thank you for responding to me rather than calling me a Marxist (lol) and saying I'm not worth responding to. I understand things can get a little heated but I wouldn't debate you or anyone else if I didn't respect your point of view and intelligence and I hope for the same.
Then I will put forward another argument that I often put on the table.
Is there any solid evidence that this unfair discrimination is even happening? I'm being purposefully provocative here.
My personal anecdotal evidence on the matter is that I see around me plenty of minorities (women, Muslims, gay people, etc.) having great careers and wonderful lives, barely experiencing any discrimination, barring a few insulting remarks that actually happen quite rarely.
There is absolutely no evidence that discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation (the preferred characteristic of the neomarxist left for some reason) is any more widespread and harsher than good old discrimination we all face because well, life is unfair.
I've talked on the chat about my first job interview after I quit my job. I was merely being myself for the whole interview and the main problem it seems what that they had a certain culture, and I was simply not a fit but they framed it as me being the problem. Now I was hired by another company that was very enthusiastic about what the value I could bring to them.
Should I lift my fit at the sky and curse that other company for not being able to see my true value? How unfair is that! Is there any activist group that will defend me? No. Because that's just life. Again, I understand how people think they're making the world better by applying arbitrary corrections to it, but it's simply isn't working, it's doing the exact opposite. So please, try to stop and think for a second.
No worries, I responded because I saw something worth responding to. When I read some posts, I can more or less tell beforehand, "this is just going to lead to an endless argument in circles". And I said neomarxist, not Marxist, two different things.
Wikipedia wrote:Neo-Marxism comes under the broader framework of the New Left. In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader understanding of social inequality such as status and power to Marxist philosophy. Examples of neo-Marxism include critical theory, analytical Marxism and French structural Marxism.
Neomarxism is the idea that inequality is not only a matter of economics but driven but the differences in privileges between dominant and oppressed group in society. So that's what that qualifier was referring to. You believe that minorities are facing unfair discrimination (and in this post, yes, I'm questioning that) and that's why affirmative action exists. Postmodernist refers to your tendency of inverting reality by taking the anomaly and making it the norm for rhetorical purposes, something like: "See, they do it to, it's the same!". So believe me, I don't use those words lightly or as cheap ad hominems