Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1643
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4040
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Admin wrote:
1 week ago
There is absolutely no evidence that affirmation action helps in any way, to the contrary, it's just another form of unfair discrimination.

I've been a victim of it several times, and based on how I felt afterwards, there's no better way to build resentment and push white people (or those Asians for that matter!) towards the right, or worse, the far right.

So I hope that you include more people being pushed towards the right in that 'minor perturbation'. I hope you realize that's what's happening all over the Western World. What's scary is that the left is not accepting it (see impeachment 9.0).

Their unfair policies lead to those results, and then they start calling for violence after calling right-wingers nazis. Again, I look at the results and then infer the motivation.

I get it, you yearn for a fairer and better world and you think those policies are the way to go about it. But then you forfeit the right to complain about what they actually do in the real world when implemented.
In this case it's simply about providing a better education, which is the ostensible purpose of these institutions.

The educational environment will improve if the student body is non-homogeneous. Universities are not supposed to be like factories, they're supposed to encourage rigorous and critical thinking. Given that context, diversity is a strength, as it nurtures creativity. If everybody thinks in the same way then breakthroughs become impossible.

***

As for things being "implemented", again, affirmative action is a quantitatively minor perturbation. The people who complain about its effects are mostly imagining things, and they'd be imagining grievances regardless.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1829
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4051
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by Admin » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
In this case it's simply about providing a better education, which is the ostensible purpose of these institutions.

The educational environment will improve if the student body is non-homogeneous. Universities are not supposed to be like factories, they're supposed to encourage rigorous and critical thinking. Given that context, diversity is a strength, as it nurtures creativity. If everybody thinks in the same way then breakthroughs become impossible.

***

As for things being "implemented", again, affirmative action is a quantitatively minor perturbation. The people who complain about its effects are mostly imagining things, and they'd be imagining grievances regardless.
Except there are more personality differences (so way of thinking and seeing the world) within groups of people than between groups:



So I hope that you're not advocating diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. because that would actually mean less diversity of thought, which would have zero effect on creativity by the way.

Creativity is rare and its correlation with academic success is zero, or even negatively correlated:



Yeah that's all Peterson so you could go after that if you want ;). It doesn't make it less true. And about the last argument, sure, when a company promotes diversity and inevitably ends up rejecting a lot of straight white males to meet their arbitrary quotas, the rejection was all in their imagination. Can't you see that the same argument could be made in a credible manner for the minorities who complain about discrimination? Where is it? How do you prove it? "Well I could feel the intent of the interviewer, he was probably a racist!" Good luck with that.

This is what those cases look like in countries that are not as wise as the United States:

https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/ ... led-woman/

Now what? How on earth can you prove that there was discrimination or not? Unless you invent a device which reads other people's thoughts, which pierce into the depths of your soul where that implicit bias, those horrible racist thoughts will be found.

When I was a kid, they sold me that dream that we were building a society where people were color-blind and judging others based on their merit and not the color of their skin. We were almost there, hell we were there, but the left had to play the game of bringing race back on the table, and the far right happily followed.

Anyway, I'll keep fighting for the dream I believed in as a kid, and I really hope we can come back from the damage that far left identity politics has inflicted to our Western societies.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 573
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1691

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
I said it in reaction to this:
Are you serious? Your first come to the thread and ask for an explanation why I didn't criticize legacy admissions. I provided my reason(legacy was NOT the reason behind the federal judges decision). You had nothing to say about that but instead you latched on to the last statement in the post (in which I DID fucking criticize legacy) and proceeded to illogically question my intention and imply that I am not concerned with justice and being driven by partisan politics??? Your tone was accusatory, sanctimonious and frankly insulting. Who are you to talk? You think only YOU and people who hold ideas similar to you care about justice??? You could have started the conversation in a different, more polite tone, if you were genuinely interested in a dialog. Honestly, I don't want to have this conversation with you anymore.

@Hairblues and @Afro_Vacancy , I will respond to you guys on Sunday.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
You think only YOU and people who hold ideas similar to you care about justice???
Absolutely not. However I think we are defining it differently. This conversation isn't being held in a vacuum, we've talked about race many times before. You're a person who believes that a landlord of privately held real estate SHOULD legally be able to discriminate against a prospective tenant with black skin by barring him from staying in a housing unit, due solely to that black skin. For me, this is not justice, it is discriminatory. Yet you also feel like a privately held university should NOT legally be able to discriminate against a prospective student based on his race, in order to help someone of another race, which in affirmative action in the USA is usually a black person. Perhaps you would draw some sort of distinction between a private university and a private residence, like 'a university receives some benefits from the state', but of course so does a landowner. And regardless it's for me a tenuous distinction to make when we are talking about something as important as 'justice'.

So, the context of our conversation about race is that you support discrimination by landlords of privately held land based on skin color. but not private universities. When you wrote 'legacy is not upheld as some virtue that must be hued to', in the context of your strong support of racial discrimination in our past conversation I took that to mean that despite agreeing it was unfair and stupid, you were being dismissive of the relevance of legacy admissions as compared to race based admissions. Anyway, defining justice differently isn't meant as a personal attack, I'm sure I hold views which don't fit into other people's perception of what justice is, whatever.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 573
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1691

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
When you wrote 'legacy is not upheld as some virtue that must be hued to', in the context of your strong support of racial discrimination in our past conversation I took that to mean that despite agreeing it was unfair and stupid, you were being dismissive of the relevance of legacy admissions as compared to race based admissions. .
And just why did you jump to that conclusion when I explicitly stated that I AM TALKING ABOUT RACE BASED ADMISSIONS BECAUSE OF THE RECENT COURT RULING?? Instead of admitting your mistake you doubled down and accused me of being partisan and not caring about justice. Now you are attempting to excuse your behavior by bringing up past conversations because you know very well that you can't justify your rash jump to judgement and repeated fallacious assertion based on the conversation in this thread. But perhaps you genuinely believe(and not just are being dishonest) that past conversations did play a role in shaping your opinion.OK, I will bite that and I will excuse your first comment. But you have absolutely NO justification to continue making assumptions AFTER I explained why I haven't mentioned legacy in this thread.

You know what, had you simply admitted that it was a mistake on your part to jump to conclusion, you would come across a lot more honest. I mean we do that sometimes whenever we feel strongly about an issue. But how can righteous and virtuous Yetti be wrong.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
And just why did you jump to that conclusion when I explicitly stated that I AM TALKING ABOUT RACE BASED ADMISSIONS BECAUSE OF THE RECENT COURT RULING??
Here's what I wrote, exactly:

"What I am saying is that I actually agree with you, at this point in time, I think, that we can do away with affirmative action in college admissions - but one must not consider the world in a bubble convenient to one's own political leanings, but rather as it is. Admission based on merit must include the abolition of legacy admissions, and arguing for one while disagreeing with or ignoring the other (as most people do) is just partisan and has nothing to do with real justice."

This is not a personal attack and I most definitely do not have a monopoly on virtue, or being right about anything, LOL. So I will say it another way. Your post concerns doing away with affirmative action, as that would be in your view justice. For me, it would not lead to justice unless legacy admissions are simultaneously abolished, as they are a reaction to each other. When I mentioned legacy admissions, I took your reaction to mean, sure, they are bad, but not as bad ("Nevertheless, unlike diversity, "legacy" is not upheld as some ultimate virtue that must be hued to no matter what the cost) which is why I responded by saying, to me that is partisan and not a reflection of how I see justice, the two absolutely go hand in hand. So yes, in the context of our past conversations that's how I took it.

"You know what, had you simply admitted that it was a mistake on your part to jump to conclusion"

If you do see both race based and legacy admissions as equally abhorrent and agree that both must be abolished otherwise it is not justice, which is exactly what I said in the top post (is "partisan" really such an insult? To me it isn't, and I am partisan about lots of things.... we all are I think?) then you are correct and I did make a mistake, we do have precisely the same view of what justice is and I am sorry for saying otherwise. But again, either way it's not a personal attack. Call me partisan and say you have a different view of justice and explain it, and if I don't see it that way I'll explain why I disagree. No big deal.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 573
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1691

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
If you do see them as equally abhorrent and agree that both must be abolished otherwise is is not justice, then you are correct and I did make a mistake, we do have precisely the same view of what justice is and sorry for that.
Of course legacy admissions are abhorrent and I simply can't believe that it's a thing. I didn't even know about it until @Afro_Vacancy brought up during a past conversation on a similar issue. In some sense it's even worse because one of the worst criteria in the admission process is to look at whether parents attended the same college or how large the donation was.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
Of course legacy admissions are abhorrent and I simply can't believe that it's a thing. I didn't even know about it until @Afro_Vacancy brought up during a past conversation on a similar issue. In some sense it's even worse because one of the worst criteria in the admission process is to look at whether parents attended the same college or how large the donation was.
So, we agree! Sorry for the misunderstanding. But again, dude, I really didn't mean offense by "partisan"... Jeez, I'm definitely a partisan on many issues. I vote straight Democratic (as long as it's for national office, local I might differ). :) So? It's all good.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 573
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1691

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
So, we agree! Sorry for the misunderstanding. But again, dude, I really didn't mean offense by "partisan"... Jeez, I'm definitely a partisan on many issues. I vote straight Democratic (as long as it's for national office, local I might differ). :) So? It's all good.
You are right. I shouldn't have taken offense. Sorry for my harsh tone. I was confused by the following lines:

"Admission based on merit must include the abolition of legacy admissions, and arguing for one while disagreeing with or ignoring the other (as most people do) is just partisan and has nothing to do with real justice."

From above lines I got the impression that you are saying that I don't really care about justice and am simply engaging in partisan politics.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
You are right. I shouldn't have taken offense. Sorry for my harsh tone. I was confused by the following lines:

"Admission based on merit must include the abolition of legacy admissions, and arguing for one while disagreeing with or ignoring the other (as most people do) is just partisan and has nothing to do with real justice."

From above lines I got the impression that you are saying that I don't really care about justice and am simply engaging in partisan politics.
What I meant is, as I see it, justice would be making decisions regarding admissions and housing based on merit, period. Clean, simple, consistent. So for college admissions, it would mean, for both public or private schools, students are not admitted or denied based on their skin color, nor the ability to make a huge donation, nor where their parents or grandparents went to school, just merit. And for housing, it would mean, for both public or private residences, people can be accepted or denied based on merit (such as consideration of prior conduct, police record etc.) but not their skin color. What I think may be partisan is when a person seems to care a whole lot about one type of discrimination but not another. That wasn't the case here, as regards admissions! In any case though I wouldn't presume that anyone doesn't care about justice, even if we have different interpretations. And again I am most definitely partisan about some things, depending on the issue, so for me it's not a bad word. I'm partisan on a few issues to a large extent.

User avatar
koolaidshade
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 259
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 368
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: semen retention, real social dynamics, 12 rules for life

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by koolaidshade » 1 week ago

No wonder lil pump dropped out of harvard halfway through med school... he was sick of the racism

his talents are better suited elsewhere anyways such as saving the rap game or going to Wharton business school

Image
Image


0:27, he explains that he also lives a healthier lifestyle as a vegetarian after dropping out of harvard

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 364
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1017
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by yettee » 1 week ago

koolaidshade wrote:
1 week ago
No wonder lil pump dropped out of harvard halfway through med school... he was sick of the racism
Mr. Pump never actually went to Harvard. :D

Gotta love the wikipedia write-up: "he is commonly seen on social media engaging in unwise behavior"

User avatar
koolaidshade
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 259
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 368
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: semen retention, real social dynamics, 12 rules for life

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by koolaidshade » 1 week ago

yettee wrote:
1 week ago
Mr. Pump never actually went to Harvard. :D

Gotta love the wikipedia write-up: "he is commonly seen on social media engaging in unwise behavior"

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1455
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2094

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by blackg » 1 week ago

I miss @That Guy. When is he due back, @Admin?
"Grandpa, fix my climate!"

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1829
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4051
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Federal judge rules in favor of Harvard in discrimination case

Post by Admin » 1 week ago

blackg wrote:
1 week ago
I miss @That Guy. When is he due back, @Admin?
See the log at the bottom of this page:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=139

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests