zapatos

The problem is that all is NOT equal, and you are fighting against the effort that is devised to make it equal I didn't call you racist. You are the one who said liberals have ruined that word by throwing it about so easily. I'm pointing out why liberals do so. If one fights against racism, then that person is (probably) not racist. If you are neutral in the fight then who knows what you are. But when you fight the effort to repair the effects of racism, one has to expect that people are going to question their motives. You are calling the effort to repair the effects of racism racist. You don't see that as reminiscent of Trump? Yes, that is also out of Trump's playbook. He doesn't want to antagonize white supremacists because that will only make them more angry at blacks. I don't see the point of not fighting for the oppressed just because it might piss off the oppressors. Then it is a good thing no one has said you are suggesting racism does not exist. What I am saying is that you are fighting the effort fix the problems caused by racism with your reasoning being that the effort itself is racist and might piss off the racists.

Your attitude baffles me. You admit that the treatment of blacks was unfair but absolutely refuse the efforts in place to make things right, claiming it is the people who are trying to fix the problem who are the racists. Very reminiscent of Trump's playbook. This is part of the reason liberals toss out the word "racist" and conservatives say "Who? Me?"

I guess we view Affirmative Action differently. In my mind, AA IS the alignment. That is, the society is out of alignment (whites are in a preferential position to gain education/power, etc.) and we are doing a societal alignment through AA by making sure blacks are in an equal position to gain education/power, etc. What does your best solution alignment to take care of the problem consist of, if not AA?

Beautiful! Are the squares individual pieces?

So while the object is in the "disappear" state, how does it actually get to the position it reappears in?

You said the Emancipation Proclamation and the Underground Railroad were racist, and you said racism was a bad thing. Now I don't know what you are saying about them, but you certainly aren't saying they are bad. What same methods? We are not enslaving white people. No one is "targeting" white people. How can you make amends for something bad you did if you cannot identify and help the group you wronged? As far as I can tell you are telling black people they were screwed but tough shit, because it would be wrong to correct the problem. I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Can you please explain the bad things about the Emancipation Proclamation and the Underground Railroad from my list?

So if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that racism isn't necessarily good or bad, it just indicates whether something used race as a selector. Is that right?

May as well 'like' the idea it is something more practical. Say, an indication that you are about to win the lottery.

And it would follow then that all other things ultimately based on race are inherently racist. Medical studies of heart disease in black men. The internship my wife created for young women of color in distressed school systems. The Congressional Black Caucus. Blacks in Technology. The Executive Leadership Council. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering. The Underground Railroad. NAACP. United Negro College Fund. The Emancipation Proclamation. The Canadian Council of Refugees. Diversity Management Program in Canada. Missionary programs to eliminate slavery and mutilation in the Congo. I'm afraid your definition of racism makes it useless to represent what most people think of as racism.

Same as yours: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. I've asked you about several situations and whether you consider them sexist or racist so as to understand your reasoning. It is unclear to me how AA fits into that definition and you have not responded.

You need to quit focusing on race. They are just fixing a problem they caused with a group of people. Could have been blacks, women, left handed people, or those whose first name begins with "M". Let's say your parents had four children, two boys and two girls, and only gave an allowance to the boys even though all did their chores. If the parents finally realized the error of their ways and decided to only give allowance to the girls until they are all caught up, would you call that sexism? You are forcing the situation into the definition of "racism" even though there is no discrimination, prejudice or antagonism directed at white people. Doing things based on race is not automatically racist. If you give a white person money one week, and a black person the next week, have you been a white racist and black racist on alternating weeks? Your argument is similar to the kid who kills his parents then demands pity because he is an orphan. You are setting up a situation where no one can ever be compensated for wrongs done to them because someone will always be hurt by the remedy. For example, let's say I own stock in Pfizer and Pfizer is sued because they don't properly test a drug and people die. By your argument, those victims should not be compensated because that compensation will depress the value of my stock holdings. It is you who are on a slippery slope.

LOL!

Again, this is about the science, not you. Quit making it personal. No one cares what you believe. They care about the science.

You are coming across as a bit of an ass. Dial down the anger and just discuss the science. This is not a contact sport.

Can you prove that?

No you didn't. Otherwise I would have responded differently. It completely changes the meaning what you actually said. If you take something from me and I take it back, I have solved the deficit. I don't need to let you keep it and figure out how to get another one for myself.

I find people to be selective in what they find to be racist (or sexist for that matter). For a long time health studies were done predominately on white men which was really unfair to blacks and women as the lack of equal study put them at a disadvantage. But no one complains that it is racist or sexist to now spend limited research dollars on health studies on blacks or women which excludes white men. They recognize that we've caused a disparity and need to make adjustments. But if what you are proposing is going to impact my relative position of power, then it must racist! Title IX did nothing more than ensure that there is no discrimination based on sex in education programs that receive Federal financial assistance. No one has a problem with that concept unless you are a guy and your sports program is cut back because funds are needed for a women's sports team. But as with Affirmative Action, Title IX is looking at the big picture and what is the greater good for society going forward. Like with many things, people's perception of 'fairness' changes when it impacts them personally.

No. Affirmative Action is not racism, and its purpose is not to combat racism. I guess I did a poor job of explaining what is going on.

In the quote of yours that I responded to.

No. They are simply saying it is weird. Don't confuse "weird" with "don't understand". They are not the same thing.

I think you misunderstand AA. The government actively established and promoted a system where whites were favored over blacks. This resulted in a society where (generally speaking) whites have the money and the power, in a self-sustaining system that perpetuates a society where (generally speaking) whites have the money and the power. (i.e. Whites have the money and power to ensure their children get a better education and more opportunities than blacks, and therefore get the better jobs, more money, more power, able to pass that privilege on to their children, and on and on.) Unless there is some sort of change, this will continue indefinitely or only be changed at a very slow pace. So what to do? The government decided that they needed to start ensuring that minorities were able to get past the white privilege of money/education/power by ensuring they got a seat at the table, and were able to begin competing on an equal basis in society by getting the same education and opportunities (and thus power and money) and the whites have been getting all along. Once blacks are able to compete with whites on an equal basis to get their kids in the better schools, etc., this self sustaining system will then include whites AND blacks. Unfortunately as there are a limited number of opportunities, if you guarantee a spot for a black person, then someone who may be more qualified (or at least equally qualified) has to suffer. Is that fair to the white person who gets passed over? No, it is just as unfair as it was for the black person who used to get passed over. But this is not about individuals, it is about what is best for society. Basically the government said, "we screwed up society for minorities and are choosing a less than perfect option for righting the ship". So "In what world, then, does it make sense, that in the case of two equally qualified individuals the tie-breaker is determined by 'features' of whatever group is needed to fill a quota ?" Answer: In a world that screwed up society by favoring the "white" feature, and are trying to make amends by favoring the "black" feature for a while until things are the way they should have been without our interference way back when.

Does this make the assumption that 'every possible outcome' is a finite number? Perhaps there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, in which case I would assume that the probability for each outcome is something less than 1.

That would be great! That seems much too blunt an instrument to dissect something as nuanced as affirmative action, which is I assume what you are alluding to.

And I think it is either willful ignorance or naiveté to the extreme to suggest this never happens. Perhaps you should read up on Operation Varsity Blues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal