531–540 of 660 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feel free to make your voice heard by your vote and donate from your paycheck. This is a zero sum game and my ancestors were not oppressing either latinos or Africans. I'll make my voice heard by not voting for Democrats.
Education is not a zero-sum game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says fixing income inequality is unachievable?
Are all of your coworkers equally productive? Neighbors? Relatives? The answer for all 3 for me personally is no. I have family members who make decisions based on different priorities which change their income. My coworkers differ radically in their abilities and work ethic. How can they have equal incomes in this scenario? There is a way to do this, and it hasn't worked any time it's been tried.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the kids in poor immigrant neighborhoods are in worse positions than poor kids in eastern Kentucky? Because the current policies treat white kids from trailer parks like white kids from fancy suburbs. And they treat FOB Asians like they are doctor's children. And black kids from fancy suburbs are treated as if they came from poor ghettos. The idea that "oppression" is limited to dimensions of race and ge…
>they treat FOB Asians like they are doctor's children Diversity measures not withstanding, universities try to admit the students most likely to go on to have the most success in adult life and for Asians adolescent academic performance is a worse predictor of this than for Europeans. https://www.unz.com/article/why-harvard-is-right-to-discrimi...
How... Racist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.unz.com/article/why-harvard-is-right-to-discrimi...
This article is full of obvious logical errors. They claim that East Asians develop cognitive capacity at an earlier age than other races and that gives East Asians a compounding practice advantage that gives them the edge in academic scores. The article claims, based on this premise, that universities like Harvard should actually discriminate even more against East Asians. The article is full of obvious leaps design…
>East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly.
Can you provide evidence that this is what's going on instead of something else? Plenty of leaders in the US are East Asian.
>using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself
You didn't present your own evidence that the 'symptoms' are actually due to racism. The author presents a compelling explanation backed up with data that explains what we see.
>Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation
The article quotes the Japanese government stating it believes it has an innovation challenge as well.
>You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing
IQ is relative to others the same age. This is evidence that East Asians develop cognitive ability more quickly than other populations. All healthy children continue getting smarter as they develop. This is all discussed in the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says fixing income inequality is unachievable?
Are all of your coworkers equally productive? Neighbors? Relatives? The answer for all 3 for me personally is no. I have family members who make decisions based on different priorities which change their income. My coworkers differ radically in their abilities and work ethic. How can they have equal incomes in this scenario? There is a way to do this, and it hasn't worked any time it's been tried.
It's like we have these two irreconcilable ideas: - Diversity is good - Discrimination is bad When 50% of the world's population is from China/India, how do you both promote diversity and not discriminate?
To me the obvious thing is to aim to eliminate racial/national/gender bias as much as possible by blinding admission/hiring processes to those things. Then on top of that offer spots for people who have had to deal with exceptional difficulty. Whether that be physical handicap, racial prejudice, economic, etc. There are companies/grants that take an approach like this. Its going to be subjective but perfect is the en…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. Finally - Harvard's prestige in the sci…
> You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group…
One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".
Who says fixing income inequality is unachievable?
If you're a self-employed craftworker who produces hammers, should your income be the same each year, without regard for the quality or quantity of hammers you produced that year, and without considering the world's need for the sorts of hammers you produced? How would you go about achieving that outcome?