Exactly. The very same forces that are crippling the inner cities. But it can't be because they're white!
Yup. And rural America has the same problem the inner cities do: those who make something of themselves tend to leave. Any population that has suffered heavy emigration (other than due to flight of a subgroup) ends up in bad shape. It doesn't require all the good ones to leave.
I would be stunned if the answer wasn't that it was a harm. The illegal nature of drugs causes far more harm than the drugs, why should rural America be any different than elsewhere?
Except to a large degree it is what's happening. You're defending an idealized AA, not a real world AA.
You’re speak on Affirmative Action like it’s just a “Black vs. white” policy, but that’s never been true. White women have consistently been its biggest beneficiaries. It also covers Latinos, Asians, Indigenous students, veterans, and even people from under-resourced schools. So when you say, “don’t just give preference based on skin color,” that’s not what’s happening. It’s about addressing structural barriers that impact multiple groups, not handing out favors because of what someone “looks like.” The race metaphor works because wealth, education, and opportunity are generationally inherited, not individually reset at age 18.
The gap is the biggest with black people, thus the problem is the biggest. Doesn't mean it's anti-black.
- Pretends AA = only Black people.
- Pretends Biden’s picks were “unqualified” because they weren’t white.
- Pretends culture war panic is the “voice of the people,” instead of a manufactured outrage.
Every time AA or DEI comes up, you laser-focus on Black people, as if they’re the only ones who benefit, or the only ones who ever got considered. That tells your story. Biden’s appointees weren’t ‘unqualified,’ they just weren’t white.That’s what actually bothers people. Also Trump didn’t win 2024 ‘bigly’ because of Affirmative Action. He won because culture war panic has become the entire Republican platform.
We know what triggered it, that's not the same as knowing what's sustaining it.
Why would you assume it's something more "racial" than the obvious "we did racist shit"?
I don’t know.
one can unexpectedly become addicted toLike alcohol, drugs—legal and illegal—can be a huge problem and very destructive. In some of my extended family, there have been cases of people unintentionally finally becoming addicted to needed pain meds —and then adding in alcohol ( before the dangers of addy ruin or of combining meds with booze) was understood and it not only caused premature death but some pretty terrible family dynamics and destruction. Mind you, this was in the one branch of my extended family with actual wealth. Which provided a cushion that prevented theft and worse to pay for drugs. All the meds were prescribed by a doc for legitimate reasons. But this was before pharmacies shared information so there was some pharmacy and perhaps doctor shopping for pain meds. Decades later, it was easy to see the destruction even though the drugs were not actually illegal the way we think of them and no one was robbing or stealing or wasting the family fortune on drug dealers.
There are plenty of chains on the brains of white people who refuse to acknowledge that racism still exists and that it still is an enormous factor in the daily lives of non-white people. Chains, blinders: whatever it is that causes people to refuse to take good, hard honest looks at themselves in the mirror.But look at why those women and those Asians got the primary benefits: no cultural issues holding them back. You look at the failure to help blacks and demand more rather than recognize that it's not the problem. Removing the chains worked very well--but it's been done. There are no meaningful chains of discrimination remaining.
That’s not a “dumb question,” Harry, that’s a fantasy question. I’m literally the last person in the universe who’d assume MAGA voters to suddenly grow a conscience over DEI. They’re celebrating killing it, even if it means burning down their own future in the process. Which they are btw. Just like Affirmative Action, the primary beneficiaries aren’t even Black folks, it’s white women first, then Latinos,, then Asians, then veterans, then the disabled, then LGBTQ. Only after all that do you even start to see Black people show up in statistics.
And if you missed the memo, I despise both the Republican and Democratic parties. Neither has done much over the last decade except answer to big money. I’m sure their loyalists will jump up to rattle off all the “good” things they’ve done over the years. I don’t care. Money needs to get the hell out of politics. Period.
Except to a large degree it is what's happening. You're defending an idealized AA, not a real world AA.
You’re speak on Affirmative Action like it’s just a “Black vs. white” policy, but that’s never been true. White women have consistently been its biggest beneficiaries. It also covers Latinos, Asians, Indigenous students, veterans, and even people from under-resourced schools. So when you say, “don’t just give preference based on skin color,” that’s not what’s happening. It’s about addressing structural barriers that impact multiple groups, not handing out favors because of what someone “looks like.” The race metaphor works because wealth, education, and opportunity are generationally inherited, not individually reset at age 18.
And by far what's inherited are genetics and attitudes. Most parents can't afford college for their kids, most inheritance comes from parent to child and thus later in life.
Prove it.
The gap is the biggest with black people, thus the problem is the biggest. Doesn't mean it's anti-black.
- Pretends AA = only Black people.
- Pretends Biden’s picks were “unqualified” because they weren’t white.
- Pretends culture war panic is the “voice of the people,” instead of a manufactured outrage.
Every time AA or DEI comes up, you laser-focus on Black people, as if they’re the only ones who benefit, or the only ones who ever got considered. That tells your story. Biden’s appointees weren’t ‘unqualified,’ they just weren’t white.
In a perfect world AA would be about fairness. But in the real world the dominant factor is upbringing (note that I am considering the whole environment, not just the parents), not race. AA provides a benefit to those who were already at parity (and thus is seen as unfair by those who would be at parity) while those it's supposed to help are not lifted enough to have any effect. Thus good intentions produce pretty much only undesirable outcomes.
You’re speak on Affirmative Action like it’s just a “Black vs. white” policy, but that’s never been true. White women have consistently been its biggest beneficiaries. It also covers Latinos, Asians, Indigenous students, veterans, and even people from under-resourced schools. So when you say, “don’t just give preference based on skin color,” that’s not what’s happening. It’s about addressing structural barriers that impact multiple groups, not handing out favors because of what someone “looks like.” The race metaphor works because wealth, education, and opportunity are generationally inherited, not individually reset at age 18.
You’re speak on Affirmative Action like it’s just a “Black vs. white” policy, but that’s never been true. White women have consistently been its biggest beneficiaries. It also covers Latinos, Asians, Indigenous students, veterans, and even people from under-resourced schools. So when you say, “don’t just give preference based on skin color,” that’s not what’s happening. It’s about addressing structural barriers that impact multiple groups, not handing out favors because of what someone “looks like.” The race metaphor works because wealth, education, and opportunity are generationally inherited, not individually reset at age 18.
It doesn't cover Asians. Works against Asians. I'll get in trouble for saying this, but I do think that everyone should be treated equal. Because we all come from different backgrounds and experiences. For example, like many families, our family is mixed. I'm native. My wife's side of the family is white. My side are mostly doing pretty well. Wife's side is not. The government should benefit my side and not theirs. Then our kids are Asian. So I should get benefits but not my daughters or brother-in-law?
-Hyperliberal Florida???
I can’t speak for Asians but definitely plenty cultural issues still hold women back—and grind them down to the bone.But look at why those women and those Asians got the primary benefits: no cultural issues holding them back. You look at the failure to help blacks and demand more rather than recognize that it's not the problem. Removing the chains worked very well--but it's been done. There are no meaningful chains of discrimination remaining.
That’s not a “dumb question,” Harry, that’s a fantasy question. I’m literally the last person in the universe who’d assume MAGA voters to suddenly grow a conscience over DEI. They’re celebrating killing it, even if it means burning down their own future in the process. Which they are btw. Just like Affirmative Action, the primary beneficiaries aren’t even Black folks, it’s white women first, then Latinos,, then Asians, then veterans, then the disabled, then LGBTQ. Only after all that do you even start to see Black people show up in statistics.
And if you missed the memo, I despise both the Republican and Democratic parties. Neither has done much over the last decade except answer to big money. I’m sure their loyalists will jump up to rattle off all the “good” things they’ve done over the years. I don’t care. Money needs to get the hell out of politics. Period.
AA was always meant to make the difference for economically challenged groups whose challenges arose from mistreatment.
You’re speak on Affirmative Action like it’s just a “Black vs. white” policy, but that’s never been true. White women have consistently been its biggest beneficiaries. It also covers Latinos, Asians, Indigenous students, veterans, and even people from under-resourced schools. So when you say, “don’t just give preference based on skin color,” that’s not what’s happening. It’s about addressing structural barriers that impact multiple groups, not handing out favors because of what someone “looks like.” The race metaphor works because wealth, education, and opportunity are generationally inherited, not individually reset at age 18.
It doesn't cover Asians. Works against Asians. I'll get in trouble for saying this, but I do think that everyone should be treated equal. Because we all come from different backgrounds and experiences. For example, like many families, our family is mixed. I'm native. My wife's side of the family is white. My side are mostly doing pretty well. Wife's side is not. The government should benefit my side and not theirs. Then our kids are Asian. So I should get benefits but not my daughters or brother-in-law?
Wait, what? It’s just not accurate to say AA “doesn’t cover Asians.” Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander groups (Hmong, Cambodian, Laotian, Samoan, etc.) are underrepresented and did benefit from AA. I get that race shouldn’t be the deciding factor in admissions, but saying AA didn’t cover Asians is flat-out false.
Sex-based preference are of course wrong too.
I did mention "people whose ancestors spoke Spanish" explicitly. You are right. There are groups other than black/white at issue here.
Asians tend to be discriminated against even more than whites by so-called "affirmative action". Remember how Harvard assigned Asian applicants low "personality scores" to limit how many they admit?
Yes, Indians (aka "Siberian-Americans") are also heavily advantaged by racial preferences.
It is not the only thing that's been happening, but giving preference based on race and ethnolinguistic group has certainly been happening, and is still happening to some extent.
Wrong. AA is all about what somebody looks like.
I do not think it works, for several reasons. For one, you completely ignore individuals, collapsing everybody, across generations, into "runners" based on "race", which is an amorphous concept at best.The race metaphor works because wealth, education, and opportunity are generationally inherited, not individually reset at age 18.
Never said that.
Never said that either. But Biden practiced racial discrimination with his choice of judges.
A lot of the "culture war" bullshit only appealed to the activist classes and it went against what most people wanted.
Because that is the most visible part of the issue. While Hispanics have surpassed blacks in sheer numbers, most pro-AA activism is still black.
And why do you think that it's ok to discriminate against well-qualified white judges?
Appointing non-white judges is not what bothers me (or most people). It's giving preference to non-white judges that bothers me.
The Democratic 2024 defeat was a death by 1000 cuts. Biden administration (and the Democratic Party as a whole) placing itself at odds with most Americans on many issues, including so-called "affirmative action" certainly played its role.
