Multi-Billionaire Oprah Whines About Sexism & Income Inequality At DNC

[laughing dog]

So two generations of your family have quite unreasonably raised you to believe that all the suffering you experience in life is somehow your own fault, and that's your proof that intergenerational trauma isn't legit?

She said nothing of the sort.
Is it because she's a girl disagreeing with you that you feel entitled to dismiss what she actually said?
Tom

Of course not. Emily's identity as a woman

I don't "identify" as a woman; I AM a sexually mature female of the human species. That's an incontrovertible fact of my body, it's not open to interpretation and it's not subject to any personal desires or wishes.

Everything is open to interpretation. Doesn't make the interpretation accurate.

Sure, sure. And all words are made up, and we can't ever actually know if anyone else exists or if they're just figments of our imaginate, and there's no way to tell whether the color that I see and know with the word "green" is the same color that you see or whether you are seeing the color that I know as "red" but are just calling it by the same name of "green", and maybe we're all actually in a simulation and don't know it...

Saying "everything is open to interpretation" is technically true, but also entirely false. If something is open to interpretation, that necessarily implies that some ambiguity exists that lends itself to more than one inference being plausible. That's not the case here.

That is untrue. Inferences can be plausible or implausible. There is nothing in reality that says more than inference is necessarily plausible.

 

[Derec]

A fetus inherits trauma from their mother, so much so that it traumatizes the eggs of female fetuses. This inherited victimization is so severe that it just keeps going through multiple generations, never allowing anyone to escape from the bad things that happened to their ancestors five or more generations ago.

Epigenetic inheritance is real. So far human evidence I have seen is in effects of famines, but not for more generalized or vague "trauma".

Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans
Transgenerational and intergenerational effects of early childhood famine exposure in the cohort of offspring of Leningrad Siege survivors

And of course, none of this means that it should be used as an excuse. Or a justification for unequal treatment by race when it comes to admissions.

 

[TomC]

Epigenetic inheritance is real. So far human evidence I have seen is in effects of famines, but not for more generalized or vague "trauma".

I'd not heard of epigenetics until a few years ago. But once I understood the concept it makes perfect sense. A developing fetus is not isolated in the womb. Fetal development is an extremely complex thing and is no doubt impacted a great deal by their environment. The mother's trauma, diet, chemical soup, the list of things that are doubtless impacting the developing human is huge. No birth is tabula rasa.

But ideologues can also extend the concept to support their ideology until it becomes ridiculous.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Epigenetic inheritance is real. So far human evidence I have seen is in effects of famines, but not for more generalized or vague "trauma".

I'd not heard of epigenetics until a few years ago. But once I understood the concept it makes perfect sense. A developing fetus is not isolated in the womb. Fetal development is an extremely complex thing and is no doubt impacted a great deal by their environment. The mother's trauma, diet, chemical soup, the list of things that are doubtless impacting the developing human is huge. No birth is tabula rasa.

But ideologues can also extend the concept to support their ideology until it becomes ridiculous.
Tom

You'd feel a lot calmer if you focused on what people say, rather than what you think they are implying. Remember the wise words of Emily's ancestors, only you can choose how to react to things. Don't let the Wokes make you a victim.

 

[Toni]

In case it isn't clear, I understand fairly well what generational trauma is proposed to represent. But I also think it's pop-psychology and largely gets used as an excuse that ignores both current dynamics and personal accountability.

My mom's family is irish immigrants who went through famines and wars and religious persecution and involuntary indentured servitude at the point of a sword. My dad is descended from both african slaves transported to the americas against their will and osage indians persecuted and abused and damned near genocided by white people. I could claim generational trauma as the source of all the ills in my life... but my parents raised me to believe that I control how I react to the circumstances that arise in my life, and that I'm accountable for the consequences of my own actions. That's how they were raised, and how their parents were raised.

Of course we do control how we respond to traumas but those responses absolutely ARE informed by how we were raised, and how our parents were raised abd our grandparents and so on.

I know how hard my parents tried to give us not just a more economically secure life but also one with more kindness and understanding. Yet a great deal of my own childhood was fairly harsh. In turn, I tried very hard to avoid the mistakes my parents made and mostly succeeded—but not entirely, my kids were not required to clean their plates, for example. They were not punished or shamed if they did not bring home straight A’s. But looking back, I made a few decisions re: my kids when they were in their late teens that I seriously regret. At the time I was proud of myself for being so tough ( a strong value when I was growing up). But in fact, I did not feel good about some of those choices and I regret them very much and feel that they caused unintended harm to my own kids.

My childhood was based on being tough, self reliant and doing everything for ourselves. I had not regretted that so much—I was very proud of my toughness, and in fact, I think it actually saved my life a couple of times. But it also nearly cost my sister her life as she ignored a growing brain tumor, foregoing the scans that would monitor its growth ( or stability) and determine if surgery was recommended, in fact, she nearly died, not only because of the brain tumor but also because of ignored infections and sepsis. Post op, she had rehab in the hospital and thought the staff was being patronizing for praising each bit of progress she made as she rehearsed to walk and do ordinary daily self care tasks. She thought they were treating her like a baby. I pointed out to her that not everyone grew up in households where only criticism and punishment were handed out and that praise was actually much more effective than criticism, ridicule or punishment.

Some of the bad patterns I’ve come to recognize are based on learned behaviors growing up. I don’t blame my parents: they grew up in harsh circumstances as did many/most of their generation. But I also recognize that some ways of reacting towards stress are not based on learned experience but on other issues, including but not limited to depression. Indeed, I can see certain mannerisms and even certain food preferences, social patterns and preferences in my own children that are very reminiscent of behaviors and references of their grandparents —that neither my husband nor I I share or exhibit. These were not learned from their grandparents because we never lived close to either set of grandparents. On a recent family trip, one of my kids mentioned how one of his brothers was basically identical to one of my husband’s uncles—not physically but in a lot of behaviors and life choices they made. Although I had never thought of it before, he’s right. They are very alike.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And once again you shoot yourself in the foot.

This is not discrimination. It can't be solved with anti-discrimination measures.

Man who doesn’t read deeply proclaims answer based on superficial reading.

Ah, Loren. Discrimination causes a whole host of generational traumas. If you can’t understand how lynchings (and every other form of racial discrimination) had a dramatic effect on people, you’ll never understand the basics of human interaction.

You're still not getting it. Yes, this is the legacy of discrimination, that part is uncontested. The problem is that you aren't showing anything about how affirmative action is supposed to change this.

 

[Toni]

And once again you shoot yourself in the foot.

This is not discrimination. It can't be solved with anti-discrimination measures.

Man who doesn’t read deeply proclaims answer based on superficial reading.

Ah, Loren. Discrimination causes a whole host of generational traumas. If you can’t understand how lynchings (and every other form of racial discrimination) had a dramatic effect on people, you’ll never understand the basics of human interaction.

You're still not getting it. Yes, this is the legacy of discrimination, that part is uncontested. The problem is that you aren't showing anything about how affirmative action is supposed to change this.

By giving people previously excluded because of their race, gender or country of origin from the pool of applicants access to educational and career opportunities they would not have had prior to affirmative action. This would not only prevent vide the opportunities for such individuals to improve their own economic circumstances and those of their family, but to also break barriers for more people, including recognizing that there are not white jobs or black jobs or make jobs or female jobs but jobs that should be open to anyone who has an interest and aptitude to perform. And access to the education and training to qualify for such jobs.

The intent was also to change people’s minds and perceptions of who belonged where. And to expand the pool of talent available to everyone.

Society improves when every member of society can fully participate in all good things. Individuals are more likely to be good workers, good partners, good parents, good neighbors, good, law abiding tax paying citizens. Everyone benefits.

I absolutely do understand how upsetting it is to be denied opportunities because of some inborn characteristic. It’s happened to me and I’ve seen it happen to others. But I’m lucky: I’m white abd my parents ts pushed us hard to do well in school abd to go to university. We all pursued STEM careers that would not have been readily available to women a generation before us. We all achieved a great deal more secure and prosperous lives than they enjoyed. Why should not everyone have that chance?

As it stands now, white males in the US have had much greater access to educational and job opportunities for generations longer than those opportunities existed for women or black or Hispanic people in significant numbers. I understand that people a generation younger than me or younger did not share the same experiences or see how many limitations women and minorities faced. The limits I faced were relatively small compared with the limitations and restrictions faced by persons of color, LGBTQA+ people, and disabled people, trust me; I’m very aware of my privilege.

Perhaps Affirmative Action has done as much good as it can do. I don’t know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A fetus inherits trauma from their mother, so much so that it traumatizes the eggs of female fetuses. This inherited victimization is so severe that it just keeps going through multiple generations, never allowing anyone to escape from the bad things that happened to their ancestors five or more generations ago.

Epigenetic inheritance is real. So far human evidence I have seen is in effects of famines, but not for more generalized or vague "trauma".

Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans
Transgenerational and intergenerational effects of early childhood famine exposure in the cohort of offspring of Leningrad Siege survivors

And of course, none of this means that it should be used as an excuse. Or a justification for unequal treatment by race when it comes to admissions.

Exactly. It's irrelevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And once again you shoot yourself in the foot.

This is not discrimination. It can't be solved with anti-discrimination measures.

Man who doesn’t read deeply proclaims answer based on superficial reading.

Ah, Loren. Discrimination causes a whole host of generational traumas. If you can’t understand how lynchings (and every other form of racial discrimination) had a dramatic effect on people, you’ll never understand the basics of human interaction.

You're still not getting it. Yes, this is the legacy of discrimination, that part is uncontested. The problem is that you aren't showing anything about how affirmative action is supposed to change this.

By giving people previously excluded because of their race, gender or country of origin from the pool of applicants access to educational and career opportunities they would not have had prior to affirmative action. This would not only prevent vide the opportunities for such individuals to improve their own economic circumstances and those of their family, but to also break barriers for more people, including recognizing that there are not white jobs or black jobs or make jobs or female jobs but jobs that should be open to anyone who has an interest and aptitude to perform. And access to the education and training to qualify for such jobs.

And once again your fundamental faith shows up--you are assuming that the lower SAT scores and the like are meaningless, if you pretend they're equal they'll be equal. It's a false hope that's actually hurting those you pretend to help. When California put it's foot down about it the result was the number of blacks who actually graduated went up.

Just because it's not their fault doesn't mean society must ignore it. We don't unless the difference happens to have a racial correlation.

The intent was also to change people’s minds and perceptions of who belonged where. And to expand the pool of talent available to everyone.

It did change people's perceptions. When you properly consider confounders race generally disappears from the results. Complete success. The problem comes because you somehow think it can accomplish the impossible--change the past.

Society improves when every member of society can fully participate in all good things. Individuals are more likely to be good workers, good partners, good parents, good neighbors, good, law abiding tax paying citizens. Everyone benefits.

And you have a magic wand to accomplish this?

I absolutely do understand how upsetting it is to be denied opportunities because of some inborn characteristic. It’s happened to me and I’ve seen it happen to others. But I’m lucky: I’m white abd my parents ts pushed us hard to do well in school abd to go to university. We all pursued STEM careers that would not have been readily available to women a generation before us. We all achieved a great deal more secure and prosperous lives than they enjoyed. Why should not everyone have that chance?

And you assume they don't.

As it stands now, white males in the US have had much greater access to educational and job opportunities for generations longer than those opportunities existed for women or black or Hispanic people in significant numbers. I understand that people a generation younger than me or younger did not share the same experiences or see how many limitations women and minorities faced. The limits I faced were relatively small compared with the limitations and restrictions faced by persons of color, LGBTQA+ people, and disabled people, trust me; I’m very aware of my privilege.

"Have had". Once again, the past.

Perhaps Affirmative Action has done as much good as it can do. I don’t know.

Exactly--it has done all it can. That point was reached long ago. Affirmative action was a fight fire with fire approach. Sometimes that's the right approach--but you have to keep in mind that it's fire. When you fight a small fire with fire you make a bigger fire. You can never hope to eliminate all traces this way!

 

[Toni]

And once again you shoot yourself in the foot.

This is not discrimination. It can't be solved with anti-discrimination measures.

Man who doesn’t read deeply proclaims answer based on superficial reading.

Ah, Loren. Discrimination causes a whole host of generational traumas. If you can’t understand how lynchings (and every other form of racial discrimination) had a dramatic effect on people, you’ll never understand the basics of human interaction.

You're still not getting it. Yes, this is the legacy of discrimination, that part is uncontested. The problem is that you aren't showing anything about how affirmative action is supposed to change this.

By giving people previously excluded because of their race, gender or country of origin from the pool of applicants access to educational and career opportunities they would not have had prior to affirmative action. This would not only prevent vide the opportunities for such individuals to improve their own economic circumstances and those of their family, but to also break barriers for more people, including recognizing that there are not white jobs or black jobs or make jobs or female jobs but jobs that should be open to anyone who has an interest and aptitude to perform. And access to the education and training to qualify for such jobs.

And once again your fundamental faith shows up--you are assuming that the lower SAT scores and the like are meaningless, if you pretend they're equal they'll be equal. It's a false hope that's actually hurting those you pretend to help. When California put it's foot down about it the result was the number of blacks who actually graduated went up.

Just because it's not their fault doesn't mean society must ignore it. We don't unless the difference happens to have a racial correlation.

The intent was also to change people’s minds and perceptions of who belonged where. And to expand the pool of talent available to everyone.

It did change people's perceptions. When you properly consider confounders race generally disappears from the results. Complete success. The problem comes because you somehow think it can accomplish the impossible--change the past.

Society improves when every member of society can fully participate in all good things. Individuals are more likely to be good workers, good partners, good parents, good neighbors, good, law abiding tax paying citizens. Everyone benefits.

And you have a magic wand to accomplish this?

I absolutely do understand how upsetting it is to be denied opportunities because of some inborn characteristic. It’s happened to me and I’ve seen it happen to others. But I’m lucky: I’m white abd my parents ts pushed us hard to do well in school abd to go to university. We all pursued STEM careers that would not have been readily available to women a generation before us. We all achieved a great deal more secure and prosperous lives than they enjoyed. Why should not everyone have that chance?

And you assume they don't.

As it stands now, white males in the US have had much greater access to educational and job opportunities for generations longer than those opportunities existed for women or black or Hispanic people in significant numbers. I understand that people a generation younger than me or younger did not share the same experiences or see how many limitations women and minorities faced. The limits I faced were relatively small compared with the limitations and restrictions faced by persons of color, LGBTQA+ people, and disabled people, trust me; I’m very aware of my privilege.

"Have had". Once again, the past.

Perhaps Affirmative Action has done as much good as it can do. I don’t know.

Exactly--it has done all it can. That point was reached long ago. Affirmative action was a fight fire with fire approach. Sometimes that's the right approach--but you have to keep in mind that it's fire. When you fight a small fire with fire you make a bigger fire. You can never hope to eliminate all traces this way!

Loren, I’m absolutely fed up with your insulting calling my viewpoint ‘fundamentalist faith. If you were not a mid, I’d have put you in ignore long ago. Knock it off. Until you learn to be more respectful and less insulting, I will not respond to anything you write.

It is galling that you choose such terminology on this particular site, especially since you are a moderator. It tells a lot more about you that you feel compelled to claim other people’s views are a matter of faith because you disagree —not because you present any superior arguments or ever, ever back your pov with data or studies. No, you assume that admissions directors and counselors have less knowledge abd understanding of who makes a good candidate for their programs and schools than you do, with absolutely zero demonstrated or even claimed expertise.

I’m done with you.

 

[Derec]

By giving people previously excluded because of their race, gender or country of origin from the pool of applicants access to educational and career opportunities they would not have had prior to affirmative action.

This would be a good description of the original meaning of "Affirmative Action". However, what the term has quickly come to mean, and what it has meant ever since, is giving members of certain groups extra opportunities, and by extension reducing opportunities to members of other groups.

The intent was also to change people’s minds and perceptions of who belonged where. And to expand the pool of talent available to everyone.

If you discriminate against certain people in order to get more say blacks into a program that does not change perceptions of them belonging. If anything, it makes it worse. It underlines that that person did not get there by his or her own merit.

Society improves when every member of society can fully participate in all good things.

Indeed. And when certain members of society are denied access to those things because much stricter requirements are placed upon them compared to members of favored groups, then society is definitely not improved.

Individuals are more likely to be good workers, good partners, good parents, good neighbors, good, law abiding tax paying citizens. Everyone benefits.

People denied opportunities because of their race and gender certainly do not benefit.

I absolutely do understand how upsetting it is to be denied opportunities because of some inborn characteristic.

It was wrong when blacks were denied opportunities because they were black, and it is just as wrong to deny whites and Asians opportunities for the same reason.

As it stands now, white males in the US have had much greater access to educational and job opportunities for generations longer than those opportunities existed for women or black or Hispanic people in significant numbers.

This is viewing people not as individuals, but as interchangeable representatives of racial and gender categories. It is the worst kind of collectivism, and is fundamentally illiberal.
Just because some other white people enjoyed greater access to opportunities in the past is not a good reason to deny opportunities to a completely different set of individuals just because they are also white.

Perhaps Affirmative Action has done as much good as it can do. I don’t know.

It has done far more harm then good. It should have been abolished decades ago. I am still mad at SD'OC for not taking the opportunity to drive a stake through that practice back in 2003. I think US would have been better off had she voted differently, including black academic achievement.

 

[bilby]

Loren, I’m absolutely fed up with your insulting calling my viewpoint ‘fundamentalist faith. If you were not a mid, I’d have put you in ignore long ago.

Are you sure he's a mid?

Or is that "i" a typo?

Perhaps he is mad. Or a med. Or his name is mud.

 

[Toni]

By giving people previously excluded because of their race, gender or country of origin from the pool of applicants access to educational and career opportunities they would not have had prior to affirmative action.

This would be a good description of the original meaning of "Affirmative Action". However, what the term has quickly come to mean, and what it has meant ever since, is giving members of certain groups extra opportunities, and by extension reducing opportunities to members of other groups.

The intent was also to change people’s minds and perceptions of who belonged where. And to expand the pool of talent available to everyone.

If you discriminate against certain people in order to get more say blacks into a program that does not change perceptions of them belonging. If anything, it makes it worse. It underlines that that person did not get there by his or her own merit.

Society improves when every member of society can fully participate in all good things.

Indeed. And when certain members of society are denied access to those things because much stricter requirements are placed upon them compared to members of favored groups, then society is definitely not improved.

Individuals are more likely to be good workers, good partners, good parents, good neighbors, good, law abiding tax paying citizens. Everyone benefits.

People denied opportunities because of their race and gender certainly do not benefit.

I absolutely do understand how upsetting it is to be denied opportunities because of some inborn characteristic.

It was wrong when blacks were denied opportunities because they were black, and it is just as wrong to deny whites and Asians opportunities for the same reason.

As it stands now, white males in the US have had much greater access to educational and job opportunities for generations longer than those opportunities existed for women or black or Hispanic people in significant numbers.

This is viewing people not as individuals, but as interchangeable representatives of racial and gender categories. It is the worst kind of collectivism, and is fundamentally illiberal.
Just because some other white people enjoyed greater access to opportunities in the past is not a good reason to deny opportunities to a completely different set of individuals just because they are also white.

Perhaps Affirmative Action has done as much good as it can do. I don’t know.

It has done far more harm then good. It should have been abolished decades ago. I am still mad at SD'OC for not taking the opportunity to drive a stake through that practice back in 2003. I think US would have been better off had she voted differently, including black academic achievement.

The PERCEPTION has ALWAYS been that Affirmative Action gave (unqualified) black people preferential treatment. That was not the intent nor was it reality. Reality was and still is that most hiring is based on who you know—in addition to qualifications. That’s actually how I got the last 3/4 of my jobs. I was qualified—at least as well qualified as any other applicant but in two cases, the person who hired me knew me through volunteer work ( not something I realized when I applied for the job but this is a small community) and the other job I got through a former classmate whose lab was hiring and whose supervisor liked to hire based on recommendations from people he knew. One job long ago I was hired specifically because I was white and female. I did not realize the white part at the time and came very close to quitting when I realized the color barrier. But I was the support for my family and stuck it out for a while longer. Female was pretty much assumed given the job. You need to remember that I’m a lot older than you are: I remember when help wanted ads were divided by make/female.

The unfortunate thing about AA was 1. It was ever necessary and unfortunate dies not begin to describe the necessity. And 2. Whatever the US likes to think, it is not a classless society. Traditionally, working class people have had a hard time breaking into better paying jobs.

Affirmative Action has only been around since the 1960’s. I think when you say it should have been done away with decades ago, you mean it should have been done away with before it crossed your radar and bothered you.

 

[Toni]

Loren, I’m absolutely fed up with your insulting calling my viewpoint ‘fundamentalist faith. If you were not a mid, I’d have put you in ignore long ago.

Are you sure he's a mid?

Or is that "i" a typo?

Perhaps he is mad. Or a med. Or his name is mud.

Mod. Definitely a typo.

 

[Bomb#20]

Affirmative Action has only been around since the 1960’s.

Affirmative Action has been around at least since 1899, when Jane Stanford reserved for men all but 500 slots in her university, apparently because she was upset people had taken up calling her family's legacy "The Vassar of the West".

 

[Derec]

The PERCEPTION has ALWAYS been that Affirmative Action gave (unqualified) black people preferential treatment.

Because it does. You cannot give a group preferential treatment without a perception developing that this is what you are doing and besides that those being given preferential treatment could not do it without the preference. Some certainly could, but not all, and with racial preferences, all are suspect.

That was not the intent nor was it reality.

It may not have been the intent, but it is the reality.

Reality was and still is that most hiring is based on who you know—in addition to qualifications. That’s actually how I got the last 3/4 of my jobs.

The reality is that so-called AA adds race and gender into the mix.

Traditionally, working class people have had a hard time breaking into better paying jobs.

I am very glad you brought this up. Take medical schools. It is very skewed toward children of those well off, and especially children of physicians.

Note that decades of race-based "affirmative action" did not even try to fix that.
Now, some of this discrepancy is legitimate - after all there are biologically heritable traits and also how families raise their children matters - families with educated parents will on average place a greater importance on education. But there are also things like access to shadowing and research because daddy knows a PI, etc.
But how is that an argument for race-based admissions? A child of a black doctor has two advantages - parent's profession/wealth AND race. While a white or Asian child of a lower middle class store owner has neither.
Also, left-wing prescriptions like reducing the importance of the MCAT (which is a great equalizer as everybody takes the same test) would make matters worse as other metrics would rise in importance. And those are easier to game than a standardized test. For example, a wealthy family can just pay somebody to write their kid's personal statement and secondary essays.

Affirmative Action has only been around since the 1960’s.

Only? That's 60 years. A long-ass time for a discriminatory policy.

I think when you say it should have been done away with decades ago, you mean it should have been done away with before it crossed your radar and bothered you.

Oh, I definitely think it should have been chopped in 1978 with Bakke. But at the very latest, 2003 should have been it.

 

[Bomb#20]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

... Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. ...

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. ...

Nobody owns the term "second-class citizen", so you'll define it as you please and debates over who is or isn't treated as one will go nowhere. So let's break this down into two parts.

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick, US v. Paradise, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC). Let us call such people "ardtogs". More recently, Asians have also become ardtogs. (Grutter v. Bollinger.) Back in the benighted times before the Civil Rights era, black people and American Indians were ardtogs. By and large, they didn't like it. Most people do not want to be ardtogs.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be an ardtog is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept ardtog status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept ardtog status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be non-ardtogs, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the artogship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

2. ...

I’m not smearing anybody. What I wrote is that (some) white men perceive not always being first in line for all good things as being discriminated against when really, what has happened is that ever so slightly, the playing field is more level for those who are not white and male.

You wrote:

I’ve had this discussion many times. For white males, the fact that they are no longer first in line for all good things feels like prejudice to them. It’s not. It just feels bad to them to be treated closer to how everyone else is treated.

Do you see a "some" in there? You made a Hasty Generalization about white men, not "(some) white men", based on discussion "many times", not on discussion with everyone you attributed the feeling to.

Moreover, "What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things." implied that the grievances fed by the narrative they are not interested in propping up are only those of white men who perceive not always being first in line for all good things as being discriminated against -- i.e., that the narrative isn't feeding grievances of white men who correctly perceive that they are Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government and are aggrieved about that, because that is, in point of fact, prejudice. "Feels"-schmeels. You were implicitly denying the existence of white men who want there to be no prejudice against anyone. That was a racial slur. And sexist. You would not deny the existence of black women who want there to be no prejudice against anyone.

That’s not smearing anybody. If anyone is doing the smearing, it’s you, by time and again demonstrating that (some) white men perceive not being universally #1 as being discriminated against.

That is libelous. I demonstrated nothing of the sort, and you don't have a reason to believe I did. You are accusing me of racism because I fail to kowtow to the unsupported doctrines of your ideology, apparently because your ideology trains the people it infects to trump up racism charges against unbelievers, apparently because that's an effective tactic for getting its believers not to subject its doctrines to critical thought.

And once again your fundamental faith shows up--you are assuming that...

Loren, I’m absolutely fed up with your insulting calling my viewpoint ‘fundamentalist faith. If you were not a mid, I’d have put you in ignore long ago. Knock it off. Until you learn to be more respectful and less insulting, I will not respond to anything you write.

Why do you feel entitled to be talked to respectfully? You do not talk to others respectfully. On what planet is Loren accusing you of having faith more disrespectful than you accusing me of racism? If you want respect, be the change you want to see in the world.

It is galling that you choose such terminology on this particular site...

What, you mean because this is a site for infidels? You appear to be under the impression that the only thing you need to not believe in in order to qualify as an infidel is God. That's not how it works. If not getting recognition as a fellow-infidel galls you, stop saying things you don't have reason to believe.

 

[Toni]

Affirmative Action has only been around since the 1960’s.

Affirmative Action has been around at least since 1899, when Jane Stanford reserved for men all but 500 slots in her university, apparently because she was upset people had taken up calling her family's legacy "The Vassar of the West".

As a US policy, it’s been around since 1961 and 1964.

 

[Toni]

Affirmative Action has only been around since the 1960’s.

Affirmative Action has been around at least since 1899, when Jane Stanford reserved for men all but 500 slots in her university, apparently because she was upset people had taken up calling her family's legacy "The Vassar of the West".

As a US policy, it’s been around since 1961 and 1964.

The PERCEPTION has ALWAYS been that Affirmative Action gave (unqualified) black people preferential treatment.

Because it does. You cannot give a group preferential treatment without a perception developing that this is what you are doing and besides that those being given preferential treatment could not do it without the preference. Some certainly could, but not all, and with racial preferences, all are suspect.

That was not the intent nor was it reality.

It may not have been the intent, but it is the reality.

Reality was and still is that most hiring is based on who you know—in addition to qualifications. That’s actually how I got the last 3/4 of my jobs.

The reality is that so-called AA adds race and gender into the mix.

Traditionally, working class people have had a hard time breaking into better paying jobs.

I am very glad you brought this up. Take medical schools. It is very skewed toward children of those well off, and especially children of physicians.

Note that decades of race-based "affirmative action" did not even try to fix that.
Now, some of this discrepancy is legitimate - after all there are biologically heritable traits and also how families raise their children matters - families with educated parents will on average place a greater importance on education. But there are also things like access to shadowing and research because daddy knows a PI, etc.
But how is that an argument for race-based admissions? A child of a black doctor has two advantages - parent's profession/wealth AND race. While a white or Asian child of a lower middle class store owner has neither.
Also, left-wing prescriptions like reducing the importance of the MCAT (which is a great equalizer as everybody takes the same test) would make matters worse as other metrics would rise in importance. And those are easier to game than a standardized test. For example, a wealthy family can just pay somebody to write their kid's personal statement and secondary essays.

Affirmative Action has only been around since the 1960’s.

Only? That's 60 years. A long-ass time for a discriminatory policy.

I think when you say it should have been done away with decades ago, you mean it should have been done away with before it crossed your radar and bothered you.

Oh, I definitely think it should have been chopped in 1978 with Bakke. But at the very latest, 2003 should have been it.

Derec, AA removed giving preferential treatment to white males. It made it illegal to discriminate in the basis of sex, race, religion and national origins. Women, non-Christians and persons of color were finally allowed to apply for admissions and jobs previously denied them because of their race, gender, religion and national origins.

The rest is simply racist backlash because some people are too insecure to believe that white makes can actually compete without the centuries of preferential treatment they received.

 

[Rhea]

Derec, AA removed giving preferential treatment to white males. It made it illegal to discriminate in the basis of sex, race, religion and national origins. Women, non-Christians and persons of color were finally allowed to apply for admissions and jobs previously denied them because of their race, gender, religion and national origins.

Correction: Affirmative Action *legally* removed giving preferential treatment to white male, but it absolutely did not *effectively* remove it, let alone *completely* remove it.

The law was enacted, but just as the emancipation proclamation did not actually free slaves for years, nor did Brown vs. Board of Education actually integrate schools for years, likewise AA did not make much of an impact, let alone a big inmpact, for more than decades.

I was personally prevented from getting a promotion because I was a woman (how do I know? They told me), and I was personally denied a job for being a woman (how do I know? They were emboldened to just up and say so, because they know that I couldn’t really do anything about it.). This explicit discrimination happened in the 1980s. Less explicit but still very clear violations continued to occur to me in the 90s and 00s such as not getting a project because it would require traveling with men, and I, being a woman, would disrupt the wives.

Which is why Loren’s and Derec’s utterly unfactual and mertiless claims that discrimination is over are a fetid, steaming, pile of uninformed, privileged, horseshit.