If you read the first few words of the opening post (maybe asking too much?) this thread is referencing the article to contrast the current overwhelmingly popular ideology pushing the belief that white privilege exists.
Funny how those that find the lack of reference being made to discrimination against Asians offensive and/or problematic here have absolutely no problem with a statement like "Black Lives Matter" even when confronted with statistics showing that the issues in question aren't isolated to black people. It's almost as if it's one rule for one group but not for another...
No, I read the first sentence, my point still stands and if you can find any post from me regarding supporting black lives matter on these forums, i'll give you a biscuit.
PS. I personally believe that white privilege does exist, what we can do about it is anyone's guess, that that is nothing to do with my comment.
No, I read the first sentence, my point still stands and if you can find any post from me regarding supporting black lives matter on these forums, i'll give you a biscuit.
PS. I personally believe that white privilege does exist, what we can do about it is anyone's guess, that that is nothing to do with my comment.
The post I quoted said the fact that Asian discrimination being omitted from the thread title was convenient. It wasn't convenient, it was because the purpose of this thread was to talk about how it goes against the grain of white privilege propaganda. It seems to me that the reason you think someone would conveniently leave it out is due to racism, and we don't take kindly to unsubstantiated accusations if racism on here.
Unsurprisingly UC Berkeley has a high portion of Asian students currently, Ivy League schools however clearly suppress their Asian intake and artificially inflate the numbers of Black and Latino students with a healthy dose of tokenism/low expectations.
Ah, of course they are! It reminds me of how homosexuals are now not quite oppressed enough to be part of the victimhood gang according to the NUS. Such extraordinary levels of cope.
Wait for the case as post #17 says, a similar case was brought against Harvard and they ruled that they weren't illegally discriminating against Asian Americans (it's being appealed).
Yeah that's a fair point, the whole affirmative action thing is fundamentally racist and harms minorities who are placed into a university they are not qualified for so end up dropping out.
Ah, of course they are! It reminds me of how homosexuals are now not quite oppressed enough to be part of the victimhood gang according to the NUS. Such extraordinary levels of cope.
Countries like China will be laughing their heads off, they appoint the best people for the job whereas in the west we now appoint people based on skin colour and in some cases extremely capable white people end up working at McDonald's because they can't get a job in their specialist field solely due to their race. All it stands to do is weaken western competitiveness when your goal is diversity at any cost.
Countries like China will be laughing their heads off, they appoint the best people for the job whereas in the west we now appoint people based on skin colour and in some cases extremely capable white people end up working at McDonald's because they can't get a job in their specialist field solely due to their race. All it stands to do is weaken western competitiveness when your goal is diversity at any cost.
Countries like China will be laughing their heads off, they appoint the best people for the job whereas in the west we now appoint people based on skin colour and in some cases extremely capable white people end up working at McDonald's because they can't get a job in their specialist field solely due to their race. All it stands to do is weaken western competitiveness when your goal is diversity at any cost.
One large problem with Communism is that you centralise power and that leads to corruption on a basically state level, we still see that in Russia decades after the USSR broke up. I can't imagine what goes on behind the scenes in China.
In my first sentence in the op I say white and Asian students. There is a limit to the length of the thread title, I don't know what you are trying to imply...
Dr. Thomas Sowell "Economics and politics of race", explains it pretty well.
It's pretty obvious that if you allow people with low SAT scores into the top uni's they are not going to perform well. Whereas if they went to a community college with lower standards they would succeed.
That's probably true to some extent but what lead to the success of the western world was a merit based system (free market) that is now being eroded and replaced with regulation of appointing people to make up race and sexual orientation quotas. Anything that weakens the west only strengthens our adversaries.
That's probably true to some extent but what lead to the success of the western world was a merit based system (free market) that is now being eroded and replaced with regulation of appointing people to make up race and sexual orientation quotas.
Also to add to my post before when the CCP appoint people to positions of power who might not be the most qualified person for it's generally people who are loyal to both the CCP and their country, whereas a lot of those in the west benefiting from the lefts quotas seem to hate everything their government and country stands for (I would wager that they are in most cases anti-Trump/Brexit and see nationalism as somehow racist).
My citation was your own post, I even quoted it for posterity. You said it, so I am assuming it is a well-researched opinion backed by plenty of solid evidence. Side note; why is it anybody who disagrees with you is bound to a higher standard of evidential reasoning than whatever fairytale you fart out over your morning ablutions?
The cycle is the same and boring as hell every time:
-Spout a load of unsubstantiated nonsense assertions based on selectively quoting a news source
-Get called out on it
-Bleat about other posters disagreeing but providing no evidence whilst providing none of your own
-Collective yawns of GD
People get really damn weird about Black Lives Matter as a concept and it makes absolutely no sense. It's the equivalent of saying somebody who donates to a prostate cancer charity is a mysogynist because it doesn't also fund research into cervical cancer.
Cervical cancer and prostate cancers are both serious issues that can hopefully be mitigated through research.
BLM can mean one of two things both of which make no sense to support, unlike cancer research.
One is a violent, nasty, anti semitic, Marxist organisation that, amongst other things, wants to do away with the traditional family unit and get rid of the police.
The other is a vague sentiment following the meaning of the words in the slogan....
.... with the suggestion being that society as a whole doesn't care for black lives or cares for them less than other ethnicities.
This is demonstrable nonsense.
The single biggest cause of a violent untimely death for a black persons in the UK and the US is being killed by another black person.
It's true that most whites murdered are murdered by other whites but the rates for blacks killing blacks, on a per capita basis are massively higher than the rates for whites killing whites.
Interracially, on a per capita basis, blacks kill whites at around twelve times the rate as the other way around in the US.
In the same year the FBI figures for homicides nationwide shows that, where the race of the offender was known, this was the break down for homicides involving blacks and whites as either victims or perpetrators.
White victim total = 3,499
Pepetrator White = 2,854
Perpetrator Black = 533
Black or African American victim total = 2,870
Perpetrator White =243
Pepetrator Black = 2,570
So what can we glean from these figures?
For whites just over 81.5% of murders were committed by other whites
and just over 15. 2‰ were committed by blacks
For Black'sthe figures were just over 8.46%
murded by whites
and over 89.5‰ for deaths at the hands of other blacks.
And let's look at the absolute figures..
Black's killed 533 whites when they made up 12.7‰ of the population
And whites killed 243 blacks when they made up 76.9‰ of the population
So not only did whites kill less blacks then the other way around in overall numbers they did so whilst having over six times as many people in the country!
So you could express the racial disparity in interracial homicides in the USA, on a per capita basis, between blacks and whites as being in the region of over a factor of twelve in favour of the blacks much more frequently being the perpetrators in interacial murders between the two groups (just over six times as many whites as blacks in total and in absolute figures blacks kill over twice as many whites as vice versa)
The police kill, arrest and stop a disproportionate amount of blacks based on their percentage of the population but these disparities are caused primarily by the disproportionate violent crime rates for blacks as reported by witnesses to crimes.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Criminal Victimization, 2017
TABLE 10
Nonfatal violent incidents, by total population, victim, and offender demographic characteristics, 2017
In about three-quarters (76%) of violent incidents where perceived offender characteristics were reported the victim perceived the offender to be male.
Based on victims’ reports, there were about four-fifths as many white offenders as the percentage of whites in the population, about twice as many black offenders as the percentage of blacks in the population, and about one-sixth as many Asian offenders as the percentage.
The claim is often then made that blacks commit more crime either because they are poor or because of some legacy of suffering from slavery and segregation.
Neither of these make any sense when examined more closely.
There are nearly three times as many whites living in poverty in the US than blacks as an absolute number (the percentage for blacks as group is about double that of whites but there are far fewer blacks overall than whites).
From 2018 figures there were around 25, 295,122 White Americans living in poverty (as defined by the federal governments poverty threshold)
So if poverty was the main issue then the poor whites should be massively inflating the rate of overall violent crimes for whites vs the smaller number of blacks living in poverty on the US.
If a legacy of oppression was the cause of crime then we could expect one of the most consistently oppressed groups in all of history (the Jews) to top the per capita rates for violent crime but we don't see this.
Instead we see them and other minority groups who often entered the US poor like Koreans and Indians not only surpassing blacks in many metrics (including not being arrested or incarcerated) but also significantly beating the white majority in many cases.
The conclusion should be obvious.
Culture matters and not all cultures are equal.
Whites don't underperform Koreans in many metrics in the US due to racism, systemic or otherwise, they do so because large parts of white culture in the US are inferior to large parts of the culture adopted by Koreans living in the US when it comes to things like economic success and avoiding incarceration.
The same applies to other racial groups when compared to one another.
You can also look at the significant disparities within 'blacks' as a group.
Whites are one of the least likely of all racial groups to goto university in the UK.
Afro Caribbeans attend a rate close to whites but black Africans attend at a much higher rate than either whites or Afro Caribbeans.
People are done taking uncritical lectures by the likes of BLM supporters about things like supposed white privellege because their claims are all based on lies.
It's an absolute disgrace that the there is actual systemic racism like that deployed by the likes of Yale University.
Cervical cancer and prostate cancers are both serious issues that can hopefully be mitigated through research.
BLM can mean one of two things both of which make no sense to support, unlike cancer research.
The other is a vague sentiment following the meaning of the words in the slogan....
Please explain how the latter of these makes no sense to support?
I'm not bothering with the care mad copy pasting that follows because you seem to operate on the logical basis of "I think it, therefore it must be true" with each line you type and it's utterly exhausting arguing that mentality in good faith.
Please don't take offence, but are you on the spectrum? Because you seem to have taken the analogy far too literally and totally missed the point. If it is the case then I will refrain from doing so in future.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Side note; why is it anybody who disagrees with you is bound to a higher standard of evidential reasoning than whatever fairytale you fart out over your morning ablutions?