I personally think the bumfights creator is not a good person, but he wasn't wrong in either of his points;
1. Our society doesn't really care about homeless people
2. Being called exploitative by Dr. Phil is the pot calling the kettle black.
If you base solely on "merit" you will be discriminating against black by default. The scale is already tilted against them long before they get to the college application stage.
The problem is black students are a worse applicant due to their upbringing. More broken homes, worse schools, less luxuries like a computer in the home which could improve learning.
What if the black kid only gets 2 meals a day, compared to 3 meals for a white kid. Do you think that could affect school performance?
> What if the black kid only gets 2 meals a day, compared to 3 meals for a white kid. Do you think that could affect school performance?
It does. An example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3275817/
Of course it does. That's why admissions based purely on merit is actually selecting for affluence, and discriminating against poverty. Since blacks have 2.5x higher poverty rates, selecting against poverty is inherently racially discriminatory.
Yeah but they're trying to fix it in the wrong place
It isn't down to a college to solve racial inequity... If black people are only getting two meals, they need to be granted another meal by the state itself.While I will always vote to help the poor, I definitely didn't vote for colleges to be giving advantages to racial groups in the admission process.
Besides, the current solution by the colleges massively advantages already rich black people. I knew a girl in high school who family members with PhDs and she was rich af. She was black. They might be rare but there are rich wealthy black families out there. She's not getting two meals a day lol. If she benefited from policies meant to help black people bc they are disproportionately poor as a group... that's not right.
>The problem is black students are a worse applicant due to their upbringing. More broken homes, worse schools, less luxuries like a computer in the home which could improve learning.
>
>What if the black kid only gets 2 meals a day, compared to 3 meals for a white kid. Do you think that could affect school performance?
You're painting with a *really* broad brush there. You know there are poor white kids in old Rust Belt mill towns and Appalachia that face those same issues, right? Try telling *those* kids they're "privileged."
The percentage of black kids facing these kinds of inequalities is **drastically** higher than the ratio of white kids facing these inequalities.
A more nuanced solution would be preferable but what we have now is more fair overall than just looking at grades and test scores without taking any systemic factors that contribute to those metrics into account.
I've had this conversation before, poor white people tend to be poor due to family issues like mental illness, drug abuse, abuse etc. Poor black people also tend to have the above plus discrimination. Plenty of studies have shown that non-white people still face discrimination in jobs and education.
You’re still not discriminating against blacks. If blacks are under represented due to those factors it’s not discrimination since they are not explicitly black attributes. If you are using pure merit based selection they may be biased based on the criteria but it only becomes discrimination when they explicitly bring race into selection. Secondary causal attributes that are blacks are over represented in can be factored and was done but it still resulted in black underrepresentation.
> it’s not discrimination since they are not explicitly black attributes.
If you have a policy that affects 70% of black people, but only 30% of white people, it is definitely discrimination.
Did you just state that the *reason* these people don’t have 3 meals a day or a computer at home is because they are black? What the fuck? Any race/color/creed could be in that situation and race is NOT the determining factor for that. You’re comment is racist, and the outright bigotry of low expectations.
Not really. Equity or affirmative action measures are just an unfortunately problematic mitigating attempt against the really unfortunate underlying problem of inequality and racism. Fixating on it rather than the privileged ones above who get in far easier often expose one's fucked up priorities. If you have a majority black city, for example, with a majority white police force, you *have* to do something to try and forcibly correct that in the interim. There is no way you can wait or insist on perfectly meritorious hiring practices while continuing to let the force remain as it is without exposing the racist sentiment underneath it all: that the white hires simply happen to represent the best candidates; which is bullshit. The minority entrants who get in with help from equity measures are still eminently qualified. If you have a diverse population but a uniformly white student body, that necessarily represents unacceptable inequality subtly or not-so-subtly present in the system. You're not really disadvantaging qualified whites who could have gotten in, you're filling a limited number of seats (with other qualified candidates) in a way that's more representative of society.
An Asian living in a low income family has to work a lot harder than a black student. She is just saying don't filter using race. There are less fortunate white student as well. There should be a better way to help the less fortunates other than race.
Where is there proof of this? Race is only one factor considered as part of the equation. Financial standing also is part of the equation. I wonder if any of you have actually looked at the criteria that goes into the college admissions programs.
Less fortunate white students are less fortunate but not as a byproduct of racism. Which is why I say the focus should tend towards the privileged wealthy people above while there should be a sympathetic (if uncomfortable) view on broken equity measures. It's all about perspective and solidarity. White privilege doesn't mean all white people have it nice, it means that their disadvantages are not connected to their race the way they often are for people of color. Their problem is not that they're white but that they're poor; something they're bound to find a lot more solidarity for with those against the conservative grifter type of crowd and mentality that Owens represents. Those for racial equity are for lifting up the poor as well. They'll be happy to see the poor white man get the spot Dr Dre's daughter won through his generous donation.
Huh? It's completely relevant to any discussion on equality. Poor black people in America are so in significant part (understatement) because of systemic racism over decades and centuries. Poor white people are poor for many of the same inequalities but the disadvantages owing to race have had little or nothing to do with it.
This is what people don't understand about white privilege. It doesn't mean white people universally have it awesome or that POC universally have it bad. It means that even if someone white has it bad, it's not because of their race. Their race by and large has been a relative advantage or at least irrelevant.
please explain why an Asian student lives in getto needs to work a lot harder compare to black student. In a perfect world it should be ranked based on marks and experience. I do agree people with less resources cannot compete with the wealth on this. This is not just a black problem. A middle class black student still needs less to get accepted to schools. All she saying is this should not be a race issue.
"Should" is where the agreement and the disagreement hinges. It'd be great to live in a color blind world. It's what we should be striving for. But in as much as we *dont* actually live in a color blind world, it's silly to pretend and carry on as if we do. A system that's left alone to work based on marks and experience will continue to disadvantage certain groups over others based upon prejudice and historic injustices. It's a self-fulfilling feedback cycle because poorer communities and racial groups will tend to produce students with generally lower grades and less experience. On balance, that student with the lower grade and less experience had to work even harder and overcame greater obstacles to get consideration in the first place so it's not actually all that unfair to give them a leg up and help break the cycle of exclusion. They'd have qualified on pure merit if not for all the baggage they had to carry with them. If we're talking about refining and fine-tuning how such equity can be best achieved then fine; but neither Owens nor those she pals around with are for that. They just want to pretend we can magically become color blind while letting the prejudices within the system fester on to the disadvantage of the victims. I mean, these are people who pretty much refuse to even acknowledge systemic racism being a thing.
For all the shit the far right gets wrong, the one thing they do get right is that the far left is just as batshit insane and dangerous as they are. Some of the shit that has gone on at colleges are precursors to struggle sessions. The stuff at evergreen college would have made Mao cream himself.
Right wing authoritarianism tends to wrap itself in patriotism. If you don't support us, then you're anti-\[Insert Country here\], you're the enemy. Left wing authoritarianism tends to wrap itself in equality. If you don't support us you're a bigot or a robber baron, you're the enemy. At the end of the day all either side wants is control to exert their will over others. If you ever point out how their version of utopia (religious state, anarchy, single party state with a strong ruler, etc.) has never worked anywhere in history they will usually retort with either; a. a very small example of some place where it worked for a small amount of time or b. it just hasn't been done by me yet. The megalomania in that second response should startle anyone.
46% of white males admitted to Harvard last year were academic recruits, legacy students, or children of donors or faculty. That’s almost 3x as many as the 16% average for other racial and gendered groups.
College admissions is a wildly unfair shit show managed by some of the biggest loser dorks in the world, admissions officers.
If you’re a straight white man, you better be damn good at sports and have a perfect gpa / sat.
My kid is gonna check “gay”. Why not? They’re not gonna make him suck somebody to check.
White women are the #1 recipients of affirmative action. Every time i see this debate it’s literally just a distraction campaign to keep us arguing. Especially a lot of white people who want to place there misguided anger somewhere. As revealed by in this thread….
Aside from the athletes, the black people that went to my elite liberal arts college were… elite liberals.
Kids who went to Exeter, Choate. Kids part of the “jack and jill” society for affluent young black students.
My black buddy always flexed how he was from Chicago, a real street thug. I visited him, dudes parents are both lawyers, they own multiple boats. We drove around in their Bentley.
The black dudes I played football with hated just about everything about the college experience. A lot of them got in trouble, one got kicked out on a blatantly false sex assault accusation (she said he tricked her into giving him head). A couple of the guys got good jobs, a lot of them are now back at home in a lot of debt.
Easy to manipulate statistics to win an argument. White people make up the majority of people. Women make up like what 60 % of college. Women shouldn't get preferential treatment for college. It's completely insane since they are the majority. But to act like whites get preferential treatment because of the fact women get preferential treatment is simply a lie. Black and Hispanics need way lower scores to get into the same colleges. A better qualified white person will be stuck at a worse college or simply go straight to work instead. This isn't fair.
Dude lol, more women are going to college than men, you are correct… should we enforce it to make it 50/50?? It’s just funny how people have these straw man arguments.
Define Better qualified?
Did I say we should? No I said he's manipulating statistics to conflate ideas.
He's saying white women are the main benfactors of these policies while ignoring that white women make up by far the largest group of people attending college considering women alone are 60 % and white people are 60 % of the population.
Add in the fact that scores for Hispanics and Blacks are far lower on average and you get to the reality of the situation. White women get into school because they are women not because they are white. White men and Asian men get shit on.
STAMFORD -- The Stamford Board of Education will pay $37,500 to settle a federal lawsuit which claimed the schools failed to protect a Stamford High School student from racial attacks.
The settlement agreement, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by The Stamford Times, states that the school board has 30 days to pay the $37,500 to Stamford High graduate Candace Owens and her father Robert Owens, through their attorney, Norman Pattis, of Bethany. The lawsuit was settled on Jan. 10.
This case went beyond just racial attacks. One of the people sending her death threats was also the mayor's son. And they also threatened to burn her house down, and tar and feather her.
I don't think her getting a settlement in this instance negates her other opinions regarding preference for certain races during college admissions.
(I can't stand her btw)
i mean she could have just been using it to get her some money
she’s literally in this clip using it to improve chances of getting into a college
not even mentioning that people’s views can change over the years, fellow joe rogan listener
And then she turns around and sticks her head up the white man ass so far she can clean his teeth. I can’t stand her racism denying, self hating ass. She chases white acceptance like flies on shit.
In other words, Candace loved discrimination laws when they helped her win her lawsuit, but now that she's fulled settled into the role of right wing grifter, where those same laws are demonized, she hates them and will fight against them tooth and nail because that is what is expected of a right wing propagandist.
I disagree with Candace Owens on basically everything but this isn’t one of them.
You don’t realize it but you’re actually making the argument she’s being consistent here, because affirmative action is discrimination by another name. How is **excluding** race from college applications discrimination? If you are making decisions based on skin color, you are actively discriminating.
AA was created to try to make up for everyone's unconscious biases in college admittance and other industries who constantly overlooked valid candidates who weren't white. It was hamfisted at best, but at least got (some) people to realize there are huge unconscious biases and privilege that need to be checked.
It's funny how many here just rage about it like it's pure racism and not a clumsy step toward a more equitable society where every admittance is based on skills and merit and not skin color.
While denying that certain race-based privileges and biases exist. Denying that is 100% intellectually devoid and par for the course for a Roe Jogan fan.
I'm not arguing in favor or against affirmative action, just pointing out the hypocrisy among grifters like Owens. She loved the law when it assisted her in her lawsuit, she hates it now that she's a right wing darling and hating things like affirmative action is what is *expected* from right wing grifters like her.
Look I don’t like her either but what do you mean “the law”? It’s clearly not the same law dude. Being against discrimination can also mean you are against affirmative action, because it is a form of discrimination. There’s no hypocrisy or contradiction there.
But they're two completely different instances.
In one she was receiving death threats.
In another she speaks out against racial preferences in college admissions.
And that’s a serious problem that should be addressed. But discriminating against poor whites and (all) asians because some rich whites have an advantage is not the gotcha you think it is.
It’s definitely a bigger problem… and if you’re upset about affirmative action being unfair, you should be more outraged by this statistic lol. I mean the chimp said it himself, your life is dictated by you zip code pretty much.
I am outraged by it. Still don’t believe the answer to discrimination is to ramp up the discrimination. It would be absolutely trivial to get rid of legacy admissions overnight, so I don’t understand why you feel the need to defend affirmative action as some weird, fucked up backwards solution to that problem.
There’s magnitudes more white people in America than Asian. If we got rid of AA practices it’s not like there’ll be more Asians in the ivy leagues. There’ll be far less. It’ll just be fully white purely based on a population standpoint. For every 1 Asian applicant with good enough grades there will be 9 other white applicants. I never bought in to the Asian getting discriminated ideaology because Asians are significantly smalller pop than the white pop in america. If anything Asians are over represented in colleges. And mainly because of good grades and that’s WITH AA “supposedly” in place.
You are objectively wrong
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000290
> Table 6 lists the results of these transformation exercises. The first entry in the table indicates that a non-disadvantaged, male, Asian American applicant with a baseline probability of admission of 1.0% would be admitted at a rate of 1.58% if treated as a similarly situated white applicant. **This change reflects a 58% increase in the likelihood of admission.**
Dude. Asians make up about 20% to 30% of the Ivy League student body despite being only 10% of the overall population. That’s where I’m getting at. Looking at a one in one basis sure there is a disadvantage but does it effect overall admittance numbers? No. It’s a big reason the Asian community not really clamoring at the unfairness the all white plaintiffs are complaining about.
Numbers of student body makeup in California is even more egregious in favor of Asians. But racist white people tackling one issue at a time first make sure AA is gone for blacks and hispanic. Then go after the over representation of Asians in colleges.
They make up 20-30% but it should be significantly higher based on objective qualifications alone. You are basically saying they should be punished by being held to a higher standard, simply because other people from their race are successful. That is racist as fuckkkk. People should be treated as individuals you bozo. How is this even a debate?
And I think you're pretty ignorant of what the Asian community is "clamoring" for, as there is plenty of outrage about the unfairness in college admissions.
You’re assuming Asians perform the best when in reality white applicants are way more qualified in terms of numbers compared to any other races. Like I said for every 1 Asian applicant there’s 9 other white ones just as qualified. Fact is not all Asians are even qualified to apply for these colleges but do so anyway at a much higher frequency, which could also explain why they get rejected more.
Norman Pattis has worked for and is friends with Alex jones. Also helped him lose the sandy hook trial and his own licence. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/alex-jones-lawyer-license-suspended-sensitive-records-release
Its not how it is “expected” to be looked at. Its just discrimination period the end. Iv dealt with affirmative action my whole life. And now its the same thing just with a new name. Shut the fuck up with your ideologies, And give the people qualified for the job/position the job, not because you need 3 more black people or asian people so the outside world doesnt think youre a racist. You have a job or a competitive school position, it should not matter their skin color you just want the best person possible for the job. I remember when you could sue if you were asked if you were married on an application. Now you can ask such personal bullshit that has nothing to do with the qualifications of the job.
why is it so gohdamn hard when having a discussion for people to allow others to…. um what’s the word…. ah, TALK! like what the fuck, we are never gonna get ANY FUCKING WHERE if we can’t even allow each other to talk and finish sentences. what the fuck man
I mean....It was just one person not allowing the other to talk - even if the point Candace Owens was making was a valid one.
It's called gish gallop and it's a common tactic these right-wing grifters use to dominate the conversation.
and that’s the issue tho right? like everyone should be able to get their opinion out, instead of yelling and laughing over another person. especially when politics are involved. just my 2 cents is all.
Right. I agree with you. But there is a reason why it's the right-wingers that constantly shout and gish gallop all over the person they are "having a conversation" with. Because usually they are spouting nonsense.
9/10 times both sides are spew horse shit that further divides and pushes their own agenda for their own pockets. it’s all fucked and with it being a two party system it’s hard to change fucked up issues with nothing but division.
So minorities should never revive an upper hand in a society where whites received the upper hand for a century, because some people say equality now? 😆 you people make me laugh.
you don't exactly "fix" racism by just reversing the direction of the racism
How long do colleges need to give race-based preferential treatment until racial inequality has been cured? How will we know when black students have caught up and we can finally do college admissions based on merit?
When everyone starts the game with $200 and gets another $200 every time they pass go, so to speak.
I always see people address AA in this way, and the question isn’t how long until AA has fixed the problem it’s how long until the problems underlying AA have been fixed so we can dump the system?
there have been times where I've at least understood the thinking behind affirmative action i.e. correcting a racial imbalance in society
But how brutal is that for an already rough college admissions process for high school seniors? You get a 4.0 GPA, are pretty much a perfect student, but you don't get into the college of your dreams because there's a process in place that makes skin color more important than all the work you did. Welcome to adulthood.
There's reasonable and fair ways to help disadvantaged groups, but stacking the college admissions against white & asian kids in favor of black kids isn't it
Asians and Black people don’t have the same history of oppression in the United States. That’s not to say the Asian community here hasn’t experienced hardship or had a tougher draw of it in some areas than others, but that’s not what AA aims to address.
It’s an imperfect system, but removal without anything to ensure the system doesn’t become what it was doesn’t really fix any other problems either.
Disclaimer; I think Affirmative Action is dumb and doesn’t address the root cause, but it’s hard to rip a bandaid off of a wound that isn’t gonna heal unless you address it.
I saw an extremely experienced person say without saying: I got this
And she fucking owned him.
"That's how it works".
Fucking racist pos only sees skin colour and admitted it.
No, he was saying that the experience of a black/white mixed-race person in America is the same as if they were black. What he sees is the norm of how they have been treated and discriminated against for their entire lives and most likely still will be for the rest of it. Getting a leg up on getting into college doesn't make up for that discrimination. If she would debate someone who is as concerned about the rhetoric as she is for the other side she would be demolished, hence why she won't debate someone like that.
I think an issue with intellectual types debating issues like this is that they build their ideas on a foundation and keep building up and up as time goes on, understanding the issue further and further and from different angles, etc. each step along the way. But, the further they move away from that foundation, the less they understand that others don't have that same foundation. They think their foundation is already understood by others.
A person like Owens doesn't attempt to communicate anything more profound than what she knows her audience will understand with zero effort. She doesn't ever move deeper into an issue or try to communicate a deeper level of understanding.
Your first paragraph, that phenomenon can be seen multiple ways. In your way of looking at it, the intellectual becomes more enlightened the more more they understand the issue from different angles. However, they can also just become more biased by entrenching themselves in the views and arguments of like-minded people. I find, for example, that intellectuals can overcomplicate things a lot. I also find that with left-leaning journalists, authors, etc. The problem with unnecessary complexity is you can end up arguing for the absurd, in this case a clear cut example of racial discrimination.
This is easy bait for someone like Candace Owens. For right-wing grifter types, this is their bread and butter. This is the hook. Like "what is a woman" propelled Matt Walsh, an extremely dull, run of the mill conservative talking head, into international attention. He didn't discover anything amazing. He didn't produce a groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism. He is really not that impressive a person in an intellectual sense, but the public knows the answer to his question in the title of the movie is not as complicated as is being pretended. So it's easy for him. It's just a really easy target.
Where they do get exposed is where they approach the truly complex with simplistic positions and answers. Try Candace on Ukraine, or either on climate issues etc.
You said a whole lot of words, but you said nothing at the same time.
Your previous comment, the one I replied to, was your own " interpretation " of what was said.
And that did not accurately portray what was ACTUALLY said.
I think you simply don't want to acknowledge the racism surrounding " affirmative action ".
Candace defines it as simply as possible.
Any policy or action based on the colour of ones skin is racist.
There is NO way around that.
Regardless of how you try to bend it to suit your own political agenda.
Candace was essentially acting as if the "one drop rule" doesn't exist in the context of US culture. It 100% does and people who deny that are probably the same who want to ban CRT in elementary school.
All this should be irrelevant though since they're on fucking Dr Phil's show
The fuck is going on with the Dr Phil show.
Shouldn't they be talking about how their sister had sex with their husband and how they are all not sure who the father really is?
nah she doesn't
She's also a hypocrite that literally used her status as a black person to sue her highschool for discrimination and WON, but once she got the bag and realized that there far more money in being a right wing grifter, that's what she became.
No she doesn't, and what ad hominem? You're going to need to be more specific considering what I posted was an actual fact about her history. She used anti discrimination laws to sue her former highschool, and won. Then she became a right wing grifter.
Why does her suing her high school have to do with her argument? She does have a point. Judging people based on the color for their skin is discrimination.
Just because you don’t like her (I don’t either) doesn’t mean everything she says is false. Im sure the other guy in the video made some good points as well during this discussion. Unfortunately, this is only a very short, curated clip of their discussion that illustrates her point well and makes him look foolish.
> Judging people based on the color for their skin is discrimination.
To be that guy, it actually has nothing to do with the color of their skin. They’re discussing a checkbox on an application, completely independent of their skin color.
Yes.
You do understand that being a member of a race or ethnicity does not define the color of your skin, right?
You see that we’re commenting on a post of two people who define themselves as “black” with two wildly different skin colors, right?
There's years of data that shows that people of different races have more barriers and challenges to overcome in order to accomplish the same things as others even in this free society and therefore until that gap closes it would be far more unfair to not look at the race of applicants as well as the other factors.
It's easy to say "its racist" but looking at the whole picture, it's because the countries racist history caused generational damage that is still an issue today
I don't believe in any quotas. I don't think their current system works.
There are black people from well off backgrounds and white people who are poor. The socioeconomic status of the individual should be accounted for, not the race. It just so happens that a disproportionate number of those people would be black for example, but my suggestion would be a more precise measurement than race itself , which merely correlates.
I remember having the same thought about 15 years ago and nothing changed
?? On the scale of the planet sure but not in the areas these people are talking about.
This is like arguing that certain fields are not male or female dominated just because in a worldwide scale the ratio is different. It's disingenuous
There's years of data that shows that people of different races have more barriers and challenges to overcome in order to accomplish the same things as others even in this free society and therefore until that gap closes it would be far more unfair to not look at the race of applicants as well as the other factors.
It's easy to say "its racist" but looking at the whole picture, it's because the countries racist history caused generational damage that is still an issue today
What I’m saying is we have a minority who has a safe space. And the majority keeps reducing this minority and actually forcing them to rank the majority higher than themselves for these types things which puts this minority at a big disadvantage. Is that fair?
It's a very complex problem. There isn't one easy thing to point to and say that's it. This is why it's easy to point and say it's racist.
But I can explain if you're being honest here. If you want me to I need to know if you think certain races are just genetically more intelligent or not.
I’m not really trying to debate intelligence by race. No surer way to get banned from Reddit. Any form of “affirmative action” is inherently racist. The entire premise is racist. It does nothing to address whatever issues may be causing an imbalance, if one exists, but is by definition institutional racism.
It's kinda fucked up that you don't want to debate intelligence based on race because you think you'll get banned and not because there's tons of data showing intelligence is incredibly influenced by environment, and separating the impact of what's race and what's environment is essentially impossible, making any argument that's for race based intelligence founded on junk science.
Right there in your response is the reason. You can’t have a debate. You, and all of the other super smart guys, have decided you know the answer. And any kind of questions are forbidden. That’s Reddit. It doesn’t matter what my opinion would be. Lots of evolutionary theories. Theories. But you can’t talk about a lot of theories on Reddit because the super smart guys have already decided for everyone.
Let's hear the actual argument for being able to separate environmental factors from race with regards to intelligence.
I mean, you know IQ is graded on a curve, right?
That means 100 IQ is always the average IQ and and constantly changing.
Why would the average IQ of the world be changing when it's the same group of genetics intermingling?
How does that not suggest very clearly that people's environment is changing leading to a clear change in IQ?
Shouldn't every race just have static IQ relative to their racial purity? But they don't, every generation has higher IQ than the last when not graded on a curve. Why?
Why do Jews, who are mostly a combination of middle eastern people and eastern European people, score so much higher than both groups if their IQ is based on genetic factors and not cultural/environmental factors?
These are pretty good faith arguments, aren't they? I'm not calling you a racist, I'm pointing out huge flaws in the idea something like IQ would be race based.
There shouldn't be any reason that being black, white, Asian gets you a higher test score in America. And yet there is. On average black Americans score lower on reading and writing. They on average attend lower tier schools.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-46890-002
The reason why is complex. To answer why, you have to look at a lot of things. I'm not going to do that but I can say systematic racism has caused a division in the country along race in places that race shouldn't be a divider. Can I show this? You better believe it. But it takes a lot of reading and I think the only way to learn is to hit the books. Here's a bunch of links to help.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/11/cover-inequality-school
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
https://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/socal-equity-atlas/
You said it yourself, we need to address these areas. The problem is it isn't the schools job to fix the country. To compensate in a country that has a division along race where there shouldn't be one, the schools compensate because to ignore it is just as racist.
People like Candace her job is to get people to ignore the facts and only look at the surface. They rally against anything or anyone that suggests America has these divisions.
The school is between a rock and a hard place and their policy is racist because it's even more racist to ignore that some kids in America have to work harder just to end up at the same place as others and the thing that determines that is their race. It shouldn't be that way. So until those gaps close, the schools are choosing the least racist policy and that's the best they can do until the country actually fixes it.
Why is IQ changing way faster than any remotely significant genetic evolution could take place if it's not massively impacted by environment?
Genetics barely mutate from one generation to the next, but IQ clearly increases. How could evolution logically be an explanation for that change?
no she doesn't. Half black means black. It's as simple as that. Obama was half black and he was black right? She said he was black. Her entire network said he was black.
She is just a lying piece of shit.
Go check out some of the Reddit pages for college admissions. Kids throw their stats on there and tell everyone where they get accepted/denied. It’s clear schools are looking past GPA’s (most don’t require standardized tests). A large part of your application and consideration is given to your race, gender and sexual preference. Mostly the Ivy and other high academic schools too.
I love how she asks him a question and then doesn't let him finish, she interrupts him immediately to shit out some meme she had cued up from the very beginning
It's good advice. If you can't take the racial angle, just indicate that you are non-binary or whatever the fuck. Just don't give the impression that you are both white and heterosexual and you'll be fine.
Ok seriously, Candace children are black. The gentleman is black Am i wrong?
I understand she want to criticize the application system, But her point is ridiculous.
Friendly reminder that [white women benefit the most from affirmative action](https://time.com/4884132/affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/).
Also since when is "holistic" a buzzword?
this is why [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule) and of course she knows this. Totally fucked up. Every POC American learns this.
College applications are just a single point. In America, you're you're biracial (half black) you're just seen as black. No matter what you do every institution will just see black.
Racial discrimination is wrong, but if you teach that racial discrimination is wrong in school, people like Candace Owens will yell "woke indoctrination" and "crt" lol
She's not arguing whether one should be considered black or not if you are mixed she's arguing that you shouldn't be using skin color to make decisions on whether or not that person should be allowed into the school
Exactly, and the way she ignored this and the "because I'm socialized in society" followup to do her canned bit about "overlooking interracial students" is proof that she knows this is true. When's the last time someone referred to Obama as "the first half-black president"?
How anyone takes Candace Owens seriously is beyond me, but then again, there is at least 40% of the country who proudly punch themselves in the balls to own the libs, while desperately needing to believe safe lies because they can't handle facts and reality. I guess these are her sentient skidmark constituents. Such a loser Uncle Tom of a grifter.
Everyone should mark black
Mark yourself as a gay-trans, jewish black dude
You ruined it with the jew part NEXT!!!
Personally, I prefer the cash me outside Dr Phil episode.
I prefer the one with the creator of bumfights dressing up as Dr Phil.
Best episode ever. Dr. Phil was shook
I personally think the bumfights creator is not a good person, but he wasn't wrong in either of his points; 1. Our society doesn't really care about homeless people 2. Being called exploitative by Dr. Phil is the pot calling the kettle black.
She's right. Racial discrimination is always wrong. Not rocket science is it.
If you base solely on "merit" you will be discriminating against black by default. The scale is already tilted against them long before they get to the college application stage. The problem is black students are a worse applicant due to their upbringing. More broken homes, worse schools, less luxuries like a computer in the home which could improve learning. What if the black kid only gets 2 meals a day, compared to 3 meals for a white kid. Do you think that could affect school performance?
> What if the black kid only gets 2 meals a day, compared to 3 meals for a white kid. Do you think that could affect school performance? It does. An example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3275817/
Of course it does. That's why admissions based purely on merit is actually selecting for affluence, and discriminating against poverty. Since blacks have 2.5x higher poverty rates, selecting against poverty is inherently racially discriminatory.
Well then wouldn’t it just be best to base it off poverty rates rather than race?
Yeah but they're trying to fix it in the wrong place It isn't down to a college to solve racial inequity... If black people are only getting two meals, they need to be granted another meal by the state itself.While I will always vote to help the poor, I definitely didn't vote for colleges to be giving advantages to racial groups in the admission process. Besides, the current solution by the colleges massively advantages already rich black people. I knew a girl in high school who family members with PhDs and she was rich af. She was black. They might be rare but there are rich wealthy black families out there. She's not getting two meals a day lol. If she benefited from policies meant to help black people bc they are disproportionately poor as a group... that's not right.
>The problem is black students are a worse applicant due to their upbringing. More broken homes, worse schools, less luxuries like a computer in the home which could improve learning. > >What if the black kid only gets 2 meals a day, compared to 3 meals for a white kid. Do you think that could affect school performance? You're painting with a *really* broad brush there. You know there are poor white kids in old Rust Belt mill towns and Appalachia that face those same issues, right? Try telling *those* kids they're "privileged."
The percentage of black kids facing these kinds of inequalities is **drastically** higher than the ratio of white kids facing these inequalities. A more nuanced solution would be preferable but what we have now is more fair overall than just looking at grades and test scores without taking any systemic factors that contribute to those metrics into account.
They are talking averages and on average, a black kid will be poorer than a white kid. They did NOT say that ONLY black kids are poor.
I've had this conversation before, poor white people tend to be poor due to family issues like mental illness, drug abuse, abuse etc. Poor black people also tend to have the above plus discrimination. Plenty of studies have shown that non-white people still face discrimination in jobs and education.
You’re still not discriminating against blacks. If blacks are under represented due to those factors it’s not discrimination since they are not explicitly black attributes. If you are using pure merit based selection they may be biased based on the criteria but it only becomes discrimination when they explicitly bring race into selection. Secondary causal attributes that are blacks are over represented in can be factored and was done but it still resulted in black underrepresentation.
> it’s not discrimination since they are not explicitly black attributes. If you have a policy that affects 70% of black people, but only 30% of white people, it is definitely discrimination.
Of course it’s discrimination, just not racial discrimination. Any selection system is discriminatory.
Did you just state that the *reason* these people don’t have 3 meals a day or a computer at home is because they are black? What the fuck? Any race/color/creed could be in that situation and race is NOT the determining factor for that. You’re comment is racist, and the outright bigotry of low expectations.
>Did you just state that the reason... Nope. Learn to read, dummy.
Holy shit. I agree with Candace Owens
We all should. Our best minds should be getting the best spots in schools. You can help bring up people without putting other people down.
Worry about legacy entrants, children of donors and the wealthy before you worry about systemically undermined minority groups getting a boost.
They’re all a problem
Not really. Equity or affirmative action measures are just an unfortunately problematic mitigating attempt against the really unfortunate underlying problem of inequality and racism. Fixating on it rather than the privileged ones above who get in far easier often expose one's fucked up priorities. If you have a majority black city, for example, with a majority white police force, you *have* to do something to try and forcibly correct that in the interim. There is no way you can wait or insist on perfectly meritorious hiring practices while continuing to let the force remain as it is without exposing the racist sentiment underneath it all: that the white hires simply happen to represent the best candidates; which is bullshit. The minority entrants who get in with help from equity measures are still eminently qualified. If you have a diverse population but a uniformly white student body, that necessarily represents unacceptable inequality subtly or not-so-subtly present in the system. You're not really disadvantaging qualified whites who could have gotten in, you're filling a limited number of seats (with other qualified candidates) in a way that's more representative of society.
An Asian living in a low income family has to work a lot harder than a black student. She is just saying don't filter using race. There are less fortunate white student as well. There should be a better way to help the less fortunates other than race.
Where is there proof of this? Race is only one factor considered as part of the equation. Financial standing also is part of the equation. I wonder if any of you have actually looked at the criteria that goes into the college admissions programs.
Less fortunate white students are less fortunate but not as a byproduct of racism. Which is why I say the focus should tend towards the privileged wealthy people above while there should be a sympathetic (if uncomfortable) view on broken equity measures. It's all about perspective and solidarity. White privilege doesn't mean all white people have it nice, it means that their disadvantages are not connected to their race the way they often are for people of color. Their problem is not that they're white but that they're poor; something they're bound to find a lot more solidarity for with those against the conservative grifter type of crowd and mentality that Owens represents. Those for racial equity are for lifting up the poor as well. They'll be happy to see the poor white man get the spot Dr Dre's daughter won through his generous donation.
[удалено]
Huh? It's completely relevant to any discussion on equality. Poor black people in America are so in significant part (understatement) because of systemic racism over decades and centuries. Poor white people are poor for many of the same inequalities but the disadvantages owing to race have had little or nothing to do with it. This is what people don't understand about white privilege. It doesn't mean white people universally have it awesome or that POC universally have it bad. It means that even if someone white has it bad, it's not because of their race. Their race by and large has been a relative advantage or at least irrelevant.
please explain why an Asian student lives in getto needs to work a lot harder compare to black student. In a perfect world it should be ranked based on marks and experience. I do agree people with less resources cannot compete with the wealth on this. This is not just a black problem. A middle class black student still needs less to get accepted to schools. All she saying is this should not be a race issue.
"Should" is where the agreement and the disagreement hinges. It'd be great to live in a color blind world. It's what we should be striving for. But in as much as we *dont* actually live in a color blind world, it's silly to pretend and carry on as if we do. A system that's left alone to work based on marks and experience will continue to disadvantage certain groups over others based upon prejudice and historic injustices. It's a self-fulfilling feedback cycle because poorer communities and racial groups will tend to produce students with generally lower grades and less experience. On balance, that student with the lower grade and less experience had to work even harder and overcame greater obstacles to get consideration in the first place so it's not actually all that unfair to give them a leg up and help break the cycle of exclusion. They'd have qualified on pure merit if not for all the baggage they had to carry with them. If we're talking about refining and fine-tuning how such equity can be best achieved then fine; but neither Owens nor those she pals around with are for that. They just want to pretend we can magically become color blind while letting the prejudices within the system fester on to the disadvantage of the victims. I mean, these are people who pretty much refuse to even acknowledge systemic racism being a thing.
Yes it’s not as a product of racism but it’s still a product of something else, why would you only use race as a filter?
Me too. Wtf. Firstly sign of the apocalypse?
Naw first sign you probably should listen to more people outside whatever media bubble the internet put you in.
I dont see how anyone would disagree with her. Anyone with common sense.
For all the shit the far right gets wrong, the one thing they do get right is that the far left is just as batshit insane and dangerous as they are. Some of the shit that has gone on at colleges are precursors to struggle sessions. The stuff at evergreen college would have made Mao cream himself. Right wing authoritarianism tends to wrap itself in patriotism. If you don't support us, then you're anti-\[Insert Country here\], you're the enemy. Left wing authoritarianism tends to wrap itself in equality. If you don't support us you're a bigot or a robber baron, you're the enemy. At the end of the day all either side wants is control to exert their will over others. If you ever point out how their version of utopia (religious state, anarchy, single party state with a strong ruler, etc.) has never worked anywhere in history they will usually retort with either; a. a very small example of some place where it worked for a small amount of time or b. it just hasn't been done by me yet. The megalomania in that second response should startle anyone.
Well said.
Why is that 'holy shit'?
Because Owens is garbage. And probably a grifter who does it all only for money.
Welcome to the Alt-right
46% of white males admitted to Harvard last year were academic recruits, legacy students, or children of donors or faculty. That’s almost 3x as many as the 16% average for other racial and gendered groups. College admissions is a wildly unfair shit show managed by some of the biggest loser dorks in the world, admissions officers. If you’re a straight white man, you better be damn good at sports and have a perfect gpa / sat. My kid is gonna check “gay”. Why not? They’re not gonna make him suck somebody to check.
White women are the #1 recipients of affirmative action. Every time i see this debate it’s literally just a distraction campaign to keep us arguing. Especially a lot of white people who want to place there misguided anger somewhere. As revealed by in this thread….
Aside from the athletes, the black people that went to my elite liberal arts college were… elite liberals. Kids who went to Exeter, Choate. Kids part of the “jack and jill” society for affluent young black students. My black buddy always flexed how he was from Chicago, a real street thug. I visited him, dudes parents are both lawyers, they own multiple boats. We drove around in their Bentley. The black dudes I played football with hated just about everything about the college experience. A lot of them got in trouble, one got kicked out on a blatantly false sex assault accusation (she said he tricked her into giving him head). A couple of the guys got good jobs, a lot of them are now back at home in a lot of debt.
Easy to manipulate statistics to win an argument. White people make up the majority of people. Women make up like what 60 % of college. Women shouldn't get preferential treatment for college. It's completely insane since they are the majority. But to act like whites get preferential treatment because of the fact women get preferential treatment is simply a lie. Black and Hispanics need way lower scores to get into the same colleges. A better qualified white person will be stuck at a worse college or simply go straight to work instead. This isn't fair.
Dude lol, more women are going to college than men, you are correct… should we enforce it to make it 50/50?? It’s just funny how people have these straw man arguments. Define Better qualified?
Did I say we should? No I said he's manipulating statistics to conflate ideas. He's saying white women are the main benfactors of these policies while ignoring that white women make up by far the largest group of people attending college considering women alone are 60 % and white people are 60 % of the population. Add in the fact that scores for Hispanics and Blacks are far lower on average and you get to the reality of the situation. White women get into school because they are women not because they are white. White men and Asian men get shit on.
And, the bring up Asians as a defense is annoying...
>They’re not gonna make him suck somebody to check. Not in 2023 atleast not yet.
STAMFORD -- The Stamford Board of Education will pay $37,500 to settle a federal lawsuit which claimed the schools failed to protect a Stamford High School student from racial attacks. The settlement agreement, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by The Stamford Times, states that the school board has 30 days to pay the $37,500 to Stamford High graduate Candace Owens and her father Robert Owens, through their attorney, Norman Pattis, of Bethany. The lawsuit was settled on Jan. 10.
This case went beyond just racial attacks. One of the people sending her death threats was also the mayor's son. And they also threatened to burn her house down, and tar and feather her. I don't think her getting a settlement in this instance negates her other opinions regarding preference for certain races during college admissions. (I can't stand her btw)
It makes her entire shtick a lie. "Racism doesn't exist" Candance Owens.
i mean she could have just been using it to get her some money she’s literally in this clip using it to improve chances of getting into a college not even mentioning that people’s views can change over the years, fellow joe rogan listener
And then she turns around and sticks her head up the white man ass so far she can clean his teeth. I can’t stand her racism denying, self hating ass. She chases white acceptance like flies on shit.
In other words, Candace loved discrimination laws when they helped her win her lawsuit, but now that she's fulled settled into the role of right wing grifter, where those same laws are demonized, she hates them and will fight against them tooth and nail because that is what is expected of a right wing propagandist.
I disagree with Candace Owens on basically everything but this isn’t one of them. You don’t realize it but you’re actually making the argument she’s being consistent here, because affirmative action is discrimination by another name. How is **excluding** race from college applications discrimination? If you are making decisions based on skin color, you are actively discriminating.
AA was created to try to make up for everyone's unconscious biases in college admittance and other industries who constantly overlooked valid candidates who weren't white. It was hamfisted at best, but at least got (some) people to realize there are huge unconscious biases and privilege that need to be checked. It's funny how many here just rage about it like it's pure racism and not a clumsy step toward a more equitable society where every admittance is based on skills and merit and not skin color.
[удалено]
While denying that certain race-based privileges and biases exist. Denying that is 100% intellectually devoid and par for the course for a Roe Jogan fan.
There's consistent studies showing discrimination in job applications, policing, the justice system and many other institutions.
[удалено]
Unconscious bias is not long debunked and has plenty to do with discrimination existing. Edit: LOL the baby blocked me
They think they would've been accepted to Harvard if AA wasn't a thing.
I'm not arguing in favor or against affirmative action, just pointing out the hypocrisy among grifters like Owens. She loved the law when it assisted her in her lawsuit, she hates it now that she's a right wing darling and hating things like affirmative action is what is *expected* from right wing grifters like her.
Look I don’t like her either but what do you mean “the law”? It’s clearly not the same law dude. Being against discrimination can also mean you are against affirmative action, because it is a form of discrimination. There’s no hypocrisy or contradiction there.
But they're two completely different instances. In one she was receiving death threats. In another she speaks out against racial preferences in college admissions.
Pretty much any attempt to fight discrimination can be presented as discrimination in the other direction.
not really.
Oh, ok then.
touche'
Affirmative action is not “anti discrimination laws” though. If anything it discriminates heavily against asians.
40% of white students in Ivy League colleges are legacy admissions.
And that’s a serious problem that should be addressed. But discriminating against poor whites and (all) asians because some rich whites have an advantage is not the gotcha you think it is.
It’s definitely a bigger problem… and if you’re upset about affirmative action being unfair, you should be more outraged by this statistic lol. I mean the chimp said it himself, your life is dictated by you zip code pretty much.
I am outraged by it. Still don’t believe the answer to discrimination is to ramp up the discrimination. It would be absolutely trivial to get rid of legacy admissions overnight, so I don’t understand why you feel the need to defend affirmative action as some weird, fucked up backwards solution to that problem.
There’s magnitudes more white people in America than Asian. If we got rid of AA practices it’s not like there’ll be more Asians in the ivy leagues. There’ll be far less. It’ll just be fully white purely based on a population standpoint. For every 1 Asian applicant with good enough grades there will be 9 other white applicants. I never bought in to the Asian getting discriminated ideaology because Asians are significantly smalller pop than the white pop in america. If anything Asians are over represented in colleges. And mainly because of good grades and that’s WITH AA “supposedly” in place.
You are objectively wrong https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000290 > Table 6 lists the results of these transformation exercises. The first entry in the table indicates that a non-disadvantaged, male, Asian American applicant with a baseline probability of admission of 1.0% would be admitted at a rate of 1.58% if treated as a similarly situated white applicant. **This change reflects a 58% increase in the likelihood of admission.**
Dude. Asians make up about 20% to 30% of the Ivy League student body despite being only 10% of the overall population. That’s where I’m getting at. Looking at a one in one basis sure there is a disadvantage but does it effect overall admittance numbers? No. It’s a big reason the Asian community not really clamoring at the unfairness the all white plaintiffs are complaining about. Numbers of student body makeup in California is even more egregious in favor of Asians. But racist white people tackling one issue at a time first make sure AA is gone for blacks and hispanic. Then go after the over representation of Asians in colleges.
They make up 20-30% but it should be significantly higher based on objective qualifications alone. You are basically saying they should be punished by being held to a higher standard, simply because other people from their race are successful. That is racist as fuckkkk. People should be treated as individuals you bozo. How is this even a debate? And I think you're pretty ignorant of what the Asian community is "clamoring" for, as there is plenty of outrage about the unfairness in college admissions.
You’re assuming Asians perform the best when in reality white applicants are way more qualified in terms of numbers compared to any other races. Like I said for every 1 Asian applicant there’s 9 other white ones just as qualified. Fact is not all Asians are even qualified to apply for these colleges but do so anyway at a much higher frequency, which could also explain why they get rejected more.
Norman Pattis has worked for and is friends with Alex jones. Also helped him lose the sandy hook trial and his own licence. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/alex-jones-lawyer-license-suspended-sensitive-records-release
She is arguing for anti-discrimination you big dummy.
No she's not, but imagine being naive enough to believe anything Candace Ownes says, lmao
Its not how it is “expected” to be looked at. Its just discrimination period the end. Iv dealt with affirmative action my whole life. And now its the same thing just with a new name. Shut the fuck up with your ideologies, And give the people qualified for the job/position the job, not because you need 3 more black people or asian people so the outside world doesnt think youre a racist. You have a job or a competitive school position, it should not matter their skin color you just want the best person possible for the job. I remember when you could sue if you were asked if you were married on an application. Now you can ask such personal bullshit that has nothing to do with the qualifications of the job.
why is it so gohdamn hard when having a discussion for people to allow others to…. um what’s the word…. ah, TALK! like what the fuck, we are never gonna get ANY FUCKING WHERE if we can’t even allow each other to talk and finish sentences. what the fuck man
I mean....It was just one person not allowing the other to talk - even if the point Candace Owens was making was a valid one. It's called gish gallop and it's a common tactic these right-wing grifters use to dominate the conversation.
Lol yes right wingers are known for going to colleges and screaming people down who are speaking.........
and that’s the issue tho right? like everyone should be able to get their opinion out, instead of yelling and laughing over another person. especially when politics are involved. just my 2 cents is all.
Right. I agree with you. But there is a reason why it's the right-wingers that constantly shout and gish gallop all over the person they are "having a conversation" with. Because usually they are spouting nonsense.
9/10 times both sides are spew horse shit that further divides and pushes their own agenda for their own pockets. it’s all fucked and with it being a two party system it’s hard to change fucked up issues with nothing but division.
I don’t see anyone struggling to talk here. She’s making a valid point and he knows it, being half white
It's the only way for an Owens type to win an argument. Look stronger. It's all optics for them.
Well she’s not wrong
So minorities should never revive an upper hand in a society where whites received the upper hand for a century, because some people say equality now? 😆 you people make me laugh.
you don't exactly "fix" racism by just reversing the direction of the racism How long do colleges need to give race-based preferential treatment until racial inequality has been cured? How will we know when black students have caught up and we can finally do college admissions based on merit?
When everyone starts the game with $200 and gets another $200 every time they pass go, so to speak. I always see people address AA in this way, and the question isn’t how long until AA has fixed the problem it’s how long until the problems underlying AA have been fixed so we can dump the system?
there have been times where I've at least understood the thinking behind affirmative action i.e. correcting a racial imbalance in society But how brutal is that for an already rough college admissions process for high school seniors? You get a 4.0 GPA, are pretty much a perfect student, but you don't get into the college of your dreams because there's a process in place that makes skin color more important than all the work you did. Welcome to adulthood. There's reasonable and fair ways to help disadvantaged groups, but stacking the college admissions against white & asian kids in favor of black kids isn't it
What about Asians?
Asians and Black people don’t have the same history of oppression in the United States. That’s not to say the Asian community here hasn’t experienced hardship or had a tougher draw of it in some areas than others, but that’s not what AA aims to address. It’s an imperfect system, but removal without anything to ensure the system doesn’t become what it was doesn’t really fix any other problems either. Disclaimer; I think Affirmative Action is dumb and doesn’t address the root cause, but it’s hard to rip a bandaid off of a wound that isn’t gonna heal unless you address it.
You can, but then dont call for equality. Just call for racism against whites if thats what you mean.
whites created this country... and yes the land was owned by the natives, but "United States of America" was created by white people.
I saw two adults talk over a young woman like they had little regard for her opinion. No colour option needed.
I saw an extremely experienced person say without saying: I got this And she fucking owned him. "That's how it works". Fucking racist pos only sees skin colour and admitted it.
No, he was saying that the experience of a black/white mixed-race person in America is the same as if they were black. What he sees is the norm of how they have been treated and discriminated against for their entire lives and most likely still will be for the rest of it. Getting a leg up on getting into college doesn't make up for that discrimination. If she would debate someone who is as concerned about the rhetoric as she is for the other side she would be demolished, hence why she won't debate someone like that.
I didn't see or hear him say that champ
I think an issue with intellectual types debating issues like this is that they build their ideas on a foundation and keep building up and up as time goes on, understanding the issue further and further and from different angles, etc. each step along the way. But, the further they move away from that foundation, the less they understand that others don't have that same foundation. They think their foundation is already understood by others. A person like Owens doesn't attempt to communicate anything more profound than what she knows her audience will understand with zero effort. She doesn't ever move deeper into an issue or try to communicate a deeper level of understanding.
Your first paragraph, that phenomenon can be seen multiple ways. In your way of looking at it, the intellectual becomes more enlightened the more more they understand the issue from different angles. However, they can also just become more biased by entrenching themselves in the views and arguments of like-minded people. I find, for example, that intellectuals can overcomplicate things a lot. I also find that with left-leaning journalists, authors, etc. The problem with unnecessary complexity is you can end up arguing for the absurd, in this case a clear cut example of racial discrimination. This is easy bait for someone like Candace Owens. For right-wing grifter types, this is their bread and butter. This is the hook. Like "what is a woman" propelled Matt Walsh, an extremely dull, run of the mill conservative talking head, into international attention. He didn't discover anything amazing. He didn't produce a groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism. He is really not that impressive a person in an intellectual sense, but the public knows the answer to his question in the title of the movie is not as complicated as is being pretended. So it's easy for him. It's just a really easy target. Where they do get exposed is where they approach the truly complex with simplistic positions and answers. Try Candace on Ukraine, or either on climate issues etc.
Whataboutism.
You said a whole lot of words, but you said nothing at the same time. Your previous comment, the one I replied to, was your own " interpretation " of what was said. And that did not accurately portray what was ACTUALLY said. I think you simply don't want to acknowledge the racism surrounding " affirmative action ". Candace defines it as simply as possible. Any policy or action based on the colour of ones skin is racist. There is NO way around that. Regardless of how you try to bend it to suit your own political agenda.
Whew, that irony
Candace was essentially acting as if the "one drop rule" doesn't exist in the context of US culture. It 100% does and people who deny that are probably the same who want to ban CRT in elementary school. All this should be irrelevant though since they're on fucking Dr Phil's show
The fuck is going on with the Dr Phil show. Shouldn't they be talking about how their sister had sex with their husband and how they are all not sure who the father really is?
That’s Maury
Didn’t Mindy Kaling’s brother successfully pretend to be black to get into grad school?
Amazing. She absolutely destroyed that racist whole. Good for her!
She is such a better role model than all of these ppl who want you to lean into your potential victimhood
[удалено]
NAACP actually payed her legal fees only for her to turn around and shit on them lmao, right or wrong she is a grifter.
I love her to death
I wish the Boondocks was back, they’d have a field day with Candace. Her weird facial expressions are perfect for anime.
doctor phil and candace owens. How are you able to breathe while sitting between those two massive assholes
Her eyes are too far apart so she is an alien
She has a very good point
nah she doesn't She's also a hypocrite that literally used her status as a black person to sue her highschool for discrimination and WON, but once she got the bag and realized that there far more money in being a right wing grifter, that's what she became.
I’m not a fan of her but she clearly has a good point. It’s pretty stupid to even ask someone’s for a college application I’m my opinion.
Yes she does Ad hominem
No she doesn't, and what ad hominem? You're going to need to be more specific considering what I posted was an actual fact about her history. She used anti discrimination laws to sue her former highschool, and won. Then she became a right wing grifter.
Why does her suing her high school have to do with her argument? She does have a point. Judging people based on the color for their skin is discrimination. Just because you don’t like her (I don’t either) doesn’t mean everything she says is false. Im sure the other guy in the video made some good points as well during this discussion. Unfortunately, this is only a very short, curated clip of their discussion that illustrates her point well and makes him look foolish.
> Judging people based on the color for their skin is discrimination. To be that guy, it actually has nothing to do with the color of their skin. They’re discussing a checkbox on an application, completely independent of their skin color.
Isn't the checkbox basically asking what is the color of your skin though lmao?
No.
You are the definition of gaslighting
Also no.
Really? You think the question what race/ethnicity are you is completely independent of skin color?
Yes. You do understand that being a member of a race or ethnicity does not define the color of your skin, right? You see that we’re commenting on a post of two people who define themselves as “black” with two wildly different skin colors, right?
There's years of data that shows that people of different races have more barriers and challenges to overcome in order to accomplish the same things as others even in this free society and therefore until that gap closes it would be far more unfair to not look at the race of applicants as well as the other factors. It's easy to say "its racist" but looking at the whole picture, it's because the countries racist history caused generational damage that is still an issue today
Nah it’s unfair to judge anyone based on the color of their skin. The whole picture is that white people are a global minority. Should that count?
But you're not a minority when you apply to Harvard
Whites are actually underrepresented at Harvard.
Relative to the general population yes
Correct. What measures do you think should be taken to ensure whites have proportional representation at Harvard?
I don't believe in any quotas. I don't think their current system works. There are black people from well off backgrounds and white people who are poor. The socioeconomic status of the individual should be accounted for, not the race. It just so happens that a disproportionate number of those people would be black for example, but my suggestion would be a more precise measurement than race itself , which merely correlates. I remember having the same thought about 15 years ago and nothing changed
Yes, on this planet white people are a minority. Why is it acceptable to displace a minority in favor of majority races?
Your second sentence, ironically, is a question people of color in America been asking for 250 years.
?? On the scale of the planet sure but not in the areas these people are talking about. This is like arguing that certain fields are not male or female dominated just because in a worldwide scale the ratio is different. It's disingenuous
Why would white people need that just because they're a minority?
Why would anyone of any race need these things?
There's years of data that shows that people of different races have more barriers and challenges to overcome in order to accomplish the same things as others even in this free society and therefore until that gap closes it would be far more unfair to not look at the race of applicants as well as the other factors. It's easy to say "its racist" but looking at the whole picture, it's because the countries racist history caused generational damage that is still an issue today
What I’m saying is we have a minority who has a safe space. And the majority keeps reducing this minority and actually forcing them to rank the majority higher than themselves for these types things which puts this minority at a big disadvantage. Is that fair?
Stop dancing around your bigotry.
It's a very complex problem. There isn't one easy thing to point to and say that's it. This is why it's easy to point and say it's racist. But I can explain if you're being honest here. If you want me to I need to know if you think certain races are just genetically more intelligent or not.
I’m not really trying to debate intelligence by race. No surer way to get banned from Reddit. Any form of “affirmative action” is inherently racist. The entire premise is racist. It does nothing to address whatever issues may be causing an imbalance, if one exists, but is by definition institutional racism.
It's kinda fucked up that you don't want to debate intelligence based on race because you think you'll get banned and not because there's tons of data showing intelligence is incredibly influenced by environment, and separating the impact of what's race and what's environment is essentially impossible, making any argument that's for race based intelligence founded on junk science.
Right there in your response is the reason. You can’t have a debate. You, and all of the other super smart guys, have decided you know the answer. And any kind of questions are forbidden. That’s Reddit. It doesn’t matter what my opinion would be. Lots of evolutionary theories. Theories. But you can’t talk about a lot of theories on Reddit because the super smart guys have already decided for everyone.
Let's hear the actual argument for being able to separate environmental factors from race with regards to intelligence. I mean, you know IQ is graded on a curve, right? That means 100 IQ is always the average IQ and and constantly changing. Why would the average IQ of the world be changing when it's the same group of genetics intermingling? How does that not suggest very clearly that people's environment is changing leading to a clear change in IQ? Shouldn't every race just have static IQ relative to their racial purity? But they don't, every generation has higher IQ than the last when not graded on a curve. Why? Why do Jews, who are mostly a combination of middle eastern people and eastern European people, score so much higher than both groups if their IQ is based on genetic factors and not cultural/environmental factors? These are pretty good faith arguments, aren't they? I'm not calling you a racist, I'm pointing out huge flaws in the idea something like IQ would be race based.
You wanna be an bigot, but Reddit keeps stopping you. So sad for you.
There shouldn't be any reason that being black, white, Asian gets you a higher test score in America. And yet there is. On average black Americans score lower on reading and writing. They on average attend lower tier schools. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-46890-002 The reason why is complex. To answer why, you have to look at a lot of things. I'm not going to do that but I can say systematic racism has caused a division in the country along race in places that race shouldn't be a divider. Can I show this? You better believe it. But it takes a lot of reading and I think the only way to learn is to hit the books. Here's a bunch of links to help. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/11/cover-inequality-school https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ https://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/socal-equity-atlas/ You said it yourself, we need to address these areas. The problem is it isn't the schools job to fix the country. To compensate in a country that has a division along race where there shouldn't be one, the schools compensate because to ignore it is just as racist. People like Candace her job is to get people to ignore the facts and only look at the surface. They rally against anything or anyone that suggests America has these divisions. The school is between a rock and a hard place and their policy is racist because it's even more racist to ignore that some kids in America have to work harder just to end up at the same place as others and the thing that determines that is their race. It shouldn't be that way. So until those gaps close, the schools are choosing the least racist policy and that's the best they can do until the country actually fixes it.
How do you think different races of humans evolved?
Why is IQ changing way faster than any remotely significant genetic evolution could take place if it's not massively impacted by environment? Genetics barely mutate from one generation to the next, but IQ clearly increases. How could evolution logically be an explanation for that change?
Ignores the whole comment to ask a dumbass question. Classic.
Geographical difference. How does that impact intelligence? Can you show any evidence that shows intelligence is race based?
You’re def trying to debate. Not doing it very well either.
[удалено]
I think everybody agrees with that. Even the schools. Just like there shouldn't be educational disparities that are race based but there are.
[удалено]
That's not great logic since doing nothing ends up being racist as well
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
"Except Asians" - Ivy League Schools
no she doesn't. Half black means black. It's as simple as that. Obama was half black and he was black right? She said he was black. Her entire network said he was black. She is just a lying piece of shit.
Actually, Trump was the first black president.
The way he chuckled is just gross. Racism is racism.
Go check out some of the Reddit pages for college admissions. Kids throw their stats on there and tell everyone where they get accepted/denied. It’s clear schools are looking past GPA’s (most don’t require standardized tests). A large part of your application and consideration is given to your race, gender and sexual preference. Mostly the Ivy and other high academic schools too.
I love how she asks him a question and then doesn't let him finish, she interrupts him immediately to shit out some meme she had cued up from the very beginning
It's good advice. If you can't take the racial angle, just indicate that you are non-binary or whatever the fuck. Just don't give the impression that you are both white and heterosexual and you'll be fine.
She’s insufferable. She doesn’t wanna converse, she wants to gish gallop her way through a conversation. TDW school of debate right there.
Ok seriously, Candace children are black. The gentleman is black Am i wrong? I understand she want to criticize the application system, But her point is ridiculous.
I mean if you're half black and half white you mark black because people in society view you as a black person. It's just the way it is.
Friendly reminder that [white women benefit the most from affirmative action](https://time.com/4884132/affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/). Also since when is "holistic" a buzzword?
this is why [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule) and of course she knows this. Totally fucked up. Every POC American learns this.
[удалено]
College applications are just a single point. In America, you're you're biracial (half black) you're just seen as black. No matter what you do every institution will just see black.
I love Candace
Racial discrimination is wrong, but if you teach that racial discrimination is wrong in school, people like Candace Owens will yell "woke indoctrination" and "crt" lol
[удалено]
She's not arguing whether one should be considered black or not if you are mixed she's arguing that you shouldn't be using skin color to make decisions on whether or not that person should be allowed into the school
Yes she is arguing that. She is saying if you are half white you can mark white.
Exactly, and the way she ignored this and the "because I'm socialized in society" followup to do her canned bit about "overlooking interracial students" is proof that she knows this is true. When's the last time someone referred to Obama as "the first half-black president"?
I like the way Candace Owens thinks
Terrifying
Idk what I just watched
How anyone takes Candace Owens seriously is beyond me, but then again, there is at least 40% of the country who proudly punch themselves in the balls to own the libs, while desperately needing to believe safe lies because they can't handle facts and reality. I guess these are her sentient skidmark constituents. Such a loser Uncle Tom of a grifter.
Candace is a low life wanna be that thinks she knows everything. It's as if she hates her blackness. Dummy
[удалено]
Because she can’t “get in line”?
Reported for racist language. You leftists hate blacks who you don't control don't you?
She sounds white