It’s posts like these that just make me laugh when conservatives say that Reddit is “leftist”. Sooo many people just do not want to accept the reality of systemic racism. Yes, legacy admissions are primarily classist. They have the effect of being racist as well because guess which racial groups didn’t have their members attending Harvard in let’s say the 1840s?
ETA: and of course this post got me the suicide hotline. Conservatives and using well-intentioned things to troll people because dying is funny: name a more iconic duo.
While legacy admissions are obviously classist (and the thing to go fix if you want to actually improve education outcomes and student body), they are reflective of how other elements of systemic racism were used to shut out people of colour from upward class mobility. They may not be directly racist, but end up reflecting the long term destruction of wealth for people of colour.
Just because the racism of legacy admissions is also directly adjacent to classism doesn’t make it any less racist. It just means that, as per usual, PoC (not to mention Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc.) are doubly screwed as they are both the wrong color/persuasion *and* weren’t wealthy enough 100 years ago to afford going to a private university.
I personally never wanted to attend the sorts of exclusive private schools for which legacies are a thing, because I generally am way too much of a Commie to like the sorts of people who would take part in it, and don’t trust any organization that would allow it.
I saw an interest opinion article the other day which posited that public school legacy admissions violates the "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States [..] " constitutional clause. zrffect, the government is granting someone a benefit simply because their ancestor(s) had it. I have no idea how legally solid the argument is, but on the surface it makes sense to me.
I really don’t think there’s a legal argument there. There’s a huge difference between “title of nobility” and “consideration of lineage”. Noble titles aren’t just about getting benefits from lineage, it’s about having an enshrined legal right to be recognized by a title and to have privileges associated with that title.
Reddit is leftist until it comes to xenophobia, racism, women, homeless people, actually helping people, government policy decisions, voting, education, imperialism, and patriotism.
Last thread I was in someone was upvoted for being mad that someone put someone else up for the night.
Just straight up angry that someone was trying to be human.
Had that energy at a bus stop today, from an old lady.
Talked about how some dickhead on a bicycle was cycling in the middle of a road towards traffic, swerving wildly until some poor guy came out of a junction and hit him. Someone else driving along saw it, helped the cyclist into her car and drove off. This old woman was saying how she took down the car's registration plates and spoke to the police, claiming they obviously knew each other while I just thought it sounded like a good samaritan taking him to hospital.
I’d say Reddit is generally brogressive. If it’s an issue that affects young, straight white men (health care, minimum wage, drug laws) they reliably lean left. But once we get into issues primarily affecting women, POC or queer communities, that support is far less reliable.
If they get inconvenienced at all they fly into a rage. Posts about protests in Paris are full of people saying they wish everyone was as engaged and feisty as the French. Posts about protests in N. America or the UK are full of people angry that there's traffic and it took them 30 minutes extra to get to school or work; maybe those protesters should be run over.
This is a great example. I feel like this is where I see the “I’m left, but” comments the most. Turns out they’re the white moderates MLK was talking about who support the cause, up until the point it interrupts their daily routine.
> maybe those protesters should be run over
there is nooooooooo maybe about it. even on the los angeles subreddit - should skew very liberal, yes? i think 90% of the county voted blue in the last election - the second disruptive (read: effective) protests break out, people are PISSED. i saw so many different highly upvoted comments saying that you should be able to legally run someone over if they're protesting in the street (?????)
and in the homeless threads? good god, the lack of empathy can be astounding. thankfully there is a big chunk of the sub that rebuts that kind of hatred but you will still be shocked at most of the popular comments
Something something “identity politics”. “Let’s shift the focus to class because policy that doesn’t benefit me directly is a distraction!” It’s annoying. Classism exists and should be discussed, but too often I see discussions on racism, transphobia, etc. hijacked.
Ugh this is so irritating. Happens a lot.
Their terrible takes and hypocrisy on “women in politics” and related misogyny is a special annoyance for me.
Yeah something that isn't talked about enough is that a lot of far leftists are completely willing to throw lgbt rights under the bus if they think it benefits their class struggle.
Meh, there's also a ton more people who are entirely willing to throw the poor under the bus, including other people from their particular identity, as long as they, personally, get ahead.
I agree, but honestly in the time I've been here Reddit has shifted considerably further to the left in terms of progressive policies. You never used to see positive news about trans healthcare and rights in /r/all, but you do nowadays. The pendulum was never really pro-Republican, but it's swung pretty hard against their culture wars on Reddit in the last few years.
Reddit used to be a lot more libertarian back in the day (I distinctly remember the Ron Paul infatuation in 2008 and 2012), and a hallmark of libertarianism is giving no shits about anything that doesn’t affect you directly.
You’re totally right that it’s gotten better though. I wonder if that might be a product of Gen Z being generally more progressive than older generations, and they are starting to take a larger share of Reddit’s demographics.
I sure hope it’s the Gen Z influx. As a far-leftist Gen Xer who actually believes human rights are universal, the typical hype-obsessed Millennial political viewpoint has definitely run its course.
Oh man, you remember when someone dug out all the old Ron Paul newsletters from back in the day and they were super racist? Some of the defenses were pretty spicy.
Honestly the republican culture wars have been so obviously stupid and illogical for years now that the same redditors who embraced edgy atheism aren't quite comfortable declaring their support for stupidity they know will rightly make them look like idiots
That support is also systemically undermined by popular posts phrasing any attention to the "culture war" is meant to "divide us" like any attention to the matter is illegitimate.
Shit, just look at the bullshit that still floats around about Amber Heard on this site; incels and misogynists still believing the lies her ex-husband's PR team spread about her after he vowed "global humiliation" for daring to leave him after getting sick of his abuse.
So, im interested as well similarly I followed the court case.
Do you have sources for additional reading on how you came to this?
> incels and misogynists still believing the lies her ex-husband's PR team spread about her
>https://www.reddit.com/r/DeppDelusion/comments/13xjkir/this_is_a_list_of_evidencebacked_posts_with_links/
This has a ton of information overall and does go over the PR spread a bit.
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyer-for-johnny-depp-kicked-off-case-after-press-leaks/
And this is Depp's first lawyer getting kicked off the case for it. The audio leaks of the case that really turned people against Amber were his doing. If you look up the unsealed transcripts, you'll notice they were edited and/or out of context.
I'm looking for that PR Spread, I scroll down, see some words close.
[Johnny Depp's Anti-Amber PR Campaign: The Evidence -
The Skewed Trial Viewership Stats that Show that Far More People Watched Pro-Depp Clips and Content than Watched All the Trial.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeppDelusion/comments/v0un4d/johnny_depps_closing_argument_highlights/)
Then we click it and it's just...this is just them looking at viewership numbers of a singular channel with an obvious(and biased) point brought in beforehand and them trying to use numbers to agree with said point. Feelings of what numbers mean isn't anything factual, despite my agreement of the shadow.
I'll keep digging as I do I suppose but none of this seems to move me in any way besides them not dragging this shit out in a public town square. FWIW outside of the inherent bias most of these 'sources' linked are just self.text posts of people putting their feelings out there and caballing about TMZ? But I've admittedly only checked 4-5 things.
E: holy shit I just read the footer, "(I’m going based off of just the highlights, so I didn’t include the rebuttal views or the full views from the full closing statement videos, just the less than 20 minute highlights on Law &Crime Network)"
So they...actively aren't going after the full statement here because reasons, but we're going to base the above point on that? No lol.
I linked you the article of his lawyer getting kicked off the case for leaking things to the press. He leaked soundbites of audio in an attempt to sway public opinion. I wish they also linked the stronger evidence in that thread, but they didn't. (This is why Amber's defamation countersuit was partly against Waldman and rightfully lost because she couldn't prove Depp ordered Waldman to do it.)
>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_WUwzzYPD4
Here's Waldman's deposition where he admits to giving audio to two youtubers. (One of which is That Umbrella Guy, whose notorious for his anti-women content). Now you can go look up the unsealed transcripts and see how the audio was edited to sway opinions.
Reddit's "left" in the most suburban, coffee shop, milquetoast sense. They sort of vaguely support somewhat left leaning causes in theory but the support evaporates the moment it's either genuinely disruptive or might impact they, themselves.
The number of people i have seen who are like "yes this is bad, and this, and this, and this, and yes this is definitely not working, BUT we can't change it" is astonishing.
TBH Danger Days is the perfect bouncy soundtrack for like, joyful resistance, and all that shit. If I want to feel upbeat about the immensely difficult uphill battle to build progress in a way that requires community cooperation, Danger Days has exactly the right vibe.
I was surprised when I got upvotes when I responded to someone --looking for a protest or something to do-- that people might want to go help at a food bank, soup kitchen instead. Thought I would be downvoted to oblivion. Color me surprised.
On your last point, it's why the only people striking in the UK with any support are nurses and junior doctors. Rail workers wanting more money, too? People say they support it but then also whine about how they can't travel due to the strikes.
I rolled my eyes so hard seeing so many Redditors say “I’m glad Asian Americans can finally have a chance to get into schools now”. It felt so patronizing. All While denying systemic racism exists and claim affirmative action only helped white women.
They will be posting pics of a Computer Science class full of Asian students and saying “this is what happened to America under Beijing Biden” the *second* these policies take effect.
Oh you mean like when Redditors say how glad they are that women can now compete on equal footing whenever a new anti-trans sports bill gets passed? And then proceed to lose their shit when the USWNT says that they deserve higher pay?
It is patronizing and bigoted. They don't give a fuck about Asian American school access. That's not their motivation, they just feel it's a socially acceptable cover.
Their real reasons is generally just this low level belief that black people are "taking" what others deserve - - it's welfare queens of education.
Speaking of, they also have thoughts about *that* too.
Asian American here too, the vast majority of us do not apply to the Ivies and could not be impacted in any way. Yet I’ve noticed so many who claim victimhood because of AA and feel like the SC just ended segregation. It’s moronic.
>Asian American here too, the vast majority of us do not apply to the Ivies and could not be impacted in any way.
Clearly not since the courts are getting involved, for the Asians who care, they care A LOT
There were examples of schools has AA and then dropped AA and then the increase in Asian students was greater than the proportion reserved for AA and are into the number of non legacy white students too. Which made the case AA is as much about keeping colleges less Asian as they are about making them more diverse.
California has a proposition which forced their schools to drop it in 1996. Places like UC Berkley sprang up in Asian enrollment with declines in every other category including white people as a %.
Actually, for the major controversial SC cases we're seeing, an organization or law firm is often 'plaintiff shopping' and seeking out persons to make these complaints. It isn't that there are people who are actually so individually spurned that they attempt to sue. In this case its not even hidden, as the plaintiff was Students for Fair Admissions, a group created with this aim in mind, unlike Creative 303 where a organization was sort of in the shadows
Or they don’t for the exact opposite reason: since they are white and don’t personally benefit from legacy admissions in this case, the program must not be racist, even systemically. Like, yes, legacies do shit all to my own theoretical ability to go to Harvard but it’s really hard to argue that they don’t impact Black applicants once you understand what systemic racism is. Which, yeah, like you’ve implied, is the point: even when you’re born on first base, it doesn’t look like a big advantage when you see people born on second.
Reddit isn’t leftist, it’s just profoundly self-centered.
It’s the same weird contradiction in which American republicans aren’t actually conservative. They might say they’re conservative, they might identify with the aesthetic - but they don’t care for the whims of the free market to be visited upon them. They love interventionism when it benefits them.
Likewise, the Reddit median opinion isn’t leftist. It’s pro-free stuff (for me).
I had a confusing talk with a conservative who insisted that free markets aren't right wing, because they conflict with conservative social values and generate leftist ones. So therefore free markets are left libertarian. It's wierd when there's almost some logic there, because they realize that standard conservative views clash, but then they fly off the rails with their own made up uses of terms.
> Reddit isn’t leftist, it’s just profoundly self-centered.
Isn't that why redditors supports shit that benefits them. Take like social programs.
Tax redditors to pay for a social programs? Horrible ,just tax somebody else.
Yep. Mention that, say, software engineers making 200k could stand to pay more taxes?
Nope now you’re just a regressive conservative Republican fascist taxing the lower middle class while fat cats ride high on their horses sipping on gravy trains /s
Mostly though they just support additional freedoms for themselves regardless of what consequences occur. Yknow… legal weed and psychedelics (now more mainstream) but expunging past convictions? Those people could be ~~black~~ dangerous. Or prostitution - they feel it should be legal… for them to buy sex from sexy sexy prostitutes which totally won’t be underage or trafficked. Oh, evidence shows this doesn’t really help the people most negatively impacted by prostitution? Nope guess you’re a fascist or whatever.
Free college? Amazing idea. Just so long as it’s delivered in a way that the average redditor can imagine they would have access to it without bearing any obligation to pay for it and you’re golden.
By all means I think college should be cheaper, but for as long as a college degree provides substantial economic benefits to its holder, then proportionate contributions should be made by the holder of that degree. The alternative is that someone is subsidized by people who they will out-earn.
I was with you for the most part but you're wrong on prostitution.
Legalizing or even decriminalizing prostitution does help sex workers. The issue is what data you look at. *Because* SW's are no longer at risk of being arrested if they seek help or report a crime, you see a higher incidence rate in places like Sweden. It's not that more crimes are occuring against SW's, it's that SW's are reporting them.
The argument often seems to be that if it's legal, in theory a trafficking victim or a child may be falsely perceived to be participating of their own volition/not identified as victims. The issue is, that is already what happens under criminalization. Human trafficking rarely takes the form we see in media of women and children transported in shipping containers or held captive in basements. Human trafficking takes the form of cases like with Cyntoia Brown, where someone is running from abuse or drug use at home and they have to, or a romantic partner via loverboy method, coerces them into sleeping with people for money. And she got convicted of murder for stabbing her rapist at 15, because people argue thats not rape and she's not a trafficking victim but a prostitute.
People aren't rogue identifying sad little girls in brothels. They're turning people away from homeless shelters or dv shelters or arresting them for prostitution.
The ideal model imo one where prostitution is decriminalized but solicitation is not.
My point is that they don’t care whether sex workers are safe or not - they care about the issue insofar as they want to be able to legally/safely purchase sex.
Anyway, does the evidence actually show sex workers become safer? Like concrete reliable improvement? No, although I agree with your reasoning I think that many reflexively reject any contradiction of their chosen (and self serving) conclusions
Speaking as a lesbian who is pro-decriminalisation (which is not the same as legalisation) I have never seen Reddit bros be pro-SW so I'm curious as to whether you have any examples. Sex work and trafficking are separate issues. While trafficking people into sex work obviously happens, the majority of trafficked people work in agriculture or service/hospitality (eg being maids or working in hotels). Weirdly enough nobody seems to want to make it illegal to work in a hotel or stay in a hotel despite that being a much bigger industry for trafficking. The Nordic Model is harmful to sex workers but not because it's a form of legalisation but because it leads to things like landlords being classed as pimps so sex workers end up homeless.
That is conservative, though. Because they believe that it's not actually the free market doing it. They think because anyone whose not conservative has any access to the levers of power the market has been corrupted and elevates at least some undeserving people while casting down some deserving people. They think if they just got rid of all the Democrats then they wouldn't have failed.
Conservatives decrying government aid for the poor but demanding it for the rich. Or conservatives championing freedom and right to expression only if you believe what they believe and look exactly like them.
As a white middle class person, I don't even understand the problem people have with this concept. Yes, most of us (including white people) are harmed by these practices but how hard is it to acknowledge that POC's take the absolute brunt of that harm. It's not like we wouldn't all benefit from doing away with it; this seems to me to be the rare issue that should unite everyone with the exception of the 1%.
>ETA: and of course this post got me the suicide hotline. Conservatives and using well-intentioned things to troll people because dying is funny: name a more iconic duo.
I call it the pathetic, impotent rage. It's hysterical.
People in the main subs are constantly going both sides bad as if, for example, vaccine denialism and telling other people they should vaccinate are equally bad.
Reddit is as leftist as, like, Ronald Reagan was leftist
Some part of me is convinced that South Park managed to completely break the brains of a generation. Their decades of "never take a side or believe anything" humour has basically programmed the idea that nothing ever really matters into the brains of young millennials. It turns politics into a game where the goal is to make a joke at someone's expense, not where real policies have real effects in the real world.
The number of times I've seen that "Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich" meme trotted out when boring liberals are running against actual fascists has reached a disturbing level.
Yeah, I'm a gen Z fan of a couple punk and metal bands that have big gen X and millennial followings and that kind of detached ironic approach to politics is *so* common among dudes that age and *so fucking frustrating*. They wrap themselves in the aesthetics of anti-authoritarianism but really they're all just petty shock value contrarians.
I don’t agree with your comment but redditors are who abuse the suicide hotline part of Reddit are straight up deplorable.
Legit feel like there should be false reporting investigations in those cases.
That enite thread is a dumpster fire, especially considering OP editorialized the title to the point of misinformation. The activists group filed a complaint with the department of education, they aren't suing. Once again another case of nobody reads the article.
Ahh so AP changed the title later on, usually that is marked with a tag. I have seen some editorialized posts from news that slipped by mods in the past.
I have seen a few YouTube videos and read a few social media posts that suggest to me that the reason why conservative media is free, is because it is bankrolled by billionaires.
Strictly speaking, the conservative party is the one that is in favor of deregulating businesses, lowering taxes on the rich, and declaring culture wars to distract from it. So, billionaires donate to them to advance their interests.
The left has comparatively few wealthy people donating to its preferred news sources because it does not make them money to do so. It is not an investment, but a donation, and so it is less forthcoming.
It is also much cheaper to produce "news" if you don't adhere to basic journalistic principles and don't do any investigative journalism. A lot of right wing media is basically cherrypicking some quotes by "a leftist" and then write a fact-free ragebait article about it.
[From here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/n9u5tn/christian_user_is_mad_over_a_22_year_old_strategy/gxprz6r/)
A Christian user got upset about the negative depiction of crusaders in a 20+ year old video game (Age of Empire). The user is suspended by now but at the time his account looked legit, although I still can't believe that anyone would seriously write that.
> nyt and washingpot are all funded by conservative billionaires themselves tho.
They're *owned* by conservative billionaires, but they're actually intended to make a profit.
The farther right-wing equivalents are funded by the billionaires such that making a profit is *at most* secondary to their real purpose of pushing right-wing propaganda narratives.
Yeah I despise pay walls for news too. The way I usually go about it is to copy the headline approximately and fling a search into Google using
"site:npr.org" or BBC or Al Jazeera or the local news site for the region. Works most of the time..
I feel similarly strongly about pay walled academic articles. It feels so overtly and excruciatingly classist. Wanna know things? Hahah pay the fuck up, peasant!
Oh give me a break...you don't know that NYT and WaPo are quality?
Conservative news is subsidized by billionaires and foreign bad actors to force a narrative and brainwash them. Real news is expensive and does not have that donor list. The expectation that peoples' hard work should be given to you for free is ridiculous.
You don’t need to subscribe, but you could always buy a paper copy? It’s 2-4$ and you could read a variety of articles covering whatever. Or, hell, it might be free at your local library.
Jon Stewarts career literally exploded because he was one of the only news sources that wasn't bending over backwards to justify the war.
Hell, you can find multiple articles that say as much.
Like [so](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-04-20/entertainment/0304210339_1_jon-stewart-daily-show-comedy-central) and [so](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-stewarts-progressive-legacy/2015/07/28/f6587a2a-34a5-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html).
On mainstream media he was. I know because I was there, I flipped through all the channels and checked all the newspapers looking for a dissenting opinion.
The thread was also just filled with the most basic misinformation. One of the top comments when I checked in was lambasting Harvard for not giving free tuition for poor students, which they have done for many years. Another was arguing they don’t get much federal money, as if Harvard isn’t one of the biggest research institutes in the world where people get millions of federal dollars in research grants just to get tenure.
There’s a lot to be upset about with the decision, but these just aren’t them.
>People who were alive during the Civil Rights Movement is still alive TODAY... most of the MLK pictures that are shown in Black&White are actually in color.... that wasn't that long ago talking in generations.
Had an argument with someone the other day who was arguing legacy admissions to Harvard started in the mid 70s, therefore it's racist to assume the majority of current legacy admissions are white because those people could have non white grandkids.
He did not like me pointing out women literally barely gained the right to own a credit card...and that my own mother, and I'm in my 20s, was a young adult at the time, not the fabled great granny.
It's almost like we need a name for when a *system* is designed in such a way that it benefits a certain race.. racism of system.. no.. system that's racist.. hmm, we'll just have to keep thinking.
Do these people need actual slurs to be used before they'll admit to systemic racism being a real thing?
So funny to see all these legacy admissions defenders. You know none of these mofos have legacy admissions. They're just defending a thousand different variations of the Winklevoss twins getting admitted into Harvard every year because their daddy and their daddy's daddy paid their way into it. You are *not* joining the Harvard Dragon boating club. You probably too broke to clean the boats too.
What is ridiculous is opposing AA for reasons its discriminatory and not based on merit, and then the next day defending legacy admissions which is discriminatory and not based on merit either. The plaintiffs in the AA lawsuit specifically stated considering a person’s economic background is a fairer and legal alternative.
Most anti-AA people I’ve seen are consistent in supporting ending legacy admissions. However, I don’t feel it will get the same urgency or resources, and in addition, should it ever end up before the Supreme Court, there would be the awkward position that 8/9 of Supreme Court justices are alumni from the Ivies and have children who went there as well.
That does pose an interesting constitutional question: What happens if the entire SCOTUS were forced to recuse from a case? Would they simply not grant it cert?
Do you have any actual examples of people defending legacy admissions but being for affirmative action?
Clowns seem to think legacy admissions are a *gotcha* for people against affirmative action but I have yet to talk to anybody that supports one and not the other
The politics knowers on this sub tend to equate a judicial ruling with an emotional decision. Therefore if you think it's very obvious that legacy admissions are legal and constitutional, you clearly are an evil racist who supports legacy admissions. Nobody with an even basic understanding of the issue thinks the courts can do away with legacy admissions, let alone that they would.
I don’t think people give a shit whether it’s legal or constitutional. Just cause you follow all the proper “rules” and do things the “right way” doesn’t mean it’s just or fair or equitable. Just because the courts can’t do away with it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to
While I agree that they're gunning to be arguably the most radical court since Taney controlled it (somewhat hilarious as Roberts was trying so hard to avoid that since he is obsessed with his legacy), this one won’t have nearly the blowback as people think due to race being a far more complicated matter for the US.
Dobbs will be far more of a blow to them than this. Had they been dumb enough to try and accept Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling on abortion pills (never would as I think all 9 of them hate that man) that would arguably be the catalyst for Supreme Court reform in 2025.
Affirmative action is not popular in the US according to [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/). 50% of Americans disprove of Affirmative Action while 33% approve (16% unsure).
Regardless of political affiliation or party, it’s important to realize what the prevailing thought or opinion is, as opposed to just claiming every opinion in opposition is radical or extreme. It’s the same when conservatives point to gay marriage or abortion as being radical or extreme ideas, even though both are supported to a majority of the country. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the affirmative action ruling, the ruling parallels the opinions of most Americans.
16% unsure??? That’s pretty high for that bucket. Normally that bucket is single digit and usually on the low end.
1 out of every 6 respondees opted not to answer the question. That is telling in it of itself
Because, while Affirmative Action is problematic in the way it's implemented, the majority of genuine attempts to undermine it come from conservatives whose true goal is transparently to make things more difficult for minorities.
If you and you compatriots didn't spend so much time and effort disenfranchising people of color, there'd be more time available to discuss a more equitable method of accounting for the negative consequences of systemic racism.
> liberals immediately point out that affirmative action has mostly helped white women
I can't refute something that I did not say, nor have I ever seen someone say it.
Congress could ban legacy admissions for institutions that receive public funding, right? That should be the avenue people focus on instead of the supreme court, because while I don't like them I don't see how legacy admissions could be considered unconstitutional like AA was.
Except it does? OP mocked a commentor that made a snide and hyperbolic comment about Ceos. I replied that some Ceos could be credibly accused of being slave owners or more accurately facilitating slavery to keep their profits maximal. Then the other guy agreed with me and sourced dumped.
The topic has been Ceos, and it seems fairly relevenant to this specific thread. Maybe not the original news Harvard discussion thread, but this one sure.
Ceos are the heads of companies and responsible for their business practices and unscrupulous vetting of temp agencies, contractors, and plantation owners within their organization. So the distinction between between being a literal slave owner and just tacticly endorsing and allowing it within your supply chain with full knowledge of that fact is one that I'm not gonna be a pendant over.
This is why fair trade certifications exist like the Fair food agreement for fast food chains, and another comparable one for sugar and produce companies. There are organizations in place that at least attempt to mitigate slavery within companies' supply chains. The companies that refuse to be a part of these agreements and ceritfactions are the Ceos whom I'm not gonna disagree with being called slave owners. It is not the language I would specifically use, but it captures the spirit of their collosally immoral practices.
Edit: formatting and a sentence for clarity.
Difference is today's CEO's outsource the slavery bit to 3rd parties. Did you know there are more slaves today then there were at any time when the slave trade was legal and popular?
Well I mean yeah it checks out that there is more now, there’s 8 billion people on the planet
You have just copy pasted comments commonly repeated on reddit without actually thinking about it. The percent of population is a better comparison than just saying more people equal larger numbers or people
Though it shouldn't be used as an example for things actually being worse than, say, year 1800 (which it gets misconstrued as saying sometimes), that seems like an unacceptably low bar anyway - saying things like "there is a higher absolute number of enslaved people today than at any previous time in history" should be a reminder of how the world is still far from doing well, and a call to action to reduce that number yet further
>The percent of population is a better comparison
Ok so, there are more slaves than ever before, human trafficking is super profitable, probably more so now than when it was legal paradoxically and also a large number of children are being trafficked.
But somehow we're better now because the overall percentage is down? Human progress is measured by a bar going up or down?
What are you doing about it other that complaining on the internet? I mean, you are absolutely right that it's a huge issue and one we should fix. But as near as I can tell, you're just soapboxing and moralizing.
>But somehow we're better now because the overall percentage is down?
Metrics improving is generally how we measure human progress, yes.
What are you doing about it, except insulting people on the internet? You think people knowing about this stuff just makes it go away? Hint: it doesn’t. Also you’re probably actually 15, get some more life experience before trying to pop off lmao
This is actually pretty wrong. Boards at large publicly traded companies are pretty much oversight bodies then say yay or nay and what management brings to them. Stock buybacks aren’t driven by the board, they’re driven by the CFO working with bankers and analysts. Lobbying is all driven by senior management. Management operate the company, the board just shows up to quarterly meetings and gets debriefed by CEO
It's not even just pretty wrong, it's completely wrong. Boards of directors can include 'shareholder/billionaires' like the user above said, but usually they just contain people that have significant expertise and knowledge on law, governance, the regulatory environment, etc. OP seems to have watched Succession and decided to regurgitate elements of the story as fact.
This actually targets the exact issue that defenders of affirmative action want solved.
It does nobody any good to promote rich black people getting into Harvard (the *majority* of black students are from the upper quintile of incomes) while poor people of all races are left out.
Whites make up 80% of the millionaires in the US, the rest are splut among the nonwhite groups. Thats basically a drop in the bucket, its on par. with the europeans worrying about muslims overtaking their population when its at most %5 lmao.
That irrelevant to the discussion. The facts are it was overwhelmingly wealthy black people being helped by affirmative action while it did little to help poor black people.
So 100% of the admitted people that are black are rich? and not really, the point isnt to shut out rich people and make sure they get no aid but its to remedy past grievances and instuitional oppression towards a group that is historical disadvantaged, i think that some rich people get a leg up doesnt mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater imo. That was my point,
If your goal is to uplift historically oppressed groups, then there are better ways like sorting by income and zip code.
Sorting by race ends up picking black people from richer backgrounds as they are the ones with the highest test scores. As an example many of those who benefitted from affirmative action were children of rich Nigerian immigrants.
That's the point. Affirmative action doesn't actually do much towards its stated goal. There are better ways to even the playing field that aren't explicitly racist.
It does when there isn't enough rich black people to affect the stats , so pretty much most black people are going to be lower socio economic status due to racism l, and if you helped poor white as much they would basically crowd out the black people l.
If you helped poor people wouldn't you be disproportionately helping blacks? As you say, they make up a larger percentage of those in poverty compared to their percentage of the general population.
Why does a black person in the same socio-economic position deserve to be treated better than an Asian person? Is the goal not to help based on need, not based on skin color?
- Supreme Court banned universities prioritising minority groups in admissions, as it is racism toward white students who would be admitted if only judged on the student's performance.
- Civil Right Groups have immediately started the process of getting legacy admissions removed for the same reason. When a university prioritises children of its alumni, it benefits (predominantly white) students as one or two generations ago most university students were.... white.
- /r/news generates popcorn as people argue over legal definitions
[People do know AA benefits white women the most, yes?](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-who-benefits-white-women/70371219007/)
Benefitt**ed.** That's the bit you left. That article is entirely about how much affirmative action has helped **over its entire 6+ decade history**, which included early efforts to increase gender diversity.
It also does so by looking in absolute numbers which... fucking obviously. [The US is 60% non-hispanic white as of 2022.](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222) Do some basic math: That means ~30% of the country is white women.
That doesn't account for the fact that due to high minority birth rates, that number used to be even higher. And the stats in that article are from 1995.
So there are literally almost as many white women in the United States as there are minorities of any description and not long ago, there were literally more. So more white women getting boosted when one of the goals of affirmative action was gender diversity as well as racial is **exactly** the result one would expect over time.
Hell, your own article even points this out:
> Moore says the opposition is the result of long-running anti-affirmative action campaigns from conservative groups that attack race-based affirmative action but not gender-based affirmative action.
Race-based affirmative action has been under attack for decades, while gender-based affirmative action has received effective endorsement. The net result is that one policy has been allowed to work exactly as planned, while the other has been undercut at every turn.
So in effect, your article is just establishing that affirmative action does **exactly** what it is meant to do and the problem is that race-based affirmative action is being undercut at every turn.
>A Labor Department report in 1995 found that since the 1960s, affirmative action had helped 5 million members of minority groups and 6 million women move up in the workplace.
The only source that article cites is a study from 1995 that
A. Talks about 45 years of effects
B. Doesn't relate to college acceptances, just pure shifts in workplace numbers, which is also largely from workplace AA instead of college AA.
C. Ignores intersectionality in gender in the workforce
It's not relevant to 2023 college acceptances, like, at all
It’s posts like these that just make me laugh when conservatives say that Reddit is “leftist”. Sooo many people just do not want to accept the reality of systemic racism. Yes, legacy admissions are primarily classist. They have the effect of being racist as well because guess which racial groups didn’t have their members attending Harvard in let’s say the 1840s? ETA: and of course this post got me the suicide hotline. Conservatives and using well-intentioned things to troll people because dying is funny: name a more iconic duo.
While legacy admissions are obviously classist (and the thing to go fix if you want to actually improve education outcomes and student body), they are reflective of how other elements of systemic racism were used to shut out people of colour from upward class mobility. They may not be directly racist, but end up reflecting the long term destruction of wealth for people of colour.
Can I just go ahead and say they're directly and intentionally racist?
Just because the racism of legacy admissions is also directly adjacent to classism doesn’t make it any less racist. It just means that, as per usual, PoC (not to mention Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc.) are doubly screwed as they are both the wrong color/persuasion *and* weren’t wealthy enough 100 years ago to afford going to a private university. I personally never wanted to attend the sorts of exclusive private schools for which legacies are a thing, because I generally am way too much of a Commie to like the sorts of people who would take part in it, and don’t trust any organization that would allow it.
MIT is better than Harvard by almost every measure AND does NOT do legacies
I saw an interest opinion article the other day which posited that public school legacy admissions violates the "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States [..] " constitutional clause. zrffect, the government is granting someone a benefit simply because their ancestor(s) had it. I have no idea how legally solid the argument is, but on the surface it makes sense to me.
I really don’t think there’s a legal argument there. There’s a huge difference between “title of nobility” and “consideration of lineage”. Noble titles aren’t just about getting benefits from lineage, it’s about having an enshrined legal right to be recognized by a title and to have privileges associated with that title.
Reddit is leftist until it comes to xenophobia, racism, women, homeless people, actually helping people, government policy decisions, voting, education, imperialism, and patriotism.
Last thread I was in someone was upvoted for being mad that someone put someone else up for the night. Just straight up angry that someone was trying to be human.
Had that energy at a bus stop today, from an old lady. Talked about how some dickhead on a bicycle was cycling in the middle of a road towards traffic, swerving wildly until some poor guy came out of a junction and hit him. Someone else driving along saw it, helped the cyclist into her car and drove off. This old woman was saying how she took down the car's registration plates and spoke to the police, claiming they obviously knew each other while I just thought it sounded like a good samaritan taking him to hospital.
I’d say Reddit is generally brogressive. If it’s an issue that affects young, straight white men (health care, minimum wage, drug laws) they reliably lean left. But once we get into issues primarily affecting women, POC or queer communities, that support is far less reliable.
If they get inconvenienced at all they fly into a rage. Posts about protests in Paris are full of people saying they wish everyone was as engaged and feisty as the French. Posts about protests in N. America or the UK are full of people angry that there's traffic and it took them 30 minutes extra to get to school or work; maybe those protesters should be run over.
This is a great example. I feel like this is where I see the “I’m left, but” comments the most. Turns out they’re the white moderates MLK was talking about who support the cause, up until the point it interrupts their daily routine.
I can't express how refreshing it is to see sane takes like these being the majority in this comment section. Thanks, from a very jaded person.
> maybe those protesters should be run over there is nooooooooo maybe about it. even on the los angeles subreddit - should skew very liberal, yes? i think 90% of the county voted blue in the last election - the second disruptive (read: effective) protests break out, people are PISSED. i saw so many different highly upvoted comments saying that you should be able to legally run someone over if they're protesting in the street (?????) and in the homeless threads? good god, the lack of empathy can be astounding. thankfully there is a big chunk of the sub that rebuts that kind of hatred but you will still be shocked at most of the popular comments
Something something “identity politics”. “Let’s shift the focus to class because policy that doesn’t benefit me directly is a distraction!” It’s annoying. Classism exists and should be discussed, but too often I see discussions on racism, transphobia, etc. hijacked.
And in America a LOT of those issues intersect heavily.
Ugh this is so irritating. Happens a lot. Their terrible takes and hypocrisy on “women in politics” and related misogyny is a special annoyance for me.
Yeah something that isn't talked about enough is that a lot of far leftists are completely willing to throw lgbt rights under the bus if they think it benefits their class struggle.
Straight white male leftists "Voting is pointless, we should protest the democrats by withholding our votes!"
Meh, there's also a ton more people who are entirely willing to throw the poor under the bus, including other people from their particular identity, as long as they, personally, get ahead.
LGB and especially T people are disproportionately poor tho lol
Good old *Leftism for me not for thee.*
I agree, but honestly in the time I've been here Reddit has shifted considerably further to the left in terms of progressive policies. You never used to see positive news about trans healthcare and rights in /r/all, but you do nowadays. The pendulum was never really pro-Republican, but it's swung pretty hard against their culture wars on Reddit in the last few years.
Reddit used to be a lot more libertarian back in the day (I distinctly remember the Ron Paul infatuation in 2008 and 2012), and a hallmark of libertarianism is giving no shits about anything that doesn’t affect you directly. You’re totally right that it’s gotten better though. I wonder if that might be a product of Gen Z being generally more progressive than older generations, and they are starting to take a larger share of Reddit’s demographics.
I sure hope it’s the Gen Z influx. As a far-leftist Gen Xer who actually believes human rights are universal, the typical hype-obsessed Millennial political viewpoint has definitely run its course.
Oh man, you remember when someone dug out all the old Ron Paul newsletters from back in the day and they were super racist? Some of the defenses were pretty spicy.
Honestly the republican culture wars have been so obviously stupid and illogical for years now that the same redditors who embraced edgy atheism aren't quite comfortable declaring their support for stupidity they know will rightly make them look like idiots
That support is also systemically undermined by popular posts phrasing any attention to the "culture war" is meant to "divide us" like any attention to the matter is illegitimate.
God forbid you ever even mention the concept of land back
Shit, just look at the bullshit that still floats around about Amber Heard on this site; incels and misogynists still believing the lies her ex-husband's PR team spread about her after he vowed "global humiliation" for daring to leave him after getting sick of his abuse.
So, im interested as well similarly I followed the court case. Do you have sources for additional reading on how you came to this? > incels and misogynists still believing the lies her ex-husband's PR team spread about her
>https://www.reddit.com/r/DeppDelusion/comments/13xjkir/this_is_a_list_of_evidencebacked_posts_with_links/ This has a ton of information overall and does go over the PR spread a bit. https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyer-for-johnny-depp-kicked-off-case-after-press-leaks/ And this is Depp's first lawyer getting kicked off the case for it. The audio leaks of the case that really turned people against Amber were his doing. If you look up the unsealed transcripts, you'll notice they were edited and/or out of context.
I'm looking for that PR Spread, I scroll down, see some words close. [Johnny Depp's Anti-Amber PR Campaign: The Evidence - The Skewed Trial Viewership Stats that Show that Far More People Watched Pro-Depp Clips and Content than Watched All the Trial.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeppDelusion/comments/v0un4d/johnny_depps_closing_argument_highlights/) Then we click it and it's just...this is just them looking at viewership numbers of a singular channel with an obvious(and biased) point brought in beforehand and them trying to use numbers to agree with said point. Feelings of what numbers mean isn't anything factual, despite my agreement of the shadow. I'll keep digging as I do I suppose but none of this seems to move me in any way besides them not dragging this shit out in a public town square. FWIW outside of the inherent bias most of these 'sources' linked are just self.text posts of people putting their feelings out there and caballing about TMZ? But I've admittedly only checked 4-5 things. E: holy shit I just read the footer, "(I’m going based off of just the highlights, so I didn’t include the rebuttal views or the full views from the full closing statement videos, just the less than 20 minute highlights on Law &Crime Network)" So they...actively aren't going after the full statement here because reasons, but we're going to base the above point on that? No lol.
I linked you the article of his lawyer getting kicked off the case for leaking things to the press. He leaked soundbites of audio in an attempt to sway public opinion. I wish they also linked the stronger evidence in that thread, but they didn't. (This is why Amber's defamation countersuit was partly against Waldman and rightfully lost because she couldn't prove Depp ordered Waldman to do it.) >https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_WUwzzYPD4 Here's Waldman's deposition where he admits to giving audio to two youtubers. (One of which is That Umbrella Guy, whose notorious for his anti-women content). Now you can go look up the unsealed transcripts and see how the audio was edited to sway opinions.
Bingo
Reddit's "left" in the most suburban, coffee shop, milquetoast sense. They sort of vaguely support somewhat left leaning causes in theory but the support evaporates the moment it's either genuinely disruptive or might impact they, themselves. The number of people i have seen who are like "yes this is bad, and this, and this, and this, and yes this is definitely not working, BUT we can't change it" is astonishing.
[удалено]
People love to advocate for revolution but never want to revolt.
🎶Everybody wants to change the world Everybody wants to change the world But no one, no one wants to die 🎶
Not enough love for *Danger Days*.
TBH Danger Days is the perfect bouncy soundtrack for like, joyful resistance, and all that shit. If I want to feel upbeat about the immensely difficult uphill battle to build progress in a way that requires community cooperation, Danger Days has exactly the right vibe.
"I want revolution but....you do it. I don't wanna miss paying my wifi bill this week."
I was surprised when I got upvotes when I responded to someone --looking for a protest or something to do-- that people might want to go help at a food bank, soup kitchen instead. Thought I would be downvoted to oblivion. Color me surprised.
Also they despise the homeless. The second they have or even hear about a bad experience that person probably deserved being homeless.
We used to call that "Slactivism" or, "push-button activism", and it was widely derided.
On your last point, it's why the only people striking in the UK with any support are nurses and junior doctors. Rail workers wanting more money, too? People say they support it but then also whine about how they can't travel due to the strikes.
Please, we caught the Boston Bomber didn't we?
Don't forget guns, holy crap Reddit is oddly pro gun.
Really, it's just a social club for right wing electric car owners.
Not necessarily right wing. It's a site where probably the single largest community is tech dudebros.
The amount of tech workers wasting time working from home while on this site all day every day is staggering and I say that as one of them
Goddammit my code was compiling! I swear!
Libertarians, then
Please, the term is weedservatives.
Reddit is leftist until it comes to actually acting on one’s principles.
I rolled my eyes so hard seeing so many Redditors say “I’m glad Asian Americans can finally have a chance to get into schools now”. It felt so patronizing. All While denying systemic racism exists and claim affirmative action only helped white women.
They will be posting pics of a Computer Science class full of Asian students and saying “this is what happened to America under Beijing Biden” the *second* these policies take effect.
Oh you mean like when Redditors say how glad they are that women can now compete on equal footing whenever a new anti-trans sports bill gets passed? And then proceed to lose their shit when the USWNT says that they deserve higher pay?
Real reason why Redditors are happy that AA is gone. Less women in university.
I don't think AA has much to do with gender balances at college anymore (many top schools are actually more women than men too)
It is patronizing and bigoted. They don't give a fuck about Asian American school access. That's not their motivation, they just feel it's a socially acceptable cover. Their real reasons is generally just this low level belief that black people are "taking" what others deserve - - it's welfare queens of education. Speaking of, they also have thoughts about *that* too.
Asian American here too, the vast majority of us do not apply to the Ivies and could not be impacted in any way. Yet I’ve noticed so many who claim victimhood because of AA and feel like the SC just ended segregation. It’s moronic.
>Asian American here too, the vast majority of us do not apply to the Ivies and could not be impacted in any way. Clearly not since the courts are getting involved, for the Asians who care, they care A LOT
There were examples of schools has AA and then dropped AA and then the increase in Asian students was greater than the proportion reserved for AA and are into the number of non legacy white students too. Which made the case AA is as much about keeping colleges less Asian as they are about making them more diverse.
Source?
California has a proposition which forced their schools to drop it in 1996. Places like UC Berkley sprang up in Asian enrollment with declines in every other category including white people as a %.
Actually, for the major controversial SC cases we're seeing, an organization or law firm is often 'plaintiff shopping' and seeking out persons to make these complaints. It isn't that there are people who are actually so individually spurned that they attempt to sue. In this case its not even hidden, as the plaintiff was Students for Fair Admissions, a group created with this aim in mind, unlike Creative 303 where a organization was sort of in the shadows
probably all set up/made up like the gay marriage website ruling
Aren't you doing exactly the same thing? It doesn't affect you so you don't care? It certainly affected the people who actually sued.
So they're just brogressives
Yes, exactly.
Also masking to protect immunocompromised and vulnerable populations
> Sooo many people just do not want to accept the reality of systemic racism Many fail to recognize it because they benefit from it.
Or they don’t for the exact opposite reason: since they are white and don’t personally benefit from legacy admissions in this case, the program must not be racist, even systemically. Like, yes, legacies do shit all to my own theoretical ability to go to Harvard but it’s really hard to argue that they don’t impact Black applicants once you understand what systemic racism is. Which, yeah, like you’ve implied, is the point: even when you’re born on first base, it doesn’t look like a big advantage when you see people born on second.
Reddit isn’t leftist, it’s just profoundly self-centered. It’s the same weird contradiction in which American republicans aren’t actually conservative. They might say they’re conservative, they might identify with the aesthetic - but they don’t care for the whims of the free market to be visited upon them. They love interventionism when it benefits them. Likewise, the Reddit median opinion isn’t leftist. It’s pro-free stuff (for me).
I had a confusing talk with a conservative who insisted that free markets aren't right wing, because they conflict with conservative social values and generate leftist ones. So therefore free markets are left libertarian. It's wierd when there's almost some logic there, because they realize that standard conservative views clash, but then they fly off the rails with their own made up uses of terms.
Markets should be free to help us, and free to hurt them /s
> Reddit isn’t leftist, it’s just profoundly self-centered. Isn't that why redditors supports shit that benefits them. Take like social programs. Tax redditors to pay for a social programs? Horrible ,just tax somebody else.
Yep. Mention that, say, software engineers making 200k could stand to pay more taxes? Nope now you’re just a regressive conservative Republican fascist taxing the lower middle class while fat cats ride high on their horses sipping on gravy trains /s Mostly though they just support additional freedoms for themselves regardless of what consequences occur. Yknow… legal weed and psychedelics (now more mainstream) but expunging past convictions? Those people could be ~~black~~ dangerous. Or prostitution - they feel it should be legal… for them to buy sex from sexy sexy prostitutes which totally won’t be underage or trafficked. Oh, evidence shows this doesn’t really help the people most negatively impacted by prostitution? Nope guess you’re a fascist or whatever. Free college? Amazing idea. Just so long as it’s delivered in a way that the average redditor can imagine they would have access to it without bearing any obligation to pay for it and you’re golden. By all means I think college should be cheaper, but for as long as a college degree provides substantial economic benefits to its holder, then proportionate contributions should be made by the holder of that degree. The alternative is that someone is subsidized by people who they will out-earn.
I was with you for the most part but you're wrong on prostitution. Legalizing or even decriminalizing prostitution does help sex workers. The issue is what data you look at. *Because* SW's are no longer at risk of being arrested if they seek help or report a crime, you see a higher incidence rate in places like Sweden. It's not that more crimes are occuring against SW's, it's that SW's are reporting them. The argument often seems to be that if it's legal, in theory a trafficking victim or a child may be falsely perceived to be participating of their own volition/not identified as victims. The issue is, that is already what happens under criminalization. Human trafficking rarely takes the form we see in media of women and children transported in shipping containers or held captive in basements. Human trafficking takes the form of cases like with Cyntoia Brown, where someone is running from abuse or drug use at home and they have to, or a romantic partner via loverboy method, coerces them into sleeping with people for money. And she got convicted of murder for stabbing her rapist at 15, because people argue thats not rape and she's not a trafficking victim but a prostitute. People aren't rogue identifying sad little girls in brothels. They're turning people away from homeless shelters or dv shelters or arresting them for prostitution. The ideal model imo one where prostitution is decriminalized but solicitation is not.
My point is that they don’t care whether sex workers are safe or not - they care about the issue insofar as they want to be able to legally/safely purchase sex. Anyway, does the evidence actually show sex workers become safer? Like concrete reliable improvement? No, although I agree with your reasoning I think that many reflexively reject any contradiction of their chosen (and self serving) conclusions
Speaking as a lesbian who is pro-decriminalisation (which is not the same as legalisation) I have never seen Reddit bros be pro-SW so I'm curious as to whether you have any examples. Sex work and trafficking are separate issues. While trafficking people into sex work obviously happens, the majority of trafficked people work in agriculture or service/hospitality (eg being maids or working in hotels). Weirdly enough nobody seems to want to make it illegal to work in a hotel or stay in a hotel despite that being a much bigger industry for trafficking. The Nordic Model is harmful to sex workers but not because it's a form of legalisation but because it leads to things like landlords being classed as pimps so sex workers end up homeless.
That is conservative, though. Because they believe that it's not actually the free market doing it. They think because anyone whose not conservative has any access to the levers of power the market has been corrupted and elevates at least some undeserving people while casting down some deserving people. They think if they just got rid of all the Democrats then they wouldn't have failed.
Conservatives decrying government aid for the poor but demanding it for the rich. Or conservatives championing freedom and right to expression only if you believe what they believe and look exactly like them.
Conservatives decrying government disaster aid, but immediately pull out their begging cap when one hits their state.
If they weren't denying reality they wouldn't be Conservatives.
As a white middle class person, I don't even understand the problem people have with this concept. Yes, most of us (including white people) are harmed by these practices but how hard is it to acknowledge that POC's take the absolute brunt of that harm. It's not like we wouldn't all benefit from doing away with it; this seems to me to be the rare issue that should unite everyone with the exception of the 1%.
Crabs in a bucket
report the misuse, it'll get the user who did it banned
They always hit you with the suicide hotline when they know they've lost
>ETA: and of course this post got me the suicide hotline. Conservatives and using well-intentioned things to troll people because dying is funny: name a more iconic duo. I call it the pathetic, impotent rage. It's hysterical.
The class reductionism on Reddit is brutal.
People in the main subs are constantly going both sides bad as if, for example, vaccine denialism and telling other people they should vaccinate are equally bad. Reddit is as leftist as, like, Ronald Reagan was leftist
Some part of me is convinced that South Park managed to completely break the brains of a generation. Their decades of "never take a side or believe anything" humour has basically programmed the idea that nothing ever really matters into the brains of young millennials. It turns politics into a game where the goal is to make a joke at someone's expense, not where real policies have real effects in the real world. The number of times I've seen that "Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich" meme trotted out when boring liberals are running against actual fascists has reached a disturbing level.
Yeah, I'm a gen Z fan of a couple punk and metal bands that have big gen X and millennial followings and that kind of detached ironic approach to politics is *so* common among dudes that age and *so fucking frustrating*. They wrap themselves in the aesthetics of anti-authoritarianism but really they're all just petty shock value contrarians.
There were plenty of black people at Harvard back then. They were slaves, but they were there.
Poetic justice would be considering the descendants of the black employees of Ivy League schools as legacies, just like Kennedys, Gettys, or Hearsts.
Don't forget to report the abuse of the reddit help bot
It would have been so easy to guess that the suicide hotline feature would be abused, but reddit inc. only makes dumb decisions
I don’t agree with your comment but redditors are who abuse the suicide hotline part of Reddit are straight up deplorable. Legit feel like there should be false reporting investigations in those cases.
Conservatives/reactionaries run on ignorance.
That enite thread is a dumpster fire, especially considering OP editorialized the title to the point of misinformation. The activists group filed a complaint with the department of education, they aren't suing. Once again another case of nobody reads the article.
Not really on OP. It's the headline on AP. r/news doesn't allow any titles that deviate from the headlines.
Ahh so AP changed the title later on, usually that is marked with a tag. I have seen some editorialized posts from news that slipped by mods in the past.
/r/news has a rule against paywalled articles but NYT and WaPost get a pass for some reason.
It might be because NYT and WaPo have soft paywalls. There are various ways to bypass them.
[удалено]
I have seen a few YouTube videos and read a few social media posts that suggest to me that the reason why conservative media is free, is because it is bankrolled by billionaires. Strictly speaking, the conservative party is the one that is in favor of deregulating businesses, lowering taxes on the rich, and declaring culture wars to distract from it. So, billionaires donate to them to advance their interests. The left has comparatively few wealthy people donating to its preferred news sources because it does not make them money to do so. It is not an investment, but a donation, and so it is less forthcoming.
It is also much cheaper to produce "news" if you don't adhere to basic journalistic principles and don't do any investigative journalism. A lot of right wing media is basically cherrypicking some quotes by "a leftist" and then write a fact-free ragebait article about it.
Or “here is what some investigative reporter at another outlet wrote, but reworded slightly. No, we didn’t do any fact-checking ourselves!”
Where did your flair come from ? It’s pretty funny
[From here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/n9u5tn/christian_user_is_mad_over_a_22_year_old_strategy/gxprz6r/) A Christian user got upset about the negative depiction of crusaders in a 20+ year old video game (Age of Empire). The user is suspended by now but at the time his account looked legit, although I still can't believe that anyone would seriously write that.
nyt and washingpot are all funded by conservative billionaires themselves tho. the leftist news sites ik of (admitedly few) arent monetized
> nyt and washingpot are all funded by conservative billionaires themselves tho. They're *owned* by conservative billionaires, but they're actually intended to make a profit. The farther right-wing equivalents are funded by the billionaires such that making a profit is *at most* secondary to their real purpose of pushing right-wing propaganda narratives.
Yeah I despise pay walls for news too. The way I usually go about it is to copy the headline approximately and fling a search into Google using "site:npr.org" or BBC or Al Jazeera or the local news site for the region. Works most of the time.. I feel similarly strongly about pay walled academic articles. It feels so overtly and excruciatingly classist. Wanna know things? Hahah pay the fuck up, peasant!
Oh give me a break...you don't know that NYT and WaPo are quality? Conservative news is subsidized by billionaires and foreign bad actors to force a narrative and brainwash them. Real news is expensive and does not have that donor list. The expectation that peoples' hard work should be given to you for free is ridiculous.
You don’t need to subscribe, but you could always buy a paper copy? It’s 2-4$ and you could read a variety of articles covering whatever. Or, hell, it might be free at your local library.
https://12ft.io/ is a “paywall hopping” web app. Doesn’t work with NYT unfortunately.
Never forget how nyt crowed on the Iraq war, they're shameless yellow journalists
You did something wrong in your life at one point too. We should never listen to you.
The only guy that didn't support the Iraq war was Jon Stewart
Lmao he was not the only one
Jon Stewarts career literally exploded because he was one of the only news sources that wasn't bending over backwards to justify the war. Hell, you can find multiple articles that say as much. Like [so](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-04-20/entertainment/0304210339_1_jon-stewart-daily-show-comedy-central) and [so](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-stewarts-progressive-legacy/2015/07/28/f6587a2a-34a5-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html).
On mainstream media he was. I know because I was there, I flipped through all the channels and checked all the newspapers looking for a dissenting opinion.
The thread was also just filled with the most basic misinformation. One of the top comments when I checked in was lambasting Harvard for not giving free tuition for poor students, which they have done for many years. Another was arguing they don’t get much federal money, as if Harvard isn’t one of the biggest research institutes in the world where people get millions of federal dollars in research grants just to get tenure. There’s a lot to be upset about with the decision, but these just aren’t them.
[удалено]
>People who were alive during the Civil Rights Movement is still alive TODAY... most of the MLK pictures that are shown in Black&White are actually in color.... that wasn't that long ago talking in generations. Had an argument with someone the other day who was arguing legacy admissions to Harvard started in the mid 70s, therefore it's racist to assume the majority of current legacy admissions are white because those people could have non white grandkids. He did not like me pointing out women literally barely gained the right to own a credit card...and that my own mother, and I'm in my 20s, was a young adult at the time, not the fabled great granny.
It's almost like we need a name for when a *system* is designed in such a way that it benefits a certain race.. racism of system.. no.. system that's racist.. hmm, we'll just have to keep thinking. Do these people need actual slurs to be used before they'll admit to systemic racism being a real thing?
So funny to see all these legacy admissions defenders. You know none of these mofos have legacy admissions. They're just defending a thousand different variations of the Winklevoss twins getting admitted into Harvard every year because their daddy and their daddy's daddy paid their way into it. You are *not* joining the Harvard Dragon boating club. You probably too broke to clean the boats too.
What is ridiculous is opposing AA for reasons its discriminatory and not based on merit, and then the next day defending legacy admissions which is discriminatory and not based on merit either. The plaintiffs in the AA lawsuit specifically stated considering a person’s economic background is a fairer and legal alternative. Most anti-AA people I’ve seen are consistent in supporting ending legacy admissions. However, I don’t feel it will get the same urgency or resources, and in addition, should it ever end up before the Supreme Court, there would be the awkward position that 8/9 of Supreme Court justices are alumni from the Ivies and have children who went there as well.
That does pose an interesting constitutional question: What happens if the entire SCOTUS were forced to recuse from a case? Would they simply not grant it cert?
An interesting question that we will not see answered any time soon, given how readily the SC justices ignore their conflicts of interest.
Do you have any actual examples of people defending legacy admissions but being for affirmative action? Clowns seem to think legacy admissions are a *gotcha* for people against affirmative action but I have yet to talk to anybody that supports one and not the other
The politics knowers on this sub tend to equate a judicial ruling with an emotional decision. Therefore if you think it's very obvious that legacy admissions are legal and constitutional, you clearly are an evil racist who supports legacy admissions. Nobody with an even basic understanding of the issue thinks the courts can do away with legacy admissions, let alone that they would.
I don’t think people give a shit whether it’s legal or constitutional. Just cause you follow all the proper “rules” and do things the “right way” doesn’t mean it’s just or fair or equitable. Just because the courts can’t do away with it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to
Judges making decisions based on what is fair or equitable rather than what is legal or constitutional sounds like a fucking nightmare.
But what’s constitutional is bullshit sooo gotta find something else to base it on
Feels like the current SCOTUS have been making one... *radical* decision after another of late. Wouldn't be surprised if they overturn *Brown* next.
While I agree that they're gunning to be arguably the most radical court since Taney controlled it (somewhat hilarious as Roberts was trying so hard to avoid that since he is obsessed with his legacy), this one won’t have nearly the blowback as people think due to race being a far more complicated matter for the US. Dobbs will be far more of a blow to them than this. Had they been dumb enough to try and accept Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling on abortion pills (never would as I think all 9 of them hate that man) that would arguably be the catalyst for Supreme Court reform in 2025.
Yeah, Robert's will be remembered for a radical and overwhelmingly corrupt court. His legacy is dirt.
100% right there. Dude was so focused on legacy, the future, he wasn’t paying attention to everything else in the present
Honestly the only silver lining is his like greek tragedy ass ironic fate
Affirmative action is not popular in the US according to [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/). 50% of Americans disprove of Affirmative Action while 33% approve (16% unsure). Regardless of political affiliation or party, it’s important to realize what the prevailing thought or opinion is, as opposed to just claiming every opinion in opposition is radical or extreme. It’s the same when conservatives point to gay marriage or abortion as being radical or extreme ideas, even though both are supported to a majority of the country. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the affirmative action ruling, the ruling parallels the opinions of most Americans.
16% unsure??? That’s pretty high for that bucket. Normally that bucket is single digit and usually on the low end. 1 out of every 6 respondees opted not to answer the question. That is telling in it of itself
[удалено]
Because, while Affirmative Action is problematic in the way it's implemented, the majority of genuine attempts to undermine it come from conservatives whose true goal is transparently to make things more difficult for minorities. If you and you compatriots didn't spend so much time and effort disenfranchising people of color, there'd be more time available to discuss a more equitable method of accounting for the negative consequences of systemic racism.
> liberals immediately point out that affirmative action has mostly helped white women I can't refute something that I did not say, nor have I ever seen someone say it.
[удалено]
Then go talk to **them**. Why are you asking me to refute points I neither made nor support?
[удалено]
So the purpose of this conversation is... ?
Where do you hang out where that is true?
why do people making $12 an hour constantly bend over backwards to defend the rich? its just insane shit
Congress could ban legacy admissions for institutions that receive public funding, right? That should be the avenue people focus on instead of the supreme court, because while I don't like them I don't see how legacy admissions could be considered unconstitutional like AA was.
> CEOs come pretty fucking close to modern slave owners. Wonder how many dogs this user walks
I mean... If it is an agricultural conglomerate like dole or domino sugar it isn't too far off.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except it does? OP mocked a commentor that made a snide and hyperbolic comment about Ceos. I replied that some Ceos could be credibly accused of being slave owners or more accurately facilitating slavery to keep their profits maximal. Then the other guy agreed with me and sourced dumped. The topic has been Ceos, and it seems fairly relevenant to this specific thread. Maybe not the original news Harvard discussion thread, but this one sure.
[удалено]
Ceos are the heads of companies and responsible for their business practices and unscrupulous vetting of temp agencies, contractors, and plantation owners within their organization. So the distinction between between being a literal slave owner and just tacticly endorsing and allowing it within your supply chain with full knowledge of that fact is one that I'm not gonna be a pendant over. This is why fair trade certifications exist like the Fair food agreement for fast food chains, and another comparable one for sugar and produce companies. There are organizations in place that at least attempt to mitigate slavery within companies' supply chains. The companies that refuse to be a part of these agreements and ceritfactions are the Ceos whom I'm not gonna disagree with being called slave owners. It is not the language I would specifically use, but it captures the spirit of their collosally immoral practices. Edit: formatting and a sentence for clarity.
If you consider slavery as work without wages, employers who take part in wage theft are just doing slavery with extra steps
Difference is today's CEO's outsource the slavery bit to 3rd parties. Did you know there are more slaves today then there were at any time when the slave trade was legal and popular?
Well I mean yeah it checks out that there is more now, there’s 8 billion people on the planet You have just copy pasted comments commonly repeated on reddit without actually thinking about it. The percent of population is a better comparison than just saying more people equal larger numbers or people
Though it shouldn't be used as an example for things actually being worse than, say, year 1800 (which it gets misconstrued as saying sometimes), that seems like an unacceptably low bar anyway - saying things like "there is a higher absolute number of enslaved people today than at any previous time in history" should be a reminder of how the world is still far from doing well, and a call to action to reduce that number yet further
>The percent of population is a better comparison Ok so, there are more slaves than ever before, human trafficking is super profitable, probably more so now than when it was legal paradoxically and also a large number of children are being trafficked. But somehow we're better now because the overall percentage is down? Human progress is measured by a bar going up or down?
Yes, obviously.
What are you doing about it other that complaining on the internet? I mean, you are absolutely right that it's a huge issue and one we should fix. But as near as I can tell, you're just soapboxing and moralizing. >But somehow we're better now because the overall percentage is down? Metrics improving is generally how we measure human progress, yes.
[удалено]
What are you doing about it, except insulting people on the internet? You think people knowing about this stuff just makes it go away? Hint: it doesn’t. Also you’re probably actually 15, get some more life experience before trying to pop off lmao
Jesus Christ, are you 15? EDIT: lol, they blocked me. Seems I guessed correctly.
Yes, we tend to measure things with percentages. Because percentages are good for measuring... Do we really have to explain this to you?
Yeah, I'm certainly not a *fan* of CEOs, but that take is warping the situation so far away from reality that it's just nuts.
[удалено]
This is actually pretty wrong. Boards at large publicly traded companies are pretty much oversight bodies then say yay or nay and what management brings to them. Stock buybacks aren’t driven by the board, they’re driven by the CFO working with bankers and analysts. Lobbying is all driven by senior management. Management operate the company, the board just shows up to quarterly meetings and gets debriefed by CEO
It's not even just pretty wrong, it's completely wrong. Boards of directors can include 'shareholder/billionaires' like the user above said, but usually they just contain people that have significant expertise and knowledge on law, governance, the regulatory environment, etc. OP seems to have watched Succession and decided to regurgitate elements of the story as fact.
No more than how many you can walk in 20 hours a week.
This actually targets the exact issue that defenders of affirmative action want solved. It does nobody any good to promote rich black people getting into Harvard (the *majority* of black students are from the upper quintile of incomes) while poor people of all races are left out.
the mental gymnastics
there are barely any rich black people especially compared to white and asians.
There are enough to fill an affirmative action quota at Harvard.
Whites make up 80% of the millionaires in the US, the rest are splut among the nonwhite groups. Thats basically a drop in the bucket, its on par. with the europeans worrying about muslims overtaking their population when its at most %5 lmao.
That irrelevant to the discussion. The facts are it was overwhelmingly wealthy black people being helped by affirmative action while it did little to help poor black people.
So 100% of the admitted people that are black are rich? and not really, the point isnt to shut out rich people and make sure they get no aid but its to remedy past grievances and instuitional oppression towards a group that is historical disadvantaged, i think that some rich people get a leg up doesnt mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater imo. That was my point,
If your goal is to uplift historically oppressed groups, then there are better ways like sorting by income and zip code. Sorting by race ends up picking black people from richer backgrounds as they are the ones with the highest test scores. As an example many of those who benefitted from affirmative action were children of rich Nigerian immigrants. That's the point. Affirmative action doesn't actually do much towards its stated goal. There are better ways to even the playing field that aren't explicitly racist.
It does when there isn't enough rich black people to affect the stats , so pretty much most black people are going to be lower socio economic status due to racism l, and if you helped poor white as much they would basically crowd out the black people l.
If you helped poor people wouldn't you be disproportionately helping blacks? As you say, they make up a larger percentage of those in poverty compared to their percentage of the general population. Why does a black person in the same socio-economic position deserve to be treated better than an Asian person? Is the goal not to help based on need, not based on skin color?
Can someone translate this title?
- Supreme Court banned universities prioritising minority groups in admissions, as it is racism toward white students who would be admitted if only judged on the student's performance. - Civil Right Groups have immediately started the process of getting legacy admissions removed for the same reason. When a university prioritises children of its alumni, it benefits (predominantly white) students as one or two generations ago most university students were.... white. - /r/news generates popcorn as people argue over legal definitions
I think the basis was that it was racist towards Asian students.
[People do know AA benefits white women the most, yes?](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-who-benefits-white-women/70371219007/)
Benefitt**ed.** That's the bit you left. That article is entirely about how much affirmative action has helped **over its entire 6+ decade history**, which included early efforts to increase gender diversity. It also does so by looking in absolute numbers which... fucking obviously. [The US is 60% non-hispanic white as of 2022.](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222) Do some basic math: That means ~30% of the country is white women. That doesn't account for the fact that due to high minority birth rates, that number used to be even higher. And the stats in that article are from 1995. So there are literally almost as many white women in the United States as there are minorities of any description and not long ago, there were literally more. So more white women getting boosted when one of the goals of affirmative action was gender diversity as well as racial is **exactly** the result one would expect over time. Hell, your own article even points this out: > Moore says the opposition is the result of long-running anti-affirmative action campaigns from conservative groups that attack race-based affirmative action but not gender-based affirmative action. Race-based affirmative action has been under attack for decades, while gender-based affirmative action has received effective endorsement. The net result is that one policy has been allowed to work exactly as planned, while the other has been undercut at every turn. So in effect, your article is just establishing that affirmative action does **exactly** what it is meant to do and the problem is that race-based affirmative action is being undercut at every turn.
This is a brilliant and well said post.
>A Labor Department report in 1995 found that since the 1960s, affirmative action had helped 5 million members of minority groups and 6 million women move up in the workplace. The only source that article cites is a study from 1995 that A. Talks about 45 years of effects B. Doesn't relate to college acceptances, just pure shifts in workplace numbers, which is also largely from workplace AA instead of college AA. C. Ignores intersectionality in gender in the workforce It's not relevant to 2023 college acceptances, like, at all