(07-05-2023, 04:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It seems with mixed people, they tend to choose to identify as the non-white race.  A lot of it probably has to do with how the public will perceive you, but I don't know a single mixed race person who identifies as white.  Maybe on the census they identify as mixed. Is there a place on the census to choose black/white etc?  I've never really paid attention.

(07-05-2023, 01:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Those aren't "arguments." They are just statements. The first is a value judgment, the second a factual judgment.

For future reference, an argument has to have at least three parts--a premise, an inference, and a conclusion. That's the basic unit.

Quote:Nothing I've said denies that any law is a/the law. So it looks like you missed the argument altogether. 

Quote:I'm saying that to claim the "system" decided on law when your side appointed judges to change the law is to misunderstand how the system works. As if "the system" were NOT deciding law when liberal judges rule in favor of civil rights policy. 

Quote:The following confirms you've misunderstood, as you provide historical examples of what just happened in the Students for Fair Admission Inc case--i.e., that a change in the social/political make up of the court turned out to be also a change in legal interpretation rooted in different values than those which brought precedent just overturned. That's what I am arguing, and what you apparently missed.

Quote:Dred Scott was overturned because enough citizens finally decided that Blacks were citizens with a right to equal participation in government (13-14th Amendments). Taney's ruling, like many of those of today's court, was not even supported by the majority in 1857. 

Quote:It was a change in values which created a change in law, to make it more consonant with the values of most Americans at the time. 
Or if you disagree, then let's hear what pertinent "facts" changed between 1857 and 1865 while legal interpretation remained the same. 

Quote:Same for overturning Plessy vs Ferguson. There is no reason to suppose the "facts" which helped decide Brown vs Board would have swayed the Brown court, given the legal philosophy of that majority, which protected white majority discrimination/privilege by affirming legal equality despite separation and ruled out government remedy for social inequality--the same assumption grounding current efforts to roll back civil rights advances. 

Quote:In both cases, at some point "brazen" liberals decried Dredd and Plessy as "unfair or evidence of a broken system," after "carefully crafting a narrative that [the SCOTUS in question was] working at cross purposes to its original intent."  And then it was they, not some "system," which changed the law. 

Quote:So yes, like ALL "leftists" and liberals and "rightists"--like EVERYBODY--I applaud decisions which align with my values. Do you really do otherwise? 

Quote:You've also supposed the legal neutrality of Trump's Muslim ban and Dobbs. That's a pattern now--just "the law" when your side "carefully crafts a narrative" of grievance and installs judges to make "fair" decisions, but delegitimizing "authoritarianism" when my side does.

Quote:The difference between you and me is that I don't mystify court decisions by claiming some "system" made the ones I favor,
rather than judges appointed to that task. I don't write as if only the other side "constructs narratives" while for my side it's "just the (legal) facts, Maam."  

(07-05-2023, 01:57 PM)Dill Wrote: If AA and racial quotas were "more inquality" then they did, in fact, counter inequality by including heretofore excluded minorities from schools. In your state it raised minority inclusion in the U system to the point it almost reflected CA's actual demographic distribution--until AA was discontinued.

The rest of this post is about the "problem" with "people like me," who has just provided a historical summary which explains how "color blind" admission policies can be and were used to achieve de facto segregation, and referred to the political machine behind the recent decision on AA, which was a confluence not just of Trump's extra court picks but an organized legal effort to stamp out AA and diversity which goes back to the Reagan era, when the drive to roll back of civil rights became tightly organized into a network of think tanks and astroturf organizations and well funded Congressional lobby.

As opposed to "people like you," who counter this history with impressions, vague charges with no examples or proof--i.e., faulty logic. Your implicit premise is that I am separating black and white into "monoliths," which gives no credit to the minorities who have in fact driven civil rights legislation, and assumes no "white" people sided with them or contested white supremacy. 

That the people who controlled and still control access to higher ed are predominantly white is just an empirical fact; and my stating that fact that doesn't make "whites" ipso facto a "monolith,"* any more than it simultaneously commits me to a claim minorities had no hand in winning their own civil rights.

E.g., it is in fact Asian-American groups and leaders who have worked against discrimination against Asian Americans in higher ed who are most shocked and angered by the use of an Asian group and Asian faces to represent what is primarily an effort to roll back minority gains in higher ed, to protect the white privilege eroded by civil rights policies. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

So the "problem with people like me" just turns out to be an unwarranted inference, anxious projection. That's what's "interesting."  

*Especially if I said, as I did, that whites are manipulated too, as they have been since the ante-Bellum days when poor whites confused the slave owners economic interests with their own by defending the slave system. Or even today, as they are whipped into grievance by people who assure them liberal elites are "replacing" them with non-whites.

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Nothing I've said denies that any law is a/the law. So it looks like you missed the argument altogether. 

That could be one reason.  Your being deliberately unclear so you can engage in cyclical arguments is another.

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good thing no one is making that argument then.

Nor did I make that argument.  The SCTUS is certainly part of a system, and serves an important role within said system.  But no one has made an argument, other than your attempt at a strawman here, that "the system" made this decision independent of human beings.  But that would be far from the only difference between me and you, as illustrated above.

(07-04-2023, 02:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you're confusing your opinion with actual law as determined by our judicial system.

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The above confirms you have zero idea why I said you helped me prove my point, because you just did it again.

Quote:You've also supposed the legal neutrality of Trump's Muslim ban and Dobbs. That's a pattern now--just "the law" when your side "carefully crafts a narrative" of grievance and installs judges to make "fair" decisions, but delegitimizing "authoritarianism" when my side does.

Calling it a "Muslim ban" just confirms you are both ideologically, not logically, motivated but also a repeater of misinformation.  Odd, as these are things you usually criticize in others.

(07-05-2023, 05:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're doing an awful lot of deflecting here while ignoring my key point.  That being, that you don't give other ethnicities any credit for intelligence or agency.  They exist merely to wait around to be manipulated by whites.  It's ok, you're far from being alone.  I see the white savior complex from CA leftists literally almost every day at work.  But I can assure you, other ethnicities are just as intelligent and capable as white people, and thus able to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.  Yes, even when it's a different conclusion to white people who "magically know" what is best for them.

(07-05-2023, 05:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's ok, you're far from being alone.  I see the white savior complex from CA leftists literally almost every day at work.  But I can assure you, other ethnicities are just as intelligent and capable as white people, and thus able to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.  Yes, even when it's a different conclusion to white people who "magically know" what is best for them.

(07-06-2023, 10:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Laying out an argument step by step, and quoting the statements I am addressing, is the opposite of being "deliberately unclear."

If you were responding to the above as argument, you'd be able to show where I denied a law is the law, as you claim.

That would be "clear."  Repeating unwarranted one-liners without ever specifying what statements you reference is unclear.

Quote:Examples illustrate; not one-liners.

You didn't make the following statement in post #114 to explain the overturning of a ruling by "liberal" judges? 

That line doesn't read "actual law as determined by judges on the court."

Now that you're ready to recognize human beings are involved in all court decisions, are you going to concede that recently overturned rulings were also "actual law as determined by our judicial system"?

Quote:What I "usually criticize in others" is repeating one-liners without warrant. 

So why can't you show how I "just did it again," so people can be sure you are not just, again, repeating "points" you can't actually support?

Quote:How does calling a Muslim ban a "Muslim ban" confirm "ideological motivation"--as opposed to recognizing discriminatory intent designed into "neutral" law?  What "misinformation" is "repeated" there that you are still unable to specify? 

Quote:Don't have time to demonstrate? Then you don't have a "point." 

(07-06-2023, 10:53 PM)Dill Wrote: No. I see mistakes and keep editing them after the post. 

Sometimes I can't get a margin or spacing right, because of bolded or italics additions.

I've been previewing more now, in hopes of cutting that down.

But I had no idea the result was multiple alerts to your account. Must have looked very puzzling, like you got 10 posts instead of one.

Now that I've been notified, I'll fix that by preparing posts on Word first.

My apologies. 

(07-06-2023, 10:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you were actually doing that then I wouldn't have made the accusation.

Like I said, circular arguments.  This is such a train wreck that it beggars the imagination.  You're actually suggesting that I stated "the system" made a decision without any input from actual human beings.   Your position is literally absurd.

Because I enjoy your incomprehension and inadvertent continued reinforcement of my position
 
Probably because it wasn't a Muslim ban?  Where non-Muslim majority countries included in the ban?  Where the majority of the world's Muslim majority populated countries included in the ban?

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Dred Scott was overturned because enough citizens finally decided that Blacks were citizens with a right to equal participation in government (13-14th Amendments). Taney's ruling, like many of those of today's court, was not even supported by the majority in 1857. 

I think you'll find that it was overturned because enough SCOTUS justices came to that conclusion.  The opinion of the general populace is not a consideration for the SCOTUS.

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Same for overturning Plessy vs Ferguson. There is no reason to suppose the "facts" which helped decide Brown vs Board would have swayed the Brown court, given the legal philosophy of that majority, which protected white majority discrimination/privilege by affirming legal equality despite separation and ruled out government remedy for social inequality--the same assumption grounding current efforts to roll back civil rights advances. 

Only if you consider discrimination based on ethnicity to be a civil rights "advancement".  I certainly don't, and a majority of Americans appear to agree with me.

(07-05-2023, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:It was a change in values which created a change in law, to make it more consonant with the values of most Americans at the time. 
Or if you disagree, then let's hear what pertinent "facts" changed between 1857 and 1865 while legal interpretation remained the same. 

So they were doing exactly what the court is doing right now with AA. Thanks for confirming.  

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/

(07-07-2023, 03:07 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think I'll find that "enough SCOTUS justices came to that conclusion."

I think I'll find that Dredd was abrogated by the 13th and 14th Amendments, passed by Congress.

No one maintained that the SOTUS is suppose to consider "opinion of the general populace." But legislative bodies ARE supposed to.

Quote:Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. When it comes to college admissions, elimination of current race-based considerations will mean discrimination against minorities in favor of wealthier white students, especially while the majority of U.S. colleges continue to embrace legacy admissions.

Quote:So you don't avoid "discrimination based on ethnicity" by supporting policies and court rulings designed to protect white admissions. And that's one thing if you genuinely don't know the history of the policies and rulings, but quite another if you recognize that history well enough to deflect it. 

Quote:So I'm NOT going hear what pertinent facts changed. ok. 

And no, Congress passing amendments to change discriminatory law in 1965 =/= "exactly what the court is doing right now with AA." 

Quote:You've just argued that it's not the SCOTUS job to bend to popular opinion. They are not in this case, any more than they were in Dobbs. 
A link showing polls favoring the end of AA does not establish motivation for the court.

Quote:Your link makes some interesting points--such as the two-to-one majority opposition to AA college admissions among those without college degrees. 

One has to wonder how many in your poll actually understand how the admission policies they approve of actually work. 

(07-06-2023, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Isolate and quote the statement where I say the bolded, or which warrants it. Explain the warrant.

If you cannot, then it's a made up point.  It won't get stronger with simple repetition + ad hominem. 

Even so its hardly "deflected" since I just dedicated a post to refuting your "monolith" thesis, as it applies to both "races."  And not with one-liners.

For the record, a claim recognizing white supremacy in politics and education and a claim that "other ethnicities are just as intelligent and capable as white people" can both be true at the same time. So affirming one doesn't negate the other, as you appear to assume.


"Subjectivity" is ok now? Or just bad when assigned to "leftists." Your vision is surely a wonderful gift, but until you can articulate it into some form of public evidence, it remains yours alone and no basis for refuting logical arguments grounded in law and historical record.

In MLK's "Letter," he refers to Blacks who supported segregation. That support doesn't look any better if we suppose Black segregationists were "intelligent as white people," "able to make their own conclusions. Yes, even when it [was]a different conclusion white people who 'magically kn[e]w' what [was] best for them."

And white people who "magically kn[e]w" what was best for Blacks back then, and so risked their lives participating in Black-organized Freedom Rides don't seem especially blameworthy in retrospect, even if suffering from a "white savior complex," or whatever you label people who put their lives on the line to fight for fellow Americans' rights and opportunities. 

Back then it was no different than now--there were plenty of people who attacked the character and motives of civil rights protestors rather than the injustice they protested. 

(07-07-2023, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Back then it was no different than now--there were plenty of people who attacked the character and motives of civil rights protestors rather than the injustice they protested. 

The modern left has really set up a fascinating mental structure of heads I win, tails, you lose.  If a minority has a position contrary to the perceived "white majority" then they are fighting for their rights against an oppressive majority.  If a minority agrees with the perceived "white majority" then they're a sell out, participating in "white supremacy", or labeled as worse.  These mental gymnastics are honestly impressive, as you've built a cage that inures you to even having to consider people as more than being part of an aggregate whole, a whole with rules that must be obeyed.

You see this most markedly when a minority of prominence expresses views that are contrary to the modern left's acceptable opinions.  They are attacked mercilessly and labeled with slurs that would get a right leaning person labeled a despicable racist if uttered by them.  Your comparison of Asians who want to be treated fairly with "black segregationists" is a perfect, albeit more clever, example of this.  The comparison is unflattering by design and seeks to equate a desire to be treated fairly with being in favor of racial oppression.

Honestly, It'd actually be impressive if it weren't so odious and malignant.

(07-07-2023, 01:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, typically, yes. Minorities have had to fight for their rights in the U.S.. Yesterday you were a big booster of "agency."

Quote:And in all those struggles, at every stage, there were minorities who sided with "whites," even against their own civil rights.

Is the bolded statement false? A lie?  More importantly--

Quote:Why should this historical recognition trigger a defense of those who sided with the dominating ethnicity?  

Quote:I can't help but notice that when you speak of "minority agreement" with the dominant ethnicity, you stay very clear of examples. In any case,
I doubt a single Black segregationist would say he didn't want to be treated fairly.  Even Booker T. Washington thought equality should eventually prevail. They just didn't think Black people should be actively protesting and marching to get equality--"contrary to the modern left's acceptable opinions."

Quote:The real "mental gymnastics" occur in trying to deny the historical record to confirm to your pre-existing beliefs about your Fox-inflected "modern left."  E.g., In this forum, it is not "the modern left" which "attacks" fellow posters with "slurs" and accuses people of "racism." 

Quote:Rather than simply pre-judging the motives of the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions, and their opponents, to conform with what you "already know" about "the left," why not delve into the legal arguments, the precedents, and the history of AA in higher ed, to better understand the context of the decision? 

Find out what is the case, THEN judge.

Quote:No one can explain the evolution/devolution of civil rights, or any other historical tendency, by simply imputing good or evil motives to historical actors--motives you can't really know and would not be adequate to historical explanation even if you could. And no one can get very far in this regard by discounting comparisons of present and past cases as too "odious and malignant" for examination. Such dismissal is also a form of pre-judgement, deployed to protect cherished beliefs long separated from actual historical record. Constantly urning from law and history to ad hominem can only protect belief in the short term, if even then. 

(07-07-2023, 04:18 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Curiously, the Court's majority held that military academies will be exempt from their ruling --

“The [government] contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”

It seems the Court's majority has no measurable concern with race-based admissions when the institutes of higher learning are military; such as West Point, for example, who state they are multicultural by design --

“The United States Military Academy… admits a racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse Corps of Cadets so as to reflect the racial and ethnic composition of our enlisted force and our country. We believe a diverse student body results in a superior education for our cadets and in phenomenal leaders for our nation’s enlisted soldiers.”

The reason this exemption is curious, is because of the rationale; no military entities being party to the action. This seems a very strict, and selective, distinction given the liberties taken by this majority in other decisions. If race-based admissions truly violate the 14th Amendment -- as they assert in their finding -- then it should be applicable to all institutes of higher learning.

(07-07-2023, 04:18 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Curiously, the Court's majority held that military academies will be exempt from their ruling --

“The [government] contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”

It seems the Court's majority has no measurable concern with race-based admissions when the institutes of higher learning are military; such as West Point, for example, who state they are multicultural by design --

“The United States Military Academy… admits a racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse Corps of Cadets so as to reflect the racial and ethnic composition of our enlisted force and our country. We believe a diverse student body results in a superior education for our cadets and in phenomenal leaders for our nation’s enlisted soldiers.”

The reason this exemption is curious, is because of the rationale; no military entities being party to the action. This seems a very strict, and selective, distinction given the liberties taken by this majority in other decisions. If race-based admissions truly violate the 14th Amendment -- as they assert in their finding -- then it should be applicable to all institutes of higher learning.

(07-07-2023, 04:18 PM)Lucidus Wrote: “The United States Military Academy… admits a racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse Corps of Cadets so as to reflect the racial and ethnic composition of our enlisted force and our country. We believe a diverse student body results in a superior education for our cadets and in phenomenal leaders for our nation’s enlisted soldiers.”

The reason this exemption is curious, is because of the rationale; no military entities being party to the action. This seems a very strict, and selective, distinction given the liberties taken by this majority in other decisions. If race-based admissions truly violate the 14th Amendment -- as they assert in their finding -- then it should be applicable to all institutes of higher learning.

(07-07-2023, 06:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Nothing curious about that at all, as they clearly state what their motive is.  They ethnic composition of the military, in this case the US Army, may vary somewhat compared to the entire population of the US.  For example, the 2020 census showed that 64% of US citizens are White, 16% are Hispanic, and 12% are Black;  They just want the proportionate number of leadership roles to correspond with the same approximate breakdown as the enlisted ranks.

In general society, it would be nice if the same percentage of minorities aspired toward higher education and leadership roles as they do in the military, but I'm not sure those ratios are the same.

(07-07-2023, 06:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Diversity-based methods of admissions are either a violation of the 14th Amendment or they're not.