07-04-2023, 01:54 PM
(07-04-2023, 01:29 PM)Dill Wrote: My point was that it was ok to use race based admissions policies to rectify centuries of race-based exclusion from higher ed.
The goal of that was not to "discriminate against whites" as previous admissions policies had been designed to discriminate against minorities.
Were I to argue SSF style, I'd be asking you if discrimination was ok when it was just against people of color.
But that's the kind of thing that would produce outraged counter-attacks and charges of misrepresentation that take us off track, if I did it to you.
As I have said in other threads, countering inequality with more inequality is rarely going to achieve the desired result. As to your "SSF style" question, no, it's never ok to discriminate against others. Sometimes it's legal and some times it's not. But it's never "right".
Quote:Um sure. Like the protocols. 'cept I'm after "white people." Who have never "manipulated" people of color in the U.S.
Or other white people for that matter, using race to scare them to vote right.
You caught me presuming a historical and continued white dominance of the nation's politics and higher education without a shred of proof.
Wait, you mean the ethnicity that, until very recently, constituted the vast majority of people in this nation actually held sway over said nation's politics? I am shocked by this revelation. The problem with people who think like you is that they give no credit to the capability and intelligence of those who are apparently being controlled by those dastardly white people. Non-whites are just simple rubes waiting to have their strings pulled by the white puppet masters according to your line of thought. Also, it's interesting that you speak of white people as some absurd monolith of will and intent.
Quote:Lol Dill is "making it about race."
Yeah, who could ever come to that conclusion by reading your points above?
Quote:Will there be a counter argument grounded in the actual history of U.S. higher ed and the legal battles involving admissions, or was the "protocols" analogy your limit? Personal attack does not count as grounded argument.
Was that a personal attack? If so your definition of such seems rather overly broad.
Quote:If you can turn to history and legal arguments, demonstrate that you are more informed about this issue than your "boogeyman" argument suggests,
then I'll continue responding. Otherwise not.
Here's a historical argument, discrimination based on ethnicity is bad as shown through history. Here's a legal argument, discrimination based on race is illegal in the US.
Quote:Helter skelter. I "agree" that a majority of conservative judges, has overturned the legal interpretation of past liberal judges.
I do love when you unwittingly make a point in my favor.
Quote:But I don't agree that that is simply and suddenly our "judicial system" now determining "actual law,"
as opposed to the application of a new set of values and political goals, decades in preparation for this moment.
That's a lot of words to try and avoid saying that this is, in actual fact, the law.
Quote:But you are saying no room for dill "opinion," like distinguishing between facts of the case,
which have been the same for decades,
and the values which have altered with the courts composition.
Yes indeed. Why would Dredd Scott be overturned or Plessy v. Ferguson when the "facts of the case" had been the same for decades plus?
Quote:The "system" just decided. And so we have rule of law. Without "subjectivity."
No, the SCOTUS just decided. Like many leftists you applaud judicial decisions in your favor and decry those against you as unfair or evidence of a broken system. You see it in the news now with alarming frequency, the number of prominent Dems, including the POTUS, carefully crafting a narrative that this SCOTUS is illegitimate and working at cross purposes to its original intent. The purpose of this is a nakedly obvious as it is brazen. To delegitimize the court so that they can swoop in and "save it", by appointing, of course, enough ideological liberal judges to make it "fair" again and working as intended.
I'll reiterate a point from a previous thread, I never thought I'd live to see the day that the "liberal" party became the party of authoritarianism.
