07-07-2023, 05:18 PM
(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."
Yup. And I am today, and will be tomorrow.
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--
A much better question is not whether it's true or false, but 1. how prevalent was it and 2. how does that apply to the topic at hand? The answer to one is likely not very. The answer to number two is not at all.
Quote:Why should this historical recognition trigger a defense of those who sided with the dominating ethnicity?
Given the overly grand scope of your argument I can't address this without you being more specific.
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."
We're discussing an example in this very thread.
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."
Is Fox News in the room with us now? Seriously, how often are you going to fall back on Fox News brainwashing accusations anytime someone disagrees with your position? The amount of ego it takes to believe that no one could disagree with you without them being deliberately brainwashed is honestly staggering. Now you're not only taking away the agency of minorities who disagree with you, but everyone who disagrees with you.
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.
I know what the case is about. It's about ethnicity being a contributing factor to admission, to the exclusion of higher qualified candidates of other ethnicities, i.e. discrimination based on ethnicity.
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.
How fortunate for me, then, that does not apply to me.
