Protests following the killing of George Floyd

Mastadon said:
A coalition of 64 Asian-American groups has filed a complaint against Harvard for discriminating against Asian-American kids in admissions. They’re right to assume there is a quota system at work. But they’re wrong that it is targeting Asian Americans. In fact, it is discriminating in favor of Blacks and Hispanics.
The complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, alleges that for Asian-American students to gain admission, they have to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2015/07/06/the-secret-quotas-in-college-admissions/amp/

In this article, we examine the roles played by preferences for athletes and children of alumni. Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented mi- nority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, His- panic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...es_espenshade_chung_walling_dec_2004_full.pdf
Click to expand...

So your post about the entirety of affirmative action is only because of Harvard admissions, and you used this as a basis that somehow things are better for black people?

I actually think there was an episode about this on Patriot Act



Have you actually followed the entire case of this? It wasn't as black & white (no pun) as you're trying to point out, and the admissions for Harvard isn't based on SAT scores alone - they have their own personal and complex admission structure, plus a cap on a number of applicants who can be accepted.
The judge in the case ruled: "the data demonstrates a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers, holding constant any reasonable set of observable characteristics." because Harvard has a "personal ratings" system - where the Asian Americans scored poorly in comparison to white Americans - and the plaintiffs couldn't prove that this was down to race.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...eir-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/

Either way, this specific example is in no way representative of affirmative action as a whole, and it definitely shouldn't be the hill that signifies just how much better things are for black people now.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Burning and looting is the continuation of politics by other means. Absolutely on the table if the ruling class fails to act after peaceful protest.
Click to expand...
In that case since they are looting businesses from innocent people I’m guessing they have to protect their own property themselves which would be ugly
 
villain said:
So your post about the entirety of affirmative action is only because of Harvard admissions, and you used this as a basis that somehow things are better for black people?

I actually think there was an episode about this on Patriot Act



Have you actually followed the entire case of this? It wasn't as black & white (no pun) as you're trying to point out, and the admissions for Harvard isn't based on SAT scores alone - they have their own personal and complex admission structure, plus a cap on a number of applicants who can be accepted.
The judge in the case ruled: "the data demonstrates a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers, holding constant any reasonable set of observable characteristics." because Harvard has a "personal ratings" system - where the Asian Americans scored poorly in comparison to white Americans - and the plaintiffs couldn't prove that this was down to race.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...eir-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/

Either way, this specific example is in no way representative of affirmative action as a whole, and it definitely shouldn't be the hill that signifies just how much better things are for black people now.
Click to expand...


The funny part is that the article that he quoted from Forbes explains what you just wrote. Just a small sample:

The Coalition’s complaint is based on a false assumption: that admissions decisions at elite colleges are based on smarts – and represented by high SAT scores and grades. Yes, those metrics count – a lot. But they come into play only after an applicant’s “tag” – his or her target group is assigned. That’s because top schools are not looking just for the smartest kids, or for well-rounded kids; they’re looking to put together the well-rounded class. Kids who will fill key niches on campus.
Click to expand...
 
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

villain said:
So your post about the entirety of affirmative action is only because of Harvard admissions, and you used this as a basis that somehow things are better for black people?

I actually think there was an episode about this on Patriot Act



Have you actually followed the entire case of this? It wasn't as black & white (no pun) as you're trying to point out, and the admissions for Harvard isn't based on SAT scores alone - they have their own personal and complex admission structure, plus a cap on a number of applicants who can be accepted.
The judge in the case ruled: "the data demonstrates a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers, holding constant any reasonable set of observable characteristics." because Harvard has a "personal ratings" system - where the Asian Americans scored poorly in comparison to white Americans - and the plaintiffs couldn't prove that this was down to race.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...eir-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/

Either way, this specific example is in no way representative of affirmative action as a whole, and it definitely shouldn't be the hill that signifies just how much better things are for black people now.
Click to expand...


What about the second study I posted which is based on 3 universities not just Harvard.
 
Halftrack said:
Sure, I can agree to that. It's a hell of a lot better than the people who respond with :lol: or declare you an idiot for having a differing opinion.

That being said, the refusal to engage with the arguments other posters put forth, combined with the general "well things have improved some, can't you just be happy with that?" and the laser focus on RIOTING and LOOTING meant there was no fruitful discussion to be had.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of where I said this or admit you are misrepresenting me.

If I want to focus on rioting and looting that is my prerogative is it not? There isn’t a fixed format of what I should or should not be focusing on. If you want my opinion on something else ask and I provide it.
 
I wish people who rail against affirmative action, ignorant of the reasoning behind it, kept the same energy for legacy admissions at these elite colleges. But no, let's ignore Chad who gets into Harvard because his dad made a $5,000,000 donation to the swimming club. Let's focus on DeMar who, with his 3.4 GPA, "stole" a spot from an Asian girl with a 3.9 GPA, because the only thing we consider for admissions is GPA.
 
Mastadon said:
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.



What about the second study I posted which is based on 3 universities not just Harvard.
Click to expand...

The one with this conclusion?

our data indicate that admission officers at elite universities are placing a declining weight on belonging to an underrepresented minority student group, whereas the admission advantage accruing to athletes has been growing. By 1997, in fact, being a recruited athlete mattered more than any other type of admission preference we have examined.
Click to expand...

Many different student characteristics are valued by admission officers and receive extra weight in highly competitive admissions. It is all part of a process that views academically selective colleges and universities as picking and choosing from many different pools or queues in order to create a first-year class that best advances institutional values and objectives.
Click to expand...

Like Harvard - the elite schools focus on more than just SAT scores alone - they care about personality & character, achievements outside of school etc - also they're fecking hard schools to get in to. If they can be compared to Oxford or Cambridge, then there are 50x as many students who get rejected than those who get admitted - to assume that it's 'easier' for black students to get into a ridiculously hard school is beyond offensive & also is in no way representative of affirmative action as a whole, which again benefits white women more than it does black people.
 
JPRouve said:
So you still don't understand? Seriously, have you read what I wrote or listened to what MLK said?

We have quoted that sentence multiple times, @villain and I posted the video of a part of his speech that only last two minutes and you still don't understand that sentence? "A riot is the language of the unheard."
Click to expand...

I can assure you, anytime MLK's name is mentioned nowadays, it's always the cotton candy excerpts they take from his speeches. They love any sentence of his that has "love", "peace", "nonviolent". Of course they skip over the more substantial parts of his speeches.

And of course they act like he's the only black civil rights icon we've had. Not a word about Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Fred Hampton, John Lewis... Because you can't caricature them the way MLK has been caricatured into a harmless hippy teddy bear who just said peace and love ad nauseum

This set of people also view Mandela and Gandhi the same way. They also own Bob Marley's Legend album, the one that stripped away his most political songs in an attempt to not scare the hwites away
 
adexkola said:
I can assure you, anytime MLK's name is mentioned nowadays, it's always the cotton candy excerpts they take from his speeches. They love any sentence of his that has "love", "peace", "nonviolent". Of course they skip over the more substantial parts of his speeches.

And of course they act like he's the only black civil rights icon we've had. Not a word about Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Fred Hampton, John Lewis... Because you can't caricature them the way MLK has been caricatured into a harmless hippy teddy bear who just said peace and love ad nauseum

This set of people also view Mandela and Gandhi the same way. They also own Bob Marley's Legend album, the one that stripped away his most political songs in an attempt to not scare the hwites away
Click to expand...

This, this and this again. I'm sure I saw someone suggest that MLK's vision was for people to be 'colourblind' earlier in this thread and I truly, despair.
 
adexkola said:
I can assure you, anytime MLK's name is mentioned nowadays, it's always the cotton candy excerpts they take from his speeches. They love any sentence of his that has "love", "peace", "nonviolent". Of course they skip over the more substantial parts of his speeches.

And of course they act like he's the only black civil rights icon we've had. Not a word about Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Fred Hampton, John Lewis... Because you can't caricature them the way MLK has been caricatured into a harmless hippy teddy bear who just said peace and love ad nauseum

This set of people also view Mandela and Gandhi the same way. They also own Bob Marley's Legend album, the one that stripped away his most political songs in an attempt to not scare the hwites away
Click to expand...

It's not an act, necessarily. They don't know, and they don't care. It's debate club, not the real world.

This isn't an excuse, it makes it worse.
 
Mastadon said:
Give me an example of where I said this or admit you are misrepresenting me.

If I want to focus on rioting and looting that is my prerogative is it not? There isn’t a fixed format of what I should or should not be focusing on. If you want my opinion on something else ask and I provide it.
Click to expand...
Ah, yeah, you're right, my bad. I was having a discussion on largely the same topic on twitter, and conflated you and some guy on there.

People have repeatedly confronted you with the fact that peaceful protests and strikes have been taking place for three months. The rioting has largely been confined to the immediate aftermath of high-profile police shootings of black Americans, yet that's what gets all the focus. When that dies down, the world around them largely stops giving a shit, so it seems fairly obvious that simply striking and protesting alone isn't enough to bring the required attention to the issue.
 
adexkola said:
I can assure you, anytime MLK's name is mentioned nowadays, it's always the cotton candy excerpts they take from his speeches. They love any sentence of his that has "love", "peace", "nonviolent". Of course they skip over the more substantial parts of his speeches.

And of course they act like he's the only black civil rights icon we've had. Not a word about Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Fred Hampton, John Lewis... Because you can't caricature them the way MLK has been caricatured into a harmless hippy teddy bear who just said peace and love ad nauseum

This set of people also view Mandela and Gandhi the same way. They also own Bob Marley's Legend album, the one that stripped away his most political songs in an attempt to not scare the hwites away
Click to expand...

You made me realize a mistake that I have made, I generally use MLK as a point of reference knowing that he wasn't actually that, that he was one important voice but not the only one. That mistakes means that today we have black politicians who for some reason act as if MLK was the only voice and as if the 60s were some sort of political shangri-la where peaceful speeches and protests led to incredible results. So let me introduce you one of the other major voices.

 
Cheimoon said:
I know you said you're done here, but on the off-chance that you're not:


I'm not going to repeat discussions you and others have had in the meantime, but on this point: after very little and slow reforms in policing, there has been enormous attention to the subject in the past two months with already a lot of noticeable changes in different US cities. Do you think that would have happened also without the violent part of the protests? If so, why now, why not previously?
Click to expand...

I think the video of a black man being murdered slowly by a brutal white officer shocked people everywhere in the world. I think this would have happened without violent protests yes because the imagery is so shocking that it leaves no room for interpretation. Floyd wasn't fighting or struggling or doing anything that could be used to defend the police action there is no case to be made for anything other than police brutality and murder.

As for the effect of the protests, again if we believe that the vast majority of protests are peaceful then are we supposed to give credit to the majority peaceful protests or minority violent ones for any change that might happen? Also I read somewhere that unpopular republican president Nixon was reelected in 1968 partially due to the violent riots lets see if history repeats itself.

Cheimoon said:
Because, first, you do not much make that distinction and in your text give the impression that most of this match is violent. And second, because I and many on here feel that the violence is understandable in this case, and ultimately contributing to there finally being some more movement on police reform in the US. (And also elsewhere: it's now being discussed here in Canada as well, and changes are likely in, for example, Ottawa and Toronto, from what I have seen.)

The way you are writing this, you seem to say that there are two kinds of protests: peaceful ones, and violents ones that include looting. That's not true; protests can turn violent in various ways without looting, such as by vandalizing government property. I have also said many times now that I can understand violence and I can see the practical purpose it serves, but that I do not support the looting, especially of unrelated business. So, your turn: where do you stand on violent protests that focus their violence against elements representing the state and society as a whole?
Click to expand...

I think my tone and has worked against me here in that it makes people think I'm saying something which I'm not. Thats my own fault internet arguments are very often the product of misunderstandings of the other parties meaning.

I would be more understanding towards violence against elements representing the state yes definitely. This would at least be a valid expression of rage rather than robbing your own neighborhood shops. Certainly attacking a police station or a government office makes a hell of a lot more sense in this context. The next question to ask is would be to what extent are vigilante actions acceptable? If it turns into a revolution then you would have to look at it differently.

Cheimoon said:
So people on here, for example, that say they understand the looting? If I got it right this time: but what if they live in another state or country and can't ask to loot their business or house first?
Click to expand...

I mean you might think differently about looting if your house was being looted instead of someone else you don't know.

Cheimoon said:
I think everyone agrees that things are better than they used to be, but that 'better' is still very far removed from 'good', or even just 'acceptable'. That's the point here. If you're concerned about being deliberately misunderstood, then I feel you might be returning the favour here.
Click to expand...

Would you agree with the statement that very little has changed since the 1960s? Anyway its not a big deal since the definition of very little and a little is subjective.
 
Halftrack said:
Ah, yeah, you're right, my bad. I was having a discussion on largely the same topic on twitter, and conflated you and some guy on there.

People have repeatedly confronted you with the fact that peaceful protests and strikes have been taking place for three months. The rioting has largely been confined to the immediate aftermath of high-profile police shootings of black Americans, yet that's what gets all the focus. When that dies down, the world around them largely stops giving a shit, so it seems fairly obvious that simply striking and protesting alone isn't enough to bring the required attention to the issue.
Click to expand...

I won't hold it against you then because I've been making the same mistake. It gets a bit hard to track who is who in these situations.

Its no surprise that peaceful protests don't get as much attention as the violent ones unfortunately violence tends to make the news which kind of reinforces my point about them being counter productive. It was a similar thing that played out in Hong Kong with peaceful protests turning violent for months. People eventually get tired of the peaceful protests and think that more drastic action is needed to bring about change and that was futile because they can't beat the Chinese government. It was also quite hypocritical how the US government was so supportive of the riots in Hong Kong but not so over their own riots at home.
 
JPRouve said:
You made me realize a mistake that I have made, I generally use MLK as a point of reference knowing that he wasn't actually that, that he was one important voice but not the only one. That mistakes means that today we have black politicians who for some reason act as if MLK was the only voice and as if the 60s were some sort of political shangri-la where peaceful speeches and protests led to incredible results. So let me introduce you one of the other major voices.

Click to expand...


It's a honest mistake. In my history classes all we were taught was MLK and the I Have a Dream speech. But it is deliberate that figures like him are promoted. Because the parts of them that are deemed relatively benign are amplified by both sides of the establishment.

And honestly, MLK's approach was so successful because of the likes of Malcolm X promising fire and brimstone if America back then didn't stop treating it's black citizens like they were second tier. In a vacuum they wouldn't have given one feck about MLK's marching and non-violence, but going with him was more palatable than dealing with open race war.

But then they killed him anyways, so there's that.
 
Mastadon said:
I think the video of a black man being murdered slowly by a brutal white officer shocked people everywhere in the world. I think this would have happened without violent protests yes because the imagery is so shocking that it leaves no room for interpretation. Floyd wasn't fighting or struggling or doing anything that could be used to defend the police action there is no case to be made for anything other than police brutality and murder.
Click to expand...
Obviously, it's hard now to separate correlation and causation, since everything did happen. We don't have parallel cases that omit one element or another. I would say that we have seen videos of the murder by Black people by police before; but you might counter that George Floyd murder was different in nature. I might say that protests have happened for a long time; but you might counter that the scale of these protests now went beyond the usual more local response. And I might say that the explosion of violent protest was more sudden and wider than before, but you might counter that we've seen violence before and point back to the other factors.

So I guess we might conclude this discussion merry-go-round by agreeing to disagree. But I think at least we'll agree in hoping that this doesn't escalate further. Now that there are vigilantes joining in, full-on urban battle seems frighteningly close. Let's hope police reform sees results soon. (But I'm not holding my breath, and rather expect a further escalation of the violence.)

I would be more understanding towards violence against elements representing the state yes definitely. This would at least be a valid expression of rage rather than robbing your own neighborhood shops. Certainly attacking a police station or a government office makes a hell of a lot more sense in this context. The next question to ask is would be to what extent are vigilante actions acceptable? If it turns into a revolution then you would have to look at it differently.
Click to expand...
That's an important point for me. Repression (including conscious withholding of equity) can be seen as a kind of state violence, and so there is a justification in a violent response. As for what level of violence is appropriate and when vigilante action is OK: there are so many possible scenarios that I'm not going to try and answer that; that's beyond me. But I will say that I don't think that kid should've been there, coming from out of town with his assault rifle.

Would you agree with the statement that very little has changed since the 1960s? Anyway its not a big deal since the definition of very little and a little is subjective.
Click to expand...
I agree on that as well: I think some of our discussion subjects have to do with language use. I'm not too motivated to continue that. We've made our points, we actually agree on some of it and less on others, and I feel like we've kinda exhausted that. Also, at the core of the matter, I think we're all not that far apart here.
 
calodo2003 said:
Sketchy info, apparently. Hearing both sides blame the other.
Click to expand...

Based on watching the footage in slow motion it seems to the guy in with the white shirt who does the shooting and then backs away and runs around the corner.
 
Currently involved in a Facebook discussion with someone under his post about how the looting etc. is making him vote republican and comparing it to Kristallnacht.

As one of his replies he's copy pasted a list of 30 odd things Trump has done. And elsewhere in the comments he's been big on "do your own research" and such. Somehow I doubt he looked into all of that. Plus one of them is the Space Force so I guess they aren't all that.
 
Maagge said:
Currently involved in a Facebook discussion with someone under his post about how the looting etc. is making him vote republican and comparing it to Kristallnacht.

As one of his replies he's copy pasted a list of 30 odd things Trump has done. And elsewhere in the comments he's been big on "do your own research" and such. Somehow I doubt he looked into all of that. Plus one of them is the Space Force so I guess they aren't all that.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t sound like he understands what Kristallnacht was.
 


 
Shamana said:


Click to expand...

There’s rumblings that this is a friendly fire incident, that a PP member did the shooting. I loved the response by the white guy when he saw the female POC medic try to assist the victim; his first thought was to shove her away. Can’t have someone who looks like that try to help a white supremacist, apparently.
 
calodo2003 said:
There’s rumblings that this is a friendly fire incident, that a PP member did the shooting. I loved the response by the white guy when he saw the female POC medic try to assist the victim; his first thought was to shove her away. Can’t have someone who looks like that try to help a white supremacist, apparently.
Click to expand...

Then the cops swoop in and push her away whilst kicking her supplies away.
 
Maagge said:
Yeah I don't see number 2 happening, sadly. It smells an awful lot like communism and with that being the case I'll stick to fascism, thank you very much.
Click to expand...


Come again?!?! Do you know what communism even is? This should be good ....
 
sebsheep said:
Did the LA riots change much in the US?
Maybe some of our American posters can shed some insight, it's just from the outside it looks like the police brutality never really went away.
Click to expand...
No the riots didn’t change much. It merely was a bit of a release valve and the racists began infiltrating the police departments.

We are on the precipice of Civil War.
 
calodo2003 said:
There’s rumblings that this is a friendly fire incident, that a PP member did the shooting. I loved the response by the white guy when he saw the female POC medic try to assist the victim; his first thought was to shove her away. Can’t have someone who looks like that try to help a white supremacist, apparently.
Click to expand...
Here’s some vids, both full speed and slo-mo...

 
AllezLesDiables said:
Come again?!?! Do you know what communism even is? This should be good ....
Click to expand...
It's where you take money from the hard working rich and give to the lazy poor and the state owns you.
I'll include the white text this time.
 
Mastadon said:
I'm just replying to the exaggerated statements being made. I don't even know what the point is anymore the discussion has turned into a point scoring contest.
Click to expand...
The point is that you are being tone def. For reference, my cousin’s husband and 4 others were murdered in the Greensboro Massacre in 1979 by the KKK with the help of the local police and FBI.

Affirmative Action is like bandaid on a gaping mortar wound.

Slavery absolutely exists in U.S. and it’s prisons. That’s how those former slave owners figured out to be more covert about that shit. Incarceration of people of color and make them do prison labor pennies on the dollar.Why else do you think there’s disproportionate arrests and prison sentences for people of color in comparison to white people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.