On 11/2/22 5:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/22 2:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <%8z8L.23906$TUR8.873@fx17.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>>>
>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>>>
>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>>
>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>>
>> Because legislation was enacted saying so. Are you new to how govt. works?
>
> In the 40s, legislation was enacted to strip every American of Japanese
> decent of the their property and put them into internment camps. Do you
> claim that was a proper function of government just "because legislation
> was enacted saying so", Hutt, you stinking hobgoblin?

Here's the deal: we live in a democratic republic. What this means is
we elect representives via voting to enact such laws and do other
functions to govern our society. What it doesn't mean is that absolute
dickheads can drive around with MAGA on their caps telling us when we
should and shouldn't follow the law, or even worse, form an armed
insurrection as an act of sedition to "prove their point." If I was in
charge these people would be executed for treason upon being found
guilty. I have a very strong suspicion you were one of them as part of
the Oath Keepers. I can see why you'd be butt hurt by all of this of
course. Any questions?

On 11/2/22 6:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/2/2022 6:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>>>> on race, it is racism.  Period.  The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is
>>>>>>>> disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>>>
>>>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>>>
>>>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why
>>>>> is it
>>>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>>>>
>>>> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>>>>
>>>> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of
>>>> slavery that
>>>> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are
>>>> discriminated
>>>> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's
>>>> illegal
>>>> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>>> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated
>>>> against and
>>>> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>>> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>>> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage
>>>> to a
>>>> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>>> wanna hear this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>>
>> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
>> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
>> lowered bar due to my skin color.
>
> Indeed, that may help explain Thomas...

Great point.

On 11/2/22 6:03 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/2/2022 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <%8z8L.23906$TUR8.873@fx17.iad>,
>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>> on race, it is racism.  Period.  The problem is that liberals
>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>>
>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>
>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>
>
> I'll leave what's "proper" to the proper people.  (I'm sure you all know
> who you are.)  Meanwhile, maybe repeating my point will help clarify it:
>
>    "[Preferential treatment is] addressing the *results* of earlier
> racism.  Now, maybe you think there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that
> its results shouldn't be addressed.  But calling those who address it
> 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
> (Nothing there, e.g., about "function of government", only about whether
> actions taken to redress racism can be properly called "racist".)

I heard that Eunuch Derp dressed up as Jim Crow for Halloween.

On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>>
>>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>>
>>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>>>
>>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>>>
>>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>>>
>>> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>>>
>>> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>>> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>>> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>>> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>>> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>>>
>>> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>>> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>> wanna hear this.
>>>
>>
>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>
> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
> lowered bar due to my skin color.
>
Unless he needed the bar lowered....

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

>>>>>>>>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>>>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>>>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

>>>>>>>>It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>>>>there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>>>>addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

>>>>>>>So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>>>>"We're only being racist to address past racism!"

>>>>>>How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>>>>being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?

>>>>>Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>>>>the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?

>>>>Could moviePig be any more condescending?

>>>>Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>>>>no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>>>>against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>>>>under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>>>equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>>>>it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>>>due to race if no one was discriminated against.

>>>>Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>>>that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>>>>black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>>>wanna hear this.

>>>The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>>>action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.

>>Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
>>the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
>>lowered bar due to my skin color.

>Unless he needed the bar lowered....

You can't assume that. It's more likely that he was competing for seats
that were set aside for black students, and perhaps what happened was
that there were additional seats set aside at the time. It was pre-Bakke,
so quotas weren't illegal yet. The Ivy League schools set seats aside
for legacies, for kids from very wealthy families hoping for major
contributions, and for athletes. Set-asides for athletes wouldn't apply
to students applying for professional schools, of course.

On 11/3/2022 7:04 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>>>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>
>>>>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>>>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>>>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
>>>>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>>>>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
>
>>>>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
>>>>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
>
>>>>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
>>>>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
>
>>>>> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>
>>>>> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>>>>> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>>>>> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>>>>> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>>>> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>>>>> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>>>> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>
>>>>> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>>>> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>>>>> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>>>> wanna hear this.
>
>>>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>>>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>
>>> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
>>> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
>>> lowered bar due to my skin color.
>
>> Unless he needed the bar lowered....
>
> You can't assume that.

Given the way he seems to rule on decisions, I wonder....

> It's more likely that he was competing for seats
> that were set aside for black students, and perhaps what happened was
> that there were additional seats set aside at the time. It was pre-Bakke,
> so quotas weren't illegal yet. The Ivy League schools set seats aside
> for legacies, for kids from very wealthy families hoping for major
> contributions, and for athletes. Set-asides for athletes wouldn't apply
> to students applying for professional schools, of course.
>

In article <tk0h6g$c2o7$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/2/2022 1:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/2/2022 12:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
> >>>>>>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
> >>>>>>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
> >>>>>>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
> >>>>>>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
> >>>
> >>>>>> So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
> >>>>>> "We're only being racist to address past racism!"
> >>>
> >>>>> How is it possible to directly aid the racially disadvantaged without
> >>>>> being able to see who they are and treat them accordingly?
> >>>
> >>>> Other than ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law, why is it
> >>>> the proper function of government to aid the racially disadvantaged?
> >>>
> >>> Could moviePig be any more condescending?
> >>>
> >>> Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery
> >>> that
> >>> no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
> >>> against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
> >>> under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
> >>> equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
> >>> it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
> >>> due to race if no one was discriminated against.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
> >>> that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
> >>> black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
> >>> wanna hear this.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
> >> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
> >
> > Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
> > the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
> > lowered bar due to my skin color.
> >
> Unless he needed the bar lowered....

See what I mean?

In article <tk0kmd$c4me$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 11/3/2022 7:04 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> >>>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
> >>>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
> >
> >>> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
> >>> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
> >>> lowered bar due to my skin color.
> >
> >> Unless he needed the bar lowered....
> >
> > You can't assume that.
>
> Given the way he seems to rule on decisions, I wonder...

Your political disagreements with people doesn't make them stupid. The
only way that works is if you're so fantastically egotistical to believe
you're de facto right about everything and there can be no justifiable
difference of opinion, therefore any disagreement with you is a sign of
low intelligence.

On 11/3/2022 10:02 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tk0kmd$c4me$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/3/2022 7:04 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>>>>>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>>>
>>>>> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
>>>>> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
>>>>> lowered bar due to my skin color.
>>>
>>>> Unless he needed the bar lowered....
>>>
>>> You can't assume that.
>>
>> Given the way he seems to rule on decisions, I wonder...
>
> Your political disagreements with people doesn't make them stupid. The
> only way that works is if you're so fantastically egotistical to believe
> you're de facto right about everything and there can be no justifiable
> difference of opinion, therefore any disagreement with you is a sign of
> low intelligence.
>
You forgot ego. And he seems to have plenty of it.

On 11/3/2022 2:06 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 11/3/2022 10:02 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <tk0kmd$c4me$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/3/2022 7:04 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>>>>>>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>>>>
>>>>>> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to
>>>>>> live with
>>>>>> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> lowered bar due to my skin color.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless he needed the bar lowered....
>>>>
>>>> You can't assume that.
>>>
>>> Given the way he seems to rule on decisions, I wonder...
>>
>> Your political disagreements with people doesn't make them stupid. The
>> only way that works is if you're so fantastically egotistical to believe
>> you're de facto right about everything and there can be no justifiable
>> difference of opinion, therefore any disagreement with you is a sign of
>> low intelligence.
>>
> You forgot ego. And he seems to have plenty of it.

....much more than he does intelligence. Ascension to the Supreme Court
can sometimes improve one's character, but seldom one's IQ...

On 11/3/22 2:14 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/3/2022 2:06 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 11/3/2022 10:02 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tk0kmd$c4me$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/3/2022 7:04 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2022 3:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under
>>>>>>>> affirmative
>>>>>>>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to
>>>>>>> live with
>>>>>>> the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job
>>>>>>> because of a
>>>>>>> lowered bar due to my skin color.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless he needed the bar lowered....
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't assume that.
>>>>
>>>> Given the way he seems to rule on decisions, I wonder...
>>>
>>> Your political disagreements with people doesn't make them stupid. The
>>> only way that works is if you're so fantastically egotistical to believe
>>> you're de facto right about everything and there can be no justifiable
>>> difference of opinion, therefore any disagreement with you is a sign of
>>> low intelligence.
>>>
>> You forgot ego. And he seems to have plenty of it.
>
> ...much more than he does intelligence.  Ascension to the Supreme Court
> can sometimes improve one's character, but seldom one's IQ...
>

I don't know, Thomas seemed to have pretty good knowledge of the porn
scene when he was harassing Dr. Anita Hill about Long Dong Silver.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 06:08:42 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=
>
>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>
>Did you understand any of the issues? Harvard isn't truly trying to create a
>racially-diverse environment because nearly all of the non-white students
>benefitting from a racial preference are still from wealthy families and
>didn't attend inner-city public schools nor grow up in poor families.
>
>This isn't "liberal" at all. Harvard wants to retain its elitist
>reputation.
>
>I haven't read much about UNC's admissions policies.

While I generally agree with you I submit that what I said in my first
paragraph does not in any way contradict what you said.

Racism is a bad thing whether the racist in question is white black
red yellow blue or green. I completely reject the absurd notion that
white people alone can be racist and accuse all who take that view
racists since that's exactly what that claim actually is.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:39:27 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=
>>
>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>
>It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
But that means you believe in equality of results rather than equality
of opportunity.

It's the difference between assuring all competitors start at the same
starting line (me) vs you and the "equity" advocates who want to
ensure all finish at the same finish line at the same time.

That's the road to quotas and "no _____ people need apply"

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:49:16 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <Aiv8L.31$VHX7.6@fx01.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> >> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-disc
>> >> usses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEve
>> >> nt=&auto=
>> >
>> > When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>> > on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>> > only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>
>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
>So is soft-pedaling racist policies with euphemistic excuses like,
>"We're only being racist to address past racism!"

Again I'm against racist people or policies whether they be white,
black, red, yellow, blue or green.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 20:19:23 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Could moviePig be any more condescending?
>
>Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>due to race if no one was discriminated against.
>
>Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>wanna hear this.

I'll be happy to support moves against discrimination in any form BUT
I won't accept whether admission requires an A- (or any other high
school grade point) different if you are deemed to come from one group
or another.

If things like entrance examinations are found to be biased one way or
another we can deal with that - but skills in language or mathematics
or any other academic discipline are not intrinsically discriminatory.
2 + 2 = 4 no matter what color you are. (And being a math graduate I
do know how fuzzy that statement can be particularly in "word
problems" where interpretation of language can determine the answer)

My own experience is that I fooled around and spent far too much time
on extracurriculars which produced a grade point that suggested little
chance of admittance to business school until I worked VERY hard with
a guide book (no training classes for me!) and nailed a 99 percentile
result.

Good thing to since I met my wife there :)

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 22:21:45 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>> The irony in this mess is that Thomas entered Yale under affirmative
>> action. I don't know his or his family's economic status though.
>
>Which would be infuriating to me if I was a minority and had to live with
>the stigma that I was only admitted to Yale or got any job because of a
>lowered bar due to my skin color.

Somehow Steve Nash managed to become a basketball star despite being
born in Johannesburg and growing up in Victoria, BC neither of which
are known for basketball prowess. (I saw him in the British Columbia
High School provincial tournament way back when and no question he was
dazzling)

He wasn't from a particularly economically privileged background
either at least by Canadian standards.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 2 Nov 2022 06:08:42 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=

>>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

>>Did you understand any of the issues? Harvard isn't truly trying to create a
>>racially-diverse environment because nearly all of the non-white students
>>benefitting from a racial preference are still from wealthy families and
>>didn't attend inner-city public schools nor grow up in poor families.

>>This isn't "liberal" at all. Harvard wants to retain its elitist
>>reputation.

>>I haven't read much about UNC's admissions policies.

>While I generally agree with you I submit that what I said in my first
>paragraph does not in any way contradict what you said.

H.G., you are doing that thing again with screwed up quotes and
addressing something you said in a different branch of the thread tree.

If you read THESE quotes, I addressed the pointless followup not-Irish
wrote in which he made it obvious he wasn't paying any attention.

>Racism is a bad thing whether the racist in question is white black
>red yellow blue or green. I completely reject the absurd notion that
>white people alone can be racist and accuse all who take that view
>racists since that's exactly what that claim actually is.

Again: That's not what happened here. Instead, it's Harvard faking
diversity whilst maintaining elitism. They keep the poor far far far
away from the children of wealthy families who can afford to pay
Harvard's tuition, and the blacks and Hispanics they admitted were just
coincidentally from wealthy families themselves. That means the students
they admitted are highly unlikely to have overcome any serious
discrimination in their lives.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 2 Nov 2022 20:19:23 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Could moviePig be any more condescending?

>>Blacks today aren't RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED despite a legacy of slavery that
>>no one alive experienced. There are specific people who are discriminated
>>against due to race and, under a great many circumstances, that's illegal
>>under federal and state law. But that's not evidence that there's no
>>equality of opportunity in America if one isn't discriminated against and
>>it sure as hell isn't evidence that blacks as a race are disadvantaged
>>due to race if no one was discriminated against.

>>Perhaps moviePig might explain how a black kid from a wealthy family
>>that got accepted to Harvard due to preference gives some advantage to a
>>black kid from a poor family who can't afford to attend any college. I
>>wanna hear this.

>I'll be happy to support moves against discrimination in any form BUT
>I won't accept whether admission requires an A- (or any other high
>school grade point) different if you are deemed to come from one group
>or another.

That's still irrelevant. Harvard didn't admit students who didn't
succeed in high school. The discrimination is alleged to be against
Asian ethnics but it's factually shown that they aren't admitting any
significant number of students who aren't from wealthy families.

>If things like entrance examinations are found to be biased one way or
>another we can deal with that - but skills in language or mathematics
>or any other academic discipline are not intrinsically discriminatory.
>2 + 2 = 4 no matter what color you are. (And being a math graduate I
>do know how fuzzy that statement can be particularly in "word
>problems" where interpretation of language can determine the answer)

This isn't about bias in entrance exams but Harvard's selection process.

>. . .

On 11/7/2022 4:09 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:39:27 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=
>>>
>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>> on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>> only see racism in one color and that color is always white.
>>
>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>> there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>> addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.
>>
> But that means you believe in equality of results rather than equality
> of opportunity.
>
> It's the difference between assuring all competitors start at the same
> starting line (me) vs you and the "equity" advocates who want to
> ensure all finish at the same finish line at the same time.
>
> That's the road to quotas and "no _____ people need apply"

No, I believe that people who abhor racism and try to fix it shouldn't
be called, with giggling irony, 'racist'. Find another word.

As for various attempts to fix it, I'm not smart enough to be rock
certain of what ultimately helps and what doesn't. I doubt many are.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:39:27 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=

>>>When you give preferential treatment to a person based
>>>on race, it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals
>>>only see racism in one color and that color is always white.

>>It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you think
>>there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results shouldn't be
>>addressed. But calling those who address it 'racist' is disingenuous.

>But that means you believe in equality of results rather than equality
>of opportunity.

It's more than that. moviePig falsely stated that the results of earlier
racism were addressed. But giving an advantage to Person A who wasn't
discriminated against fails to address the disadvantage Person B
suffered from past discrimination.

I think I should win the Powerball jackpot because that addresses all
past discrimination suffered by others. You all agree with that, yes?

>It's the difference between assuring all competitors start at the same
>starting line (me) vs you and the "equity" advocates who want to
>ensure all finish at the same finish line at the same time.

>That's the road to quotas and "no _____ people need apply"

On 11/7/2022 10:58 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:39:27 -0400, moviePig
>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2022 1:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>
https://www.c-span.org/video/?523896-3%2Fwashington-journal-mark-walsh-discusses-supreme-court-oral-arguments-affirmative-action=&event=523896&playEvent=&auto=
>
>>>> When you give preferential treatment to a person based on race,
>>>> it is racism. Period. The problem is that liberals only see
>>>> racism in one color and that color is always white.
>
>>> It's addressing the *results* of earlier racism. Now, maybe you
>>> think there *was* no 'earlier racism', or that its results
>>> shouldn't be addressed. But calling those who address it
>>> 'racist' is disingenuous.
>
>> But that means you believe in equality of results rather than
>> equality of opportunity.
>
> It's more than that.

No, it's much, much less.

> moviePig falsely stated that the results of earlier racism were
> addressed.

No, moviePig accurately stated that the "preferential treatment"
*addressed* racism, rather than *comprised* it, as was being claimed.
(And no degree of success or failure was implied.)

E.g., 'address' :
a. To direct the efforts or attention of (oneself): address oneself
to a task.
b. To begin to deal with: addressed the issue of taxes.

> But giving an advantage to Person A who wasn't discriminated against
> fails to address the disadvantage Person B suffered from past
> discrimination.

Your omniscient pronouncements are as valuable as they ever were.

> I think I should win the Powerball jackpot because that addresses
> all past discrimination suffered by others. You all agree with that,
> yes?

Sure, if it'll give you another hobby...

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:51:10 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>That's still irrelevant. Harvard didn't admit students who didn't
>succeed in high school. The discrimination is alleged to be against
>Asian ethnics but it's factually shown that they aren't admitting any
>significant number of students who aren't from wealthy families.

Why oh why does this not surprise me in any way given this is Harvard
we are talking about.

>>If things like entrance examinations are found to be biased one way or
>>another we can deal with that - but skills in language or mathematics
>>or any other academic discipline are not intrinsically discriminatory.
>>2 + 2 = 4 no matter what color you are. (And being a math graduate I
>>do know how fuzzy that statement can be particularly in "word
>>problems" where interpretation of language can determine the answer)
>
>This isn't about bias in entrance exams but Harvard's selection process.
>
Essentially a college can use whatever admission procedure they want
including whether or not to make use of standardized entrance exams.
Harvard's not the only school that has their own procedure and thus
makes it fair game for others to second guess how they do admisisons.

While I never applied there I doubt I could have gotten in being
white, male, a reasonable but not outstanding service resume and
undoubted ability in the area I applied for both at the graduate and
undergraduate levels.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 10:23:42 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> It's the difference between assuring all competitors start at the same
>> starting line (me) vs you and the "equity" advocates who want to
>> ensure all finish at the same finish line at the same time.
>>
>> That's the road to quotas and "no _____ people need apply"
>
>No, I believe that people who abhor racism and try to fix it shouldn't
>be called, with giggling irony, 'racist'. Find another word.

On the contrary - people who believe in 'equality of results' rather
than 'equality of opportunity' (and often call it 'equity' which in
itself if quite offensive) COMMONLY use racist methodology to achieve
their goals.

Creating equality of results by making use of bigotted methods (i.e.
favoring one group artificially over another) to achieve those results
is racist. No question about it.

And racism is one of several unjust ways to favor one group over
another.

On 11/12/2022 3:30 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 10:23:42 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> It's the difference between assuring all competitors start at the same
>>> starting line (me) vs you and the "equity" advocates who want to
>>> ensure all finish at the same finish line at the same time.
>>>
>>> That's the road to quotas and "no _____ people need apply"
>>
>> No, I believe that people who abhor racism and try to fix it shouldn't
>> be called, with giggling irony, 'racist'. Find another word.
>
> On the contrary - people who believe in 'equality of results' rather
> than 'equality of opportunity' (and often call it 'equity' which in
> itself if quite offensive) COMMONLY use racist methodology to achieve
> their goals.
>
> Creating equality of results by making use of bigotted methods (i.e.
> favoring one group artificially over another) to achieve those results
> is racist. No question about it.
>
> And racism is one of several unjust ways to favor one group over
> another.

Here, for practical purposes, is the sort of pejorative definition that,
afaics, people intend when they fling accusations of 'racism':

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics,
abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as
inferior or superior to one another.

And "equity" policies, ill-advised or not, embody none of that.

> moviePig
> > The Horny Goat
> >
> > Creating equality of results by making use of bigotted methods (i.e.
> > favoring one group artificially over another) to achieve those results
> > is racist. No question about it.
>
> Here, for practical purposes, is the sort of pejorative definition that,
> afaics, people intend when they fling accusations of 'racism':
>
> the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics,
> abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as
> inferior or superior to one another.
>
> And "equity" policies, ill-advised or not, embody none of that.

Nonsense, racial quotas are implemented because of the racist believe that
White people (and only White people) are evil racists and purposely promote
other White people at the expense of other ethnicities, whom they see as
untermensh.

Racism is racism.