Racism- Sotomoyor

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: budafied
Here's an example of reverse racism:

To get into Yale Law School, #1 in the country, you need the following appoximate qualifications:

3.9ish GPA and a 175ish LSAT score.

Unless you are black, then you need a 3.5 and a 168.

I could get into Yale if i was black....

THAT IS BLATANT RACISM

Is it racism for legacy applicants to have preferential treatment, despite the fact that legacy applicants are overwhelmingly white? Is it racism for schools to give preferential treatment to applicants from 'better' high schools even though they are overwhelmingly white? The picture is not nearly so simple as you are attempting to portray it as, it's just that the other forms of racism that occur on a daily basis are a little harder to spot.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: budafied
Here's an example of reverse racism:

To get into Yale Law School, #1 in the country, you need the following appoximate qualifications:

3.9ish GPA and a 175ish LSAT score.

Unless you are black, then you need a 3.5 and a 168.

I could get into Yale if i were black....

THAT IS BLATANT RACISM

Link, please.

Yeah, to your LSAT scores :roll:

We can already can guess how you performed on your English SATs.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: Mani
Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

LoL LoL LoL LoL... You mean she actually adheres to the Constitutionality of the cases she sees? Wow, what a radical activist Judge! I vote Yes for Judge Sotomayor!


SHUX

lol that was for her resume' she wanted a higher post she was padding it.

And you know this how exactly?

The same way you can prove global warming is cause by humans. I can't. It's called a educated guess. I also cannot explain why she admitted to making policy on the bench. Pompous arrogance? Delusions of grandeur? A total disregard for our constitution? Or maybe just another activist judge showing off and wanting some adulation for being so hip and progressive.who the hell knows but she's a dumbass for doing it. I feel that would disqualify anyone from any party affiliation. Tell me shes been grilled on this? Nope not much at all...

So in other words you are completely making stuff up and lying about things. Pretty typical for a righty anymore.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If the law is unfair; then they have the right/obligation to invalidate it.

Sorry, but the courts are not comprised of dictators and should not change or ignore rights and restrictions that they deem unfair. That is the antithesis of their duty and negates the purpose of the legislative branch and the processes which exist to amend the constitution. In fact, the judges on the SC are supposed to be the most exemplary of all judges in their ability to not let personal ideology or emotions influence their decision making.

 

[budafied]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: budafied
Here's an example of reverse racism:

To get into Yale Law School, #1 in the country, you need the following appoximate qualifications:

3.9ish GPA and a 175ish LSAT score.

Unless you are black, then you need a 3.5 and a 168.

I could get into Yale if i was black....

THAT IS BLATANT RACISM

Is it racism for legacy applicants to have preferential treatment, despite the fact that legacy applicants are overwhelmingly white? Is it racism for schools to give preferential treatment to applicants from 'better' high schools even though they are overwhelmingly white? The picture is not nearly so simple as you are attempting to portray it as, it's just that the other forms of racism that occur on a daily basis are a little harder to spot.

With identical educational history, a black person has a better chance then I do at getting into a good law school. With lower academic criteria, they still have a better chance. Only because they are black.

If that's not racism, what is?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: budafied

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: budafied
Here's an example of reverse racism:

To get into Yale Law School, #1 in the country, you need the following appoximate qualifications:

3.9ish GPA and a 175ish LSAT score.

Unless you are black, then you need a 3.5 and a 168.

I could get into Yale if i was black....

THAT IS BLATANT RACISM

Is it racism for legacy applicants to have preferential treatment, despite the fact that legacy applicants are overwhelmingly white? Is it racism for schools to give preferential treatment to applicants from 'better' high schools even though they are overwhelmingly white? The picture is not nearly so simple as you are attempting to portray it as, it's just that the other forms of racism that occur on a daily basis are a little harder to spot.

With identical educational history, a black person has a better chance then I do at getting into a good law school. With lower academic criteria, they still have a better chance. Only because they are black.

If that's not racism, what is?

And my point was that people never seem to complain about a host of advantages that white people have.

 

[BenSkywalker]

"Ideological racism" is a term that refers to an ideology of racial supremacy, like that the KKK, or far-right Europeans

That is how some people have come to utilize it, but the term itself is based on ideological thoughts derived primarily through race.

You choose to remain ignorant about the world, and there's nothing I can do about it.

So 16 equals 25 and civilians playing video games tells you what cops do on the job. There are so many good studies done on societal issues involving race, if you link some of those, there wouldn't be a need for someone to rip them apart.

I will say, your main point is that racism is worse in Europe than it is in the US, therefore it does not exist in the US.

I haven't so much as implied any such thing. My main point was those links were laughable in their methodology. As far as the rest of your rant, perhaps we should spend a couple million dollars of the governments money for those black living in Beverly Hills and Bel Air to help them pay their employees to put an additional coat of wax on their Bentleys, that could help with racial inequity a lot, right? On a more serious note, socio economic issues are the main reason we see inequities in our society. Focusing more effort to address the more serious issue and less on catchy headline grabbing one is a better way to proceed.

By your definition you are also racist, because you mentioned that other factors affect people 'more' than race, certainly implying you believe race affects people. It's silliness.

Race tends to be the dominant factor in skin pigmentation, so yes, it effects people. I've been on these boards for a very long time, not big on using absolutes. As for the definition you provided, interesting. I had linked one in my last post and it is the one I was taught(not verbatim)- the one you linked is rather different.

You're continuing to prove my point that you didn't really know very much about what was going on here, you just jumped in without educating yourself.

Like 16 somehow having 25 pairs? Citizens playing video games being an indicator of on duty cops? Back to the name one again, I already quoted the study where they stated they adjusted the resumes-

employers may infer not just the race of the applicant, but also social class, assuming that certain African-American sounding names are associated with having more underprivileged backgrounds

This is to quote the study of what they call 'African American' names, which again brings it back to socio economic, but that is besides the point. Another issue I wanted to touch upon is them using Irish names for their 'African American' selection, seriously(Arabic too although this study seems to be focusing on sub Sahara).

Considering your other critiques, this is most likely another made up problem

Read the studies, please. Read exactly what they did for all of them, I did before I started bashing them, you still by your own admission have not. If you are going to link research, you may want to look it over first.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Like 16 somehow having 25 pairs? Citizens playing video games being an indicator of on duty cops? Back to the name one again, I already quoted the study where they stated they adjusted the resumes-

employers may infer not just the race of the applicant, but also social class, assuming that certain African-American sounding names are associated with having more underprivileged backgrounds

This is to quote the study of what they call 'African American' names, which again brings it back to socio economic, but that is besides the point. Another issue I wanted to touch upon is them using Irish names for their 'African American' selection, seriously(Arabic too although this study seems to be focusing on sub Sahara).

Considering your other critiques, this is most likely another made up problem

Read the studies, please. Read exactly what they did for all of them, I did before I started bashing them, you still by your own admission have not. If you are going to link research, you may want to look it over first.

If you read the study, you didn't understand what you were reading. The passage that you quoted in no way says they adjusted the resumes, it is mentioning that the person reading it may take more from the name than simply race. The resumes were not changed in any way, shape, or form after they had been selected other than to attach a name at the top of them.

Once again with the housing study, the 16 and 25 pair thing is nonsense. If you believe differently you have simply failed to understand what you are reading. The measures of anti black racism were taken exclusively using data that compared whites and blacks. Whites were involved in more total pair studies than blacks were, but that was because they were the reference group for both the black and hispanic studies. Therefore the fact that whites were involved in more total pairs is completely irrelevant to their conclusion about white/black housing discrimination because the extra pairs that they were in with the hispanics were not part of the data analysis for the white/black comparison.

You appear to have made some very basic mistakes in comprehending what you were reading, and they have led you to make baseless indictments of their methodology. I don't really know how to be any more clear on it than I already have been. You 'ripped them apart' by making up flaws in them that didn't exist. Will you admit that now?

I agree that socioeconomic issues are the primary cause of inequalities we see in our society, but that's not what this thread was about.

 

[Phokus]

First, on the claim, echoed by many mainstream conservatives and GOPers, that Obama?s call for ?empathy? in a judge is a cause for concern:

Do you think empathy is an important characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice to possess or not?

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 19%

?and then, on the claim by Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich (who subsequently retracted it) and others on the right that Sotomayor is a ?racist?:

Based on what you know or have heard about Sonia Sotomayor do you think she is a racist?

Yes 8%

No 61%

Not sure 31%

http://theplumline.whorunsgov....ajority-wants-empathy/

Congratulations Rush/Newt, you have convinced a whopping 8% of the people that judge Sotomoyor is racist.