Similar thing happened in Iran, they banned women from colleges because they were outperforming the preferred group (males).
If colleges only looked at raw test scores, same contingent of white people would then complain there are too many Asians in college.
I used to think the same, but I've come to terms with there is implicit bias due to skin colour / facial features everywhere, all of the time.
Have you seen the comic strip A Short Story About Privilege? It illustrates its point brilliantly, and I don't think a reasonable person can really argue that something along those lines happens every day. The race-is-in-everything argument is similar; let me attempt to illustrate through two anecdotes:
1. There is plenty of evidence indicating that male black children are seen as less 'innocent' than their white peers. Similarly, there are studies that indicate that blacks and other minorities are not only often called upon less in school, but they're generally seen as less capable and have lower expectations made of them than their peers. This has many quietly terrible consequences; black children are seen by teachers and their classmates as not the stars or even equals that they can be, but as drags on a team / class. They don't get asked to join prestigious non-physical extracurricular teams, or get that important TA job for a brilliant professor, or get asked to join that promising startup while it's still being formed.
2. In the workforce, there's rather strong evidence that your last name can advantage or disadvantage you when it comes to being hired - and also when it comes to getting a promotion. I know exactly the problem that's happening here - with a last name of Syed, I've likely lived it - the hiring manager looks at a promising resume, sees my last name or the last name of Chan, and wonders if I've got a strong accent or poor English skills that'll make me unsuitable for the job, even if my technical qualifications are strong. It's actually a pretty rational thought for that hiring manger to think: Hiring takes up their precious time, and the better you can filter out obvious duds, the better. Safer to go with candidates with the last name of James or Bundy who have pretty good qualifications as well. I've even had those thoughts myself, but thankfully I'm aware of such and can self-correct.
We're not post-racial yet. And people who make unconscious choices to discriminate most of the time aren't the racists that Hollywood shows us; they're mostly good people who are rushing through their already busy day. But could society use a bit of rebalancing to correct for our biases? I don't think it's the worst idea.
You underestimate him for the sake of aligning him with a stereotype. I've a near perfect memory for what I read; he's changed his mind on other issues, as I have as well.I'd say you grew up and learned to consider that there are people in this world affected by this world other than you.
Atreaus is very religious and can only think about his own good, religion halts any form of human growth in its tracks and ensures that they remain truthful and loyal to ideals they considered to be wise as children.
He will reason like a child without ever acknowledging the effects of reality for the entirety of his life.
You can't fix his ignorance, it's wilful and no amount of reality or knowledge will make a dent, he knows "the truth" and come hell or high waters that is what he'll believe.
Care to name one thing I said that was in error or "made up"
You underestimate him for the sake of aligning him with a stereotype. I've a near perfect memory for what I read; he's changed his mind on other issues, as I have as well.
I used to think the same, but I've come to terms with the fact that there is implicit bias due to skin colour / facial features everywhere, all of the time.
Have you seen the comic strip A Short Story About Privilege? It illustrates its point brilliantly, and I don't think a reasonable person can really argue that something along those lines happens every day. The race-is-in-everything argument is similar; let me attempt to illustrate through two anecdotes:
1. There is plenty of evidence indicating that male black children are seen as less 'innocent' than their white peers. Similarly, there are studies that indicate that blacks and other minorities are not only often called upon less in school, but they're generally seen as less capable and have lower expectations made of them than their peers. This has many quietly terrible consequences; black children are seen by teachers and their classmates as not the stars or even equals that they can be, but as drags on a team / class. They don't get asked to join prestigious non-physical extracurricular teams, or get that important TA job for a brilliant professor, or get sought out to join that promising startup while it's still being formed.
2. In the workforce, there's rather strong evidence that your last name can advantage or disadvantage you when it comes to being hired - and also when it comes to getting a promotion. I know exactly the problem that's happening here - with a last name of Syed, I've likely lived it - the hiring manager looks at a promising resume, sees my last name or the last name of Chan, and wonders if I've got a strong accent or poor English skills that'll make me unsuitable for the job, even if my technical qualifications are strong. It's actually a pretty rational thought for that hiring manger to think: Hiring takes up their precious time, and the better you can filter out obvious duds, the better. Safer to go with candidates with the last name of James or Bundy who have pretty good qualifications as well. I've even had those thoughts myself, but thankfully I'm aware of such and can self-correct.
We're not post-racial yet. And people who make unconscious choices to discriminate most of the time aren't the racists that Hollywood shows us; they're mostly good people who are rushing through their already busy day. But could society use a bit of rebalancing to correct for our biases? I don't think it's the worst idea.
You underestimate him for the sake of aligning him with a stereotype. I've a near perfect memory for what I read; he's changed his mind on other issues, as I have as well.
One big one was you assumed that applicants were chosen by race other than any other possibility. There is no proof of that at all.
What was reported was:
Total interns: 115
Men: 81
Women: 34
Black men: 2
Black women: 0
But then again looking at the photo I see many others that are brown in the crowd.
What proof do you have that they were picked based on race?
1. There is plenty of evidence indicating that male black children are seen as less 'innocent' than their white peers. Similarly, there are studies that indicate that blacks and other minorities are not only often called upon less in school, but they're generally seen as less capable and have lower expectations made of them than their peers. This has many quietly terrible consequences; black children are seen by teachers and their classmates as not the stars or even equals that they can be, but as drags on a team / class. They don't get asked to join prestigious non-physical extracurricular teams, or get that important TA job for a brilliant professor, or get sought out to join that promising startup while it's still being formed.
2. In the workforce, there's rather strong evidence that your last name can advantage or disadvantage you when it comes to being hired - and also when it comes to getting a promotion. I know exactly the problem that's happening here - with a last name of Syed, I've likely lived it - the hiring manager looks at a promising resume, sees my last name or the last name of Chan, and wonders if I've got a strong accent or poor English skills that'll make me unsuitable for the job, even if my technical qualifications are strong. It's actually a pretty rational thought for that hiring manger to think: Hiring takes up their precious time, and the better you can filter out obvious duds, the better. Safer to go with candidates with the last name of James or Bundy who have pretty good qualifications as well. I've even had those thoughts myself, but thankfully I'm aware of such and can self-correct.
We're not post-racial yet. And people who make unconscious choices to discriminate most of the time aren't the racists that Hollywood shows us; they're mostly good people who are rushing through their already busy day. But could society use a bit of rebalancing to correct for our biases? I don't think it's the worst idea.
None of this changes the fact that you're engaging in racism to correct racism. Making sweeping assumptions about people based on superficialities will only exacerbate the problem.
If we are to define racism as MLK did, then what you're advocating is plainly racism.
You're probably right that it was just random chance and the Republicans keep getting spectacularly unlucky year after year to always end up with almost exclusively white interns! Poor GOP, they just can't catch a break!
As said before the only plausible reasons are that the GOP is selecting against people of color or that the GOP is so unpopular among people of color that they can't attract applicants. Both of these things strongly indicate that the GOP has a race problem.
Of for fucks sake, what self-respecting black person would work for the GOP?!!! You expect black people to work for a party that is actively attacking black people? Does that sound sane?
One big one was you assumed that applicants were chosen by race other than any other possibility. There is no proof of that at all.
What was reported was:
Total interns: 115
Men: 81
Women: 34
Black men: 2
Black women: 0
But then again looking at the photo I see many others that are brown in the crowd.
What proof do you have that they were picked based on race?
What I said again if you bothered to read if candidates were picked from the general population these results are statistically impossible. Republicans being the white party got the results they usually go to. I also said if they were serious about outreach they should have made an effort to recruit minority interns. I also said I don't know if the minority exclusion is intentional or unintentional but there is clearly exclusion.
However you seem to be fine to keep those coveted positions in the hands of white people. Nothing anyone says will change that.
I will ask you one last time observing the results the Democrats achieved in their intern hires why in your opinion are the Republicans virtually all white? You have opinions on everything else so this should be a piece of cake.
In case you fall back on the who cares line, I'm saying all Americans should have a shot at these valuable positions in the "people's house". Remember all people not just white people.
Cute way to punt. Again you ignore the fact Democrats didn't have a problem finding people of color to hire.Since you seem to have already figured this all out. I'll give you my opinion when you tell me the demographic breakdown of all the applicants for the internships by race.
Black
White
Asian
Hispanic
etc...
Until we know that there is no point in speculating.
Cute way to punt. Again you ignore the fact Democrats didn't have a problem finding people of color to hire.
So Democrats can find minorities to hire but Republicans can't?
I will directly answer your question. I don't know the demographic breakdown of the applicants and you know I don't know. What I will tell you Democrats obviously took applicants from all of America. Republicans seem to have gone to a pool of white people and that's the result they got.
We have enough information for you to at least offer a theory. I've seen you draw conclusions with far less evidence many times.
Cute way to punt. Again you ignore the fact Democrats didn't have a problem finding people of color to hire.
So Democrats can find minorities to hire but Republicans can't?
I will directly answer your question. I don't know the demographic breakdown of the applicants and you know I don't know. What I will tell you Democrats obviously took applicants from all of America. Republicans seem to have gone to a pool of white people and that's the result they got.
We have enough information for you to at least offer a theory. I've seen you draw conclusions with far less evidence many times.
You're trying to reason with a person who got his panties in a wad because a vegan restaurant in Australia is asking its male customers for a voluntary donation once a month. What else do you expect?
There were no panties wadded except for your own. You can't help yourself can you? I honestly feel sorry for you.
Can't even make it to step 1 can you?
Your lack of education and intelligence really isn't my problem. If you try really hard even you should be able to figure it out.I'm not a mind reader. Your mind is even harder to read as the print is so small.
Step 1 of what?
I'm not ignoring anything. Just pointing out that you have no factual basis for your claim.
OK I'll take a guess now that you admit you have no substance to back up your claim of racism.
The Republicans control Senate Congress and President. The majority of the republican base is caucasian, where the majority of black people are by far democrats. In my opinion is that the blacks or brown people did not apply for an internship due to the republican control. Fewer to choose from.
There were no panties wadded except for your own. You can't help yourself can you? I honestly feel sorry for you.
Of for fucks sake, what self-respecting black person would work for the GOP?!!! You expect black people to work for a party that is actively attacking black people? Does that sound sane?
They could start by not continuing to make a comfortable home for racists. They are almost always slow to call it out. Trump is prime example. He almost never talks about attacks on Muslims. Never refers to attacks on them as terrorism when it qualifies. It took him 3 days and a staff meeting to decide denouncing David Duke. He even claimed not even know who he is. They went along with the birtherism attack on Obama which was a racist attack.Of for fucks sake, what self-respecting black person would work for the GOP?!!! You expect black people to work for a party that is actively attacking black people? Does that sound sane?
So many Intellectuals nodding up and down at each other...lol...
They could start by not continuing to make a comfortable home for racists. They are almost always slow to call it out. Trump is prime example. He almost never talks about attacks on Muslims. Never refers to attacks on them as terrorism when it qualifies. It took him 3 days and a staff meeting to decide denouncing David Duke. He even claimed not even know who he is. They went along with the birtherism attack on Obama which was a racist attack.
Funny thing before the early 60's a great number of blacks supported Republicans. Something went wrong. Wonder what it was? /s