Active Users:1411 Time:13/10/2026 07:29:20 PM
Alright then, socially unacceptable. Joel Send a noteboard - 26/08/2011 01:00:16 AM
And not just because the phenomenon you describe results in a lot of those poor whites you reference refusing to support or even actively opposing social empowerment because they know it won't help them anyway. I've often accused the power brokers of engaging in divide and conquer tactics, but the fact is minority preferences and quotas do much of the job for them. Nothing better demonstrates that than the fact a college application question about sexual orientation would be unthinkable if it were meant to discriminate AGAINST homosexuals but is somehow acceptable if it seeks to discriminate against EVERYONE ELSE (as such preferential treatment effectively does).

So clearly it's not "unthinkable".

Point being, a standard we deplore when detrimental to one group shouldn't be applauded when detrimental to another. That's not equality, it's just another variety of the same old discrimination. Implicit in any kind of preferential quota system is that the recipient is unable to gain its benefits unaided, which also isn't very equal.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 26/08/2011 at 01:00:49 AM
Reply to message
A fine example of the fuzzy logic of the left - 25/08/2011 06:30:36 PM 1275 Views
Personally I still favor demographic blind subsidies as the best route to meritocracy. - 25/08/2011 08:18:20 PM 854 Views
it works for gender as well - 25/08/2011 09:02:58 PM 862 Views
Sure; insert your demographic here. - 26/08/2011 12:51:48 AM 920 Views
Preferential in possible scholarships but not admissions process according to the article - 25/08/2011 10:26:25 PM 770 Views
What's your point? - 26/08/2011 12:54:41 AM 727 Views
There are colleges that don't allow homosexuals - or men, or women for that matter. - 25/08/2011 10:35:05 PM 836 Views
Alright then, socially unacceptable. - 26/08/2011 01:00:16 AM 864 Views
Ummm, did you read the article? - 25/08/2011 08:40:46 PM 920 Views
Ah, but you are not reading it either - 25/08/2011 08:53:39 PM 899 Views
But that's just a scholarship. - 25/08/2011 09:34:23 PM 881 Views
it is a scholarship program not a admissions program - 25/08/2011 09:12:47 PM 867 Views
I don't really have a problem with this - 25/08/2011 09:03:55 PM 912 Views
I am not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to do it - 25/08/2011 09:29:54 PM 770 Views
Fair Enough - 25/08/2011 09:41:25 PM 827 Views
their stated motive was to increase diversity - 25/08/2011 10:09:17 PM 931 Views
One of your lines struck me. - 25/08/2011 10:12:32 PM 940 Views
that happened in the US, we elected Bush as a result - 25/08/2011 10:35:05 PM 751 Views
That's an interesting point... - 25/08/2011 10:37:37 PM 851 Views
Re: that happened in the US, we elected Bush as a result - 25/08/2011 10:55:29 PM 862 Views
It's also worth noting ... - 25/08/2011 11:00:35 PM 748 Views
Wow what a strawman - 25/08/2011 10:23:45 PM 939 Views
yes to bad none of that address the point I was making which would make your argument a strawman - 25/08/2011 10:40:01 PM 747 Views
No I do not believe they are needed, nor do I believe they should be desired - 25/08/2011 10:47:51 PM 899 Views
so you don't disagree with me or you do? - 25/08/2011 11:47:05 PM 868 Views
Ridiculous. Everyone knows conservatives are incapable of creativity. - 25/08/2011 11:12:10 PM 732 Views
are they going to make students prove they are GLBT? - 25/08/2011 11:36:58 PM 781 Views
I think it's less a failing of the "left"... - 26/08/2011 03:25:42 AM 857 Views
I agree there is a lot of fuzzy logic on the right as well - 26/08/2011 02:41:03 PM 799 Views
*nod* I don't deny that it's a problem - 26/08/2011 04:26:56 PM 904 Views
a question for you... - 26/08/2011 08:08:10 PM 1020 Views

Reply to Message