First, to clarify: I live in the EU and kind of don’t care aboutt this stuff. We are doing pretty well on the nondiscrimination here. And I honestly don’t know about your issues enough to be for or against affirmitive action.
But I find it funny how often the democrats make bad faith arguments by redefining words. Affirmitive action is any decision bases on protected class that is supposed to be positive for an otherwise discriminated against minority to presumably undo discrimination. These scholarships would clearly be affirmitive action by this legal definition.
Sure, you may define affirmitive action differently but the conservatives would use (suprise suprise) the conservative (legal, dictionary) meaning when they talk. Saying they are hypocrites because you redefine the word to mean something different than what they clearly ment is clearly a bad faith argument.
PS: Also, trying to label anyone calling out your bad arguments as conservative racist regardless of who they are.
I live in Canada, but it’s hard to not watch the dumpster fire.
I made a comment about slippery slope, how the conservatives project slippery slope on everything because that’s what they intend to do. And this is the perfect example of it. They came for affirmative action in admissions, and once they got that, they are now going after anything else they can. That is slippery slope.
That was my point.
You try to change this to being about affirmative action itself. Whether it’s good or bad, or should be allowed or not. But that was not my original point. My original point was slippery slope and how conservatives project that because that’s what they do. And I am correct in that. Your bad faith argument is trying to change my topic.
Shall I explain it another way? For now let’s accept that this is all affirmative action. Admissions is one topic. Scholarships is another topic. And they have slid right from one to the next! That is exactly my point with how they project slippery slope on to everyone else, because that’s what they intend to do.
Something tells me you’re going to try to change from my point about slippery slope again.
No, I just don’t think it is slippery slope when they say from start what they want to do. Slippery slope would apply if they pretended to do something and once they got it, then tried to move it again.
It is just one of the clickbait definitions of slippery slope to call anything that is gradual slippery, so I kinda get it. Its just the media misusing words to generate controversy and outrage.
For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it is normal. Saying you want religious freedom when they don’t allow teaching religious topics in schools and then when they get it trying to undermine real science and hang up commandments in classrooms. That is slippery slope that I am outraged about. I don’t want to water to words down by these clickbaits, hence my comment.
This is not clickbait, this is what slippery slope is.
Btw, at risk of you accusing me of changing the topic, they didn’t go after Legacy admissions. Legacy admissions is not the strongest candidate, or the best candidate. It’s the children of people who went there before, take a guess who benefits from that.
For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it
If you believe that you’ve been duped. Ever wonder why their public schools are in shambles?
You should watch “Beau of the fifth column” on YouTube.
Legacy admissions are some real BS. I guess it does not ring alarm bells in my head as immediately because its not obviously unconstitutional. But it is a rather nice roundabout way of discriminating. For any school that takes public funds, legacy admissions should be forbidden.
At its core, legacy admission is discrimination. We don’t have to twist ourselves into knots about legal definitions, we can all see that at its core it’s discrimination. (Or selective picking, if you’d rather use that term, that is not based on merit.) If the heart of this is fairness then why aren’t Republicans chasing after that?
First, to clarify: I live in the EU and kind of don’t care aboutt this stuff. We are doing pretty well on the nondiscrimination here. And I honestly don’t know about your issues enough to be for or against affirmitive action.
But I find it funny how often the democrats make bad faith arguments by redefining words. Affirmitive action is any decision bases on protected class that is supposed to be positive for an otherwise discriminated against minority to presumably undo discrimination. These scholarships would clearly be affirmitive action by this legal definition.
Sure, you may define affirmitive action differently but the conservatives would use (suprise suprise) the conservative (legal, dictionary) meaning when they talk. Saying they are hypocrites because you redefine the word to mean something different than what they clearly ment is clearly a bad faith argument.
PS: Also, trying to label anyone calling out your bad arguments as conservative racist regardless of who they are.
I live in Canada, but it’s hard to not watch the dumpster fire.
I made a comment about slippery slope, how the conservatives project slippery slope on everything because that’s what they intend to do. And this is the perfect example of it. They came for affirmative action in admissions, and once they got that, they are now going after anything else they can. That is slippery slope.
That was my point.
You try to change this to being about affirmative action itself. Whether it’s good or bad, or should be allowed or not. But that was not my original point. My original point was slippery slope and how conservatives project that because that’s what they do. And I am correct in that. Your bad faith argument is trying to change my topic.
Shall I explain it another way? For now let’s accept that this is all affirmative action. Admissions is one topic. Scholarships is another topic. And they have slid right from one to the next! That is exactly my point with how they project slippery slope on to everyone else, because that’s what they intend to do.
Something tells me you’re going to try to change from my point about slippery slope again.
No, I just don’t think it is slippery slope when they say from start what they want to do. Slippery slope would apply if they pretended to do something and once they got it, then tried to move it again.
It is just one of the clickbait definitions of slippery slope to call anything that is gradual slippery, so I kinda get it. Its just the media misusing words to generate controversy and outrage.
For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it is normal. Saying you want religious freedom when they don’t allow teaching religious topics in schools and then when they get it trying to undermine real science and hang up commandments in classrooms. That is slippery slope that I am outraged about. I don’t want to water to words down by these clickbaits, hence my comment.
This is not clickbait, this is what slippery slope is.
Btw, at risk of you accusing me of changing the topic, they didn’t go after Legacy admissions. Legacy admissions is not the strongest candidate, or the best candidate. It’s the children of people who went there before, take a guess who benefits from that.
If you believe that you’ve been duped. Ever wonder why their public schools are in shambles?
You should watch “Beau of the fifth column” on YouTube.
Legacy admissions are some real BS. I guess it does not ring alarm bells in my head as immediately because its not obviously unconstitutional. But it is a rather nice roundabout way of discriminating. For any school that takes public funds, legacy admissions should be forbidden.
Guess which one is much, much larger.
At its core, legacy admission is discrimination. We don’t have to twist ourselves into knots about legal definitions, we can all see that at its core it’s discrimination. (Or selective picking, if you’d rather use that term, that is not based on merit.) If the heart of this is fairness then why aren’t Republicans chasing after that?