Step 4: Adopt ultra condescending attitude towards other posters as if they are knuckle-dragging psychos ready to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation.
(I mean, really. Nice view from up on that high horse?)
To be sure, many atrocities have been committed in the name of this or that "god", under the banner of religious "piety".
Of course an atheist attitude has been equally reliable in producing atrocities, in the name of creating a "new man" -- or based on the idea that we are the masters of our own destiny -- or the idea that society is a blank slate for us to mold to our heart's desire -- or the idea that this or that race is "master -- or the idea of creating a perfect utopia on earth -- or some combination of the above.
See Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao for but a few recent examples.
The evidence therefore being equivocal it would seem premature to blame "religion" for atrocities - when it was secular belief systems which caused most of the misery this past century.
Perhaps, I would suggest, it is Ideology which is the true culprit here. Ideology - either in the form of "piety" towards a god, or with some "vision" of future human society - has been and will continue to be used as an excuse to commit evil. Such evil ought to be resisted, whatever the excuse; it is after all no more pleasant to be murdered in the name of some future Utopian Vision into which you don't fit for whatever reason, than it is to be murdered in the name of some God.
Furthermore, the two motives are not even necessarily mutually exclusive to begin with.
What the heck does a U.S. response to an attack on her own soil have to do with "globalization"? If U.S. responds, that is "globalization"?
Man...the definition of this word has been mangled beyond all recognition.
Every government in history has responded to attacks on their own soil with retaliation. If that is "globalization" then the word has no meaning whatsoever.
And yes, from the point of view of the U.S. Government, the life of an American is "more important" than the lives of non-Americans who would murder us. I ask again: You got a problem with that?
[5000 American civilians are murdered] I LOVE that the operative word is "American".
Actually the operative word is "civilians".
But the fact that they were (mostly) American is also important to the U.S. Government, of course. You got a problem with that? We are, after all, talking about the actions of the U.S. Government here. Which people should the U.S. Government try to defend, if not Americans?
What exactly is the purpose of a government anyway, in your opinion, if not to defend the citizens within her borders?
Why do you begrudge the right of Americans - and their government - to be pissed that Americans are murdered? Is it because (a) you are a self-hating American or (b) you are a non-American who hates and resents America? Let me know....
Before we're done with the Turbantops, it'll be 1000 of them for every 1 of us.
Nice straw man. Who brought up "Turbantops"? Oh I know: it was you. Who exactly has implied that killing lots of Afghanis is our goal in the first place (besides you)? Our government is fighting against the dictatorial government which rules the Afghans - not against the Afghans themselves.
If you really cared about the so-called (by you) "Turbantops" as much as you are pretending to here, you'd be all for liberating them from their brutal regime. Instead you gripe and moan about "American Terrorism".
I guess you want Afghanis to remain subjugated to a brutal, murderous dictatorship after all. How callous you are; Afghanis are people too, you know.
Thanks for your support.
George
It's true; you really don't have anything of substance to add, do you?
Well, too bad. Have fun perfecting those rocket jumps, you "American Foreign policy" expert you....;)
"Mind control" is when 5000 American civilians are murdered, and yet somehow they get you convinced that it's so-called "American Terrorism" that is the problem. "Mind control" is when (some) people get cowed into apologizing to people who murder them.
Repeat after me: "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
P.S. So now I've made 50+ posts to this thread, have I? I guess I can add "can't count" to the list of misapprehensions (i.e. I watch CNN, I use Microsoft...) you've made in this exchange.
P.P.S. Oddly you still haven't refuted anything I've said about this subject - should we halt bombing on Ramadan? are Muslims the world over just itchin' for an excuse to side with Osama? If you had nothing of substance to add, why did you respond?
Jeez, that's EXACTLY the argument of the Afghanis.
It is? Enlighten us, please, which "Afghanis" have made this argument? Perhaps you are talking about the Talibs who rule over Afghanis as members of their dictatorial regime.
In that case, I agree. I would expect nothing less than for the Taliban to make the same argument - we are trying to kill them so they should fight back. They are correct, they should fight back, because this is war.
All that remains is to discover who will win. I hope that the U.S. will. Don't you?
Why ARE we flattening their country again?
I don't know. Because PC idiots demand it? Because PC idiots suggest that we should stop attacking because of our enemy's (i.e. the people we are trying to kill) holiday?
When they attack us, that's bad. When we bomb them, that's good.
Perhaps you lack the capacity to discern the role which time plays in this little analysis of yours. The attack of September 11 occurred "before" we started bombing sites in Afghanistan. You might want to look into that whole concept of "before". It might be very enlightening.
We are fighting back because they attacked us. This is a simple application of cause and effect. If there had been no attack of 9/11, we would not be fighting this war right now. Perhaps you believe otherwise.
One of the Al Queda leaders and his family were
assassinated by the States a couple months before the WTC attacks.
I would be interested to see a link to this story. Thanks.
In any event, let's assume it is true. Then one could understand, from a realpolitik point of view, that Al Qaeda might consider that an act of war. One could understand that they would seek vengeance. One could even understand them selecting a civilian target such as WTC to take out.
Of course, by doing so, they are diving into the war with both feet. They are acknowledging that this is war, and communicating that fact to us.
Now it's our turn. We should fight back, and try to win the war. Right? No? Why not?
I guess RETRIBUTION is wrong now (at least when they do it).
If you are calling the attacks of 9/11 "retribution" for something, then YES, of course, from our point of view it was wrong. It wasn't? It was "right" to blow up the WTC and kill 5000 along with it?
From our point of view, it was wrong. We should fight back. Anything less is suicidal.
But
then again, we all know OUR glorious culture is the only one worth keeping.
Yes, it is. If you disagree you are free to get the hell out. I would encourage it.
Double standards galore.
Sorry, war is hell. When they kill 5000 of us then we are justified in fighting back. You call that a "double standard", but what the hell is the alternative?
Not to fight back?
Just let them keep killing us so that we don't get accused of (gasp) a "double standard"? Again: that is suicidal. You yourself may be suicidal but don't expect your fellow countrymen to pay any attention to such a sentiment.
Hi Bitterman. You cannot point to anything in my post which indicates that I am ignorant of "American Foreign policy". Nor which would indicate that I watch CNN (which I can't stand).
I'm not even using Microsoft right now.
Are you sure you meant to address your post to me? Maybe if you weren't so busy playing Quake 2, "Bitterman", you'd have actually read my post and made some attempt to refute something in it, which you have not.
Re:"why we are hated"
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
first, our responses must of course be dictated by self preservation
Precisely my point.
however, *not* to understand why we are hated in the first place and to understand the people who are
attacking us is the equivalent of burying our heads in the sand.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't advocating that we intentionally "not understand" the people who are attacking us. I was merely saying that, right now, the question is irrelevant, seeing as how they are trying to murder us and all. The solution right now is to fight back. Perhaps after that is done, it will be a good time to sit down with some espresso and muse about why those people "hated us".
We have angered a lot of people.
I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
They
consider themselves at war with us, and it's not only MTV and McDonalds they are fighting.
I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
They are a
people *we* are responsible for killing,
Wha? Who? Be specific.
Are "we" responsible for killing the terrorists who hijacked those planes on 9/11? No? Then who? You are very vague about who "they" are here. Who is "they"? Saudis? Afghans? Egyptians? It was mostly Saudi and Egyptian nationals who were the hijackers. How many Saudis and Egyptians are "we" "responsible" for killing, in your view? Please cite your sources.
through supplying weapons to Israel
Oh boy. So we are wrong for supplying weapons to Israel? Why? Because you would like to see Israel destroyed?
financial support to their enemies, etc etc.
Yeah, when you have no real examples of substance to put, just throw in an "etc etc." to cover it up.....
And we've done similiar things throughout the
world, propping up dictators and supplying revolutionaries with weapons.
Again: I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
If you refuse to look at that, refuse to understand it, and refuse to acknowledge its role in our current
situation, then all you are doing is perpetuating it.
No, on the contrary. As you can see, I advocate fighting back against the people who are trying to murder us. If successful, this plan of mine (to kill the people trying to murder us before they can do so) will not "perpetuate" anything at all. If they are dead, they cannot murder us, see?
In any event, you failed to answer my closing question:
Do you advocate that black people
being lynched by the Klan "take the time to learn about why they are hated"?
Actually we wouldn't "want" to get terrorized on any day. But, we were, on September 11.
So why does donald rumsfeld insist that the bombing will not stop for the muslim holy days of 'ramadan'
Uh, because we're fighting a war, numbskull. You don't stop a war because of an enemy's holiday. That would just be stupid and suicidal. Certainly would not help you win the war.
You do want the U.S. to win the war, right?
just to put things in perspective - as horrible as the anthrax scare has been, MORE INNOCENT
MUSLIM CIVILIANS HAVE DIED FROM US BOMBING 'ACCIDENTS' THAN PEOPLE HAVE
DIED FROM ANTHRAX
Wow, that really puts things in "perspective". Especially your use of CAPITAL LETTERS.
The problem is that somewhere in your calculus you left out the thousands who were MURDERED (more capitals for your benefit) on September 11. Why is that?
If the US continues their bombings during the 'holy month' of ramadan - then it will only give bin laden
amunition to dupe the rest of the muslims into thinking this is a war on muslims, and not just on him
Ah, so in your opinion, all the Muslims of the world are this easily duped. Muslims, by their very nature, lack the capacity to understand fundamental concepts, such as: This is war, and you don't stop fighting wars because of the enemy's claim to a holiday.
Muslims are easily tricked by this maneuver. Muslims are, all of them, just looking for an excuse to fight. They are all ready and able and willing to mis-interpret this to the extent that they will join up with bin Laden. That's the way Muslims are! Right?
That's what you're saying. Were I a Muslim, I'd be very, very offended.
lets stop the violence now.
Too late. You should have told that to the terrorists. Before September 11.
violence begets more violence
Yeah, just keep repeating that.
(canada).
Ok now I understand.
A problem with definitions
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 0
What is "globalization"? Mr. Katz makes a brief allusion to the (actual) dictionary definition, but his functional definition in this piece appears to be "pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance", which (one gathers) he got out of a trendy book he just read on the subject.
The problem is, what precisely does "fundamentalism" vs. "cosmopolitanism" have to do with what is referred to as "globalization"? If that is the correct definition of "globalization" then why is the typical anti-"globalization" protestor, at least in America, a disaffected lower-to-middle-class teenager from...you guessed it...a big city? One would think they are "cosmopolitan", and yet they don't like "globalization" (or, their conception of it), not one bit. How can this be?
Are they really "fundamentalists" at heart?
Well, perhaps if one realizes that the political desires and philosophies loosely described by the term "socialism" are themselves fundamentalist movements - and hence, that's where much of the opposition comes from - then this piece begins to make sense.
I don't know who you speak of when you refer to "we" being "surprised" about how much we're hated. I'm not "surprised". Most people I know aren't "surprised". So: speak for yourself.
The question is not one of "surprise" over "how much we are hated" in the first place. The question is one of how to respond to this "hatred"..,.er, I mean, murderousness, to be more precise. When someone is trying again and again to murder as many of your people as possible, you don't sit around sipping espresso musing about "why we are hated". You fight back.
And you certainly don't listen to armchair sociologists who try to convince you that the way to defend yourselves against murderers is to "learn" about "why we are hated". Do you advocate that black people being lynched by the Klan "take the time to learn about why they are hated"?
Just an aside....when you speak of "white Republicans" who voted against civil rights legislation in the '60s, are you thinking about Al Gore's father (a Democrat)? Or Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) who filibustered the legislation?
Did you bother asking, "What exactly about my argument makes me a convenient strawman?"
No, I didn't. The reason for that is, according to my reading of his post, it was already clear that, above all else, what made me a "convenient strawman" was the fact that my post allegedly had a DMan-like quality to it. Whatever that meant.
Your reading of his post may vary, I suppose.
But given my interpretation, certainly you can forgive me for attempting to find out who this "DMan" is, and what exactly his reputation is, so that I could find out just what the heck he meant by the charge. Then, having accomplished that, I felt no need to pursue the "strawman" claim any further. It was clear to me (if not to you) what he meant.
At that point, I believed that I had established the main fallacy on which his attacks were based (guilt by association) and, yes, proceeded to ridicule him on that point.
Now, I am given to understand that your approach would have been different. Message received.
Whereas my post was not
in argument with your original post in any way, the AC's was.
Well y'see, this may be where you and I differ. Let's parse the original post, shall we? First, he "wonders" if I am "DMan", a person unknown to me at the time. Is that an "argument with my original post"? Hell if I know.
Second he implicitly labels my post a rant. Well duh, guilty as charged.:) However, it is not true that the contents of every "rant" contain falsehoods. So, was that an "argument with my original post"? Hell if I know.
Third, I allegedly make a "convenient strawman". (For whom?) Almost a non sequitur, here, but regardless, it is still not clear whether this comprises an "argument with my original post". After all it is possible to be both Correct and a Convenient Strawman For Unnamed Others at the same time, n'est-ce pas?
So as you can see, as far as I could tell his post contained just as much "argument with my original post" as yours did. Hence, my comment to you about applying your "logic" to your own post, a comment which you don't seem to like, but alas, which I still stand by. Your post contained no argument with my initial post, true; but neither did his. Didn't I just explain all this in my previous post to you? His post had no actual argument with the contents of my post, and his later posts did not clarify (always referring vaguely to "still" thinking I'm wrong, etc.) This is what I meant to illustrate by extending your "logic" to your own post. Admittedly this would be absurd, but hey, the AC's post didn't make much more of an argument, see? Understand now?
Agreed, it's not certain that the AC had a point. But that still doesn't mean you made any effort to find out.
Actually, both I and the AC himself agreed that I overexerted myself in responding to him. (Okay, okay, so he meant it with a different connotation than I did;) Anyway, I, at least, stand by the statement. His posts probably did not merit a response in the first place, and here you are faulting me for not being rigorous enough (or something).
But another thing you are still missing in all this is the disingenuousness of the AC's responses to me. When questioned about the "DMan" charge, he insists that he "just wondered" if that's who I am? (Rather than the more plausible explanation which is that he wanted to associate me with someone who had a negative reputation around here...) Come on.
Are you saying that you take that claim at face value? That, in the face of that, I should have still considered him an honest debater?
Admittedly, I did not. From his disingenuousness and the vacuousness of his responses I concluded that he was not seriously interested in having a debate, but in playing. So that's what I did, and continued to do, to the point of (admitted) overexertion.
In truth I probably should not have bothered (and would not have, had I not been bored...) That's pretty much all I meant by the claim which you are now vigorously challenging me on. Against which I probably should not have bothered defending myself in the first place, for similar reasons. Best,
It seems like, rather than try to
argue against him based on your original post, [...]
Dude, thanks for taking the time to post this fascinating meta-comment, but here you just don't get it. There was nothing to "argue" with. At no time did the AC ever make any claim, one way or the other, about the contents of my original post. In fact neither I nor you have any reason to believe that he even disagreed with anything in the post. Think about it. He gave me nothing to "argue" against. (If you think he did, kindly point it out.)
I guess when I said I tried to induce him to get to the point, I should have added "if he had one". As things stand, it is not clear that he actually had one, now, is it?
So I don't see what else I could have done. He says "you sound like DMan", and I repeat the contents of my original post? That's what you wanted me to do? Instead I opted to play his game and address him on his terms in the belief that, if he had a real point to make, eventually he would out with it.
As you can see, that never happened. So as far as I (and you) know, he had no actual disagreement with my post, and just wanted to mouth off about me sounding like DMan. Which is fine with me, but I certainly don't see why I should have attempted to get him to argue with me if he had no actual argument with me.
I hasten to add that, by your logic, I should now be arguing against you based on my original post. I should reiterate my original points (whatever they were...) and insist upon them and bolster them and so forth.
But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, would it? Is that really what you want me to do?
Yes, I suppose it has been entertaining. I plead guilty, of course, to your characterization of my argumentation style.;)
I must confess that I remain puzzled about the overall arc of our correspondence. As you conclude "You're wrong, methinks", apropos of almost nothing, I am left to wonder: about what? Not being DMan?
I am on more comfortable territory when absorbing and chuckling at the tired old charge you trot out, that I am guilty of the mortal sin known as "mean-spiritedness". Yes, quite, I suppose, if you're the type of person to use that cliched term (which evidently you are). My only defense is that, if I become intentionally and consciously provocative in an exchange such as this, it is solely for the purpose of drawing a person out of his vague-innuendo-filled cave and inducing him to get to the point, if he has one.
Ah, the point; that's right, this thread originally had a topic. Remember that? I am left to wonder, is that what I am supposedly "wrong" about? Was that your motive for singling out my post, out of all the others, for the snappy "you sound like DMan" comeback? Never let it be said that I didn't try my best to provoke you into coming out with it.
However, you win this interminable battle of stubborn attrition, as your motives and your main point and, in particular, just what I am supposely "wrong" about remain opaque as ever.
The only thing I know for certain is that I am most definitely not DMan.:) Best,
I just wondered, since your style of writing seemed similar to his...
Oh! Well yes that sounds very innocent indeed. My mistake.
The answer is no, I am not DMan. Thanks for asking, though.
...I admit my response was mighty smartassed..
It was? How so? After all, you just got through convincing me that it was borne out of an honest and well-meaning curiosity to discover whether I was DMan, and nothing more. Given its brevity, then, where exactly in your post is the smartassed-ness contained? You tell me.
Either your post was an honest attempt at discovering the truth, or it was smartassed. Which is it?
It is interesting how you fault me for interpreting it in the latter sense when you have seemingly just admitted to my interpretation being correct.
you have once again
shown the absurdity of your thinking
Bummer. Not only was my thinking absurd once, but I have gone and done it again.
But now I am confused. As you have just explained, in your original post you wanted to discover whether I was DMan and nothing more. Because of its "brevity", according to you it cannot possibly have been intended as a rebuke of any kind.
Now you say I have "once again" shown the absurdity of my thinking. Question: when did I do this the first time? You certainly can not have ever made the case that I did, because of course your initial response to my initial post was an honest query and nothing more. Certainly you can understand my distress; my thinking had been absurd once before somehow, and you never even told me about it!
You made a string of assertions...
You take my response to you too literally. (Big surprise.) I was voicing what I thought to be a reasonable interpretation of the intent and strategy of your initial response; namely, to dismiss my post by way of associating me with someone called "DMan", who presumably would have a certain reputation around here. My string of "assertions" was really designed to be nothing more than a caricature of the thought processes which (I had thought, in my foolishness!) your post was designed to induce in the reader.
Of course now I see the error of my ways, because as you have explained to me, your motives were innocent and pure and you just wanted to discover who I was. Mea culpa.
I
would say that you overexerted yourself in responding to my post.
On this point there is absolutely no argument between us.
Indeed, I have gone and done it again. Neither of your posts have merited or deserved this much exertion on my part.
Try this one on for size, just because Einstein failed Math does that imply that it was worthless to teach him?
Good point. Well, obviously... the answer is no. Maybe Einstein was a bad example for me to use, because any academic institution would have benefitted from having him there rather than working in the patents office.
We can agree, then, that any test or other criteria used to admit students should rank Potential Einsteins highly.:)
I think I should explain who I have in mind, then, if not Potential Einsteins. Picture a guy with good mechanical skills and an intuitive understanding of "how things work", but who never had the discipline to do well on his math tests. I would go so far as to say that such a person is intelligent in the broad sense. However, IMHO it may not be appropriate for such a person to spend 7 years of his life taking tests and writing lab reports in order to get a Masters in Mechanical Engineering (in the process going heavily into debt), rather than to train to be an auto mechanic (in the process earning a decent paycheck and gaining experience, building a reputation, etc.). It would be correct IMHO to say that such a person does not have a very high aptitude for academics (writing papers, reading books in the library, making contacts with professors, etc.)
It is hard for me to explain this to people sometimes, because they assume that I am "putting down" this hypothetical future auto mechanic, or that I am trying to "hold him back". Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. All I am doing is challenging the prevailing opinion that college is the only way to go for each and every person who has any sort of intelligence or talent. This strikes me as silly and simple-minded. I guess there are a lot of people who view society as, or think society should be, a big pyramid with College-Educated People on top and only one track (college) for success.
I am not one of those people.
My overall point in this argument is to ask people to consider whether college is necessarily for everyone who is intelligent, that's all. It seems quite possible to me that my hypothetical Mechanical-Genius will have a better, happier, more fulfilling and more successful life as an expert auto mechanic than as just another engineering drone with an MA. Similarly, it seems quite possible to me that there are many people out there with talent and potential and overall "intelligence" who, however, are not likely to fare well in an academic environment.
So it seems to me that college-entrance exams should rank them accordingly (i.e. low), and there is nothing wrong with that. Because such exams should measure aptitude, and not intelligence.
But I am starting to repeat myself here; I think you get my point..:) Later
Is that you, DMan?
Anyway, please, keep ranting. Guys like you make convenient strawmen.
Who the heck is "DMan"?
By the way, that's a very honest thing you just did, admitting that you like to use "convenient strawmen". After all, you have constructed a response wherein you accuse me of being someone I am not (i.e. DMan) and voila, I am supposed to be rebuked. I am wrong because I am "DMan" and I am DMan because you say so and DMan is always wrong because you imply so.
I agree, a guy like me has made a convenient straw man argument. (For you.)
Let me know if you ever want to discuss this someday without resorting to straw men. Best,
Like I said, this may be little more than a semantical argument about the meaning of the words "intelligence" and "aptitude". You say:
if I'm a college administrator, my goal should be to provide my services (education) to those who are
best able to take advantage of them.
I agree completely. The only difference b'tween you and me is that I call this "aptitude". Namely, someone who is able to take advantage of education has an "aptitude" for education.
I do not consider this to be the same thing as intelligence. Many intelligent people presumably have a very low aptitude for academics. (We've all heard the one about Einstein flunking math...:)
I would argue that you have a hidden axiom in your argument, namely that one's intelligence is actually synonymous with one's "ability to take advantage of" an educator's services. I guess I am challenging this assumption and in particular I do not believe it to be true.
IMHO the SAT should measure aptitude for precisely the reason you put forth. And, most agree, that's exactly what it does. To the extent that the SAT predicts future success in education, the SAT is a worthwhile test to use in admissions. It's not perfect (no test can be), and of course if another test came along which proved to be better, a switch would be in order. But I still can't abide by the idea that the SAT should be junked when there are no better predictors of success out there. It smells of political motives to me. Best,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the SAT, or any other test used for college assessment, should test for aptitude (and not intelligence) in the first place.
Maybe this is a matter of you and I having different definitions of the words involved. But if I'm a college administrator, what is the use of a test which measures students' "intelligence" if it does not answer the question, How good a college student will this person be?, i.e. if it does not measure the student's aptitude?
If you are right that the SAT does a better job at measuring aptitude than intelligence (and, I think you are), then it seems to me that the SAT is perfectly appropriate for colleges to use when assessing potential students.
Yes, things were bad when Jim Crow-style laws existed. Then those laws were abolished and things were getting better.
Then affirmative action came along. The poster you were responding to was not disputing that things were worse during Jim Crow. He was disputing the idea that things were worse before affirmative action.
And since you hate "Jim Crow" (institutionalized racism encoded into law) so much, why don't you explain to us all what is so great about "affirmative action" (institutionalized racism encoded into law)? I'll be waiting.
Finally, I notice it is common to claim (as the original poster did) that "things got better because of affirmative action". The corollary to this claim is the belief that, without affirmative action, blacks would be worse off right now.
Anyone who is saying "blacks are better off now" is essentially saying that "blacks could not have succeeded or advanced without affirmative action".
What a condescending, arrogant, racist attitude. Blacks in this country were making great strides and joining the middle class in record numbers before "caring" white "liberals" came along to save their day with their Glorious Affirmative Action programs. Which just drives home the point that affirmative action is the modern-day version of Jim Crow.
They should accept anyone who wants to go, regarless of SATs, grades, letters of recommendation, or
anything else.
Unfortunately there are certain facts you will have to deal with if you do this. The primary fact being, that there are certain people who are not suited for college, whether that means not intelligent enough, not disciplined enough, or whatever. Instead of encouraging them to learn a trade and get a job and earn a living, here you are encouraging them to go to college if they "want" to.
What will you do when they get all F's? What will you do when they realize they have spent four years on their worthless "Communications" degree and are 80 grand in debt and no better off for the trouble? Why, you will pat yourself on the back for being so "progressive" and "caring" that you can make unthinking naive statements like the one above, of course.
You aren't doing someone a favor when you send them to a university where they are likely to fail and from which experience they are unlikely to benefit. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for having standardized tests. If an applicant is simply not suited for Berkeley, and is likely to have a bad academic experience there, it is worse (for the applicant) to say "come on in anyway!" than it is to send him to a less challenging, but more easygoing environment where he can learn at his own pace.
Hire more professors, build more buildings.
Yes, that will resolve the problem I describe above.
By the way, are you volunteering to pay for these professors and buildings?
...for identifying the one and only reason for this proposal. The sole purpose for this whole intellectually dishonest argument is that certain people in the establishment are still committed to their fetish for "diversity" (where in this context, "diversity" is always understood to mean "diversity of skin color". Never, of course, something such as "diversity of political opinion").
As a previous poster explained, Prop. 209 outlawed "affirmative action" (i.e. institutionalized racism) on the part of government agencies. Ever since then the racist baby boomer bureaucrats have been biting their nails trying to figure out a way to secretly keep their Jim Crow-style policies in place without the knowledge of the public or the courts (at least the courts which aren't sympathetic to their holy cause).
This approach is the Holy Grail: black people on average tend to do worse on the SAT, so let's just get rid of the evil SAT!
What will it be replaced with? Why, "activities" and, of course, the "essay". The essay in which one student may write "I faced adversity because I am a minority" while another student may write about their favorite teacher or whatever. And, guess what happens then. The racist baby boomer bureacrats sitting on the committees get to pick and choose and socially-engineer the racial makeup of their campus to suit their pathological fetishes for "diversity [of skin color]", and with no SAT sitting on the student's application, there's no paper trail and no responsibility.
So any talk about hand-wringing because the SAT is "worthless" as a predictor of success is just a smokescreen. Certainly it is not a perfect predictor (neither is anything else); nevertheless it's the best we've got. But the baby boomer bureacrats who are obsessed with "diversity [of skin color]" aren't even interested in that debate in the first place, no matter how much they may pretend to be. They just want to get rid of the SAT because it presents a barrier to their endless obsession with social engineering and tinkering with the lives of other people to suit their private dream world.
Anyway, I'm still a little confused. Since you seem to agree with my analysis of your example, part of which was the observation that your example is beside the point (since it does not address the "informer" dilemma at all, but merely the "opinion offering" dilemma, which is different), my original question remains. Was it a gratuitous swipe? Or just a dumb example?
Slashdot Mirror
(I mean, really. Nice view from up on that high horse?)
To be sure, many atrocities have been committed in the name of this or that "god", under the banner of religious "piety".
Of course an atheist attitude has been equally reliable in producing atrocities, in the name of creating a "new man" -- or based on the idea that we are the masters of our own destiny -- or the idea that society is a blank slate for us to mold to our heart's desire -- or the idea that this or that race is "master -- or the idea of creating a perfect utopia on earth -- or some combination of the above.
See Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao for but a few recent examples.
The evidence therefore being equivocal it would seem premature to blame "religion" for atrocities - when it was secular belief systems which caused most of the misery this past century.
Perhaps, I would suggest, it is Ideology which is the true culprit here. Ideology - either in the form of "piety" towards a god, or with some "vision" of future human society - has been and will continue to be used as an excuse to commit evil. Such evil ought to be resisted, whatever the excuse; it is after all no more pleasant to be murdered in the name of some future Utopian Vision into which you don't fit for whatever reason, than it is to be murdered in the name of some God.
Furthermore, the two motives are not even necessarily mutually exclusive to begin with.
Spell check?
Perhaps you will kindly point out which word(s) in the above post I have misspelled. I can't seem to find any. Thanks!
Man...the definition of this word has been mangled beyond all recognition.
Every government in history has responded to attacks on their own soil with retaliation. If that is "globalization" then the word has no meaning whatsoever.
And yes, from the point of view of the U.S. Government, the life of an American is "more important" than the lives of non-Americans who would murder us. I ask again: You got a problem with that?
Just how self-loathing are you, anyway?
Actually the operative word is "civilians".
But the fact that they were (mostly) American is also important to the U.S. Government, of course. You got a problem with that? We are, after all, talking about the actions of the U.S. Government here. Which people should the U.S. Government try to defend, if not Americans?
What exactly is the purpose of a government anyway, in your opinion, if not to defend the citizens within her borders?
Why do you begrudge the right of Americans - and their government - to be pissed that Americans are murdered? Is it because (a) you are a self-hating American or (b) you are a non-American who hates and resents America? Let me know....
Before we're done with the Turbantops, it'll be 1000 of them for every 1 of us.
Nice straw man. Who brought up "Turbantops"? Oh I know: it was you. Who exactly has implied that killing lots of Afghanis is our goal in the first place (besides you)? Our government is fighting against the dictatorial government which rules the Afghans - not against the Afghans themselves.
If you really cared about the so-called (by you) "Turbantops" as much as you are pretending to here, you'd be all for liberating them from their brutal regime. Instead you gripe and moan about "American Terrorism".
I guess you want Afghanis to remain subjugated to a brutal, murderous dictatorship after all. How callous you are; Afghanis are people too, you know.
Thanks for your support. George
It's true; you really don't have anything of substance to add, do you?
Well, too bad. Have fun perfecting those rocket jumps, you "American Foreign policy" expert you.... ;)
Repeat after me: "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
P.S. So now I've made 50+ posts to this thread, have I? I guess I can add "can't count" to the list of misapprehensions (i.e. I watch CNN, I use Microsoft...) you've made in this exchange.
P.P.S. Oddly you still haven't refuted anything I've said about this subject - should we halt bombing on Ramadan? are Muslims the world over just itchin' for an excuse to side with Osama? If you had nothing of substance to add, why did you respond?
It is? Enlighten us, please, which "Afghanis" have made this argument? Perhaps you are talking about the Talibs who rule over Afghanis as members of their dictatorial regime.
In that case, I agree. I would expect nothing less than for the Taliban to make the same argument - we are trying to kill them so they should fight back. They are correct, they should fight back, because this is war.
All that remains is to discover who will win. I hope that the U.S. will. Don't you?
Why ARE we flattening their country again?
I don't know. Because PC idiots demand it? Because PC idiots suggest that we should stop attacking because of our enemy's (i.e. the people we are trying to kill) holiday?
When they attack us, that's bad. When we bomb them, that's good.
Perhaps you lack the capacity to discern the role which time plays in this little analysis of yours. The attack of September 11 occurred "before" we started bombing sites in Afghanistan. You might want to look into that whole concept of "before". It might be very enlightening.
We are fighting back because they attacked us. This is a simple application of cause and effect. If there had been no attack of 9/11, we would not be fighting this war right now. Perhaps you believe otherwise.
One of the Al Queda leaders and his family were assassinated by the States a couple months before the WTC attacks.
I would be interested to see a link to this story. Thanks.
In any event, let's assume it is true. Then one could understand, from a realpolitik point of view, that Al Qaeda might consider that an act of war. One could understand that they would seek vengeance. One could even understand them selecting a civilian target such as WTC to take out.
Of course, by doing so, they are diving into the war with both feet. They are acknowledging that this is war, and communicating that fact to us.
Now it's our turn. We should fight back, and try to win the war. Right? No? Why not?
I guess RETRIBUTION is wrong now (at least when they do it).
If you are calling the attacks of 9/11 "retribution" for something, then YES, of course, from our point of view it was wrong. It wasn't? It was "right" to blow up the WTC and kill 5000 along with it?
From our point of view, it was wrong. We should fight back. Anything less is suicidal.
But then again, we all know OUR glorious culture is the only one worth keeping.
Yes, it is. If you disagree you are free to get the hell out. I would encourage it.
Double standards galore.
Sorry, war is hell. When they kill 5000 of us then we are justified in fighting back. You call that a "double standard", but what the hell is the alternative?
Not to fight back?
Just let them keep killing us so that we don't get accused of (gasp) a "double standard"? Again: that is suicidal. You yourself may be suicidal but don't expect your fellow countrymen to pay any attention to such a sentiment.
I'm not even using Microsoft right now.
Are you sure you meant to address your post to me? Maybe if you weren't so busy playing Quake 2, "Bitterman", you'd have actually read my post and made some attempt to refute something in it, which you have not.
Precisely my point.
however, *not* to understand why we are hated in the first place and to understand the people who are attacking us is the equivalent of burying our heads in the sand.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't advocating that we intentionally "not understand" the people who are attacking us. I was merely saying that, right now, the question is irrelevant, seeing as how they are trying to murder us and all. The solution right now is to fight back. Perhaps after that is done, it will be a good time to sit down with some espresso and muse about why those people "hated us".
We have angered a lot of people.
I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
They consider themselves at war with us, and it's not only MTV and McDonalds they are fighting.
I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
They are a people *we* are responsible for killing,
Wha? Who? Be specific.
Are "we" responsible for killing the terrorists who hijacked those planes on 9/11? No? Then who? You are very vague about who "they" are here. Who is "they"? Saudis? Afghans? Egyptians? It was mostly Saudi and Egyptian nationals who were the hijackers. How many Saudis and Egyptians are "we" "responsible" for killing, in your view? Please cite your sources.
through supplying weapons to Israel
Oh boy. So we are wrong for supplying weapons to Israel? Why? Because you would like to see Israel destroyed?
financial support to their enemies, etc etc.
Yeah, when you have no real examples of substance to put, just throw in an "etc etc." to cover it up.....
And we've done similiar things throughout the world, propping up dictators and supplying revolutionaries with weapons.
Again: I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
If you refuse to look at that, refuse to understand it, and refuse to acknowledge its role in our current situation, then all you are doing is perpetuating it.
No, on the contrary. As you can see, I advocate fighting back against the people who are trying to murder us. If successful, this plan of mine (to kill the people trying to murder us before they can do so) will not "perpetuate" anything at all. If they are dead, they cannot murder us, see?
In any event, you failed to answer my closing question:
Do you advocate that black people being lynched by the Klan "take the time to learn about why they are hated"?
Let me know....
Actually we wouldn't "want" to get terrorized on any day. But, we were, on September 11.
So why does donald rumsfeld insist that the bombing will not stop for the muslim holy days of 'ramadan'
Uh, because we're fighting a war, numbskull. You don't stop a war because of an enemy's holiday. That would just be stupid and suicidal. Certainly would not help you win the war.
You do want the U.S. to win the war, right?
just to put things in perspective - as horrible as the anthrax scare has been, MORE INNOCENT MUSLIM CIVILIANS HAVE DIED FROM US BOMBING 'ACCIDENTS' THAN PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM ANTHRAX
Wow, that really puts things in "perspective". Especially your use of CAPITAL LETTERS.
The problem is that somewhere in your calculus you left out the thousands who were MURDERED (more capitals for your benefit) on September 11. Why is that?
If the US continues their bombings during the 'holy month' of ramadan - then it will only give bin laden amunition to dupe the rest of the muslims into thinking this is a war on muslims, and not just on him
Ah, so in your opinion, all the Muslims of the world are this easily duped. Muslims, by their very nature, lack the capacity to understand fundamental concepts, such as: This is war, and you don't stop fighting wars because of the enemy's claim to a holiday.
Muslims are easily tricked by this maneuver. Muslims are, all of them, just looking for an excuse to fight. They are all ready and able and willing to mis-interpret this to the extent that they will join up with bin Laden. That's the way Muslims are! Right?
That's what you're saying. Were I a Muslim, I'd be very, very offended.
lets stop the violence now.
Too late. You should have told that to the terrorists. Before September 11.
violence begets more violence
Yeah, just keep repeating that.
(canada).
Ok now I understand.
The problem is, what precisely does "fundamentalism" vs. "cosmopolitanism" have to do with what is referred to as "globalization"? If that is the correct definition of "globalization" then why is the typical anti-"globalization" protestor, at least in America, a disaffected lower-to-middle-class teenager from...you guessed it...a big city? One would think they are "cosmopolitan", and yet they don't like "globalization" (or, their conception of it), not one bit. How can this be?
Are they really "fundamentalists" at heart?
Well, perhaps if one realizes that the political desires and philosophies loosely described by the term "socialism" are themselves fundamentalist movements - and hence, that's where much of the opposition comes from - then this piece begins to make sense.
The question is not one of "surprise" over "how much we are hated" in the first place. The question is one of how to respond to this "hatred"..,.er, I mean, murderousness, to be more precise. When someone is trying again and again to murder as many of your people as possible, you don't sit around sipping espresso musing about "why we are hated". You fight back.
And you certainly don't listen to armchair sociologists who try to convince you that the way to defend yourselves against murderers is to "learn" about "why we are hated". Do you advocate that black people being lynched by the Klan "take the time to learn about why they are hated"?
Thought not.
Just an aside....when you speak of "white Republicans" who voted against civil rights legislation in the '60s, are you thinking about Al Gore's father (a Democrat)? Or Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) who filibustered the legislation?
People like that?
Just wondering....
No, I didn't. The reason for that is, according to my reading of his post, it was already clear that, above all else, what made me a "convenient strawman" was the fact that my post allegedly had a DMan-like quality to it. Whatever that meant.
Your reading of his post may vary, I suppose.
But given my interpretation, certainly you can forgive me for attempting to find out who this "DMan" is, and what exactly his reputation is, so that I could find out just what the heck he meant by the charge. Then, having accomplished that, I felt no need to pursue the "strawman" claim any further. It was clear to me (if not to you) what he meant.
At that point, I believed that I had established the main fallacy on which his attacks were based (guilt by association) and, yes, proceeded to ridicule him on that point.
Now, I am given to understand that your approach would have been different. Message received.
Whereas my post was not in argument with your original post in any way, the AC's was.
Well y'see, this may be where you and I differ. Let's parse the original post, shall we? First, he "wonders" if I am "DMan", a person unknown to me at the time. Is that an "argument with my original post"? Hell if I know.
Second he implicitly labels my post a rant. Well duh, guilty as charged. :) However, it is not true that the contents of every "rant" contain falsehoods. So, was that an "argument with my original post"? Hell if I know.
Third, I allegedly make a "convenient strawman". (For whom?) Almost a non sequitur, here, but regardless, it is still not clear whether this comprises an "argument with my original post". After all it is possible to be both Correct and a Convenient Strawman For Unnamed Others at the same time, n'est-ce pas?
So as you can see, as far as I could tell his post contained just as much "argument with my original post" as yours did. Hence, my comment to you about applying your "logic" to your own post, a comment which you don't seem to like, but alas, which I still stand by. Your post contained no argument with my initial post, true; but neither did his. Didn't I just explain all this in my previous post to you? His post had no actual argument with the contents of my post, and his later posts did not clarify (always referring vaguely to "still" thinking I'm wrong, etc.) This is what I meant to illustrate by extending your "logic" to your own post. Admittedly this would be absurd, but hey, the AC's post didn't make much more of an argument, see? Understand now?
Agreed, it's not certain that the AC had a point. But that still doesn't mean you made any effort to find out.
Actually, both I and the AC himself agreed that I overexerted myself in responding to him. (Okay, okay, so he meant it with a different connotation than I did ;) Anyway, I, at least, stand by the statement. His posts probably did not merit a response in the first place, and here you are faulting me for not being rigorous enough (or something).
But another thing you are still missing in all this is the disingenuousness of the AC's responses to me. When questioned about the "DMan" charge, he insists that he "just wondered" if that's who I am? (Rather than the more plausible explanation which is that he wanted to associate me with someone who had a negative reputation around here...) Come on.
Are you saying that you take that claim at face value? That, in the face of that, I should have still considered him an honest debater?
Admittedly, I did not. From his disingenuousness and the vacuousness of his responses I concluded that he was not seriously interested in having a debate, but in playing. So that's what I did, and continued to do, to the point of (admitted) overexertion.
In truth I probably should not have bothered (and would not have, had I not been bored...) That's pretty much all I meant by the claim which you are now vigorously challenging me on. Against which I probably should not have bothered defending myself in the first place, for similar reasons. Best,
Dude, thanks for taking the time to post this fascinating meta-comment, but here you just don't get it. There was nothing to "argue" with. At no time did the AC ever make any claim, one way or the other, about the contents of my original post. In fact neither I nor you have any reason to believe that he even disagreed with anything in the post. Think about it. He gave me nothing to "argue" against. (If you think he did, kindly point it out.)
I guess when I said I tried to induce him to get to the point, I should have added "if he had one". As things stand, it is not clear that he actually had one, now, is it?
So I don't see what else I could have done. He says "you sound like DMan", and I repeat the contents of my original post? That's what you wanted me to do? Instead I opted to play his game and address him on his terms in the belief that, if he had a real point to make, eventually he would out with it.
As you can see, that never happened. So as far as I (and you) know, he had no actual disagreement with my post, and just wanted to mouth off about me sounding like DMan. Which is fine with me, but I certainly don't see why I should have attempted to get him to argue with me if he had no actual argument with me.
I hasten to add that, by your logic, I should now be arguing against you based on my original post. I should reiterate my original points (whatever they were...) and insist upon them and bolster them and so forth.
But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, would it? Is that really what you want me to do?
I must confess that I remain puzzled about the overall arc of our correspondence. As you conclude "You're wrong, methinks", apropos of almost nothing, I am left to wonder: about what? Not being DMan?
I am on more comfortable territory when absorbing and chuckling at the tired old charge you trot out, that I am guilty of the mortal sin known as "mean-spiritedness". Yes, quite, I suppose, if you're the type of person to use that cliched term (which evidently you are). My only defense is that, if I become intentionally and consciously provocative in an exchange such as this, it is solely for the purpose of drawing a person out of his vague-innuendo-filled cave and inducing him to get to the point, if he has one.
Ah, the point; that's right, this thread originally had a topic. Remember that? I am left to wonder, is that what I am supposedly "wrong" about? Was that your motive for singling out my post, out of all the others, for the snappy "you sound like DMan" comeback? Never let it be said that I didn't try my best to provoke you into coming out with it.
However, you win this interminable battle of stubborn attrition, as your motives and your main point and, in particular, just what I am supposely "wrong" about remain opaque as ever.
The only thing I know for certain is that I am most definitely not DMan. :) Best,
Oh! Well yes that sounds very innocent indeed. My mistake.
The answer is no, I am not DMan. Thanks for asking, though.
It was? How so? After all, you just got through convincing me that it was borne out of an honest and well-meaning curiosity to discover whether I was DMan, and nothing more. Given its brevity, then, where exactly in your post is the smartassed-ness contained? You tell me.
Either your post was an honest attempt at discovering the truth, or it was smartassed. Which is it?
It is interesting how you fault me for interpreting it in the latter sense when you have seemingly just admitted to my interpretation being correct.
you have once again shown the absurdity of your thinking
Bummer. Not only was my thinking absurd once, but I have gone and done it again.
But now I am confused. As you have just explained, in your original post you wanted to discover whether I was DMan and nothing more. Because of its "brevity", according to you it cannot possibly have been intended as a rebuke of any kind.
Now you say I have "once again" shown the absurdity of my thinking. Question: when did I do this the first time? You certainly can not have ever made the case that I did, because of course your initial response to my initial post was an honest query and nothing more. Certainly you can understand my distress; my thinking had been absurd once before somehow, and you never even told me about it!
You made a string of assertions...
You take my response to you too literally. (Big surprise.) I was voicing what I thought to be a reasonable interpretation of the intent and strategy of your initial response; namely, to dismiss my post by way of associating me with someone called "DMan", who presumably would have a certain reputation around here. My string of "assertions" was really designed to be nothing more than a caricature of the thought processes which (I had thought, in my foolishness!) your post was designed to induce in the reader.
Of course now I see the error of my ways, because as you have explained to me, your motives were innocent and pure and you just wanted to discover who I was. Mea culpa.
I would say that you overexerted yourself in responding to my post.
On this point there is absolutely no argument between us.
Indeed, I have gone and done it again. Neither of your posts have merited or deserved this much exertion on my part.
So, you win this point. Bravo!
Good point. Well, obviously... the answer is no. Maybe Einstein was a bad example for me to use, because any academic institution would have benefitted from having him there rather than working in the patents office.
We can agree, then, that any test or other criteria used to admit students should rank Potential Einsteins highly. :)
I think I should explain who I have in mind, then, if not Potential Einsteins. Picture a guy with good mechanical skills and an intuitive understanding of "how things work", but who never had the discipline to do well on his math tests. I would go so far as to say that such a person is intelligent in the broad sense. However, IMHO it may not be appropriate for such a person to spend 7 years of his life taking tests and writing lab reports in order to get a Masters in Mechanical Engineering (in the process going heavily into debt), rather than to train to be an auto mechanic (in the process earning a decent paycheck and gaining experience, building a reputation, etc.). It would be correct IMHO to say that such a person does not have a very high aptitude for academics (writing papers, reading books in the library, making contacts with professors, etc.)
It is hard for me to explain this to people sometimes, because they assume that I am "putting down" this hypothetical future auto mechanic, or that I am trying to "hold him back". Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. All I am doing is challenging the prevailing opinion that college is the only way to go for each and every person who has any sort of intelligence or talent. This strikes me as silly and simple-minded. I guess there are a lot of people who view society as, or think society should be, a big pyramid with College-Educated People on top and only one track (college) for success.
I am not one of those people.
My overall point in this argument is to ask people to consider whether college is necessarily for everyone who is intelligent, that's all. It seems quite possible to me that my hypothetical Mechanical-Genius will have a better, happier, more fulfilling and more successful life as an expert auto mechanic than as just another engineering drone with an MA. Similarly, it seems quite possible to me that there are many people out there with talent and potential and overall "intelligence" who, however, are not likely to fare well in an academic environment.
So it seems to me that college-entrance exams should rank them accordingly (i.e. low), and there is nothing wrong with that. Because such exams should measure aptitude, and not intelligence.
But I am starting to repeat myself here; I think you get my point.. :) Later
Who the heck is "DMan"?
By the way, that's a very honest thing you just did, admitting that you like to use "convenient strawmen". After all, you have constructed a response wherein you accuse me of being someone I am not (i.e. DMan) and voila, I am supposed to be rebuked. I am wrong because I am "DMan" and I am DMan because you say so and DMan is always wrong because you imply so.
I agree, a guy like me has made a convenient straw man argument. (For you.)
Let me know if you ever want to discuss this someday without resorting to straw men. Best,
if I'm a college administrator, my goal should be to provide my services (education) to those who are best able to take advantage of them.
I agree completely. The only difference b'tween you and me is that I call this "aptitude". Namely, someone who is able to take advantage of education has an "aptitude" for education.
I do not consider this to be the same thing as intelligence. Many intelligent people presumably have a very low aptitude for academics. (We've all heard the one about Einstein flunking math... :)
I would argue that you have a hidden axiom in your argument, namely that one's intelligence is actually synonymous with one's "ability to take advantage of" an educator's services. I guess I am challenging this assumption and in particular I do not believe it to be true.
IMHO the SAT should measure aptitude for precisely the reason you put forth. And, most agree, that's exactly what it does. To the extent that the SAT predicts future success in education, the SAT is a worthwhile test to use in admissions. It's not perfect (no test can be), and of course if another test came along which proved to be better, a switch would be in order. But I still can't abide by the idea that the SAT should be junked when there are no better predictors of success out there. It smells of political motives to me. Best,
Maybe this is a matter of you and I having different definitions of the words involved. But if I'm a college administrator, what is the use of a test which measures students' "intelligence" if it does not answer the question, How good a college student will this person be?, i.e. if it does not measure the student's aptitude?
If you are right that the SAT does a better job at measuring aptitude than intelligence (and, I think you are), then it seems to me that the SAT is perfectly appropriate for colleges to use when assessing potential students.
Okay, I'll go through this slowly.
Yes, things were bad when Jim Crow-style laws existed. Then those laws were abolished and things were getting better.
Then affirmative action came along. The poster you were responding to was not disputing that things were worse during Jim Crow. He was disputing the idea that things were worse before affirmative action.
And since you hate "Jim Crow" (institutionalized racism encoded into law) so much, why don't you explain to us all what is so great about "affirmative action" (institutionalized racism encoded into law)? I'll be waiting.
Finally, I notice it is common to claim (as the original poster did) that "things got better because of affirmative action". The corollary to this claim is the belief that, without affirmative action, blacks would be worse off right now.
Anyone who is saying "blacks are better off now" is essentially saying that "blacks could not have succeeded or advanced without affirmative action".
What a condescending, arrogant, racist attitude. Blacks in this country were making great strides and joining the middle class in record numbers before "caring" white "liberals" came along to save their day with their Glorious Affirmative Action programs. Which just drives home the point that affirmative action is the modern-day version of Jim Crow.
Unfortunately there are certain facts you will have to deal with if you do this. The primary fact being, that there are certain people who are not suited for college, whether that means not intelligent enough, not disciplined enough, or whatever. Instead of encouraging them to learn a trade and get a job and earn a living, here you are encouraging them to go to college if they "want" to.
What will you do when they get all F's? What will you do when they realize they have spent four years on their worthless "Communications" degree and are 80 grand in debt and no better off for the trouble? Why, you will pat yourself on the back for being so "progressive" and "caring" that you can make unthinking naive statements like the one above, of course.
You aren't doing someone a favor when you send them to a university where they are likely to fail and from which experience they are unlikely to benefit. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for having standardized tests. If an applicant is simply not suited for Berkeley, and is likely to have a bad academic experience there, it is worse (for the applicant) to say "come on in anyway!" than it is to send him to a less challenging, but more easygoing environment where he can learn at his own pace.
Hire more professors, build more buildings.
Yes, that will resolve the problem I describe above.
By the way, are you volunteering to pay for these professors and buildings?
As a previous poster explained, Prop. 209 outlawed "affirmative action" (i.e. institutionalized racism) on the part of government agencies. Ever since then the racist baby boomer bureaucrats have been biting their nails trying to figure out a way to secretly keep their Jim Crow-style policies in place without the knowledge of the public or the courts (at least the courts which aren't sympathetic to their holy cause).
This approach is the Holy Grail: black people on average tend to do worse on the SAT, so let's just get rid of the evil SAT!
What will it be replaced with? Why, "activities" and, of course, the "essay". The essay in which one student may write "I faced adversity because I am a minority" while another student may write about their favorite teacher or whatever. And, guess what happens then. The racist baby boomer bureacrats sitting on the committees get to pick and choose and socially-engineer the racial makeup of their campus to suit their pathological fetishes for "diversity [of skin color]", and with no SAT sitting on the student's application, there's no paper trail and no responsibility.
So any talk about hand-wringing because the SAT is "worthless" as a predictor of success is just a smokescreen. Certainly it is not a perfect predictor (neither is anything else); nevertheless it's the best we've got. But the baby boomer bureacrats who are obsessed with "diversity [of skin color]" aren't even interested in that debate in the first place, no matter how much they may pretend to be. They just want to get rid of the SAT because it presents a barrier to their endless obsession with social engineering and tinkering with the lives of other people to suit their private dream world.
Anyway, I'm still a little confused. Since you seem to agree with my analysis of your example, part of which was the observation that your example is beside the point (since it does not address the "informer" dilemma at all, but merely the "opinion offering" dilemma, which is different), my original question remains. Was it a gratuitous swipe? Or just a dumb example?
I continue to wonder. Best,