Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: big east boy on December 16, 2008, 06:51:22 PM

Title: challenge to urm's
Post by: big east boy on December 16, 2008, 06:51:22 PM
I challenge all urm's to leave their race/ethnicity blank.  This way we will finally have a cycle where only the deserving get in.  As for the argument that urm status has put you at a disadvantage I point out that your aren't attending poorly funded city schools, you are attending colleges, which for the most part have amazing resources and funding.  The only urm's that should mark their status are those who have actually been slaves.  It is time that everyone should be judged on their merits and not on a rascist policy like AA.  Although I feel my challenge is just I am sure it will not be accepted, to many people are ok with acception handouts.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: econtutorNV on December 16, 2008, 07:01:34 PM
I challenge all urm's to leave their race/ethnicity blank.  This way we will finally have a cycle where only the deserving get in.  As for the argument that urm status has put you at a disadvantage I point out that your aren't attending poorly funded city schools, you are attending colleges, which for the most part have amazing resources and funding.  The only urm's that should mark their status are those who have actually been slaves.  It is time that everyone should be judged on their merits and not on a rascist policy like AA.  Although I feel my challenge is just I am sure it will not be accepted, to many people are ok with acception handouts.

Why is it that you are railing against Affirmative Action and not against "Legacies" in the admissions process?

I challenge OP to use spelling/grammar check!   
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Miss P on December 16, 2008, 08:26:16 PM
racial AA's due to expire in 2018 or so anyway.

2028, when we will live in a society free of the taint of racism.  Don't get ahead of yourself here.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Miss P on December 16, 2008, 08:37:15 PM
racial AA's due to expire in 2018 or so anyway.

2028, when we will live in a society free of the taint of racism.  Don't get ahead of yourself here.

was grutter/gratz 1993 or 2003?  dammit, i must have been off by a decade.

2003.  Young people!  My goodness!
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Holden Caulfield on December 16, 2008, 08:59:22 PM
I challenge all urm's to leave their race/ethnicity blank.  This way we will finally have a cycle where only the deserving get in.  As for the argument that urm status has put you at a disadvantage I point out that your aren't attending poorly funded city schools, you are attending colleges, which for the most part have amazing resources and funding.  The only urm's that should mark their status are those who have actually been slaves.  It is time that everyone should be judged on their merits and not on a rascist policy like AA.  Although I feel my challenge is just I am sure it will not be accepted, to many people are ok with acception handouts.

Please tell me this was part of your personal statement.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: txn_20 on February 01, 2009, 02:50:01 PM
No way that happens OP.  Everyone preaches equality, until the chance comes for them to cash in on racism.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on February 01, 2009, 03:28:03 PM
racial AA's due to expire in 2018 or so anyway.

2028, when we will live in a society free of the taint of racism.  Don't get ahead of yourself here.

lulz.

Thanks, Sandra!
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: sunglee on February 18, 2009, 06:39:31 PM
And people like this become lawyers...some things never change
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Just Wrong on February 25, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
A challenge to all NON-URMS:

Don't like (insert law school)'s affirmative action policies?  Don't go to (insert law school).
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: zippyandzap on February 25, 2009, 02:03:20 PM
A challenge to all NON-URMS:

Don't like (insert law school)'s affirmative action policies?  Don't go to (insert law school).

that logic is as weak as saying that people criticizing an action of the US Government should get out.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on February 25, 2009, 02:06:58 PM
A challenge to all NON-URMS:

Don't like (insert law school)'s affirmative action policies?  Don't go to (insert law school).

that logic is as weak as saying that people criticizing an action of the US Government should get out.

oh, hardly.  Just Wrong's logic is simply consumers exercising choice and choosing with their pocketbooks. 
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: SweetAsCandy on February 28, 2009, 12:20:01 PM
I challenge all urm's to leave their race/ethnicity blank.  This way we will finally have a cycle where only the deserving get in.  As for the argument that urm status has put you at a disadvantage I point out that your aren't attending poorly funded city schools, you are attending colleges, which for the most part have amazing resources and funding.  The only urm's that should mark their status are those who have actually been slaves.  It is time that everyone should be judged on their merits and not on a rascist policy like AA.  Although I feel my challenge is just I am sure it will not be accepted, to many people are ok with acception handouts.

Why is it that you are railing against Affirmative Action and not against "Legacies" in the admissions process?


HAHA! Amen!
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: dashrashi on March 08, 2009, 09:58:11 PM
A challenge to all NON-URMS:

Don't like (insert law school)'s affirmative action policies?  Don't go to (insert law school).

that logic is as weak as saying that people criticizing an action of the US Government should get out.

oh, hardly.  Just Wrong's logic is simply consumers exercising choice and choosing with their pocketbooks. 

The customer is king, after all. Have it your way!
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 26, 2009, 10:20:29 PM
I challenge all urm's to leave their race/ethnicity blank.  This way we will finally have a cycle where only the deserving get in.  As for the argument that urm status has put you at a disadvantage I point out that your aren't attending poorly funded city schools, you are attending colleges, which for the most part have amazing resources and funding.  The only urm's that should mark their status are those who have actually been slaves.  It is time that everyone should be judged on their merits and not on a rascist policy like AA.  Although I feel my challenge is just I am sure it will not be accepted, to many people are ok with acception handouts.

Why is it that you are railing against Affirmative Action and not against "Legacies" in the admissions process?

I challenge OP to use spelling/grammar check!   

Legacies at least seem very small in number. They're also jacked, but at least I can see the rationale there.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kohinoor on March 27, 2009, 04:35:10 PM
I challenge all urm's to leave their race/ethnicity blank.  This way we will finally have a cycle where only the deserving get in.  As for the argument that urm status has put you at a disadvantage I point out that your aren't attending poorly funded city schools, you are attending colleges, which for the most part have amazing resources and funding.  The only urm's that should mark their status are those who have actually been slaves.  It is time that everyone should be judged on their merits and not on a rascist policy like AA.  Although I feel my challenge is just I am sure it will not be accepted, to many people are ok with acception handouts.
I decline your challenge. I just got a full scholarship to a T14. Have fun at whatever law school admits students that think acception is a word.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 27, 2009, 05:09:00 PM
 :D
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Who? on March 27, 2009, 06:27:18 PM
I tend to stay away from these threads because I have no desire to engage in online arguments but I just have to share a story.  I never really went to an underfunded public school (although one could consider all NYC public schools inadequately funded). I did have to deal with various forms of racism. At 6 I was told to go back to Africa when I didn't know what that meant. At 10 I was told by a friend his stepfather told him a "n-word is someone who steals a lot." At 13 I was told to reconsider my desire to become a lawyer because "the paralegal field is much easier to get into. At 21 I was told by my prelaw adviser to apply only to schools 15-30 with one of the T14 as my reach, because my URM status didn't mean anything to law schools. All of this happened between 1994 and 2009. Tell me when racism doesn't affect URM's and then I will stop checking African American on my applications.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kohinoor on March 27, 2009, 10:21:13 PM
I tend to stay away from these threads because I have no desire to engage in online arguments but I just have to share a story.  I never really went to an underfunded public school (although one could consider all NYC public schools inadequately funded). I did have to deal with various forms of racism. At 6 I was told to go back to Africa when I didn't know what that meant. At 10 I was told by a friend his stepfather told him a "n-word is someone who steals a lot." At 13 I was told to reconsider my desire to become a lawyer because "the paralegal field is much easier to get into. At 21 I was told by my prelaw adviser to apply only to schools 15-30 with one of the T14 as my reach, because my URM status didn't mean anything to law schools. All of this happened between 1994 and 2009. Tell me when racism doesn't affect URM's and then I will stop checking African American on my applications.
I'm not sure that last one was racism. Prelaw advisors are just uniformly unhelpful and uninformed.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 28, 2009, 03:08:31 AM
I tend to stay away from these threads because I have no desire to engage in online arguments but I just have to share a story.  I never really went to an underfunded public school (although one could consider all NYC public schools inadequately funded). I did have to deal with various forms of racism. At 6 I was told to go back to Africa when I didn't know what that meant. At 10 I was told by a friend his stepfather told him a "n-word is someone who steals a lot." At 13 I was told to reconsider my desire to become a lawyer because "the paralegal field is much easier to get into. At 21 I was told by my prelaw adviser to apply only to schools 15-30 with one of the T14 as my reach, because my URM status didn't mean anything to law schools. All of this happened between 1994 and 2009. Tell me when racism doesn't affect URM's and then I will stop checking African American on my applications.
I'm not sure that last one was racism. Prelaw advisors are just uniformly unhelpful and uninformed.

TITCR. Prelaw advisers give out criminally bad information all the time regardless of skin color. Not surprising though, prelaw is a joke of a major, prelaw advisers just seem destined to follow suit.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: dashrashi on March 28, 2009, 10:23:14 AM
But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kohinoor on March 28, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.
You're funny.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 28, 2009, 01:19:39 PM
But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.

Everyone has a few screwed up things happen to them at some point in their life. BFD. Like I said, the prelaw thing likely had nothing to do with racism and the paralegal thing probably didn't either. So 2, count 'em, 2 screwed things. I can see why that would greatly affect this poor, tortured soul...

But, that's the sort of thought process I can see at work in most Harvard bound/attending folks on here. "Someone was mean to me when I was 10 and it was such an injustice that forever tainted my life!".  Lollercoaster.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: dashrashi on March 28, 2009, 04:22:14 PM
Did anyone ever tell you to become a paralegal?

Regardless, this person was able, off the top of his/her head, to come up with somewhere between two and four easily-digestible soundbites of racism, directed at him/her, in his/her own life.

Can you do that? Come up with two to four digestible soundbites, suitable for this kind of post (i.e. concise one-liners), where someone treated you badly because of who you are, how you were born, or the color of your skin? In a way that goes to history, prejudice, power, and hate?

This is completely different than general screwed up things happening to people. I assure you, this person has certainly experienced screwed-up things in his/her life that were individual in nature--e.g. a friend dropping him/her, a teacher being a male private part, whatever, the usual *&^% that does happen to everyone.

But that's not what's at issue here, nor is that what s/he brought up. What's at issue are the OTHER kinds of screwed up *&^%--the kind of screwed up *&^% that does not (by and large) happen to me, or to you, where someone treats us badly because of who we are, the way we were born, the color of our skin, in a way that goes to history, prejudice, power, and hate.

A friend dropping you is not an injustice. It's a misfortune. Experiencing racism, directed at you, on the contrary IS an injustice. Someone calling you a shithead is someone being mean to you, and not an injustice. Someone calling you a f-ing [epithet-of-choice] is racism, and it is an injustice. It affects you differently.

Off the top of my head, I don't remember all of the myriad times in my life when I have been called a female dog (or its other charming variations)*. But I DO remember, absolutely clearly, when, on my way to synagogue, a car full of young men screamed out at us, "f-ing kikes!" One was individual--meanness, not injustice. The other was group-based, directed at me not because of my individual personality but because of how they perceived a group I belonged to. And it went to history, prejudice, power, and hate. And it was an injustice, and it did affect me, and I do remember it. I am blessed (in an atheistic sense) in many other ways, so my personhood hasn't suffered the way racism and prejudice affect other groups of people who are more put-upon. But it's an injustice. You shouldn't trivialize it. It does affect people. Just because you've been lucky/blessed enough to have avoided it doesn't mean you get to treat it like it doesn't exist.

*Although, for the record, some of the more misogynistic ones, I do remember.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Dead Horse on March 28, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Can you do that? Come up with two to four digestible soundbites, suitable for this kind of post (i.e. concise one-liners), where someone treated you badly because of who you are, how you were born, or the color of your skin? In a way that goes to history, prejudice, power, and hate?

Coming from mister "I was raised a poor white boy in a black neighborhood, where's my AA" this is going to be good.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kohinoor on March 28, 2009, 09:05:04 PM
But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.
I didn't address his other examples of racism, because I wasn't contesting them. I found your umbrage very amusing. Since when has it been necessary to address every point in a post?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: dashrashi on March 28, 2009, 10:09:24 PM
I wasn't talking to you, primarily, but rather to Ninja, who had found what to pick at here and there whilst ignoring the substance (and the meaning) of the post, and seemed to be desperately trying to navigate the thread away from the awkwardness of being confronted with actual contemporary racism directed at a law-school-applicant peer. I'm sorry, did you want to pick a fight with me?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 28, 2009, 10:20:51 PM
Just from the posts on this page, I'd like to know where one can sign up for the Dash Fan Club.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: DashrashiFanClubPresident on March 28, 2009, 11:27:58 PM
Just from the posts on this page, I'd like to know where one can sign up for the Dash Fan Club.

Right here.  The annual membership fee is $25.  Cash or check only please.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 28, 2009, 11:39:37 PM
What are the fan club membership perks? 
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on March 29, 2009, 06:51:20 AM
I challenge all urm's to leave their race/ethnicity blank.  This way we will finally have a cycle where only the deserving get in.  As for the argument that urm status has put you at a disadvantage I point out that your aren't attending poorly funded city schools, you are attending colleges, which for the most part have amazing resources and funding.  The only urm's that should mark their status are those who have actually been slaves.  It is time that everyone should be judged on their merits and not on a rascist policy like AA.  Although I feel my challenge is just I am sure it will not be accepted, to many people are ok with acception handouts.

original.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kohinoor on March 29, 2009, 10:16:15 AM
I wasn't talking to you, primarily, but rather to Ninja, who had found what to pick at here and there whilst ignoring the substance (and the meaning) of the post, and seemed to be desperately trying to navigate the thread away from the awkwardness of being confronted with actual contemporary racism directed at a law-school-applicant peer. I'm sorry, did you want to pick a fight with me?
I did kinda but then I checked your LSN cycle.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 01:45:13 PM
Did anyone ever tell you to become a paralegal?

Regardless, this person was able, off the top of his/her head, to come up with somewhere between two and four easily-digestible soundbites of racism, directed at him/her, in his/her own life.

Can you do that? Come up with two to four digestible soundbites, suitable for this kind of post (i.e. concise one-liners), where someone treated you badly because of who you are, how you were born, or the color of your skin? In a way that goes to history, prejudice, power, and hate?

This is completely different than general screwed up things happening to people. I assure you, this person has certainly experienced screwed-up things in his/her life that were individual in nature--e.g. a friend dropping him/her, a teacher being a male private part, whatever, the usual *&^% that does happen to everyone.

But that's not what's at issue here, nor is that what s/he brought up. What's at issue are the OTHER kinds of screwed up *&^%--the kind of screwed up *&^% that does not (by and large) happen to me, or to you, where someone treats us badly because of who we are, the way we were born, the color of our skin, in a way that goes to history, prejudice, power, and hate.

A friend dropping you is not an injustice. It's a misfortune. Experiencing racism, directed at you, on the contrary IS an injustice. Someone calling you a shithead is someone being mean to you, and not an injustice. Someone calling you a f-ing [epithet-of-choice] is racism, and it is an injustice. It affects you differently.

Off the top of my head, I don't remember all of the myriad times in my life when I have been called a female dog (or its other charming variations)*. But I DO remember, absolutely clearly, when, on my way to synagogue, a car full of young men screamed out at us, "f-ing kikes!" One was individual--meanness, not injustice. The other was group-based, directed at me not because of my individual personality but because of how they perceived a group I belonged to. And it went to history, prejudice, power, and hate. And it was an injustice, and it did affect me, and I do remember it. I am blessed (in an atheistic sense) in many other ways, so my personhood hasn't suffered the way racism and prejudice affect other groups of people who are more put-upon. But it's an injustice. You shouldn't trivialize it. It does affect people. Just because you've been lucky/blessed enough to have avoided it doesn't mean you get to treat it like it doesn't exist.

*Although, for the record, some of the more misogynistic ones, I do remember.

Some calling you a name, a friend dropping you, or a teacher being a male private part. Lollerskates. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have no real conception of what something screwed up is. Racism and prejudice scratch the surface. I don't dispute that this may affect people, but seriously, you get past *&^% or you don't, and nothing here is worth keeping around on your psyche for very long. Come back when you've engaged in some gun play or some other exciting endeavors, then we might have SOMETHING to talk about, and even that's not worth having your life deeply affected by.

I've never been told to be a paralegal, but I've been told, in no particular order, to consider going to work in a factory, that quitting Wal-Mart was a poor career move, that quitting a call center job was a poor career move, to consider going to deliver phone books, and about 20 other occupationally retarded things. Paralegal is far more prestigious than anything above and pays better. I doubt race factored in at all.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 01:46:56 PM
Can you do that? Come up with two to four digestible soundbites, suitable for this kind of post (i.e. concise one-liners), where someone treated you badly because of who you are, how you were born, or the color of your skin? In a way that goes to history, prejudice, power, and hate?

Coming from mister "I was raised a poor white boy in a black neighborhood, where's my AA" this is going to be good.

Your lack of reading comprehension is predictable. Never did I say I was raised in a black neighborhood, just that everyone was equally poor and now the black kids get a leg up. Good to see you equate blacks with poor people.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 01:49:17 PM
I wasn't talking to you, primarily, but rather to Ninja, who had found what to pick at here and there whilst ignoring the substance (and the meaning) of the post, and seemed to be desperately trying to navigate the thread away from the awkwardness of being confronted with actual contemporary racism directed at a law-school-applicant peer. I'm sorry, did you want to pick a fight with me?

The substance is that there is no substance.

I never navagate away from anything, I just calls it like I sees it.

Peer...
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 01:55:00 PM
So people just need to get over it?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 02:09:44 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 02:12:29 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 29, 2009, 02:12:48 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

...

except that it still happens.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 02:14:48 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

...

except that it still happens.

And that's why you keep soldiering through. There is no "win" point in the game.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 02:17:33 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

There does seem to be something bizarre about a forward looking viewpoint around here.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 02:20:09 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 29, 2009, 02:22:28 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

...

except that it still happens.

And that's why you keep soldiering through. There is no "win" point in the game.

well, i'm not so sure about the bolded.  

However, it seems quite unenlightened to indicate that no one ever needs any help from society when society is limiting opportunity.  It doesn't seem very fair, does it?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: dashrashi on March 29, 2009, 02:30:36 PM
But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.

Everyone has a few screwed up things happen to them at some point in their life. BFD. Like I said, the prelaw thing likely had nothing to do with racism and the paralegal thing probably didn't either. So 2, count 'em, 2 screwed things. I can see why that would greatly affect this poor, tortured soul...

But, that's the sort of thought process I can see at work in most Harvard bound/attending folks on here. "Someone was mean to me when I was 10 and it was such an injustice that forever tainted my life!".  Lollercoaster.

For the record, this is the kind of thing I meant when I talked about a friend dropping you--"someone was mean to me." That's substantively different in both kind and degree from the kind of racism Who? experienced and discussed (EVEN if you want to just limit it to the two times even you admit were racism), and all I was saying is that it's intellectually dishonest for you to equate the two. Someone being mean to you when you are 10 is someone being mean to you when you are 10. Someone telling you what Who's friend said is racism, not meanness. Different. Not the same.

Not that hard.

If you want to talk screwed-up *&^%, then we can. And if you think people should just shake off, move on, get over it, whatever, the truly screwed-up *&^% (death of your mother as an 11 year old, or being raped at the age of 7, to use but two experiences of two of my very best friends), then that's your own scary denial/burying-*&^% complex. "Yeah, my mom died when I was a child. Whatever. I got over it." That's...well, in my opinion, that's not a healthy way to live your life. And it's almost never true, anyway.

But you're the one who lowered the stakes, as it were, by making it about "mean"ness. Your word. 

And I'm sorry, you weren't denying that Who? was a peer, were you? On what possible ground would you dispute that?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 02:30:59 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

...

except that it still happens.

And that's why you keep soldiering through. There is no "win" point in the game.

well, i'm not so sure about the bolded.  

However, it seems quite unenlightened to indicate that no one ever needs any help from society when society is limiting opportunity.  It doesn't seem very fair, does it?

Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 29, 2009, 02:49:35 PM
Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity.  Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups.  So, several million years ago.  Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting.  Congratulations.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 02:53:49 PM
But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.

Everyone has a few screwed up things happen to them at some point in their life. BFD. Like I said, the prelaw thing likely had nothing to do with racism and the paralegal thing probably didn't either. So 2, count 'em, 2 screwed things. I can see why that would greatly affect this poor, tortured soul...

But, that's the sort of thought process I can see at work in most Harvard bound/attending folks on here. "Someone was mean to me when I was 10 and it was such an injustice that forever tainted my life!".  Lollercoaster.

For the record, this is the kind of thing I meant when I talked about a friend dropping you--"someone was mean to me." That's substantively different in both kind and degree from the kind of racism Who? experienced and discussed (EVEN if you want to just limit it to the two times even you admit were racism), and all I was saying is that it's intellectually dishonest for you to equate the two. Someone being mean to you when you are 10 is someone being mean to you when you are 10. Someone telling you what Who's friend said is racism, not meanness. Different. Not the same.

Not that hard.

If you want to talk screwed-up *&^%, then we can. And if you think people should just shake off, move on, get over it, whatever, the truly screwed-up *&^% (death of your mother as an 11 year old, or being raped at the age of 7, to use but two experiences of two of my very best friends), then that's your own scary denial/burying-*&^% complex. "Yeah, my mom died when I was a child. Whatever. I got over it." That's...well, in my opinion, that's not a healthy way to live your life. And it's almost never true, anyway.

But you're the one who lowered the stakes, as it were, by making it about "mean"ness. Your word. 

And I'm sorry, you weren't denying that Who? was a peer, were you? On what possible ground would you dispute that?

First, and most importantly, can we please just call Who? the OP or put his name in quotes. It makes for a much more readable post. Starts to become one of those "Who's on first" things.

Anyway, now we're actually getting to some good, concrete examples of screwed up *&^%. Yeah, you get over it, or you don't. The person with the dead mother and the rape victim can still lead perfectly normal lives, if they get past the screwed up *&^%. That, or they can spend the rest of their lives being shell shocked in the corner. Choice is theirs. At least they have something to complain about and that they can say changed them. Someone calling you a name when you're a kid is worlds away. There was someone I remember seeing on LSN last year that had good, but not killer, numbers. They also had a line about their parents dying when they were 12 or something. They got into all their schools as far as I can recall. I was fine with that. That's the sort of person that could use a bump. The person that gets called a few names here and there, meanwhile, seems to kind of pale in comparison. I thank ye for basically making my argument for me.

OP isn't a peer. OP can be a peer when they actually start law school. Until then, OP is just anyone else that almost has or already holds a BA.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 02:59:55 PM
Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity.  Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups.  So, several million years ago.  Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting.  Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 29, 2009, 03:11:30 PM
Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity.  Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups.  So, several million years ago.  Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting.  Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

How would providing the same opportunity to people who may not otherwise be able to obtain it not work.

Re: ladder example.  If the ladder doesn't go all the way up, you can't use it to climb up.  Thus, we need a way to make sure that everyone is able to get to the same level the ladder goes to.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this.  We live in a meritocracy, yes, but its only part of the equation. 

Finally, people aren't "limited".  Society can, however, limit opportunity.  Try using it as verb next time, rather than an adjective, and maybe everyone who reads this won't think you're completely racist.    :!
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: LawDog3 on March 29, 2009, 03:55:37 PM
Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity.  Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups.  So, several million years ago.  Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting.  Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

How would providing the same opportunity to people who may not otherwise be able to obtain it not work.

Re: ladder example.  If the ladder doesn't go all the way up, you can't use it to climb up.  Thus, we need a way to make sure that everyone is able to get to the same level the ladder goes to.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this.  We live in a meritocracy, yes, but its only part of the equation. 

Finally, people aren't "limited".  Society can, however, limit opportunity.  Try using it as verb next time, rather than an adjective, and maybe everyone who reads this won't think you're completely racist.    :!

Too late.

URM's are "working harder"...harder than you will ever know. Non- URM's are either too stupid to get it or are complete barbarians who continue to lie about the conditions URM's live under. It's one or the other. The alternative is to believe that we are inferior, which is really what they are saying.

Going to college with nothing to worry about except studying, playing handball and an occasional part-time pizza or barista gig is not the same thing as going to college as a typical Black or Mexican student.

Half of the time, u have attended grossly inferior schools, to begin with, putting you behind the eight-ball in terms of acclimation, whether u have performed well or not. Then, there are always administrators and professors with hidden agendas, namely to prove that u are undeserving of your admission to the school, so ur at a disadvantage academically, right out of the gate. Then there's the assimilation to the majority culture on white campuses, and the subtle racism that exists there. The sarchastic way in which financial aid officers and other administrators communicate with u (b/c of ur ethnicity) can take a toll on u.

Then there's ur home life, the one in which the majority of ur relatives have not gone to college expect you to deal with the typical distraction of hearing about a close death (family or friend), often by unnatural causes, at least once per month, work full-time or almost full-time, commute back and forth between ur messed up community and school, and babysit ur siblings and clean up the house when u get home, b/c u come from a single-parent home and ur mom cannot afford to hire a housecleaner or babysitter. This all happens before u crack ur books open.

On top of that, ur white and Asian peers, who assume u to be inferior, (from day one) shun u as a participator in group projects, so when in-class partnering happens or study-groups are formed, u are often one of the last students picked, if u are picked at all. Therefore, this diversity initiative, the one which resulted in ur admission (at least to a small degree), ironically, does not benefit u or the other students, who mostly flock to "their own".

Then, there's the classism within the Black and Mexican campus communities, which centers around the rich  or well-off Blacks and Latinos, the fraternities and sororities, and the athletes. The porrer ethnic students, unless they are exceptionally gorgeous females, typically are not invited to social events, and parties. Sure, they can join the BSU and attend meetings, but they certainly won't be riding to parties in joe-jock's BMW (the one his already NBA'd brother or former high-school teammate bought him) on Friday nights.

URM's...true URM's, not just people who have the skin color, are outcast from all of the sects on their campuses. And if they are left to fend for themselves academically and socially, while carrying the burdens of their home and home communities to their campus, while also dealing with the pressures of getting acclimated to being a "regular student" (after hailinmg from an inferior school system), those problems become heightened and distracting.

Big ups! to any URM who makes it...who gets through all the BS, makes the honor roll/dean's list, graduates with a B+ average or better, gets over a 150 LSAT and gets into to law school. These idiots who want to pretend things are equal, that we all have the same chances, that we live in a democracy, are either liars or barbarians. Even after 911, they still don't, as we say, "get it". 

They are born with natural advantages, and benefit from them every time they walk out of their homes. But, someday, they will be forced to get it. Count on that.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 04:26:14 PM
Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity.  Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups.  So, several million years ago.  Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting.  Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

How would providing the same opportunity to people who may not otherwise be able to obtain it not work.

Re: ladder example.  If the ladder doesn't go all the way up, you can't use it to climb up.  Thus, we need a way to make sure that everyone is able to get to the same level the ladder goes to.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this.  We live in a meritocracy, yes, but its only part of the equation. 

Finally, people aren't "limited".  Society can, however, limit opportunity.  Try using it as verb next time, rather than an adjective, and maybe everyone who reads this won't think you're completely racist.    :!

It works, and that's the problem. What prevents a URM from working harder in college and on the LSAT? They have the same general abilities as non-URMs, so what's the problem? I'm not from an education rich area by any means, but myself and a few others got it together and moved on, so why not everyone else? You really can do most anything if you're willing to work for it.

At what point is the job done and the meritocracy takes back over? It's not like URMs are being kept out of the system anymore, now it's mostly do to self selection. And those that do get the boost aren't overly benefited, if anything, they may be being harmed. There was an article by some Harvard professor that determined the aa bump has likely has caused something like 7,000 fewer lawyers to be produced than otherwise would have been thanks to people getting into schools they're not qualified for and washing out and people at the bottom never even getting the shot because the otherwise qualified non-URMs trickle down and wash them completely out.

If people are limited by the system, aren't they then "limited" much the same that people that are in poverty are "impoverished" people and people that are handicapped are "handicapped" people? Your point is more PC, mine is more direct. If anything, your point exposes your racist bent more than mine, as you're equating "limited" to URMs by reason of thinking it was racist on my part.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 04:27:54 PM
Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity.  Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups.  So, several million years ago.  Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting.  Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

How would providing the same opportunity to people who may not otherwise be able to obtain it not work.

Re: ladder example.  If the ladder doesn't go all the way up, you can't use it to climb up.  Thus, we need a way to make sure that everyone is able to get to the same level the ladder goes to.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this.  We live in a meritocracy, yes, but its only part of the equation. 

Finally, people aren't "limited".  Society can, however, limit opportunity.  Try using it as verb next time, rather than an adjective, and maybe everyone who reads this won't think you're completely racist.    :!

Too late.

URM's are "working harder"...harder than you will ever know. Non- URM's are either too stupid to get it or are complete barbarians who continue to lie about the conditions URM's live under. It's one or the other. The alternative is to believe that we are inferior, which is really what they are saying.

Going to college with nothing to worry about except studying, playing handball and an occasional part-time pizza or barista gig is not the same thing as going to college as a typical Black or Mexican student.

Half of the time, u have attended grossly inferior schools, to begin with, putting you behind the eight-ball in terms of acclimation, whether u have performed well or not. Then, there are always administrators and professors with hidden agendas, namely to prove that u are undeserving of your admission to the school, so ur at a disadvantage academically, right out of the gate. Then there's the assimilation to the majority culture on white campuses, and the subtle racism that exists there. The sarchastic way in which financial aid officers and other administrators communicate with u (b/c of ur ethnicity) can take a toll on u.

Then there's ur home life, the one in which the majority of ur relatives have not gone to college expect you to deal with the typical distraction of hearing about a close death (family or friend), often by unnatural causes, at least once per month, work full-time or almost full-time, commute back and forth between ur messed up community and school, and babysit ur siblings and clean up the house when u get home, b/c u come from a single-parent home and ur mom cannot afford to hire a housecleaner or babysitter. This all happens before u crack ur books open.

On top of that, ur white and Asian peers, who assume u to be inferior, (from day one) shun u as a participator in group projects, so when in-class partnering happens or study-groups are formed, u are often one of the last students picked, if u are picked at all. Therefore, this diversity initiative, the one which resulted in ur admission (at least to a small degree), ironically, does not benefit u or the other students, who mostly flock to "their own".

Then, there's the classism within the Black and Mexican campus communities, which centers around the rich  or well-off Blacks and Latinos, the fraternities and sororities, and the athletes. The porrer ethnic students, unless they are exceptionally gorgeous females, typically are not invited to social events, and parties. Sure, they can join the BSU and attend meetings, but they certainly won't be riding to parties in joe-jock's BMW (the one his already NBA'd brother or former high-school teammate bought him) on Friday nights.

URM's...true URM's, not just people who have the skin color, are outcast from all of the sects on their campuses. And if they are left to fend for themselves academically and socially, while carrying the burdens of their home and home communities to their campus, while also dealing with the pressures of getting acclimated to being a "regular student" (after hailinmg from an inferior school system), those problems become heightened and distracting.

Big ups! to any URM who makes it...who gets through all the BS, makes the honor roll/dean's list, graduates with a B+ average or better, gets over a 150 LSAT and gets into to law school. These idiots who want to pretend things are equal, that we all have the same chances, that we live in a democracy, are either liars or barbarians. Even after 911, they still don't, as we say, "get it". 

They are born with natural advantages, and benefit from them every time they walk out of their homes. But, someday, they will be forced to get it. Count on that.

All that (drivel) and you still can't be bothered to spell out "you"?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 29, 2009, 04:30:04 PM
It works, and that's the problem. What prevents a URM from working harder in college and on the LSAT? They have the same general abilities as non-URMs, so what's the problem? I'm not from an education rich area by any means, but myself and a few others got it together and moved on, so why not everyone else? You really can do most anything if you're willing to work for it.

At what point is the job done and the meritocracy takes back over? It's not like URMs are being kept out of the system anymore, now it's mostly do to self selection. And those that do get the boost aren't overly benefited, if anything, they may be being harmed. There was an article by some Harvard professor that determined the aa bump has likely has caused something like 7,000 fewer lawyers to be produced than otherwise would have been thanks to people getting into schools they're not qualified for and washing out and people at the bottom never even getting the shot because the otherwise qualified non-URMs trickle down and wash them completely out.

If people are limited by the system, aren't they then "limited" much the same that people that are in poverty are "impoverished" people and people that are handicapped are "handicapped" people? Your point is more PC, mine is more direct. If anything, your point exposes your racist bent more than mine, as you're equating "limited" to URMs by reason of thinking it was racist on my part.

ok.

I'm pretty much over this discussion.  I hope that your achievements are well rewarded.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 04:32:20 PM
It works, and that's the problem. What prevents a URM from working harder in college and on the LSAT? They have the same general abilities as non-URMs, so what's the problem? I'm not from an education rich area by any means, but myself and a few others got it together and moved on, so why not everyone else? You really can do most anything if you're willing to work for it.

At what point is the job done and the meritocracy takes back over? It's not like URMs are being kept out of the system anymore, now it's mostly do to self selection. And those that do get the boost aren't overly benefited, if anything, they may be being harmed. There was an article by some Harvard professor that determined the aa bump has likely has caused something like 7,000 fewer lawyers to be produced than otherwise would have been thanks to people getting into schools they're not qualified for and washing out and people at the bottom never even getting the shot because the otherwise qualified non-URMs trickle down and wash them completely out.

If people are limited by the system, aren't they then "limited" much the same that people that are in poverty are "impoverished" people and people that are handicapped are "handicapped" people? Your point is more PC, mine is more direct. If anything, your point exposes your racist bent more than mine, as you're equating "limited" to URMs by reason of thinking it was racist on my part.

ok.

I'm pretty much over this discussion.  I hope that your achievements are well rewarded.

As I do yours.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 05:44:37 PM
It works, and that's the problem. What prevents a URM from working harder in college and on the LSAT? They have the same general abilities as non-URMs, so what's the problem? I'm not from an education rich area by any means, but myself and a few others got it together and moved on, so why not everyone else? You really can do most anything if you're willing to work for it.

At what point is the job done and the meritocracy takes back over? It's not like URMs are being kept out of the system anymore, now it's mostly do to self selection. And those that do get the boost aren't overly benefited, if anything, they may be being harmed. There was an article by some Harvard professor that determined the aa bump has likely has caused something like 7,000 fewer lawyers to be produced than otherwise would have been thanks to people getting into schools they're not qualified for and washing out and people at the bottom never even getting the shot because the otherwise qualified non-URMs trickle down and wash them completely out.

If people are limited by the system, aren't they then "limited" much the same that people that are in poverty are "impoverished" people and people that are handicapped are "handicapped" people? Your point is more PC, mine is more direct. If anything, your point exposes your racist bent more than mine, as you're equating "limited" to URMs by reason of thinking it was racist on my part.

ok.

I'm pretty much over this discussion.  I hope that your achievements are well rewarded.

As I do yours unless you're a URM and therefore didn't deserve a spot at your law school.

fixt.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 06:18:35 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 06:19:52 PM
Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity.  Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups.  So, several million years ago.  Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting.  Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

How would providing the same opportunity to people who may not otherwise be able to obtain it not work.

Re: ladder example.  If the ladder doesn't go all the way up, you can't use it to climb up.  Thus, we need a way to make sure that everyone is able to get to the same level the ladder goes to.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this.  We live in a meritocracy, yes, but its only part of the equation. 

Finally, people aren't "limited".  Society can, however, limit opportunity.  Try using it as verb next time, rather than an adjective, and maybe everyone who reads this won't think you're completely racist.    :!

Too late.

URM's are "working harder"...harder than you will ever know. Non- URM's are either too stupid to get it or are complete barbarians who continue to lie about the conditions URM's live under. It's one or the other. The alternative is to believe that we are inferior, which is really what they are saying.

Going to college with nothing to worry about except studying, playing handball and an occasional part-time pizza or barista gig is not the same thing as going to college as a typical Black or Mexican student.

Half of the time, u have attended grossly inferior schools, to begin with, putting you behind the eight-ball in terms of acclimation, whether u have performed well or not. Then, there are always administrators and professors with hidden agendas, namely to prove that u are undeserving of your admission to the school, so ur at a disadvantage academically, right out of the gate. Then there's the assimilation to the majority culture on white campuses, and the subtle racism that exists there. The sarchastic way in which financial aid officers and other administrators communicate with u (b/c of ur ethnicity) can take a toll on u.

Then there's ur home life, the one in which the majority of ur relatives have not gone to college expect you to deal with the typical distraction of hearing about a close death (family or friend), often by unnatural causes, at least once per month, work full-time or almost full-time, commute back and forth between ur messed up community and school, and babysit ur siblings and clean up the house when u get home, b/c u come from a single-parent home and ur mom cannot afford to hire a housecleaner or babysitter. This all happens before u crack ur books open.

On top of that, ur white and Asian peers, who assume u to be inferior, (from day one) shun u as a participator in group projects, so when in-class partnering happens or study-groups are formed, u are often one of the last students picked, if u are picked at all. Therefore, this diversity initiative, the one which resulted in ur admission (at least to a small degree), ironically, does not benefit u or the other students, who mostly flock to "their own".

Then, there's the classism within the Black and Mexican campus communities, which centers around the rich  or well-off Blacks and Latinos, the fraternities and sororities, and the athletes. The porrer ethnic students, unless they are exceptionally gorgeous females, typically are not invited to social events, and parties. Sure, they can join the BSU and attend meetings, but they certainly won't be riding to parties in joe-jock's BMW (the one his already NBA'd brother or former high-school teammate bought him) on Friday nights.

URM's...true URM's, not just people who have the skin color, are outcast from all of the sects on their campuses. And if they are left to fend for themselves academically and socially, while carrying the burdens of their home and home communities to their campus, while also dealing with the pressures of getting acclimated to being a "regular student" (after hailinmg from an inferior school system), those problems become heightened and distracting.

Big ups! to any URM who makes it...who gets through all the BS, makes the honor roll/dean's list, graduates with a B+ average or better, gets over a 150 LSAT and gets into to law school. These idiots who want to pretend things are equal, that we all have the same chances, that we live in a democracy, are either liars or barbarians. Even after 911, they still don't, as we say, "get it". 

They are born with natural advantages, and benefit from them every time they walk out of their homes. But, someday, they will be forced to get it. Count on that.

I love how comfortable you are lumping all white people together.  Add some qualifiers for goodness sakes.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 06:45:34 PM
So when does AA resentment cease? After they graduate from the school they were "un/underqualified" to attend? Or does it just follow them throughout their careers, since they shouldn't be in a position to take, let alone pass, the bar exam, be granted a license, get their cushy firm job (with the help of AA, of course) and practice law? How long will it take to get over it, move on and dictate your own future?

Then it becomes more of an agitation for those that MAY have received aa, even if they themselves didn't but could conceivably have. See Clarance Thomas' take on AA.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 06:46:14 PM
It works, and that's the problem. What prevents a URM from working harder in college and on the LSAT? They have the same general abilities as non-URMs, so what's the problem? I'm not from an education rich area by any means, but myself and a few others got it together and moved on, so why not everyone else? You really can do most anything if you're willing to work for it.

At what point is the job done and the meritocracy takes back over? It's not like URMs are being kept out of the system anymore, now it's mostly do to self selection. And those that do get the boost aren't overly benefited, if anything, they may be being harmed. There was an article by some Harvard professor that determined the aa bump has likely has caused something like 7,000 fewer lawyers to be produced than otherwise would have been thanks to people getting into schools they're not qualified for and washing out and people at the bottom never even getting the shot because the otherwise qualified non-URMs trickle down and wash them completely out.

If people are limited by the system, aren't they then "limited" much the same that people that are in poverty are "impoverished" people and people that are handicapped are "handicapped" people? Your point is more PC, mine is more direct. If anything, your point exposes your racist bent more than mine, as you're equating "limited" to URMs by reason of thinking it was racist on my part.

ok.

I'm pretty much over this discussion.  I hope that your achievements are well rewarded.

As I do yours unless you're a URM and therefore didn't deserve a spot at your law school.

fixt.

Your words, not mine.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 06:47:37 PM
They might be my words, but from reading this thread (and others), I don't doubt that's how you feel.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 06:47:40 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 06:52:59 PM
They might be my words, but from reading this thread (and others), I don't doubt that's how you feel.

I honestly don't give much of a *&^% one way or the other. If you earn your spot, great. If you get gifted your spot, whatever, you're still already in the door. I hold no malice towards anyone in particular, just the system in general.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 07:09:42 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 07:11:27 PM
They might be my words, but from reading this thread (and others), I don't doubt that's how you feel.

I honestly don't give much of a *&^% one way or the other. If you earn your spot, great. If you get gifted your spot, whatever, you're still already in the door. I hold no malice towards anyone in particular, just the system in general.

You might say that, but when, from the other side of your mouth, you say things like AA recipients are limited (amongst other gems), the connotative meaning skews closer to what I said.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 07:22:49 PM
So when does AA resentment cease? After they graduate from the school they were "un/underqualified" to attend? Or does it just follow them throughout their careers, since they shouldn't be in a position to take, let alone pass, the bar exam, be granted a license, get their cushy firm job (with the help of AA, of course) and practice law? How long will it take to get over it, move on and dictate your own future?

Then it becomes more of an agitation for those that MAY have received aa, even if they themselves didn't but could conceivably have. See Clarance Thomas' take on AA.

Um, no. I'm talking about resentment toward those who have benefited or could have benefited from AA, from those who could not benefit from it.

I don't think it's much worth worrying about after someone's already in or at lest graduated. That said, I do know a few people who seem leery of URM lawyers based on aa. I personally don't think it's a valid concern once they get the paper on the wall and pass the bar, but I suspect that outlook isn't representative of a large block of society.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 07:25:12 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

Thus bringing us back to the question of when is enough enough? How long will it take for aa to fix the problems caused by things well beyond its control, or how long until URM culture addresses the problems itself?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 07:33:23 PM
They might be my words, but from reading this thread (and others), I don't doubt that's how you feel.

I honestly don't give much of a *&^% one way or the other. If you earn your spot, great. If you get gifted your spot, whatever, you're still already in the door. I hold no malice towards anyone in particular, just the system in general.

You might say that, but when, from the other side of your mouth, you say things like AA recipients are limited (amongst other gems), the connotative meaning skews closer to what I said.

Again, a reading comp problem. I never said aa recipients are limited themselves (if anything, they're overly enabled), what I said is that a greater number of people are limited by society, some of which happen to get the aa bump and some of which don't. You (and others) keep inferring "limited" to equal "some sort of URM, probably black", which it does not.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 07:38:48 PM
Again, a reading comp problem. I never said aa recipients are limited themselves (if anything, they're overly enabled), what I said is that a greater number of people are limited by society, some of which happen to get the aa bump and some of which don't. You (and others) keep inferring "limited" to equal "some sort of URM, probably black", which it does not.

Perhaps a writing composition fail on your part?

Quote
But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

This really doesn't say what you think it says.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 08:11:45 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

Thus bringing us back to the question of when is enough enough? How long will it take for aa to fix the problems caused by things well beyond its control, or how long until URM culture addresses the problems itself?

Okay so you're conceding at that "getting over it" is not always appropriate, and should only be done when enough has actually been done?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 08:11:53 PM
Again, a reading comp problem. I never said aa recipients are limited themselves (if anything, they're overly enabled), what I said is that a greater number of people are limited by society, some of which happen to get the aa bump and some of which don't. You (and others) keep inferring "limited" to equal "some sort of URM, probably black", which it does not.

Perhaps a writing composition fail on your part?

Quote
But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

This really doesn't say what you think it says.

Nay. Reading comp problem. I mean, I guess it wasn't super-elementary or anything, so maybe that can count against me...

Did you even sort of read the preceding posts? "Limited", as being used here, was a reference to people artificially limited by society in some way. That can include, but is not limited to, URMs of all flavors, really any minority, poors, women, young white males theseadays, Mid-Westerners, Southerners, etc. Basically, "limited" can be applied to anyone that has been hosed on some occasion on account of something outside of their control. Rich, old, white males are about the only people that don't fit the definition, but I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find some legit gripe in most of their cases. Like I said, society limits everyone in some way all the time.

Personally, I don't think anyone is really, truly limited unless they have some sort of serious medical ailment. Society certainly screws people on a regular basis almost indiscriminatly, but without society, what do you even have anyway?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 08:21:35 PM
Nay. Reading comp problem. I mean, I guess it wasn't super-elementary or anything, so maybe that can count against me...

Did you even sort of read the preceding posts? "Limited", as being used here, was a reference to people artificially limited by society in some way. That can include, but is not limited to, URMs of all flavors, really any minority, poors, women, young white males theseadays, Mid-Westerners, Southerners, etc. Basically, "limited" can be applied to anyone that has been hosed on some occasion on account of something outside of their control. Rich, old, white males are about the only people that don't fit the definition, but I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find some legit gripe in most of their cases. Like I said, society limits everyone in some way all the time.

Personally, I don't think anyone is really, truly limited unless they have some sort of serious medical ailment. Society certainly screws people on a regular basis almost indiscriminatly, but without society, what do you even have anyway?

Yeah, I read all the prior posts and I still don't think that you're making your point clearly.  If you are mistaking clear writing with elementary school, then perhaps we've identified your fundamental problem (or at least one of them). 

Also, your definition of "limited" as quoted above is a fucktarded mess.  I can't even begin to deal with that, so I'll skip down to the last point.  When you say "Society certainly screws people on a regular basis almost indiscriminatly [sic]," you do realize that's basically false, right?  There certainly is a pretty sizable amount of discriminatory screwing going on in this country and AA is, in part, an attempt to address said screwing.  If you don't believe there is discriminatory screwing of people going on in this country, please just say so outright and I'll be sure to end the conversation.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

Thus bringing us back to the question of when is enough enough? How long will it take for aa to fix the problems caused by things well beyond its control, or how long until URM culture addresses the problems itself?

Okay so you're conceding at that "getting over it" is not always appropriate, and should only be done when enough has actually been done?

Interesting read of that post.

What I was saying is, how long do we continue to not get over it (discrimination and such) as a society by continuing aa, and how long until URM culture fixes its own unproductive value system and doesn't need aa anymore? Or, put another way, how much can aa do and how much does URM culture have to do for itself before real gains are made by URMs?

I'm still saying getting over it at some point is not only appropriate, but necessary. Yeah, that point is when enough has been done, but enough is usually done fairly quickly, especially in the case of the examples that got us on this topic way back about 5 pages ago.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 08:25:50 PM
Interesting read of that post.

What I was saying is, how long do we continue to not get over it (discrimination and such) as a society by continuing aa, and how long until URM culture fixes its own unproductive value system and doesn't need aa anymore? Or, put another way, how much can aa do and how much does URM culture have to do for itself before real gains are made by URMs?

I'm still saying getting over it at some point is not only appropriate, but necessary. Yeah, that point is when enough has been done, but enough is usually done fairly quickly, especially in the case of the examples that got us on this topic way back about 5 pages ago.

Perhaps it's difficult to just get over it when "discrimination and such" still exists today?

Or maybe AA will end when "discrimination and such" does?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: heartbreaker on March 29, 2009, 08:26:38 PM
Except the fundamental problems underlying negative race-based discrimination have NOT been resolved, nor are they really anywhere near being resolved. Until they are, or even until there is an earnest, honest, national effort to discuss, nevermind, correct these issues, the inequalities that necessitate affirmative action will continue to be perpetuated.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 29, 2009, 08:26:48 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

Thus bringing us back to the question of when is enough enough? How long will it take for aa to fix the problems caused by things well beyond its control, or how long until URM culture addresses the problems itself?

Okay so you're conceding at that "getting over it" is not always appropriate, and should only be done when enough has actually been done?

Interesting read of that post.

What I was saying is, how long do we continue to not get over it (discrimination and such) as a society by continuing aa, and how long until URM culture fixes its own unproductive value system and doesn't need aa anymore? Or, put another way, how much can aa do and how much does URM culture have to do for itself before real gains are made by URMs?

I'm still saying getting over it at some point is not only appropriate, but necessary. Yeah, that point is when enough has been done, but enough is usually done fairly quickly, especially in the case of the examples that got us on this topic way back about 5 pages ago.

Since you were willing to concede that getting over it is not the right course of action when enough has not been done, I'll concede that getting over it is the right course of action when enough has been done.  ;)

I think that was all I was going for here so I'll hand it back over to Buffy.  8)
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 08:29:27 PM
Nay. Reading comp problem. I mean, I guess it wasn't super-elementary or anything, so maybe that can count against me...

Did you even sort of read the preceding posts? "Limited", as being used here, was a reference to people artificially limited by society in some way. That can include, but is not limited to, URMs of all flavors, really any minority, poors, women, young white males theseadays, Mid-Westerners, Southerners, etc. Basically, "limited" can be applied to anyone that has been hosed on some occasion on account of something outside of their control. Rich, old, white males are about the only people that don't fit the definition, but I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find some legit gripe in most of their cases. Like I said, society limits everyone in some way all the time.

Personally, I don't think anyone is really, truly limited unless they have some sort of serious medical ailment. Society certainly screws people on a regular basis almost indiscriminatly, but without society, what do you even have anyway?

Yeah, I read all the prior posts and I still don't think that you're making your point clearly.  If you are mistaking clear writing with elementary school, then perhaps we've identified your fundamental problem (or at least one of them). 

Also, your definition of "limited" as quoted above is a fucktarded mess.  I can't even begin to deal with that, so I'll skip down to the last point.  When you say "Society certainly screws people on a regular basis almost indiscriminatly [sic]," you do realize that's basically false, right?  There certainly is a pretty sizable amount of discriminatory screwing going on in this country and AA is, in part, an attempt to address said screwing.  If you don't believe there is discriminatory screwing of people going on in this country, please just say so outright and I'll be sure to end the conversation.

Look at you with your [sic]. My quick misspelling is like how fucktard's a word. It's a bulletin board, not a court report.

Sorry for thinking most people on here have an education above 6th grade and a reading level to match, I'll try to keep that in mind.

Good to see you don't contest my definition of "limited".

I know there's plenty of discriminatory screwing over of people going on. All I'm saying is it cuts all ways, aa being a big part of it. How you've failed to realize that we're both bitching about people getting discriminated against is beyond me. I suppose if it's against whites, it's alright?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 08:30:49 PM
So people just need to get over it?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things.  If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future?  And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

So you think that racism is the fault of people who belong to racial minority groups.  Got it.

Way to overextend the car analogy, which was a poor analogy to begin with.

Unless you were saying "aa = a car wreck" from the very start, and even then...

Oh I wasn't saying anything about affirmative action.  I'm just pointing out that sometimes you let things go, sometimes you go back and address the problem. 

Thus bringing us back to the question of when is enough enough? How long will it take for aa to fix the problems caused by things well beyond its control, or how long until URM culture addresses the problems itself?

Okay so you're conceding at that "getting over it" is not always appropriate, and should only be done when enough has actually been done?

Interesting read of that post.

What I was saying is, how long do we continue to not get over it (discrimination and such) as a society by continuing aa, and how long until URM culture fixes its own unproductive value system and doesn't need aa anymore? Or, put another way, how much can aa do and how much does URM culture have to do for itself before real gains are made by URMs?

I'm still saying getting over it at some point is not only appropriate, but necessary. Yeah, that point is when enough has been done, but enough is usually done fairly quickly, especially in the case of the examples that got us on this topic way back about 5 pages ago.

Since you were willing to concede that getting over it is not the right course of action when enough has not been done, I'll concede that getting over it is the right course of action when enough has been done.  ;)

I think that was all I was going for here so I'll hand it back over to Buffy.  8)

Word enough. :)
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 08:32:58 PM
Interesting read of that post.

What I was saying is, how long do we continue to not get over it (discrimination and such) as a society by continuing aa, and how long until URM culture fixes its own unproductive value system and doesn't need aa anymore? Or, put another way, how much can aa do and how much does URM culture have to do for itself before real gains are made by URMs?

I'm still saying getting over it at some point is not only appropriate, but necessary. Yeah, that point is when enough has been done, but enough is usually done fairly quickly, especially in the case of the examples that got us on this topic way back about 5 pages ago.

Perhaps it's difficult to just get over it when "discrimination and such" still exists today?

Or maybe AA will end when "discrimination and such" does?

Discrimination has always and will always exist. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairy tale.

So 20 years from now, when you have 2 generations of pissed off whites on your hands and whites are no longer a majority, do the tables flip again?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Look at you with your [sic]. My quick misspelling is like how fucktard's a word. It's a bulletin board, not a court report.

Sorry for thinking most people on here have an education above 6th grade and a reading level to match, I'll try to keep that in mind.

Good to see you don't contest my definition of "limited".

I know there's plenty of discriminatory screwing over of people going on. All I'm saying is it cuts all ways, aa being a big part of it. How you've failed to realize that we're both bitching about people getting discriminated against is beyond me. I suppose if it's against whites, it's alright?

1. You're seriously, disgracefully dumb sometimes.  I mean, if we're going to play the dozens, that's all well and good...but don't tell someone they have a 6th grade reading level and then be an utter spelling/grammar failure yourself. 

2. Who said it was OK to discriminate against anyone?  This is you projecting your (incorrect) opinion about beliefs of URMs. 

3. I fundamentally disagree that AA is about discrimination.  And given your earlier jihad in this thread (and others) about how URMs just need to suck it up and deal with the hard knocks of life, it's surprising that you don't understand that perhaps complainers (like yourself) should just suck it up and deal with AA, at least for now.


Discrimination has always and will always exist. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairy tale.

So 20 years from now, when you have 2 generations of pissed off whites on your hands and whites are no longer a majority, do the tables flip again?

No.  It's not about who gets more pissed or which population is bigger.  You do understand that the "U" in URM stands for "underrepresented," right?  In fact, I'd argue that, in 20 years, if whites are no longer a majority of the population but continue to comprise the majority of admitted students to college and law school (in addition to having most of the executive decision-making power), this is actually a stronger argument for AA. 
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 09:31:16 PM
Look at you with your [sic]. My quick misspelling is like how fucktard's a word. It's a bulletin board, not a court report.

Sorry for thinking most people on here have an education above 6th grade and a reading level to match, I'll try to keep that in mind.

Good to see you don't contest my definition of "limited".

I know there's plenty of discriminatory screwing over of people going on. All I'm saying is it cuts all ways, aa being a big part of it. How you've failed to realize that we're both bitching about people getting discriminated against is beyond me. I suppose if it's against whites, it's alright?

1. You're seriously, disgracefully dumb sometimes.  I mean, if we're going to play the dozens, that's all well and good...but don't tell someone they have a 6th grade reading level and then be an utter spelling/grammar failure yourself. 

2. Who said it was OK to discriminate against anyone?  This is you projecting your (incorrect) opinion about beliefs of URMs. 

3. I fundamentally disagree that AA is about discrimination.  And given your earlier jihad in this thread (and others) about how URMs just need to suck it up and deal with the hard knocks of life, it's surprising that you don't understand that perhaps complainers (like yourself) should just suck it up and deal with AA, at least for now.


Discrimination has always and will always exist. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairy tale.

So 20 years from now, when you have 2 generations of pissed off whites on your hands and whites are no longer a majority, do the tables flip again?

No.  It's not about who gets more pissed or which population is bigger.  You do understand that the "U" in URM stands for "underrepresented," right?  In fact, I'd argue that, in 20 years, if whites are no longer a majority of the population but continue to comprise the majority of admitted students to college and law school (in addition to having most of the executive decision-making power), this is actually a stronger argument for AA. 

Utter spelling failure... one word in about, @#!*, let's just guess 5,000 today. Poor flame attempt.

Arguing for aa is arguing for discrimination at some level. It's like how wine people have a "discriminating taste" because they pick some kinds over others. Discrimination can be both positive (we'll take the black kids) and negative (we won't take the black kids).

As to aa being or not being about discrimination, see above. So we should just deal with some level of discrimination? Until...?

I get the U in URM thing, but that just serves to further my point. I agree, the argument can be made for more aa down the line using the above, but that still isn't going to address the problem. Blacks and Latinos aren't held back by white people (anymore) and haven't been in at least a generation. Yet, despite all the aa, they're still not getting ahead and, if anything, are falling further behind. AA isn't the silver bullet to fix this problem, it's the garden hose for the forest fire. A serious internal dialog for the aforementioned cultures, on the other hand, is probably going to be the only viable answer. Only when they stop promoting counter-productive cultural values and start promoting productive ones can they fix the problem for themselves. Asians and (though not a racial group) Jews are both very small segments of the society, both groups have historically been discriminated against very hard, yet both groups surpass everyone else in academic achievement and general productivity because their cultures promote useful, productive values. I used to think NA Indians had a legit claim for aa (given that whole genocide thing), more than anyone else, but now I'm starting to think the same as above applies to them.

I do believe aa had a place once upon a time, but that time is long gone and now, all it's doing is causing us to waste time here.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Jamie Stringer on March 29, 2009, 09:43:19 PM
As to aa being or not being about discrimination, see above. So we should just deal with some level of discrimination? Until...?

I get the U in URM thing, but that just serves to further my point. I agree, the argument can be made for more aa down the line using the above, but that still isn't going to address the problem. Blacks and Latinos aren't held back by white people (anymore) and haven't been in at least a generation. Yet, despite all the aa, they're still not getting ahead and, if anything, are falling further behind. AA isn't the silver bullet to fix this problem, it's the garden hose for the forest fire. A serious internal dialog for the aforementioned cultures, on the other hand, is probably going to be the only viable answer. Only when they stop promoting counter-productive cultural values and start promoting productive ones can they fix the problem for themselves. Asians and (though not a racial group) Jews are both very small segments of the society, both groups have historically been discriminated against very hard, yet both groups surpass everyone else in academic achievement and general productivity because their cultures promote useful, productive values. I used to think NA Indians had a legit claim for aa (given that whole genocide thing), more than anyone else, but now I'm starting to think the same as above applies to them.

I do believe aa had a place once upon a time, but that time is long gone and now, all it's doing is causing us to waste time here.

1.  The bolded doesn't jibe with this quote:

Discrimination has always and will always exist. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairy tale.

So really, it seems that your problem is that AA is a form of discrimination that you don't like and that doesn't benefit you.  Well, get over it.  I mean, if it's always going to exist, then why not AA as opposed to, say, disparate funding in public schools, systemic failings of communities of color, etc?

2. The italicized is patently false, at least with respect to Asians as an entire group.  I agree that East Asians as a general population have done exceedingly well, educationally.  Yet there are whole communities within the "Asian" category for which this doesn't hold -- many Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Hmong communities (not to mention Pacific Islanders who are usually lumped into that broad category) have significant barriers to academic achievement and, in fact, lag substantially behind East Asians.

3. It also seems like the italicized is saying that Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American cultures don't promote useful, productive values.  I certainly hope this isn't the case.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 29, 2009, 10:26:30 PM
As to aa being or not being about discrimination, see above. So we should just deal with some level of discrimination? Until...?

I get the U in URM thing, but that just serves to further my point. I agree, the argument can be made for more aa down the line using the above, but that still isn't going to address the problem. Blacks and Latinos aren't held back by white people (anymore) and haven't been in at least a generation. Yet, despite all the aa, they're still not getting ahead and, if anything, are falling further behind. AA isn't the silver bullet to fix this problem, it's the garden hose for the forest fire. A serious internal dialog for the aforementioned cultures, on the other hand, is probably going to be the only viable answer. Only when they stop promoting counter-productive cultural values and start promoting productive ones can they fix the problem for themselves. Asians and (though not a racial group) Jews are both very small segments of the society, both groups have historically been discriminated against very hard, yet both groups surpass everyone else in academic achievement and general productivity because their cultures promote useful, productive values. I used to think NA Indians had a legit claim for aa (given that whole genocide thing), more than anyone else, but now I'm starting to think the same as above applies to them.

I do believe aa had a place once upon a time, but that time is long gone and now, all it's doing is causing us to waste time here.

1.  The bolded doesn't jibe with this quote:

Discrimination has always and will always exist. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairy tale.

So really, it seems that your problem is that AA is a form of discrimination that you don't like and that doesn't benefit you.  Well, get over it.  I mean, if it's always going to exist, then why not AA as opposed to, say, disparate funding in public schools, systemic failings of communities of color, etc?

2. The italicized is patently false, at least with respect to Asians as an entire group.  I agree that East Asians as a general population have done exceedingly well, educationally.  Yet there are whole communities within the "Asian" category for which this doesn't hold -- many Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Hmong communities (not to mention Pacific Islanders who are usually lumped into that broad category) have significant barriers to academic achievement and, in fact, lag substantially behind East Asians.

3. It also seems like the italicized is saying that Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American cultures don't promote useful, productive values.  I certainly hope this isn't the case.

1. K? I have no problem with the fact I don't benefit from aa. I still landed where I want to be and it just means I need to work a little harder. In fact, I suspect the opposite; you argue for it because you are benefited by it. I mean, I don't know what you're GPA looks like, but that's a pretty good cycle for just a 171 (not that there's anything marginal about a 171, but your results certainly exceed what one should expect).

Discrimination against everyone is always going to exist, black, white, latino, and everyone else. What I'm saying is that aa seems to be predicated on the belief that we can wipe out discrimination over time by getting URMs into good positions, which is simply not the case.

2. Asians as a group stomp. I agree some segments don't, but as a whole, they do. Hence the lack of aa love for Asians. Large segments of the white community suck, but on the whole, the group still does good enough to be systemically discriminated against at all levels of society yet still maintain a marked advantage in terms of achievement.

3. The above don't promote useful, productive values by and large, and that's the main problem. Yeah, some parents and communities buck the trend, but most don't. As soon as blacks and latinos stop killing each other and being incarcerated at absurdly high levels compared to whites and asians, you might see some progress. NAs are stuck in more self destructive trends, though they seem to be slowly reversing that.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Who? on March 30, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
I'm not going to address how utterly insulting your post is as a whole, but rather, just point out a few flaws to you.

1. Poverty causes crime. Since minorities are disproportionately poorer than whites, they commit more crimes. They are not taught by their mommies and daddies that killing others is ok. This leads me to:

2. Although people like to throw around the phrase "meritocracy," it is actually rare in this country for people to advance their class status. Most people stay at the same level or do worse than their parents did. Thus, since blacks were poor when they were freed from slavery, it would follow that their children would be poor too. A cycle of poverty then develops...
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on March 30, 2009, 10:20:28 PM
I'm not going to address how utterly insulting your post is as a whole, but rather, just point out a few flaws to you.

1. Poverty causes crime. Since minorities are disproportionately poorer than whites, they commit more crimes. They are not taught by their mommies and daddies that killing others is ok. This leads me to:

2. Although people like to throw around the phrase "meritocracy," it is actually rare in this country for people to advance their class status. Most people stay at the same level or do worse than their parents did. Thus, since blacks were poor when they were freed from slavery, it would follow that their children would be poor too. A cycle of poverty then develops...

Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 30, 2009, 11:59:53 PM
desperation causes crime?
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 31, 2009, 01:35:49 AM
I'm not going to address how utterly insulting your post is as a whole, but rather, just point out a few flaws to you.

1. Poverty causes crime. Since minorities are disproportionately poorer than whites, they commit more crimes. They are not taught by their mommies and daddies that killing others is ok. This leads me to:

2. Although people like to throw around the phrase "meritocracy," it is actually rare in this country for people to advance their class status. Most people stay at the same level or do worse than their parents did. Thus, since blacks were poor when they were freed from slavery, it would follow that their children would be poor too. A cycle of poverty then develops...

Consider it insulting if you want. That's really the main cause of the problem. There's a difference between something being insulting and being honest but painful, and until the aforementioned communities realize that, the problem will perpetuate itself. 

1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 31, 2009, 01:36:51 AM
desperation causes crime?

No more than poverty causes crime.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mugatu on March 31, 2009, 02:22:16 AM
1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

ok, now that's just racist.  not even "kind of" racist.  just plain racist.

furthermore, other minority groups in the US have not had to deal with institutional racism, which ended not so long ago (probably less than 2-3 generations!  even!), let alone societal racism which stopped...oh, wait.  it hasn't.  as exemplified by you.

Seriously dude.  you make everyone look bad.  and give lawdog's rants some basis in reality.  ffs
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: bl825 on March 31, 2009, 06:04:29 AM
I know I said that I was done here, but it's hard to stay away given what's being said.  :(
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Ninja1 on March 31, 2009, 03:02:18 PM
1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

ok, now that's just racist.  not even "kind of" racist.  just plain racist.

furthermore, other minority groups in the US have not had to deal with institutional racism, which ended not so long ago (probably less than 2-3 generations!  even!), let alone societal racism which stopped...oh, wait.  it hasn't.  as exemplified by you.

Seriously dude.  you make everyone look bad.  and give lawdog's rants some basis in reality.  ffs

Call it racist if you want, it still doesn't make it any less true.

I've already pointed out (some number of pages ago) that the disenfranchisement of blacks until the 1960s or '70s (depending on your perspective) is the best argument for why blacks are still down. Previous poster tried to make it about slavery, so I addressed that instead.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 01, 2009, 11:30:16 AM
1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

ok, now that's just racist.  not even "kind of" racist.  just plain racist.

furthermore, other minority groups in the US have not had to deal with institutional racism, which ended not so long ago (probably less than 2-3 generations!  even!), let alone societal racism which stopped...oh, wait.  it hasn't.  as exemplified by you.

Seriously dude.  you make everyone look bad.  and give lawdog's rants some basis in reality.  ffs

Call it racist if you want, it still doesn't make it any less true.

I've already pointed out (some number of pages ago) that the disenfranchisement of blacks until the 1960s or '70s (depending on your perspective) is the best argument for why blacks are still down. Previous poster tried to make it about slavery, so I addressed that instead.

No, I think it is probably beyond dispute that lack of wealth, education and power among African Americans can be traced back to slavery. Building wealth and power is generational (meaning acquired over time) and comparative (meaning poor or rich is only relevant compared to some other group). Given the "head start" whites have been given, it is pretty remarkable, in my opinion, that there are so many Blacks have been able to gain power, wealth and education in this country. It probably has something to do with the liberal policies giving "unqualified blacks" opportunity. ;)

And sure, other minorities have come poor to this country, but tell me another group in this country that has had to deal with the institutional racism that has consistently been perpetuated against Blacks in the United States? Being poor is one thing. Getting out of slavery, only to move to sharecropping then having a reconstruction period in which rights are given to you only to have it taken all away soon after is another. Then not being allowed to borrow money or go to college or vote or run for office is another. Then to have groups spawn with the direct purpose to intimidate you from moving forward and to kill you if you do is another. Then to have scientific leaders constantly perpetuate research that you are inferior intellectually is another. The to have a system of legalized segregation is another. Then to be constantly told that your plight is your own fault is another. Think about it...most blacks are poor ON TOP of all this excess BS that they've had to deal with.

Yes, America is amazing. I love this country with all my heart and I do think that African Americans should, as a group, take more personal responsibility in remedying their situation. BUT, if you think that Blacks don't have a legitimate gripe with the way things are right now or have a justification in supporting programs that are redistributive in nature, then you're clearly delusional.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: mbw on April 01, 2009, 11:45:57 AM
1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

ok, now that's just racist.  not even "kind of" racist.  just plain racist.

furthermore, other minority groups in the US have not had to deal with institutional racism, which ended not so long ago (probably less than 2-3 generations!  even!), let alone societal racism which stopped...oh, wait.  it hasn't.  as exemplified by you.

Seriously dude.  you make everyone look bad.  and give lawdog's rants some basis in reality.  ffs

Call it racist if you want, it still doesn't make it any less true.

I've already pointed out (some number of pages ago) that the disenfranchisement of blacks until the 1960s or '70s (depending on your perspective) is the best argument for why blacks are still down. Previous poster tried to make it about slavery, so I addressed that instead.

No, I think it is probably beyond dispute that lack of wealth, education and power among African Americans can be traced back to slavery. Building wealth and power is generational (meaning acquired over time) and comparative (meaning poor or rich is only relevant compared to some other group). Given the "head start" whites have been given, it is pretty remarkable, in my opinion, that there are so many Blacks have been able to gain power, wealth and education in this country. It probably has something to do with the liberal policies giving "unqualified blacks" opportunity. ;)

And sure, other minorities have come poor to this country, but tell me another group in this country that has had to deal with the institutional racism that has consistently been perpetuated against Blacks in the United States? Being poor is one thing. Getting out of slavery, only to move to sharecropping then having a reconstruction period in which rights are given to you only to have it taken all away soon after is another. Then not being allowed to borrow money or go to college or vote or run for office is another. Then to have groups spawn with the direct purpose to intimidate you from moving forward and to kill you if you do is another. Then to have scientific leaders constantly perpetuate research that you are inferior intellectually is another. The to have a system of legalized segregation is another. Then to be constantly told that your plight is your own fault is another. Think about it...most blacks are poor ON TOP of all this excess BS that they've had to deal with.

Yes, America is amazing. I love this country with all my heart and I do think that African Americans should, as a group, take more personal responsibility in remedying their situation. BUT, if you think that Blacks don't have a legitimate gripe with the way things are right now or have a justification in supporting programs that are redistributive in nature, then you're clearly delusional.

Sorry, A., but I'm calling you on this one. Yes, African Americans had to deal with slavery, but we Indians not only had all of our land and resources taken, but were subject to 400+ years of outright genocide and forced assimilation.  And, yeah, we suffer the consequences of it every effing day.  I have no problem with affirmative action policies for African Americans - but it's pretty clear in law school admissions (as well as many other venues) that NDNs get no where near the same attention/assistance that African Americans do, despite our (per-capita) much worse conditions, and the historic implications of colonization and genocide.  Oh, and slavery too.  We had to deal with that as well.  So if it's all about "righting past wrongs", why are we so forgotten? 

Just sayin'.  Carry on, however, with your proper thrashing of Ninja.  Just keep the above in mind when making such blanket statements.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on April 01, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

ok, now that's just racist.  not even "kind of" racist.  just plain racist.

furthermore, other minority groups in the US have not had to deal with institutional racism, which ended not so long ago (probably less than 2-3 generations!  even!), let alone societal racism which stopped...oh, wait.  it hasn't.  as exemplified by you.

Seriously dude.  you make everyone look bad.  and give lawdog's rants some basis in reality.  ffs

Call it racist if you want, it still doesn't make it any less true.

I've already pointed out (some number of pages ago) that the disenfranchisement of blacks until the 1960s or '70s (depending on your perspective) is the best argument for why blacks are still down. Previous poster tried to make it about slavery, so I addressed that instead.

No, I think it is probably beyond dispute that lack of wealth, education and power among African Americans can be traced back to slavery. Building wealth and power is generational (meaning acquired over time) and comparative (meaning poor or rich is only relevant compared to some other group). Given the "head start" whites have been given, it is pretty remarkable, in my opinion, that there are so many Blacks have been able to gain power, wealth and education in this country. It probably has something to do with the liberal policies giving "unqualified blacks" opportunity. ;)

And sure, other minorities have come poor to this country, but tell me another group in this country that has had to deal with the institutional racism that has consistently been perpetuated against Blacks in the United States? Being poor is one thing. Getting out of slavery, only to move to sharecropping then having a reconstruction period in which rights are given to you only to have it taken all away soon after is another. Then not being allowed to borrow money or go to college or vote or run for office is another. Then to have groups spawn with the direct purpose to intimidate you from moving forward and to kill you if you do is another. Then to have scientific leaders constantly perpetuate research that you are inferior intellectually is another. The to have a system of legalized segregation is another. Then to be constantly told that your plight is your own fault is another. Think about it...most blacks are poor ON TOP of all this excess BS that they've had to deal with.

Yes, America is amazing. I love this country with all my heart and I do think that African Americans should, as a group, take more personal responsibility in remedying their situation. BUT, if you think that Blacks don't have a legitimate gripe with the way things are right now or have a justification in supporting programs that are redistributive in nature, then you're clearly delusional.

Sorry, A., but I'm calling you on this one. Yes, African Americans had to deal with slavery, but we Indians not only had all of our land and resources taken, but were subject to 400+ years of outright genocide and forced assimilation.  And, yeah, we suffer the consequences of it every effing day.  I have no problem with affirmative action policies for African Americans - but it's pretty clear in law school admissions (as well as many other venues) that NDNs get no where near the same attention/assistance that African Americans do, despite our (per-capita) much worse conditions, and the historic implications of colonization and genocide.  Oh, and slavery too.  We had to deal with that as well.  So if it's all about "righting past wrongs", why are we so forgotten? 

Just sayin'.  Carry on, however, with your proper thrashing of Ninja.  Just keep the above in mind when making such blanket statements.

Native Americans were already here. They didn't "come" to this country. :) But yes, you are correct, I can see how my post seems to undermine the plight of NA. Good call.

And I'm not A.
Title: Re: challenge to urm's
Post by: LawDog3 on April 04, 2009, 02:29:17 PM
You know, the discussions (in this day in age) about the implications of slavery really obscure the problems black Americans have dealt with. people love to bring up slavery b/c it seems so long ago, and that gives them amunition to say, "Hey, why can't you just get over it? That was a long time ago, and I didn't do it, neither did my family or anyone I know.'

Truth is, today's Blacks couldn't and shouldn't care less about slavery. WE WERE NOT SLAVES. What I care about is the stuff that happened after the slaves were SUPPOSED to be FREE, and the stuff that still happens today (1865-2009). I care about that platform in Oakland, where an unarmed Black man was gunned down by a cop. I care about James Byrd getting dragged behind a truck until his eyes popped out. I care about what haapened last summer when I was discriminated against when i applied for a job.

I care about the fact that I am currently suing a former landlord for discrimination (the key offenders were fired from their jobs, in hopes that it might curtail our suit). And t the time my biggot landlord was discriminating against my girlfriend and me ("ME" not "I"), I had been preparing law school applications.

She hindered all of that. I could not take the LSAT, I didn't finish my essays, and I had to move in the middle of it all due to her harrassment. That's the kind of stuff we deal with today, that takes a toll on us as Blacks.   

As for Indians? We could go back and forth all day about who has it worse. Forget Chris Rock's remarks about the Indians having it worse than Blacks...that bull. Moreover, over 60% of African-Americans have some Indian heritage in their background, so we are not separate. Yet, those same Blacks don't get benefits from the BIA...must be nice getting a $700 check tax-free every month. I'm 1/4 Blackfoot Indian and I get nothing because I am not a member of a tribe.

Both groups have caught hell, and it's not in the past. it's yesterday, today, and tomorrow...the "here and now" is what we are talking about.