Asian-American Student Has Near-Perfect 1590 out of 1600 SAT Score and a 4.65 GPA, Gets Ugly Shock After Applications to Elite Universities

Except the statements are NOT racist in nature. That’s your convoluted reaction to statements that differ from yours - hence your unwillingness to accept diversity of thought or opinion.
It isn’t my reaction to statements. It’s those statements themselves.

Common racist canards include:


Black people are mentally inferior and culturally unevolved. You have stated the first on more than one occasion. On second, I don’t know where you stand but Hector has certainly said plenty on it.

Black people are naturally better athletes (kind of feeds into the all brawn, no brain stereotype, the Black “Buck” stereotype). Not only is it not true but it negates the hard work, dedication and practice needed to be a good athlete AND it is kind of like a gratuitous commendation for not being recognized as “intellectual”.

What we're looking at here in the best athletes is essentially occupational overrepresentation. There are a lot of reasons why people are attracted to sports as a vocation. For example, in boxing, there's an overrepresentation of blacks. There's also an overrepresentation of Hispanics in boxing. It's a consequence of the opportunities open to the particular group in question. And where most avenues to upward mobility are closed to you, you're going to gravitate to something that seems just as low a probability of success as anything else. If other venues are open to you, that don't involve getting beaten up on a regular basis, you're probably more likely to take those.

When we look at the general issue of occupational overrepresentation, as evidence of genetic superiority, we're kind of left with the promise of Irish policeman yielding Irish police genes, and Jewish comedians being the result of Jewish comedy genes, and Chinese laundry genes, which, of course, is ridiculous. The point of all this is that there are a lot of reasons why people are attracted to certain professions and certain occupations and certain things to do with their lives. Only one of which is that they have some sort of natural ability for it.


While these are not a racist trope, they are striking.

The level of outrage you you feel when you think Blacks (and no one else) are perceived as being “over represented” in anything.

The way you are unwilling to consider that a Black person may have earned a position (or acceptance into every Ivy League school) on merit, but don’t apply that to other groups covered under AA like White women.

Some of the worst racist tropes (which I have not heard from you) are ones like the idea Black people feel less pain than White people, which has effects today in how the way people are treated in medicine. It also illustrates the need for more doctors who are minorities.


Consider the way you (and others) have used race as a wedge to pit one race (you consider superior) against another (which you consider inferior)


Sullivan's piece, rife with generalizations about a group as vastly diverse as Asian-Americans, rightfully raised hackles. Not only inaccurate, his piece spreads the idea that Asian-Americans as a group are monolithic, even though parsing data by ethnicity reveals a host of disparities; for example, Bhutanese-Americans have far higher rates of poverty than other Asian populations, like Japanese-Americans. And at the root of Sullivan's pernicious argument is the idea that black failure and Asian success cannot be explained by inequities and racism, and that they are one and the same; this allows a segment of white America to avoid any responsibility for addressing racism or the damage it continues to inflict.

"Sullivan's comments showcase a classic and tenacious conservative strategy," Janelle Wong, the director of Asian American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an email. This strategy, she said, involves "1) ignoring the role that selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants has played in Asian American success followed by 2) making a flawed comparison between Asian Americans and other groups, particularly Black Americans, to argue that racism, including more than two centuries of black enslavement, can be overcome by hard work and strong family values."

These arguments falsely conflate anti-Asian racism with anti-black racism, according to Kim. "Racism that Asian-Americans have experienced is not what black people have experienced," Kim said. "Sullivan is right that Asians have faced various forms of discrimination, but never the systematic dehumanization that black people have faced during slavery and continue to face today." Asians have been barred from entering the U.S. and gaining citizenship and have been sent to incarceration camps, Kim pointed out, but all that is different than the segregation, police brutality and discrimination that African-Americans have endured.


So are your statements racist? Is it a big chip on your shoulder?

And why is it you can call out people for being antisemitic but not racist?
 
Calling all internet tough asses and keyboard warriors! We have some rooms downstairs where you can duke it out to the sounds of Led Zeppelin, prizes awarded for creativity and the most spectacular fails! USMB will even provide complimentary super hero costumes.

Everyone gets a participation trophy! :)
 
It isn’t my reaction to statements. It’s those statements themselves.

Common racist canards include:


Black people are mentally inferior and culturally unevolved. You have stated the first on more than one occasion. On second, I don’t know where you stand but Hector has certainly said plenty on it.

Black people are naturally better athletes (kind of feeds into the all brawn, no brain stereotype, the Black “Buck” stereotype). Not only is it not true but it negates the hard work, dedication and practice needed to be a good athlete AND it is kind of like a gratuitous commendation for not being recognized as “intellectual”.

What we're looking at here in the best athletes is essentially occupational overrepresentation. There are a lot of reasons why people are attracted to sports as a vocation. For example, in boxing, there's an overrepresentation of blacks. There's also an overrepresentation of Hispanics in boxing. It's a consequence of the opportunities open to the particular group in question. And where most avenues to upward mobility are closed to you, you're going to gravitate to something that seems just as low a probability of success as anything else. If other venues are open to you, that don't involve getting beaten up on a regular basis, you're probably more likely to take those.

When we look at the general issue of occupational overrepresentation, as evidence of genetic superiority, we're kind of left with the promise of Irish policeman yielding Irish police genes, and Jewish comedians being the result of Jewish comedy genes, and Chinese laundry genes, which, of course, is ridiculous. The point of all this is that there are a lot of reasons why people are attracted to certain professions and certain occupations and certain things to do with their lives. Only one of which is that they have some sort of natural ability for it.


While these are not a racist trope, they are striking.

The level of outrage you you feel when you think Blacks (and no one else) are perceived as being “over represented” in anything.

The way you are unwilling to consider that a Black person may have earned a position (or acceptance into every Ivy League school) on merit, but don’t apply that to other groups covered under AA like White women.

Some of the worst racist tropes (which I have not heard from you) are ones like the idea Black people feel less pain than White people, which has effects today in how the way people are treated in medicine. It also illustrates the need for more doctors who are minorities.


Consider the way you (and others) have used race as a wedge to pit one race (you consider superior) against another (which you consider inferior)


Sullivan's piece, rife with generalizations about a group as vastly diverse as Asian-Americans, rightfully raised hackles. Not only inaccurate, his piece spreads the idea that Asian-Americans as a group are monolithic, even though parsing data by ethnicity reveals a host of disparities; for example, Bhutanese-Americans have far higher rates of poverty than other Asian populations, like Japanese-Americans. And at the root of Sullivan's pernicious argument is the idea that black failure and Asian success cannot be explained by inequities and racism, and that they are one and the same; this allows a segment of white America to avoid any responsibility for addressing racism or the damage it continues to inflict.

"Sullivan's comments showcase a classic and tenacious conservative strategy," Janelle Wong, the director of Asian American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an email. This strategy, she said, involves "1) ignoring the role that selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants has played in Asian American success followed by 2) making a flawed comparison between Asian Americans and other groups, particularly Black Americans, to argue that racism, including more than two centuries of black enslavement, can be overcome by hard work and strong family values."

These arguments falsely conflate anti-Asian racism with anti-black racism, according to Kim. "Racism that Asian-Americans have experienced is not what black people have experienced," Kim said. "Sullivan is right that Asians have faced various forms of discrimination, but never the systematic dehumanization that black people have faced during slavery and continue to face today." Asians have been barred from entering the U.S. and gaining citizenship and have been sent to incarceration camps, Kim pointed out, but all that is different than the segregation, police brutality and discrimination that African-Americans have endured.


So are your statements racist? Is it a big chip on your shoulder?

And why is it you can call out people for being antisemitic but not racist?
Yup…..great way of showing other posters how you are willing to have diversity of opinion.

Now go find someone else to pick on with even half the fervor you’ve demonstrated toward me. There are a LOT of pretty blatant posts and threads denigrating blacks, and for some reason you skip right over them and zero in on me.

Now go fight some actual racists.
 
I suspect that homogeneous work groups tend to perform better than heterogeneous work groups. I know that work groups work better when the members like each other, when they like the boss, and the boss likes them. I think this is more likely to be true for people of the same races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

I think homogenous work groups are going to be less creative and innovative, which makes sense.

I also think coworkers can like each other regardless of different backgrounds and respect their contributions.


Mine is a hypothesis that can be tested. I would like for it to be tested.

At any rate, I see no benefit in lowering objective standards of excellence for blacks. If blacks want to be accepted by whites in a group they will need to perform and behave as well as the whites.

If there is to be diversity there must be no diversity of merit, excellence, and qualifications.
Merit can be determined in many ways.
 
With a 37% black population

If there were no blacks in mississippi the state would be as crime free as Iowa or Utah
If I had said that, Coyote would have written a 500-word rant accusing me of racism. You get a calm, one-word response of disagreement.
 
Yup…..great way of showing other posters how you are willing to have diversity of opinion.

Now go find someone else to pick on with even half the fervor you’ve demonstrated toward me. There are a LOT of pretty blatant posts and threads denigrating blacks, and for some reason you skip right over them and zero in on me.

Now go fight some actual racists.
He is dealing with one right now.
 
In The Bell Curve Professor Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray

Do you know when I can tell you don't have a counter argument, Grand Kleagle.

It's why you repost some rote garbage from Murray or some other discredited racist.

How about addressing my point, if you want to hire on merit, how do you get rid of all the Idiot Nephews, Drinking Buddies and Side Chicks who get into management or supervisory positions?

You didn't even get ANYWHERE NEAR addressing that point.
 

Forum List

Back
Top