What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[luiz]

As I said to Manfred, above, it's pretty easy to claim what is or isn't "severe" if you're not affected by it. To your example about discrimination towards Asian Americans, the Googling I did returns a lot of hits for affirmative action and how Trump has weaponised that for votes. It doesn't state that the Democrats are explicitly preventing Asian Americans from overcoming discrimination, which is your phrasing here. An example for the thread.

If you meant something else, feel free to provide it, but cherrypicking examples like this to attempt a gotcha about Democrat voting tendencies doesn't help you either. And typically, a lot of left-wing folks have criticisms of the Democrats (as they are, in general, a centre-right party in most of the rest of the world) as well as Republicans. That isn't to say people don't have criticism for Democrats, it's just that America is increasingly screwed by its two-party system that forces people to vote for what they believe to be the lesser evil. And I include voters for both parties, and independents, in this mix. But if you can't accept criticism of a party, then that is normally, likely, for partisan reasons. You don't have to do much to convince me that the Democrats make large and obvious mistakes, or that specific Democratic candidates are bad news. But apparently, I have to do a lot of work to even get the slightest admittance that Republicans do bad things, both individually and as a party.

You can vote for who you want. Just don't pretend that that vote doesn't come with consequences, that you have chosen to accept for the sake of that vote.

Well it's simple. It's pretty well established and demonstrated that Asian-Americans face discrimination when applying to competitive colleges in the US due to Affirmative Action policies which Democrats typically support. If you take two hypothetical guys, José and Xi, with the exact same background - poor immigrant parents from poor countries, struggled in the US, managed to save enough through hard work to send their kid to a competitive college - only changing the country their parents come from, Xi will have a much higher bar to get admitted into an elite college than José. Basically Xi pays the price of so many people of his "race" being academically successful, as elite colleges in the US bundle people by "race". You can sugarcoat it anyway you want - supporters of this farce always do - but this is racial discrimination pure and simple. And I say this as someone named Luiz. Anyone who supports this is supporting racial discrimination, and this is happening in the US right now, and it's legal. Given the number of people this affects and the stakes, this is a much bigger issue than preventing trans people from joining the military. There are far, far, FAR more Asian Americans who'd like to go to a competitive college than trans people who'd like to join the Army. It is also far more offensive as a discrimination practice to the average human being: while trans people are unfortunately still barred from the armed forces of virtually all countries in the world, the sort of racial discrimination that legally goes on in US colleges against Asians is seen abhorrent and is completely illegal virtually everywhere else.

According to your previous logic, voting for a candidate that supports discrimination is always bad no matter what. This means that voting for the vast majority of Democratic candidates is bad under your logic - that I disagree with. I would rather vote for Hillary or Biden, both of which support this continued discrimination, than Trump, who opposes it. Because there are other issues at stake, and just shouting BUT THIS IS DISCRIMINATION!!, while technically correct, doesn't really win any argument. Same with trans in the military. It's discrimination, yes, but it's minor in the face of countless other issues and thus votes can reasonably vote for someone who supports this discrimination while still disagreeing with it, if on other more important positions there is agreement.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think the entire theoretical construct of borrowing library books is so far removed from everything raised in this thread, it's a struggle to relate it to the topic at hand. Certainly, I think if that's your comparison to a marginalised minority being discriminated out of military service, I think you're unfairly trivialising said discrimination.

It was an example... two forms of discrimination where one is (hopefully) obviously worse than the other one. It was a counter to your claim that ranking different forms of discrimination in terms of "badness" is inherently problematic and refusing to even engage with the idea, because I don't think you'd have a problem ranking those two at all. It's not complicated and honestly I think you're just playing games now by pretending that you can't see how it's related, and acting like I'm directly equating it. Definitely smacks of bad faith to me, sorry. Can't be bothered anymore.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's pretty well established and demonstrated that Asian-Americans face discrimination when applying to competitive colleges in the US due to Affirmative Action policies which Democrats typically support.

There have been lawsuits that allege this but I don't think it's well established and demonstrated.

 

[luiz]

There have been lawsuits that allege this but I don't think it's well established and demonstrated.

Really? You're saying with a clean face that the bar is not higher for admissions of Asian-Americans than it is for Hispanics or Blacks? Really?
I mean, colleges admit this is the case. They just justify it.

I mean, Asian-Americans have the lowest acceptance rate for each SAT test score bracket, having to score on average approximately 140 point higher than a White student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student and 450 points higher than a Black student on the SAT. This is a fact. What could possibly explain this other than deliberate racial discrimination?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Really? You're saying with a clean face that the bar is not higher for admissions of Asian-Americans than it is for Hispanics or Blacks? Really?
I mean, colleges admit this is the case. They just justify it.

You're the one basing an argument on this allegation without evidence.

I'm asking you to prove this. If it is clear cut and well known as you claim it to be, it should be trivial.

 

[luiz]

You're the one basing an argument on this allegation without evidence.

I'm asking you to prove this. If it is clear cut and well known as you claim it to be, it should be trivial.

It is trivial and you know it.

Asian-Americans have the lowest acceptance rate for each SAT test score bracket, having to score on average approximately 140 point higher than a White student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student and 450 points higher than a Black student on the SAT.

Do say if you need more, we can also look for example at the historical trend of the rate of applications / acceptances per "race".

If there is one thing I detest is intentional dishonesty.

 

[Gorbles]

According to your previous logic, voting for a candidate that supports discrimination is always bad no matter what.

No, it's complicated. But you have to own the bad with the good, instead of pretending the bad isn't there.

It was an example... two forms of discrimination where one is (hopefully) obviously worse than the other one. It was a counter to your claim that ranking different forms of discrimination in terms of "badness" is inherently problematic and refusing to even engage with the idea, because I don't think you'd have a problem ranking those two at all. It's not complicated and honestly I think you're just playing games now by pretending that you can't see how it's related, and acting like I'm directly equating it. Definitely smacks of bad faith to me, sorry. Can't be bothered anymore.

shrugs

I'm always genuine, Manfred. I understand the point you were trying to make, but I consider the difference in the types of discrimination far too extreme as to be comparable. That's my counterargument, if that makes sense. The same applies to your previous argument, if I'm remembering it rightly. Of course discrimination can be lesser or greater, and action should be calibrated to the relevant urgency, severity and scale of said discrimination. However, I consider discrimination against an already-marginalised minority to be severe from the offset, and particularly when it's enacted at the federal level, and apparently against advice from military officials (as the transgender ban was).

I think it'd be better if you explained why you think the ban isn't severe. Explain why you think this to be the case. I've tried to explain my reasoning, as much as it's helped (it didn't seem to, basically). C'mon. Accusing people of "playing games" is old hat, and an old routine. Don't fall into that trap.

 

[luiz]

I think it'd be better if you explained why you think the ban isn't severe. Explain why you think this to be the case.

Well I will re-state that the ban is bad. But it isn't that severe compared to many cases of discrimination that are allowed to legally continue in the US. Why?
1) It affects a very, very small number of people.
2) It does not really prevent one from having a full life, getting a great education, a great job, etc. If the US was some militarized society where serving in the army gives you extra rights, and virtually every male serves in the military, that would be a different case. But as it stands, only a tiny fraction of people ever serve. If you look at the richest people in the US, at the most successful people in any field, how many actually served?
3) serving in the army is not some fundamental human right. As I already mentioned, many people are prevented from serving even though they really wanted it, due to conditions they were born with and which are not in anyway "their fault" (much like being trans). Some people who would make perfectly fine soldiers, or perfectly fine non-combatant officers are barred often due to some obsolete checkbox stating that people with X or Y meaningless condition cannot serve.

 

[Lexicus]

Really? You're saying with a clean face that the bar is not higher for admissions of Asian-Americans than it is for Hispanics or Blacks? Really?

Ah, so here's the rub. The actual data indicate that the beneficiaries of this "discrimination against Asian-Americans" are whites, not Hispanics or black people.

 

[El_Machinae]

Because you can subtract a negative to be the equivalent of adding a positive, whether you view affirmative action as discrimination is a function of perspective. If universities were at 100% capacity, then certain minorities would be under-represented. And part of that is due to historical damages done. If you then use a subsidy to increase the capacity, say 20%, then earmarking these new positions for the people you are trying to help would not be discriminatory. This is functionally how affirmative action often works, whether you view it that way is a function of perspective. Not of logic.

The major university crisis is that quality institutions didn't significantly increase the number of seats they could fill in proportion to the amount of money that was being spent

 

[luiz]

Ah, so here's the rub. The actual data indicate that the beneficiaries of this "discrimination against Asian-Americans" are whites, not Hispanics or black people.

Eh, no, it's all of those groups. Particularly Blacks and Hispanics, who have even a lower acceptance bar than whites. Why would it only benefit whites? Just look at SAT scores / acceptance. BTW, Whites are currently under-represented at Harvard and some other elite American universities (which is not necessarily wrong, BTW - I don't think each "race" should get a quota. But goes to show you are wrong).

Because you can subtract a negative to be the equivalent of adding a positive, whether you view affirmative action as discrimination is a function of perspective. If universities were at 100% capacity, then certain minorities would be under-represented. And part of that is due to historical damages done. If you then use a subsidy to increase the capacity, say 20%, then earmarking these new positions for the people you are trying to help would not be discriminatory. This is functionally how affirmative action often works, whether you view it that way is a function of perspective. Not of logic.

The major university crisis is that quality institutions didn't significantly increase the number of seats they could fill in proportion to the amount of money that was being spent

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. If two people with very similar background stories face vastly different bars to get into an university, just because one is Asian and other is Hispanic, this is racial discrimination by definition. It is discriminating people based on race.

And the US also used to officially discriminate against the Chinese and some other Asian groups, in fact to a greater degree that it discriminated against Latin Americans. So I'm at a loss as how this can be justified, just because the Chinese happen to be perform better academically, in average.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it'd be better if you explained why you think the ban isn't severe. Explain why you think this to be the case. I've tried to explain my reasoning, as much as it's helped (it didn't seem to, basically). C'mon. Accusing people of "playing games" is old hat, and an old routine. Don't fall into that trap.

Don't act like you're playing games then. The whole thing even started with you dismissing the question outright just because I happened to ask it in a thread where other people have been talking about the severity of saying mean things to people in hats, as if that's a remotely reasonable criterion to be using. Now you're saying you can't even understand the comparison, acting like you think I'm directly equating library book allowances to the topic at hand and getting all handbaggy about it, rather than just accepting that I was (obviously) using it as an abstract example to make a specific point. It's fairly typical of you and I've seen you do it with other people plenty of times too - creating this obfuscating smoke screen of asides, blind alleys, "misunderstanding/misinterpretation", goalpost shifting, etc etc.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. If two people with very similar background stories face vastly different bars to get into an university, just because one is Asian and other is Hispanic, this is racial discrimination by definition. It is discriminating people based on race.

I know you think it's discrimination, but you're wedded to your argument. It's just math. Technically, you cannot uplift one person without relatively harming another. By that account, all efforts to uplift are concomitantly discrimination. So, if you uplift based on race, you are discriminating based on race. No matter how carefully you detail the addition and then the subtraction, it's always going to roll out at a negative to create a positive. You'll harp on the discrimination and other people will notice the uplift. It's perspective.

For the record, I'm no longer a fan of race-based affirmative action, since I think that a better uplift program based on poverty would be superior. I think it was an experiment worth trying, since it was pretty easy to do. Didn't work out. There are many critiques of various liberal efforts to help people that end up hurting those on the bottom.

I know you're being Devil's Advocate, but it risks being whataboutism. #MAGA lies about black crime* and calls Kaepernick an SOB**. Whether AA is racist is a separate issue. It's good for logic fine-tuning, I'll grant.

*he voluntarily did this
**he voluntarily did this

 

[luiz]

I know you think it's discrimination, but you're wedded to your argument. It's just math. Technically, you cannot uplift one person without relatively harming another. By that account, all efforts to uplift are concomitantly discrimination. So, if you uplift based on race, you are discriminating based on race. No matter how carefully you detail the addition and then the subtraction, it's always going to roll out at a negative to create a positive. You'll harp on the discrimination and other people will notice the uplift. It's perspective.

For the record, I'm no longer a fan of race-based affirmative action, since I think that a better uplift program based on poverty would be superior. I think it was an experiment worth trying, since it was pretty easy to do. Didn't work out. There are many critiques of various liberal efforts to help people that end up hurting those on the bottom.

I know you're being Devil's Advocate, but it risks being whataboutism. #MAGA lies about black crime* and calls Kaepernick an SOB**. Whether AA is racist is a separate issue. It's good for logic fine-tuning, I'll grant.

*he voluntarily did this
**he voluntarily did this

Well yeah, there are different degrees of racism as there are of discrimination in general. Race-based AA in the US is very racist against Asian-Americans, who need to score way more than all other ethnic groups to get in, and then on top have to endure the douches at Harvard justifying this practice by saying that they have much lower average "personality scores" than the other races (imagine if they said that about Blacks instead).

Still, it's not the worst racism out there. As I said, I'd rather vote for Biden or Hillary, who support this racist nonsense, than vote for Trump, who is against this particular racist nonsense. I used this to illustrate how one can vote for a candidate that supports keeping trans people out of the military without actually supporting discrimination against trans people, just like one can vote for Biden without endorsing blatant discrimination against Asians. We have to rank our priorities, only we can do that for ourselves, and playing the outraged puritan witch-hunter as Cloud and others did in this thread is quite frankly pathetic.

 

[Patine]

Coming from the mouth of a racist, this has no meaning or sincerity.

Well, your extreme views and solutions, and insistence on declaring people absolutely "bad," or "fellow victims," and inexplicably "trustworthy and in fully solidarity," solely by demographic shows you have a very similar core mentality, and thus, perhaps, no word out of your mouth "has meaning or sincerity." The rhetorical mirror is not a fun thing to look into - and believe it or not, I've gazed into it more than you might think.

Yeah, nobody's disputing he has the power, but ideally these things would be fully delegated. That's one benefit of having a ceremonial head of state, be they president or monarch, I guess.

I personally support a decentralized, committee in the head-of-state role, actually, like Switzerland's Federation Council. I think the idea of an singular apex leader at the top of all endeavours of government is a bad (and sometimes sick) modern cultural obsession and barbaric throwback to the times of absolute monarchs, feudal landlords, self-righteous theocrats, conquering warlords, plutocratic merchant princes, and tribal chieftains, and was the basis of the Leader Principal, one of the ideological pillars of Fascist ideology. It's something, however firmly entrenched in the collective psyche, should REALLY be reconsidered.

[I still give him credit for it being one of the only things decent out of his administration of pillage and plunder and stupid, but its not the game changer you seem to think it is @Berzerker

"Administration of pillage and plunder and stupid," sounds like the regime of Mputo Sese-Seko, the only President of what is now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo when it was Zaire (in fact, he renamed it such). But, he was one of those horrid, bloody-handed, human-rights-abusing tyrants propped up by the U.S. in various Third World countries during the Cold War, usually against the wishes of their own people, along with such class acts as Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-Shek, Ferdinand Marcos, Nguyen Van Thieu, Lon Nol, Kenan Evran, Said Haraawe, Augustin Pinoche, the Samoza Family, Fulcencio Batista and others, who were SUPPOSEDLY better for those nations, and the cause of "democracy and freedom across the world," than allowing Communists take over those countries (spoiler, the above mentioned tyrants were at least as bad as Third World Communist and other Soviet-sponsored regimes tended to be back then).

 

[civvver]

There have been lawsuits that allege this but I don't think it's well established and demonstrated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_at_the_University_of_Michigan

split decisions on University of Michigan's policies. Basically race could be a factor but it couldn't be used in a point system. It's very vague in how you can use it, but race definitely plays a factor.

 

[Traitorfish]

At will doesn't only benefit employers, it's a big benefit for an employee to be able to walk away from a job at any time for a better one. Non competes and contracts can be very detrimental to your job outlook.

You can have labour laws which disallow both at-will dismissal and restrictions on employee mobility. The labour market is inherently stacked in favour of employers, there is no reason at all that the state should pretend neutrality.

 

[Commodore]

It's a bit absurd to target one benefit for one group of people

Yeah it's pretty hard to justify denying coverage for trans-related care and procedures when Tricare pays for elective procedures like breast augmentation, not only for soldiers, but their dependents as well. And the reason given for paying for those procedures is to keep morale up. So even if one made the argument that trans-related care is elective and not required, the morale argument used for other elective procedures could also be used to justify covering it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If there is one thing I detest is intentional dishonesty.

Got a source for your claims? You have not actually linked to anything. I don't think you're making stuff up but the way you are projecting here is weird.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Got a source for your claims? You have not actually linked to anything. I don't think you're making stuff up but the way you are projecting here is weird.

https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-american/article-admission

"To top the fear, a National Study of College Experience led by Espenshade and Radford (2009) showed that a student who self-identifies as Asian will need 140 SAT points higher than whites, 320 SAT points higher than Hispanics, and 450 SAT points higher than African Americans."

The study cited is not freely available anywhere that I can find.