• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Thread to show racism is #bothsides during this campaign season.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
You can't keep using education as an excuse when more than a generation has gone by without significant improvements despite a huge influx of money to remedy it.This occurred despite vast improvement in racial attitudes as well.

After 50 years, the achievement gap between white and black students has barely narrowed.

"It's remarkable," says Eric Hanushek, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, who authored the analysis. "I knew that the gap hadn't been closing too much, but when I actually looked at the data I was myself surprised."

"I was surprised because I think we hear more about promising attempts to close the gap and we hear a lot about school systems in states that are focused on closing the achieving gap, and yet the progress is so disappointingly slow," says Hanushek.

"If [the Coleman Report] was expected to mobilize the resources of the nation's schools in pursuit of racial equity, it undoubtedly failed to achieve its objective," Hanushek wrote. "Nor did it increase the overall level of performance of high school students on the eve of their graduation, despite the vast increase in resources that would be committed to education over the ensuing five decades."

Graph: Achievement Gains Are Unrelated to Increased Spending

Racial attitudes over time

PRINCETON, NJ -- Continuing to represent one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history, 87% of Americans now favor marriage between blacks and whites, up from 4% in 1958.






From previous article:

He estimates that if the achievement gaps continue close at such an incremental rate, it will be roughly two and a half centuries before the black-white math gap closes and over one and a half centuries until the reading gap closes.

Fuck that! By that time, the singularity will have occurred.




Most universities aren't that selective, so it isn't an issue for the most part. At elite colleges, many low income blacks can't cut it, so the pool of applicants from low income students are mainly white and Asian. I just have to roll my eyes at it all because it's strange to me. These minorities going there are similar to the black professor/attorney I had in one class; they have a lot more in common outside of their racial group.

To be fair, there's the issue of legacy, which has helped white people, but I'm not sure how much this aids presently. Many of the Ivy League parents will invest much more into their children than typical to develop talents, and probably pass on genes for smart kids, so it makes sense a lot of them would have gained admission regardless. But if affirmative action were to go, legacy definitely should as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/at-elite-colleges-racial-diversity-requires-affirmative-action.html

"Getting more low-income students into elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford is an important goal. But it can’t replace race-based affirmative action.

A close look at the numbers shows that the only effective way to increase racial diversity at elite colleges is by considering race when deciding who gets in.

[...]

But this approach can’t do the job of race-based affirmative action for a very simple reason: Most poor people are white. Putting a thumb on the scale for low-income students will help far more white students than black or Hispanic students."


Seriously, what do I need to show you? What was false? Because I showed nothing but the facts. I gave you guys the liberal HuffingtonPost. Look at the above as well, and check this below.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97917.asp

When education spending is considered in terms of "buying power," districts with the highest percentage of minority students spend the least.

In terms of "buying power" in school year 1989–90, districts with the highest percentages of minority students spent $286 less on public education per year than did districts with the lowest percentages of minority students ($4,103 vs. $4,389 per student) (figure 2). This change in direction occurs because school districts enrolling high percentages of minority students are more likely to be located in high-cost urban centers and to serve substantial numbers of students with special needs, thereby reducing the "buying power" of the dollars received.



Already voted, and the DCCC sent me a special note saying I was a hero.
For my age group, I'm of the small minority that care.
We could talk about all the reasons why but you wouldnt like it.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,074
13,060
136
You can't keep using education as an excuse when more than a generation has gone by without significant improvements despite a huge influx of money to remedy it.This occurred despite vast improvement in racial attitudes as well.

After 50 years, the achievement gap between white and black students has barely narrowed.

"It's remarkable," says Eric Hanushek, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, who authored the analysis. "I knew that the gap hadn't been closing too much, but when I actually looked at the data I was myself surprised."

"I was surprised because I think we hear more about promising attempts to close the gap and we hear a lot about school systems in states that are focused on closing the achieving gap, and yet the progress is so disappointingly slow," says Hanushek.

"If [the Coleman Report] was expected to mobilize the resources of the nation's schools in pursuit of racial equity, it undoubtedly failed to achieve its objective," Hanushek wrote. "Nor did it increase the overall level of performance of high school students on the eve of their graduation, despite the vast increase in resources that would be committed to education over the ensuing five decades."

Graph: Achievement Gains Are Unrelated to Increased Spending

Racial attitudes over time

PRINCETON, NJ -- Continuing to represent one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history, 87% of Americans now favor marriage between blacks and whites, up from 4% in 1958.






From previous article:

He estimates that if the achievement gaps continue close at such an incremental rate, it will be roughly two and a half centuries before the black-white math gap closes and over one and a half centuries until the reading gap closes.

Fuck that! By that time, the singularity will have occurred.




Most universities aren't that selective, so it isn't an issue for the most part. At elite colleges, many low income blacks can't cut it, so the pool of applicants from low income students are mainly white and Asian. I just have to roll my eyes at it all because it's strange to me. These minorities going there are similar to the black professor/attorney I had in one class; they have a lot more in common outside of their racial group.

To be fair, there's the issue of legacy, which has helped white people, but I'm not sure how much this aids presently. Many of the Ivy League parents will invest much more into their children than typical to develop talents, and probably pass on genes for smart kids, so it makes sense a lot of them would have gained admission regardless. But if affirmative action were to go, legacy definitely should as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/at-elite-colleges-racial-diversity-requires-affirmative-action.html

"Getting more low-income students into elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford is an important goal. But it can’t replace race-based affirmative action.

A close look at the numbers shows that the only effective way to increase racial diversity at elite colleges is by considering race when deciding who gets in.

[...]

But this approach can’t do the job of race-based affirmative action for a very simple reason: Most poor people are white. Putting a thumb on the scale for low-income students will help far more white students than black or Hispanic students."


Seriously, what do I need to show you? What was false? Because I showed nothing but the facts. I gave you guys the liberal HuffingtonPost. Look at the above as well, and check this below.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97917.asp

When education spending is considered in terms of "buying power," districts with the highest percentage of minority students spend the least.

In terms of "buying power" in school year 1989–90, districts with the highest percentages of minority students spent $286 less on public education per year than did districts with the lowest percentages of minority students ($4,103 vs. $4,389 per student) (figure 2). This change in direction occurs because school districts enrolling high percentages of minority students are more likely to be located in high-cost urban centers and to serve substantial numbers of students with special needs, thereby reducing the "buying power" of the dollars received.



Already voted, and the DCCC sent me a special note saying I was a hero.
For my age group, I'm of the small minority that care.
I'm terribly sorry that overcoming the damage that was done isn't as quick and easy as you'd like. You cannot dismiss the education factor just because you don't understand the implications. I already mentioned the the first five years are the most important, but you don't even acknowledge that. Until you understand that you will never understand the issue.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
11,996
8,679
136
not all Republicans are racists, but if you are a bigot, racist, anti-Semite, homophobic - you are a Republican.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,759
2,867
126
not all Republicans are racists, but if you are a bigot, racist, anti-Semite, homophobic - you are a Republican.
It's a trite little saying, but doesn't align with any of my experience. The three most racist people I know are democrats.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,563
136
It's a trite little saying, but doesn't align with any of my experience. The three most racist people I know are democrats.
So what? If GOP'ers weren't at least a little bit racist they wouldn't be falling for Trump's racist fear mongering. They wouldn't vote for Steve King or others of similar mien. They wouldn't excuse fucking over the Dreamers & the Salvadoran refugees who've been here since 2001. They wouldn't be raving about birthright citizenship if we were talking about Norwegians. They'd be as repulsed as Libs are.

Just own it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dingster1

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
27,846
13,672
136

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,273
3,243
136
I'm terribly sorry that overcoming the damage that was done isn't as quick and easy as you'd like. You cannot dismiss the education factor just because you don't understand the implications. I already mentioned the the first five years are the most important, but you don't even acknowledge that. Until you understand that you will never understand the issue.
Dank, you're trying to reason with someone who, when presented with the fact that illegal immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans, came up with this response:

It's incredibly misleading if you include every racial group in "native-born".
He's of one of the groups that think since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, everything should have been "fixed" immediately. Certainly the effects of just a couple hundred years of involuntary servitude which included laws that prevented these "servants" from being taught to read and write, or another few generations of Jim Crow "separate but equal" (which certainly was separate but in no way equal), laws codifying redlining for housing, etc., etc., can easily be overcome in a generation or two, don't you know?
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,350
658
126
I'm terribly sorry that overcoming the damage that was done isn't as quick and easy as you'd like. You cannot dismiss the education factor just because you don't understand the implications. I already mentioned the the first five years are the most important, but you don't even acknowledge that. Until you understand that you will never understand the issue.
You're not making much sense. As I've pointed out, spending hasn't been correlated with achievement gains and the per pupil spending between colored and non-colored is insignificant. It's like the hypothesis that it must be about rampant racism, despite the gap staying essentially the same even though racial attitudes have improved drastically.

I've been told that finishing high school is severely impacted by being murdered by police.
Haha, this is totally why I preempted this in my previous post. The fact is only about 50-100 unarmed people are killed by cops each year, of which only a fraction of that are black or 18 and under, and many times it wasn't for a lack of trying. Shee-it, more people get struck by lightning in Florida per year.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/unarmed-black-children-are-not-being-gunned-down-by-cops/

Unarmed Black Children Are Not Being Gunned Down By Cops

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/08/black-and-unarmed/?noredirect=on

"Those 24 cases [unarmed] constitute a surprisingly small fraction of the 585 people shot and killed by police through Friday evening, according to The Post database. Most of those killed were white or Hispanic, and the vast majority of victims of all races were armed."

Dank, you're trying to reason with someone who, when presented with the fact that illegal immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans, came up with this response:
It's incredibly misleading if you include every racial group in "native-born".
It's pathetic that you won't concede it's disingenuous to include blacks who at around ~12% of the population commit roughly half of the homicides here. Or the 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics who aren't doing that stellar either. Please. The whole point of that rhetoric is to say that illegals coming here are "better" when in reality neither them nor their succeeding generations will have outcomes as good as the majority white population. Your thought that they'll eventually close the gap in a century or two is just a red herring.

He's of one of the groups that think since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, everything should have been "fixed" immediately. Certainly the effects of just a couple hundred years of involuntary servitude which included laws that prevented these "servants" from being taught to read and write, or another few generations of Jim Crow "separate but equal" (which certainly was separate but in no way equal), laws codifying redlining for housing, etc., etc., can easily be overcome in a generation or two, don't you know?
Haha, fski posted this article putting forth the theory Asians changed on a dime merely because of what conservatives thought of them and others. You're just speculating here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason-americans-stopped-spitting-on-asian-americans-and-started-praising-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c82f96babb3b

"Between 1940 and 1970, something remarkable happened to Asian Americans. Not only did they surpass African Americans in average household earnings, but they also closed the wage gap with whites.


Many people credit this upward mobility to investments in education. But according to a recent study by Brown University economist Nathaniel Hilger, schooling rates among Asian Americans didn’t change all that significantly during those three decades. Instead, Hilger’s research suggests that Asian Americans started to earn more because their fellow Americans became less racist toward them."

AND YET:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Continuing to represent one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history, 87% of Americans now favor marriage between blacks and whites, up from 4% in 1958.





 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,074
13,060
136
You're not making much sense. As I've pointed out, spending hasn't been correlated with achievement gains and the per pupil spending between colored and non-colored is insignificant. It's like the hypothesis that it must be about rampant racism, despite the gap staying essentially the same even though racial attitudes have improved drastically. ...
Yes it isn't all that surprising that you are still confused. You are still focused on per pupil spending when I have just told you twice that by the time a child reaches school it is often way too late.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Haha, this is totally why I preempted this in my previous post. The fact is only about 50-100 unarmed people are killed by cops each year, of which only a fraction of that are black or 18 and under, and many times it wasn't for a lack of trying. Shee-it, more people get struck by lightning in Florida per year.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/unarmed-black-children-are-not-being-gunned-down-by-cops/

Unarmed Black Children Are Not Being Gunned Down By Cops

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/08/black-and-unarmed/?noredirect=on

"Those 24 cases [unarmed] constitute a surprisingly small fraction of the 585 people shot and killed by police through Friday evening, according to The Post database. Most of those killed were white or Hispanic, and the vast majority of victims of all races were armed.
Haha. I knew you'd chomp right down on the hyperbolic position I put forward and dispute it with a willful desire to ignore the prevalence of police harassment against people of color.

Way to go, ding-donger.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,625
5,920
126
Hilary said all black people look alike! She's clearly super racist! Good thing we dodged that bullet!
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,315
1,425
136
You can't keep using education as an excuse when more than a generation has gone by without significant improvements despite a huge influx of money to remedy it.This occurred despite vast improvement in racial attitudes as well.

After 50 years, the achievement gap between white and black students has barely narrowed.

"It's remarkable," says Eric Hanushek, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, who authored the analysis. "I knew that the gap hadn't been closing too much, but when I actually looked at the data I was myself surprised."

"I was surprised because I think we hear more about promising attempts to close the gap and we hear a lot about school systems in states that are focused on closing the achieving gap, and yet the progress is so disappointingly slow," says Hanushek.

"If [the Coleman Report] was expected to mobilize the resources of the nation's schools in pursuit of racial equity, it undoubtedly failed to achieve its objective," Hanushek wrote. "Nor did it increase the overall level of performance of high school students on the eve of their graduation, despite the vast increase in resources that would be committed to education over the ensuing five decades."

Graph: Achievement Gains Are Unrelated to Increased Spending

Racial attitudes over time

PRINCETON, NJ -- Continuing to represent one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history, 87% of Americans now favor marriage between blacks and whites, up from 4% in 1958.






From previous article:

He estimates that if the achievement gaps continue close at such an incremental rate, it will be roughly two and a half centuries before the black-white math gap closes and over one and a half centuries until the reading gap closes.

Fuck that! By that time, the singularity will have occurred.




Most universities aren't that selective, so it isn't an issue for the most part. At elite colleges, many low income blacks can't cut it, so the pool of applicants from low income students are mainly white and Asian. I just have to roll my eyes at it all because it's strange to me. These minorities going there are similar to the black professor/attorney I had in one class; they have a lot more in common outside of their racial group.

To be fair, there's the issue of legacy, which has helped white people, but I'm not sure how much this aids presently. Many of the Ivy League parents will invest much more into their children than typical to develop talents, and probably pass on genes for smart kids, so it makes sense a lot of them would have gained admission regardless. But if affirmative action were to go, legacy definitely should as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/at-elite-colleges-racial-diversity-requires-affirmative-action.html

"Getting more low-income students into elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford is an important goal. But it can’t replace race-based affirmative action.

A close look at the numbers shows that the only effective way to increase racial diversity at elite colleges is by considering race when deciding who gets in.

[...]

But this approach can’t do the job of race-based affirmative action for a very simple reason: Most poor people are white. Putting a thumb on the scale for low-income students will help far more white students than black or Hispanic students."


Seriously, what do I need to show you? What was false? Because I showed nothing but the facts. I gave you guys the liberal HuffingtonPost. Look at the above as well, and check this below.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97917.asp

When education spending is considered in terms of "buying power," districts with the highest percentage of minority students spend the least.

In terms of "buying power" in school year 1989–90, districts with the highest percentages of minority students spent $286 less on public education per year than did districts with the lowest percentages of minority students ($4,103 vs. $4,389 per student) (figure 2). This change in direction occurs because school districts enrolling high percentages of minority students are more likely to be located in high-cost urban centers and to serve substantial numbers of students with special needs, thereby reducing the "buying power" of the dollars received.



Already voted, and the DCCC sent me a special note saying I was a hero.
For my age group, I'm of the small minority that care.
Did you read what you just posted? As you point out, we still have one of the broadest funding ranges for schools among the developed world, with school districts with high percentages of people of color receiving significantly less funding compared to predominantly white school districts. How is that providing a "huge influx of money" to fix the problem? We haven't even reached the point of equal funding. Directly from your post. "Getting more low-income students into elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford is an important goal. But it can’t replace race-based affirmative action."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,228
21,269
146
And that's bullshit because it can happen to all races. Giving someone an advantage over their racial appearance/skin color is a poor way of doing things, and builds up the resentment that allows Trumpism to thrive.
No one is really interested in the hypothetical "can happen to anyone," but in the reality on the ground of what is and has long been happening. There isn't really a grand reset button to pick up all the races, mix them up, and toss them back out into a tabula rasa world of social equality, education, competing against the exact same challenges.

That doesn't exist, and it can never happen. Your defense of numbers is some hyper-libertarian Randian nonsense that will never be and can never be applicable to any existing population of humanity. Generation upon generations upon generations of human lineage and culture of created the only status quo that currently exists now, and can only currently exist.

That's it. It's immutable. "There is no: well anyone could be this, in theory..." It's not even worth considering, because it's pure nonsense.


...so, what then. What we currently have is a non-perfect attempt that has been popularly called "Affirmative Action" (only in the more recent decades), to try and encourage wholly and unquestionably disenfranchised communities to compete within sectors that have long been denied their presence and competitive resources due to systemic, unquestionable, and wholly observable racism and class warfare. You can't establish a baseline of fairness from the beginning, because no one can return to the beginning. The only option, really, is to adopt policy that gradually allows for a redistribution of that baseline, because this is only a generational thing. The experiment can only work after generations of data and experience. It's called patience and, the way society moves and human generations are, the idea is that you are benefiting the generations of humanity long past your lifespan. We will never see the results, and that is the point. That is only how this ever could work. I really have no patience for people that can't understand that all humans need to sacrifice a bit of the shit that they absolutely do not need in life, if it is actually to the benefit of everyone and, considering their own line, to the benefit of their long-term bloodline. I of course appreciate that this runs counter to our natural instinct of extreme selfishness and self-preservation.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Did you read what you just posted? As you point out, we still have one of the broadest funding ranges for schools among the developed world, with school districts with high percentages of people of color receiving significantly less funding compared to predominantly white school districts. How is that providing a "huge influx of money" to fix the problem? We haven't even reached the point of equal funding. Directly from your post. "Getting more low-income students into elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford is an important goal. But it can’t replace race-based affirmative action."
He clearly said that money was increased for some schools and that did not show an increase in scores.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
No one is really interested in the hypothetical "can happen to anyone," but in the reality on the ground of what is and has long been happening. There isn't really a grand reset button to pick up all the races, mix them up, and toss them back out into a tabula rasa world of social equality, education, competing against the exact same challenges.

That doesn't exist, and it can never happen. Your defense of numbers is some hyper-libertarian Randian nonsense that will never be and can never be applicable to any existing population of humanity. Generation upon generations upon generations of human lineage and culture of created the only status quo that currently exists now, and can only currently exist.

That's it. It's immutable. "There is no: well anyone could be this, in theory..." It's not even worth considering, because it's pure nonsense.


...so, what then. What we currently have is a non-perfect attempt that has been popularly called "Affirmative Action" (only in the more recent decades), to try and encourage wholly and unquestionably disenfranchised communities to compete within sectors that have long been denied their presence and competitive resources due to systemic, unquestionable, and wholly observable racism and class warfare. You can't establish a baseline of fairness from the beginning, because no one can return to the beginning. The only option, really, is to adopt policy that gradually allows for a redistribution of that baseline, because this is only a generational thing. The experiment can only work after generations of data and experience. It's called patience and, the way society moves and human generations are, the idea is that you are benefiting the generations of humanity long past your lifespan. We will never see the results, and that is the point. That is only how this ever could work. I really have no patience for people that can't understand that all humans need to sacrifice a bit of the shit that they absolutely do not need in life, if it is actually to the benefit of everyone and, considering their own line, to the benefit of their long-term bloodline. I of course appreciate that this runs counter to our natural instinct of extreme selfishness and self-preservation.
I think the problem is one of measurement. How do we know how much we need to correct? How much do we take from others? Who needs help most? When has it been corrected for and when has it gone too far?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,563
136
I think the problem is one of measurement. How do we know how much we need to correct? How much do we take from others? Who needs help most? When has it been corrected for and when has it gone too far?
We're nowhere near the point where that becomes a relevant question, not when the top .001% pays about the same federal tax rate as people making $85K/yr. Imagine how horrifying it would be to pay 30% in federal taxes while making $5M+/ month. I'd feel horribly oppressed. It would be like the invasion of Poland, I'm tellin' ya.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
We're nowhere near the point where that becomes a relevant question, not when the top .001% pays about the same federal tax rate as people making $85K/yr. Imagine how horrifying it would be to pay 30% in federal taxes while making $5M+/ month. I'd feel horribly oppressed. It would be like the invasion of Poland, I'm tellin' ya.
Can you point to a post where you have done anything other than try to make things worse? I'm trying to recall as you and I have engaged quite a bit, and I cant think of a single time where you have posted something that was not sarcastic, insulting, degrading, or anything of that sort. Do you only come here to do those things?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
I think the problem is one of measurement. How do we know how much we need to correct? How much do we take from others? Who needs help most? When has it been corrected for and when has it gone too far?
We are already taking money from others and giving it away...

Do you also ask how much to we give to others (massive amounts to business)? That's a bigger problem in to me and I would say the majority of Americans... Who indeed needs the help most at that point?

If we are going to give away money anyway shouldn't it be given to people instead of corporations... Or people at least stop bitching about one and not the other...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY