Dumb Political Correctness

Mr. Deez said:
And obviously she'll never see $22M or anything close to it. Punitive damages on that case are capped at $300K. They will probably settle with her, but it'll be in the six figures, not seven and certainly not eight.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I wonder how juicy the lawyer's cut is going to be.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Agreed, and I wonder how juicy the lawyer's cut is going to be.
Click to expand...

I'm sure her lawyer is charging a contingent fee - probably 1/3 or 40 percent of the total recovery. Seems like a lot, but it's high risk. He could have easily taken it in the shorts for his time and the case expenses. That didn't happen to me often, but on a few occasions it did. My boss wasn't pleased with me, and I felt like ****.
 
You can't put diversity in a neat little box of income, zip code, number of students, etc.
I lived in an decently affluent area of Dallas, back in the day. There were fellow students who I felt had the odds stacked against them that wouldn't have earned one point from the diversity list.
One of my friends mom had cancer, and she lived with the ups and downs of that disease until her mother died. Then, as the oldest she had to run the household, cook meals, care for her younger siblings while trying to stay on the honor roll. There was a single fathers raising 3 kids alone, and not doing a great job.
Parents with alcohol problems, or a child with an illness during part of his schooling (a girl had leukemia and studied from home for almost 2 years, in between chemo, and healing) A student with a sibling who has a mental illness and takes up much of the parents time.
I mean the list can go on and on of wealthy kids, in large schools or in a good zip code that face significant issues that complicate their time to study and do extra curricular activities.

It is beyond stupid, and will do more harm to hard working students that had obstacles that weren't deemed a hardship. Absolute BS.
 
Hollandtx said:
You can't put diversity in a neat little box of income, zip code, number of students, etc.
I lived in an decently affluent area of Dallas, back in the day. There were fellow students who I felt had the odds stacked against them that wouldn't have earned one point from the diversity list.
One of my friends mom had cancer, and she lived with the ups and downs of that disease until her mother died. Then, as the oldest she had to run the household, cook meals, care for her younger siblings while trying to stay on the honor roll. There was a single fathers raising 3 kids alone, and not doing a great job.
Parents with alcohol problems, or a child with an illness during part of his schooling (a girl had leukemia and studied from home for almost 2 years, in between chemo, and healing) A student with a sibling who has a mental illness and takes up much of the parents time.
I mean the list can go on and on of wealthy kids, in large schools or in a good zip code that face significant issues that complicate their time to study and do extra curricular activities.

It is beyond stupid, and will do more harm to hard working students that had obstacles that weren't deemed a hardship. Absolute BS.
Click to expand...

The term "diversity" when it's used in modern academic parlance is a bit deceptive. Universities are mostly concerned with diversity on the most superficial level (race or ethnicity) and with avoiding diversity on the more fundamental levels (thought, values, beliefs). In other words, they want to have a student body and faculty in which lots of people look different but basically think the same. (They certainly want them to think the same way when they leave.)

In addition, aiding those who have overcome hardships is at best a secondary and somewhat narrow concern. They are looking for students who give the appearance (real or illusory) of dealing with preferred hardships - those that would make the university administration look good. A white kid from Highland Park whose mother died of cancer has suffered through hardship, but unless you get to know that kid's situation, that hardship isn't apparent. On paper, he or she just looks like another rich white kid. However, a black or Hispanic kid who comes from a two-parent home and has money may not have suffered much hardship, but since we presume systemic race discrimination, on paper, there is a perception of hardship. By letting that kid into school over the white kid from Highlard Park, the university looks more righteous.
 
Mr. Deez said:
This new policy to make the SAT more subjective and arbitrary is titanically stupid. Link.
Click to expand...

Still researching but I think this is better than simply a decision on race/ethnicity which are fairly arbitrary and non-binding.

It's also not a surprise that a private school in an affleunt area would dislike this measure as it will work against their student demography. Meanwhile, i suspect inner city public schools might see some favorability from measures like this.

Measuring diversity by race/diversity in a melting pot country can be easily gamed.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Still researching but I think this is better than simply a decision on race/ethnicity which are fairly arbitrary and non-binding.

It's also not a surprise that a private school in an affleunt area would dislike this measure as it will work against their student demography. Meanwhile, i suspect inner city public schools might see some favorability from measures like this.

Measuring diversity by race/diversity in a melting pot country can be easily gamed.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, this isn't going to replace race-based affirmative action. It's going to supplement it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I agree. However, this isn't going to replace race-based affirmative action. It's going to supplement it.
Click to expand...

I suppose I would say it will justify more race based affirmative action. It will give colleges even more reason to accept under qualified students eliminating spots for more qualified students.
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
I suppose I would say it will justify more race based affirmative action. It will give colleges even more reason to accept under qualified students eliminating spots for more qualified students.
Click to expand...

And that's the whole point. Colleges and universities have a specific demographic goal that they're trying to reach. They can't do full blown racial quotas (which is what they'd like to do), because they're illegal. However, they're trying to reach the same result with a combination of methods - affirmative action, class rank coupled with guaranteed admission, and now, screwing with SAT scores.
 
So Omar thinks Hispanics are too dumb to be admitted on merit.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...et-suggesting-latinos-cant-qualify-for-merit-

D7tDpTxX4AYCcbu.jpg


Ted Cruz came back at her
"As the son of a Cuban immigrant whose Dad came to get a math degree & become a computer programmer, I’m troubled that Dems seem to believe Hispanic immigrants can’t qualify for skills-based legal immigration," Cruz tweeted. "Bringing in more scientists, engineers & doctors is good for US jobs."
Omar deleted the tweet.
Rep. Omar's office did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
 
Of course, this is old news. People have known for decades that MLK was a sawed-off Wilt Chamberlain, but it was largely overlooked or dismissed because of his agenda of racial integration and reconciliation and because the FBI surely was abusing its power in discovering this information.

However, the issue is coming up again in a wildly different context. The racial agenda of the political Left (which used to be MLK's biggest base of support) looks very different from MLK's in terms of both substance and attitude. Furthermore, in the MeToo context, the idea that he sat and watched while a fellow "minister" raped somebody looks pretty horrible.

I'm not saying that the Left is going to "Harvey Weinstein" MLK. That would be too politically controversial. However, it wouldn't surprise me if we start hearing him discussed in less revered tones, and of course, eventually they will move away from MLK. His agenda is simply not consistent with leftist intersectionality.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Of course, this is old news. People have known for decades that MLK was a sawed-off Wilt Chamberlain, but it was largely overlooked or dismissed because of his agenda of racial integration and reconciliation and because the FBI surely was abusing its power in discovering this information.

However, the issue is coming up again in a wildly different context. The racial agenda of the political Left (which used to be MLK's biggest base of support) looks very different from MLK's in terms of both substance and attitude. Furthermore, in the MeToo context, the idea that he sat and watched while a fellow "minister" raped somebody looks pretty horrible.

I'm not saying that the Left is going to "Harvey Weinstein" MLK. That would be too politically controversial. However, it wouldn't surprise me if we start hearing him discussed in less revered tones, and of course, eventually they will move away from MLK. His agenda is simply not consistent with leftist intersectionality.
Click to expand...
Upcoming Headline: "Republican Minister Caught in Rape Scandal".
 
Horn6721 said:
So Omar thinks Hispanics are too dumb to be admitted on merit.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...et-suggesting-latinos-cant-qualify-for-merit-

D7tDpTxX4AYCcbu.jpg


Ted Cruz came back at her
"As the son of a Cuban immigrant whose Dad came to get a math degree & become a computer programmer, I’m troubled that Dems seem to believe Hispanic immigrants can’t qualify for skills-based legal immigration," Cruz tweeted. "Bringing in more scientists, engineers & doctors is good for US jobs."
Omar deleted the tweet.
Rep. Omar's office did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
Click to expand...


Every elected official should be required to spend a day at Ellis Island learning our true immigration history. Not that they will care. These blanket statements about welcoming your poor, etc is pure BS. An easy pathway to citizenship has never been in our history and it was very difficult and expensive just to set foot in the US.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not saying that the Left is going to "Harvey Weinstein" MLK. That would be too politically controversial. However, it wouldn't surprise me if we start hearing him discussed in less revered tones
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect any MLK statues to be hidden away with the Robert E. Lee ones. The MSM will ignore the story. I can't believe this article got published. And God help any MLK sex partner who comes forward.

His philandering was well known when he was still alive, but when he died, he became a saint. Those stories became nothing more than lies told by the FBI to discredit him.
 
Vol
People want to forget immigrants coming through Ellis Island were turned away if they were sick, turned away and sent back.
Now we take in people with communicable disease which is affecting not only the Border Patrol people handling them but the the general population.
And then we get blamed as heartless and racist if someone who came here sick dies while we are trying to save them.
We can't send them away if they come in sick but after they are treated they should be sent back.
Interesting that these sick people came all through Mexico and did not get treated. Does that make Mexico inhumane and racist?
 
Horn6721 said:
People want to forget immigrants coming through Ellis Island were turned away if they were sick, turned away and sent back.
Click to expand...

I did the "behind the scenes" tour of Ellis Island last summer with the island historian. I toured the hospital facility designed by Florence Nightingale that is closed to the public. There were families split apart and stories of sick children sent back to Europe on the ship alone. Single pregnant women were quarantined in hospitals on the island then sent back after the baby's birth. The ship companies were primarily responsible for the vetting process because they bore the burden/cost of taking them back. The thought of just letting any and all come into this country is dangerous and sickening to me.
 
Clean said:
I wouldn't expect any MLK statues to be hidden away with the Robert E. Lee ones. The MSM will ignore the story. I can't believe this article got published. And God help any MLK sex partner who comes forward.

His philandering was well known when he was still alive, but when he died, he became a saint. Those stories became nothing more than lies told by the FBI to discredit him.
Click to expand...

The media has mostly ignored the issue for 55 years, but that is only because they supported MLK's agenda. The political Left is supporting it less and less. As they reject his agenda, they will gradually become less and less forgiving of his behavior.
 
I agree with Deez. The Left is now Cultural Marxists who believe content of character is a low priority compared to collectivizing in tribes based on color of skin.

MLK's moral failure will make it easy for them to reject his message.
 
Monahorns said:
I agree with Deez. The Left is now Cultural Marxists who believe content of character is a low priority compared to collectivizing in tribes based on color of skin.

MLK's moral failure will make it easy for them to reject his message.
Click to expand...

And to be clear, the marital infidelity isn't what they'll go after. Unfortunately, neither side cares about that anymore. They'll go after him for the rape incident. It's not about how he treated his wife. After all, marriage is just a patriarchal institution created to reinforce white, male supremacy. It's about how he treated "women" in general.
 
Coming from the FBI, I would normally not believe this stuff about MLK, except that I've been hearing similar stories about him since I was in HS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top