3 ms·

> His stance is that institutions should not discriminate on the basis of race. That is the Motte yes. The Bailey is that attempts to improve it are "appalling

> His stance is that institutions should not discriminate on the basis of race. That is the Motte yes. The Bailey is that attempts to improve it are "appalling"[0]. And that Black and Hispanic students don't deserve to attend top schools[1], and that racism in medicine doesn't harm patients[2]. > there are plenty of organization that have a diverse workforce without engaging in racial discrimination. Google, for instance, is majority minority. But Xu criticizes these organizations for not being diverse enough![1] And further criticizes them for not taking the lack of Asian representation seriously enough (which is one of those made-up positions I mentioned). > And lastly, you should read the links you're posting. For instance, the post on abortion is about a proposed law expanding the ability to receive third trimester abortions. To oppose this isn't restricting abortion, it's maintaining the status quo in an already liberal state. I didn't say it was. I said he held a generally conservative position on abortion, which is true. [0]: https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1484263210404532236 https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1484263210404532236 [1]: https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1478573189861158916 https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1478573189861158916 [2]: https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1483482063047208973 https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1483482063047208973 [3]: https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1484218869699026954 https://twitter.com/kennymxu/status/1484218869699026954

Manuel_D 5y ago
> That is the Motte yes. The Bailey is that attempts to improve it are "appalling"? This is a false dichotomy. There are ways to improve inequality that aren't racial discrimination in admissions, hiring, etc. His stance is that these institutions should be non-discriminatory. The right way to address unequal SAT scores between Asians and Blacks, for instance, is to help the latter score just as well. Not to respond to systemic racism with to the soft racism of low expectations. His examples for this are Jamie Escalante's efforts in East LA. Help the disadvantaged by actually improving their skills such that they can be equal, not by using inequality to create a false sense of fixing the problem. Certaintly, conservatives disproportionately have this belief. But plenty of liberals do, too. California, for instance, recently defeated a ballot initiative to make affirmative action legal again by a significant margin (~60% against). And this is a state that saw more than twice as many people vote democratic than republican in 2020. It's not that I disagree that Xu opposes affirmative action, it's that I don't agree that opposition to affirmative action is enough to categorize someone as conservative. > But Xu criticizes these organizations for not being diverse enough![1] And further criticizes them for not taking the lack of Asian representation seriously enough (which is one of those made-up positions I mentioned). No, he's saying that they have a significant racial disparity between their executives and their workforce. A non-discriminatory workforce would have are more equal representation between workers and leadership. > I didn't say it was. I said he held a generally conservative position on Abortion, which is true. And I'm saying it's not a generally conservative opinion. Generally, conservatives are against abortion across the board, not merely thirs trimester abortions. Again, I think you're earnest in your categorization, but that says more about how exclusive and narrow your category of "liberal" really is.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > And I'm saying it's not a generally conservative opinion. Generally, conservatives are against abortion across the board 40% of self-identified conservatives support first-trimester abortions (see the table at the end of https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-...). I think its weird to claim that my categorization is narrow when I'm explicitly broadening the definition of conservative compared to you, and not treating conservatives as a monoculture? > No, he's saying that they have a significant racial disparity between their executives and their workforce. A non-discriminatory workforce would have are more equal representation between workers and leadership. Right, he criticizes these organizations for not being diverse enough [at the executive level]. > Help the disadvantaged by actually improving their skills such that they can be equal, not by using inequality to create a false sense of fixing the problem. Sure, this sounds great, but then he criticizes any way to actually accomplish this. Do you fund worse performing schools better so that they can hire better teachers? No, that's anti-Asian racism because it draws funding and teachers from the better perming schools. Do you allow some lower performing people into good schools on the assumption that they've been underserved and that they'll catch up? No, that's affirmative action. If your solution relies on one-in-a-million teachers fixing the problem, you're totally willing to let the inequality persist. > His stance is that these institutions should be non-discriminatory. And this begs the question about what "nondiscrimintary is" in a way that Xu never engages with. Is Harvard accepting lower SAT scores for black people "soft racism of low expectations", or is it the reverse: that lower scoring Black students will be able to perform just as well as their higher scoring peers once they're placed in an environment that gives them the resources to thrive? And to be clear, I don't really think it's wrong per say to, after thinking about that, decide that yes, that is discriminatory in a bad way. My problem is more that Xu doesn't even begin to engage with these questions. His position begins and ends with "anything that benefits Black people at the expense of Asian people is unjust", which presumes that we have perfectly just systems today (or that they're just enough that it isn't worth harming one group to fix the injustice). Edit: > Not to respond to systemic racism with to the soft racism of low expectations. Also amusingly, by acknowledging that systemic racism exists, you're doing more than Xu does. This is goes along with my broader point that he doesn't actually engage with the other side here, and instead when challenged misrepresents. He characterizes "systemic racism" as something that can't exist because it would require a sort of racist cabal, which is just directly in opposition to how the term is defined.

Manuel_D 5y ago

> That is the Motte yes. The Bailey is that attempts to improve it are "appalling"? This is a false dichotomy. There are ways to improve inequality that aren't racial discrimination in admissions, hiring, etc. His stance is that these institutions should be non-discriminatory. The right way to address unequal SAT scores between Asians and Blacks, for instance, is to help the latter score just as well. Not to respond to systemic racism with to the soft racism of low expectations. His examples for this are Jamie Escalante's efforts in East LA. Help the disadvantaged by actually improving their skills such that they can be equal, not by using inequality to create a false sense of fixing the problem. Certaintly, conservatives disproportionately have this belief. But plenty of liberals do, too. California, for instance, recently defeated a ballot initiative to make affirmative action legal again by a significant margin (~60% against). And this is a state that saw more than twice as many people vote democratic than republican in 2020. It's not that I disagree that Xu opposes affirmative action, it's that I don't agree that opposition to affirmative action is enough to categorize someone as conservative. > But Xu criticizes these organizations for not being diverse enough![1] And further criticizes them for not taking the lack of Asian representation seriously enough (which is one of those made-up positions I mentioned). No, he's saying that they have a significant racial disparity between their executives and their workforce. A non-discriminatory workforce would have are more equal representation between workers and leadership. > I didn't say it was. I said he held a generally conservative position on Abortion, which is true. And I'm saying it's not a generally conservative opinion. Generally, conservatives are against abortion across the board, not merely thirs trimester abortions. Again, I think you're earnest in your categorization, but that says more about how exclusive and narrow your category of "liberal" really is.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> And I'm saying it's not a generally conservative opinion. Generally, conservatives are against abortion across the board 40% of self-identified conservatives support first-trimester abortions (see the table at the end of https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-...). I think its weird to claim that my categorization is narrow when I'm explicitly broadening the definition of conservative compared to you, and not treating conservatives as a monoculture? > No, he's saying that they have a significant racial disparity between their executives and their workforce. A non-discriminatory workforce would have are more equal representation between workers and leadership. Right, he criticizes these organizations for not being diverse enough [at the executive level]. > Help the disadvantaged by actually improving their skills such that they can be equal, not by using inequality to create a false sense of fixing the problem. Sure, this sounds great, but then he criticizes any way to actually accomplish this. Do you fund worse performing schools better so that they can hire better teachers? No, that's anti-Asian racism because it draws funding and teachers from the better perming schools. Do you allow some lower performing people into good schools on the assumption that they've been underserved and that they'll catch up? No, that's affirmative action. If your solution relies on one-in-a-million teachers fixing the problem, you're totally willing to let the inequality persist. > His stance is that these institutions should be non-discriminatory. And this begs the question about what "nondiscrimintary is" in a way that Xu never engages with. Is Harvard accepting lower SAT scores for black people "soft racism of low expectations", or is it the reverse: that lower scoring Black students will be able to perform just as well as their higher scoring peers once they're placed in an environment that gives them the resources to thrive? And to be clear, I don't really think it's wrong per say to, after thinking about that, decide that yes, that is discriminatory in a bad way. My problem is more that Xu doesn't even begin to engage with these questions. His position begins and ends with "anything that benefits Black people at the expense of Asian people is unjust", which presumes that we have perfectly just systems today (or that they're just enough that it isn't worth harming one group to fix the injustice). Edit: > Not to respond to systemic racism with to the soft racism of low expectations. Also amusingly, by acknowledging that systemic racism exists, you're doing more than Xu does. This is goes along with my broader point that he doesn't actually engage with the other side here, and instead when challenged misrepresents. He characterizes "systemic racism" as something that can't exist because it would require a sort of racist cabal, which is just directly in opposition to how the term is defined.