> And I'm saying it's not a generally conservative opinion. Generally, conservatives are against abortion across the board 40% of self-identified conservatives

> 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.