> Not sure what you’re talking about, but I get the feeling that you’re trying to smear me with allusions and innuendos. To be fair: >> Americans, so as the c

> Not sure what you’re talking about, but I get the feeling that you’re trying to smear me with allusions and innuendos. To be fair: >> Americans, so as the composition changes, and the whites become less of a statistically dominating factor, the scores are expected to go down, even as the education quality improves. Reads a lot like "Our scores are going to go down because there are more brown people, even when we try so hard to help them.", and without further explanation, suggests a predicate of "brown people are inherently dumber". I understand that you're more likely suggesting that the immigrants are coming from a place with lower educational quality, which means they have a weaker educational background. Particularly though its a litte odd when the only called out groups are "white people" and "immigrants" with no mention of other groups like non-white natural born citizens (not to mention confusing when trying to consider white immigrants). It has a lot of the elements you'd find in dog-whistles: * the immediate framing of results in terms of race/ethnicity * setting up a whites vs the undifferentiated others. * a declaration that white people are propping up the others and describing whites as dominant. (I know you said statistically dominant, but the word dominant has a lot of connotations no matter how it's prefixed). * the use of flat, statistical wording around a seemingly odd juxtaposition (the first point). Doubly so on the internet where it's extremely common to find the person who said the original to be spewing overt racism a bit down-thread. I don't know if you are racist, and I don't think you intended racism in your comment. I'm just pointing out that it's not surprising someone read bigotry into it.