Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "'Isn't That Very Stereotypical?': Roberts Presses Harvard Lawyer In Affirmative Action Case" video.

  1.  @TheVitalover  And that was before they started continually lowering standards for everyone. The public has been rendered stupid by, basically, public schools. Very few can even follow these conversations while knowing where it started and where it ends.
    6
  2. "But...nuance and stuff...wait...it's complicated..."
    6
  3.  @ecyranot  That's not what anyone said. The point is that preparation matters and everyone needs to take personal responsibility for their own ascension in life before they start to blame "the system" or any external (and often imagined) variable that people want to "solve" for Harris's Equity games.
    6
  4.  @kaiserwilhelm1938  If you had started and ended with "I don't know..." you'd be in a much better position than you are now. Now extend that "rational uncertainty" to include what you know about IQ testing. It doesn't involve "take a look around" at all. Your rhetoric is inherently, well - not high IQ - nor is it "learned" outside of meme propagation.
    3
  5.  @christianlibertarian5488  The problem is that these controversies are entirely worldview based. These US Progressives still see "blacks" as "victims" of slavery that they are responsible for. But because they think Evolutionary Theory is some "special science" that only "woke" can understand and "manage" that they should be allowed to make up all of these supposed solutions. Even the term "Affirmative Action" is abused. It comes originally from a Presidential memo and meant "don't be exclusionary" in looking at Federal employees and applicants for employment. The "outcomes data" was used in mendacious lawsuits and somehow AA came to stand for racial quotas. Even "diversity" came to stand for using outcomes data as "proof" of alleged corruption of "the system" as if they are looking at farm animals and "equity" in "distribution". They dehumanize everyone. Even themselves. They have what I call a low view of humanity. IOW, they expect so little of themselves and others. They have no confidence in their own abilities and hold even lower views of anyone that disagrees with them. Life today is so easy that they can hide behind these problems and then use these cult-like dogmas to defend whatever station in life they've arrived at. And then retreat in ignorance.
    2
  6. Diversity used to mean overcoming racialism. Now it means cultivating and directing it.
    2
  7.  @l.w.paradis2108  Her gibberish on banking regulations is regarded as "partisan" or "technical"?
    2
  8.  @kaiserwilhelm1938  Cite the study you gleaned this agitprop from.
    2
  9.  @woosungkim7853  So, you're saying material conditions should be factored in rather than just "economics". To answer your question, IMO, economic factors should NOT affect qualification for entrance. Economic arguments can be used for scholarship programs to offset economic deficits. The whole premise of "equality" in Western societies (before Marx) was about equal application of the law, not coming up with government programs that "by law" make people equal, in "socioeconomic" terms. The grand bargain made with Marxists in good faith with the others (AKA "rule of law libertarians") is that equal application of the law can be out of reach if equality of opportunity becomes out of reach. People can't get "justice" if they can't afford legal representation when falsely accused. Things like that. The thing is that first we had to deal with the history of slavery and the now freed people that suffered under that. And that is when "Brain Trust" socialism (AKA Progressivism) came to the USA where the "deprived" slave masters attempted to carve out a place for themselves as agents of Equity. Public schools and public school funding and so forth came from this idea of ensuring "equality of opportunity" that it seemed would inarguably lead to better outcomes for deprived individuals and the nation as a whole. A lot of these supposedly "do good" interventions corrupt the rule of law and really only install a shadow ruling class. And this cult has metastasized across many institutions that corrupt the rule of law first by corrupting separations of powers laterally and vertically (the 3 branches paradigm and local, State and Federal checks and balances) and since FDR this cult has additionally created and hyped "emergencies" that continually scare the voting public in to solving problems created by the people that propose to solve them. I'm not saying all of these programs are innately corrupt. However, not one program, even those that started out as a "good idea" has failed to turn toxic. I'm ok with economic assistance that doesn't corrupt the rule of law. It's difficult to see how that can happen on a Federal level. Especially after all of these decades since FDR.
    2
  10. Warren also allegedly taught law at Harvard. WTF would even think about applying to such a school?
    1
  11.  @l.w.paradis2108  Yeah. How about that.
    1
  12.  @l.w.paradis2108  Wait, what makes you think she's an "expert" or even "very good in her field"? She peddles a lot of Critical Theory dogmas explained like an ignorant high school student would. Maybe she thinks she needs to talk down to everyone to be "accessible" and "speak truth to power" and so forth. Perhaps she's one of the ignoramuses she's always defending. I've seen her "selected" lectures. For all I know she's not an idiot but I have no proof that she's not. She's a doctrinaire wealth transfer lunatic. She can't even pass for Keynesian in her economics "philosophy" and her legal nous is on par with ambulance chasers that land jobs as "non white" law professors.
    1
  13.  @l.w.paradis2108  Ah. OK. So, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel is "partisan" or not? When does she not have an excuse in your mind? If you think there's any tangible evidence that she's just another cultivated useful idiot (from the "democratic" socialist POV) why not just cite it directly? What did she have published in the Law Review in her name that you think flies in the face of her "exposition" in virtually every recorded video that I've ever seen from her? I can't be sure but I think I've even seen video lectures from her as given to her student. But really, the more interesting question why you're interested in trying to make so many excuses for all of the legitimate criticism of her. I think the answer to that question has already been given by your "technical" versus "partisan/political" binary. I think she was originally mentioned in this conversation (pertaining to the above video) because she apparently exploited the informal "diversity" quota system. But you tried to make that right by saying she's "qualified" and the spouse of a Harvard professor. As far as the quota question goes I think it's never a good idea. If you read the original "Affirmative Action" memo it has nothing to do with quotas. Diversity was not the end game. Affirmative Action meant take affirmative action to make sure "disenfranchised communities" (in today's libspeak) are not excluded from applying for and winning Federal contractor jobs from the entire known pool of qualified applicants. (Executive Order 10925) The Administrative state grew it in to something else. Just like "banking law" is magically transformed by unelected bureaucrats empowered by low IQ demagogues in Congress. Warren seems to be one of the lowest of the "law professors" to be elected Senator. And I don't think it matters where anyone attends law school unless they want to also earn a science/engineering degree as well. Or maybe they just want to join some of those special clubs. BTW, I agree with you that Hillary is much worse. They're not even in the same league. But I don't think Hillary was ever held up as a "law professor". The thing is, just calling them "expert" at something just because they have some kind of political power is weak minded and antidemocratic. The educated demos should be used to holding their elected leaders up to high standards. But they don't seem to know how. Thank our schools. Thank our Elite Expert Professors, I guess.
    1
  14. @tdaveniii Their argument is basically that the "social cost" is minimal and irrelevant because of the "diversity benefit".
    1
  15.  @jamesharris184  I think the postmodern diversity argument is completely delusional.
    1
  16. All of Critical Theory posits that you can't use (traditionally understood) "common sense" to come to "Equity". You need Woke Sense. Read about Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. That and Frankfurt School's Critical Theory is where all of this pseudoscientific (and many decades of circulus in probando) garbage comes from.
    1
  17. Yeah, but it's Anti Rejection because it's Equity and Antiracism. I'm sure it's also Antifascist. They have no KKK Racist motive. LOL. That's what I heard him struggle to say. "Hey, we're nothing like the KKK". They're more like white "supremacist" racist Progressives of about 100 years ago. Like Hugo Black. FDR's first SCOTUS Justice and a KKK member with proper Prog bona fides.
    1
  18. No thinking involved.
    1
  19.  @RS-oq4wu  LOL. You don't even know what fact means.
    1
  20.  @RS-oq4wu  I'm helping you to grow up. It's already working. Now explain to me how you used the term incorrectly. A claim is not a fact. Even if you use magical words to persuade people of your superficial confidence. The claim that you originally made is itself highly problematic and I would say even delusional. Even without your absurd rhetoric. Do you even know what IQ testing is? Do you know what psychology is? Do you know what sociology is? Are you sure? I don't think you're sure about anything at all.
    1
  21.  @RS-oq4wu  LOL. Give it up.
    1
  22.  @RS-oq4wu  Of course. And your IQ is supposed to be, what? What's my IQ? How about my "race"?
    1
  23. You have to understand just how radically different the entire "antiracist" Critical Theory worldview is. Not just differing opinions. Different dogmas as litmus test-like "truth" claims that allegedly can only be understood by agreeing with their dogmas. You're a "dangerous racist" if you don't agree with Critical Theory "woke" dogmas. It would take at least a 3 unit college course for me to explain it to you entirely with all the references to prove it. But it is provable. They don't believe in "equal application of the law" explicitly because this rules out the alleged need for "woke councils" for "Equity" as VPOTUS describes it. It's "scientific fact" that "Capitalism" and all of it's derivative institutions (all paradigmatic, naturally) defend "disparity" because of your (and everyone else's) "selfish gene". All life is driven by "the selfish gene" according to this nihilistic set of dogmas. A few years ago, long before Covid 19, some British (socialist) teachers started to complain about parents that read to their children to prepare them for school. This was alleged to racist. This was stated explicitly. The "Enlightened" AKA "Woke" selfish gene understand the "need" for "woke" politics. Like Communism. Whether "democrats" (featuring fraudulent elections) or "Confucian democracy" with no pretense of having any kind of free elections.
    1
  24.  @gc6888  This is supposedly racist. According to the nebulous Critical Theory Marxist definition.
    1
  25.  @andrewareva4605  Do they?
    1
  26.  @woosungkim7853  My dude, "socioeconomic" is a made up term to conflate every Marxist doctrine. What's the difference between "socioeconomic" and "economic" considerations? A: Critical Theory. Others might call it Liberal Racism. But Marxists are not liberals. They are Machiavellian pseudo-realists. Delusional followers of 99% of the Communist Manifesto while denying that they have anything to do with Marx.
    1
  27.  @dothrakidani358  It really has to do with the family's culture and what they were fleeing from. And how they teach "the moral lessons" of their family history. This is always every child's foundation of whatever views they have of the present conditions and expectations for "ascension" of any kind.
    1
  28.  @dreamshakejunya  I'm lying, huh? Where's your citarion, psycho?
    1
  29.  @dreamshakejunya  You're insane.
    1
  30.  @jeffyeah4256  Of course "race" spectrum theory is purely a social construct. We know this because each grouping can still "mix" and reproduce together and each new family becomes yet another example of Homo sapiens sapiens reproducing together successfully. The whole idea of these "racial groupings" is entirely paradigmatic and was an attempt by lunatics in the golden age of lunacy (early Industrial Revolution) to justify their fears of these new things that they believed would lead to "survival of the fittest" and species culls when "Capitalists" would no longer need as many workers and so forth. Likewise, we KNOW that "gender" is not mere social construct. Even though you can create "social constructs" about any freaking thing. Comparing race a gender is idiotic simply because the thing you need to do to prove "race" theories are bogus is find reproductive pairs and family histories that contradicts all of these stupid racialist theories. And what essential thing do you need in these family histories to debunk delusional racialist theories? You need to map a mother and a father to each child. One male father, one female mother.
    1
  31.  @RS-oq4wu  You don't even know what IQ rankings consist of. IQ ratings are not "fact based" rankings. They're subjective ratings organized such that numbers can be used to come up with a numerical scale rating. It's a "thumb nail sketch" tool to help properly place students in homogenized AKA "socialized" schools. It's also used in the courts sometimes to help criminals argue for diminished capacity hence (weak arguments for) "mitigation" of accountability. It's also funny that you use metaphors like "reams of evidence". LOL. This metaphorically stands for vetted stacks of documents ready to submit to court. In the courts, evidence must be presented in "reams" along with any presentation to the judge and jury. In "science" the gold standard is witnessing the live tests. IQ testing involves something closer to priests gathering around the Oracle of Delphi and then taking weeks to comment "objectively" on what the intoxicated oracle has allegedly prophesied. The practicality of IQ testing is it helps place young students in the grade level most likely to lead to successful adaptation based on ability to read and socialize with the other students and follow the instructions from the teacher. What's the average IQ of grade school teachers? What's the average IQ of the psychologists and "experts" administering IQ tests? You have no idea about any of these things because you don't know how to apply any kind of critical thinking to any of the paradigms you want to cling to and propagate.
    1
  32. They can rationalize anything by claiming to be solving the problem that they're cultivating.
    1
  33. These morons think that they understand everything better than we do. They think people like Noam Chomsky and Richard Dawkins are geniuses that only The Elect...I mean the Woke - can understand.
    1