CJCS responds to Rep. Gaetz

[Flash]

Yes it does. Mail in and absentee voting. Voter ID as well, IIRC.

Well, duh. Point being, Flash argued that the Feds have no business in election administration. That is not demonstrated by DEM party rhetoric or even House bills.

None of those proposed laws increase the federal government's role in actually administering elections, just the laws governing them like the prohibition of poll taxes and literacy tests.

 

[taxi1]

He has refused multiple times to answer my basic question over if it would be racist or discriminatory if a college, selection, or hiring board counted his race against him, which is expressly what affirmative action does. The whole idea is to discriminate to provide an advantage to certain races. He can't answer that question because it reveals how hypocritical advocating it and claiming it isn't racist is.

Years ago I argued about this, but from your point of view. I’ve evolved on it, but I get the discrimination piece.

The whole idea is to discriminate to provide an advantage to certain races.

No.

Well, it can be, and has been used that way for a couple of hundred years in the USA.

It can also be used to balance things. To remove an inherent advantage from certain races. To make the total system better.

For example, to have an all white officer corps with predominately colored enlisted Navy would likely not lead to the entire system performing at its highest level, for what I think are obvious reasons. Is it discriminating to try to take active measures to try to achieve some balance? A thumb on the scale?

 

[Spekkio]

He has refused multiple times to answer my basic question over if it would be racist or discriminatory if a college, selection, or hiring board counted his race against him, which is expressly what affirmative action does.

It isn't as long as 1) there is a clear minimum standard and 2) that minimum standard isn't compromised to hire someone of a different demographic.

To use college as an example: let's say the minimum standard for acceptance is a 85 GPA and 1250 SAT score. You have a white candidate from suburban Massachusetts who has a 1400 SAT / 92 GPA and a black candidate with a 1300 SAT and 86 GPA from Natchitoches, LA.

Both of these candidates exceed the minimum standards, so now it's down to whether it's more important to take the person with better grades from a cookie cutter suburban neighborhood or a minority from one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country, and which one will better enrich the education of people around him. Also depends on whether you think that the latter candidate, given a better learning environment, could reach a higher potential than already shown - that's where comparative analysis like class ranking and how people do on standardized tests relative to people from the same location comes into play.

 

[nodropinufaka]

We have 20 years at a level of engagement in Afghanistan that will not be replicated in any TSC relationship in the Pacific in current times. Have we evaluated how effective we were in changing the culture of the various tribes? What worked, what didn't work? What produced unexpected but desirable outcomes? Undesirable outcomes?

Yes. All IMOs and LOEs get measured both quantitatively and qualitatively for performance every 2-4 years to see if the desired effect is being reached.

The problem is that all the countries and then the various tribes and cultures in a lot of countries are so wildly different it’s difficult. What works for one may not work for the other.

Take the Philippines and Indonesia for example.

Add on third gender which most cultures accept as a norm and it gets complicated really quick.

 

[nodropinufaka]

@Spekkio and @taxi1 said it much better on affirmative action.

also on the topic of veterans. ALOT of non vets in the fed work place complain and cry foul and find it to be discriminatory and a lot of fed hiring managers HATE having to hire less qualified veterans over extremely qualified non vets.

 

[PMPT]

And that party is becoming more influenced by Communism with each passing day.

How can anybody say this and expect to be taken seriously? This is absurd hyperbole. It's almost hard to know where to begin with refuting this obviously asinine statement.

 

[Mirage]

Years ago I argued about this, but from your point of view. I’ve evolved on it, but I get the discrimination piece.

No.

Well, it can be, and has been used that way for a couple of hundred years in the USA.

It can also be used to balance things. To remove an inherent advantage from certain races. To make the total system better.

For example, to have an all white officer corps with predominately colored enlisted Navy would likely not lead to the entire system performing at its highest level, for what I think are obvious reasons. Is it discriminating to try to take active measures to try to achieve some balance? A thumb on the scale?

Any time you set out selection criteria, you are by definition discriminating. Comparing GPAs? You're discriminating on the basis of GPA. So yes, discriminating on the basis of ones skin color is wrong. We should have learned that lesson from our history, but instead we're trying to fix our past mistakes in racial discrimination with more racial discrimination. The fact is we don't have an all white officer corps, and by taking our thumb off the scale regarding racial discrimination, the officer corps will look more and more like society each year. The problem is this is slower than discriminating against white people, and people are impatient.

It isn't as long as 1) there is a clear minimum standard and 2) that minimum standard isn't compromised to hire someone of a different demographic.

To use college as an example: let's say the minimum standard for acceptance is a 85 GPA and 1250 SAT score. You have a white candidate from suburban Massachusetts who has a 1400 SAT / 92 GPA and a black candidate with a 1300 SAT and 86 GPA from Natchitoches, LA.

Both of these candidates exceed the minimum standards, so now it's down to whether it's more important to take the person with better grades from a cookie cutter suburban neighborhood or a minority from one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country, and which one will better enrich the education of people around him. Also depends on whether you think that the latter candidate, given a better learning environment, could reach a higher potential than already shown - that's where comparative analysis like class ranking and how people do on standardized tests relative to people from the same location comes into play.

So it's not racist to discriminate based on race as long as there's a minimum standard that isn't based on race. Interesting. So what if I created a college, set low minimum standards, had so many people apply that I could only let 1% of them in, and then ranked the applicants by a point system and awarded negative points to black people because of their skin color? Would that be racist or discriminatory?

You also are acting like all white people are coming from suburbia. Poor white and Asian kids are ranked lower and rich black kids are ranked higher.. not based on their prior opportunity, but their skin.

@Spekkio and @taxi1 said it much better on affirmative action.

also on the topic of veterans. ALOT of non vets in the fed work place complain and cry foul and find it to be discriminatory and a lot of fed hiring managers HATE having to hire less qualified veterans over extremely qualified non vets.

They're upset they are being discriminated against on the basis of their prior work history. The scandal!

 

[nodropinufaka]

Any time you set out selection criteria, you are by definition discriminating. Comparing GPAs? You're discriminating on the basis of GPA. So yes, discriminating on the basis of ones skin color is wrong. We should have learned that lesson from our history, but instead we're trying to fix our past mistakes in racial discrimination with more racial discrimination. The fact is we don't have an all white officer corps, and by taking our thumb off the scale regarding racial discrimination, the officer corps will look more and more like society each year. The problem is this is slower than discriminating against white people, and people are impatient.


So it's not racist to discriminate based on race as long as there's a minimum standard that isn't based on race. Interesting. So what if I created a college, set low minimum standards, had so many people apply that I could only let 1% of them in, and then ranked the applicants by a point system and awarded negative points to black people because of their skin color? Would that be racist or discriminatory?

You also are acting like all white people are coming from suburbia. Poor white and Asian kids are ranked lower and rich black kids are ranked higher.. not based on their prior opportunity, but their skin.


They're upset they are being discriminated against on the basis of their prior work history. The scandal!

But no one is ranking based strictly on skin color.

If the minimum standards are being met and the organization wants to diversify its members because it finds value in said diversity it then it should be allowed. I don’t see how that’s discriminating.

On topic of veterans. Many people cannot join the military for a variety of reasons. The feds give full blanket preference over non vets. Many can argue that’s discriminatory and prob a better example. Hiring managers cannot under any circumstance pick a non vet over a vet without a major HR review. That isn’t a case of equal qualifications and a diverse workforce but one getting full preferential treatment over another class.

 

[Spekkio]

So it's not racist to discriminate based on race as long as there's a minimum standard that isn't based on race. Interesting. So what if I... ranked the applicants by a point system and awarded negative points to black people because of their skin color? Would that be racist or discriminatory?

No one is awarding 'negative points' in the example I provided.

It's valuable to have a variety of different cultures an viewpoints in an educational environment. I've been consistent in this thread in saying that race goes deeper than skin color and permeates into cultural differences among various demographics - some good, some bad (and talking about the bad apparently makes me a racist according to some). Using raw test scores and grades as the sole criteria for admission could miss this key objective, ultimately resulting in a worse educational outcome for students of the institution.

What if I... created a college, set low minimum standards

Then you'd have a shitty college that no one would really want to actually attend.

You also are acting like all white people are coming from suburbia. Poor white and Asian kids are ranked lower and rich black kids are ranked higher.. not based on their prior opportunity, but their skin.

I used a notional example based on actual demographics that exist within the U.S. Don't put words in my mouth that this is always the case.

 

[Mirage]

But no one is ranking based strictly on skin color.

If the minimum standards are being met and the organization wants to diversify its members because it finds value in said diversity it then it should be allowed. I don’t see how that’s discriminating.

On topic of veterans. Many people cannot join the military for a variety of reasons. The feds give full blanket preference over non vets. Many can argue that’s discriminatory and prob a better example. Hiring managers cannot under any circumstance pick a non vet over a vet without a major HR review. That isn’t a case of equal qualifications and a diverse workforce but one getting full preferential treatment over another class.

You really have a problem answering questions. You should be a politician. At least Spekkio has the balls to address my points instead of just waving his hand and saying it's not discrimination. I ask again.

what if I created a college, set low minimum standards, had so many people apply that I could only let 1% of them in, and then ranked the applicants by a point system and awarded negative points to black people because of their skin color? Would that be racist or discriminatory?

As for your comments about vet preference... Wow.

 

[Mirage]

No one is awarding 'negative points' in the example I provided.

It's valuable to have a variety of different cultures an viewpoints in an educational environment. I've been consistent in this thread in saying that race goes deeper than skin color and permeates into cultural differences between demographics - some good, some bad (and talking about the bad apparently makes me a racist according to some). Using raw test scores and grades as the sole criteria for admission could miss this key objective, ultimately resulting in a worse educational outcome for students of the institution.

Then you'd have a shitty college that no one would really want to actually attend.

I used a notional example based on actual demographics that exist within the U.S. Don't put words in my mouth that this is always the case.

Well nevermind what I said in my reply to no drop about you having the balls to address my question.

Affirmative action in colleges literally results in colleges awarding negative points to applicants based on their race. See the current lawsuit awaiting the Supreme Court.

I didn't put words in your mouth about demographics. I'm saying the college policies aren't advantaging just poor kids or disadvantaging rich ones. Far from it. They could accomplish that by discriminating based on other things... They are discriminating based on race.

 

[Spekkio]

Well nevermind what I said in my reply to no drop about you having the balls to address my question.

I think that I answered your question just fine: Your hypothetical scenario is absurd. The closest thing to it in reality are community colleges, whose aggregate student bodies are slightly skewed toward favoring minorities more than the general population. This is mostly driven by economics where white students on average have more money and resources to attend 4-year universities.

Affirmative action in colleges literally results in colleges awarding negative points to applicants based on their race...

I think that you are having a tough mental road block getting over the fact that quality education relies upon more than putting 10-20 people with the highest raw GPA and standardized test scores in the same room, just like building a quality officer corps relies on more than taking the students with the best GPA and ASTB scores.

 

[nodropinufaka]

I think that I answered your question just fine: Your hypothetical scenario is absurd. The closest thing to it in reality are community colleges, whose aggregate student bodies are slightly skewed toward favoring minorities more than the general population. This is mostly driven by economics where white students on average have more money and resources to attend 4-year universities.

I think that you are having a tough mental road block getting over the fact that quality education relies upon more than putting 10-20 people with the highest raw GPA and standardized test scores in the same room, just like building a quality officer corps relies on more than taking the students with the best GPA and ASTB scores.

this is one of my issues with the Military. An over emphasis on STEM majors.

Of course STEM is needed but it isn’t the end all be all. Can’t even count the amount of JOs I knew who called themselves engineers cause they had an engineering degree. That just makes you someone with a degree. You’re not working as an engineer or licensed.

Problem is they emphasized this so much that people have trouble seeing the big picture and understanding it’s not just GPA, Major, and test scores.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Also should points be given based on race? Of course not. But that doesn’t happen and if it has in certain places it needs to stop.

But the majority of affirmative action is not that

 

[Mirage]

I think that I answered your question just fine: Your hypothetical scenario is absurd. The closest thing to it in reality are community colleges, whose aggregate student bodies are slightly skewed toward favoring minorities more than the general population. This is mostly driven by economics where white students on average have more money and resources to attend 4-year universities.

I think that you are having a tough mental road block getting over the fact that quality education relies upon more than putting 10-20 people with the highest raw GPA and standardized test scores in the same room, just like building a quality officer corps relies on more than taking the students with the best GPA and ASTB scores.

Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says (Published 2018)

Personal ratings brought down Asian-American applicants’ chances of being admitted, according to an analysis filed by a group suing the school for bias.

www.nytimes.com

"Harvard... admitted only 4.6 percent of it's applicants this year"
"Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like 'positive personality'..."

So excuse me. Amend my scenario to the college I create is a very good college and only lets in 4.6% of it's applicants. Now can you answer this hypothetical question that is about whether such a policy would be racist or discriminatory assuming it happened and was possible, or are you going to keep avoiding it?

I absolutely have no problem with them looking at the whole person concept, so long as that doesn't include ranking people lower based on their skin color or genitals (you know, protected categories). Extracurriculars, family income, school they attended, class ranking, etc... Great!