World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
But asking them who their father is is fine?
If people gave a shit about fairness they'd care about legacy admission more than affirmative action.
No, that's not fine either and should also be outlawed due to a history of systemic racism giving some people an advantage over others.
It should be 100% merit based, plain and simple. It's the only fair way.
Funny how we addressed the tool that helped black kids first, rather than the one that hurt them.
Maybe it's because this is being pushed by bad people, that you seem to agree with under some fantasy of "100% merit based" reality.
Systemic biases exist, AA compensated for them banking AA is basically pretending this nation isn't racist AF.
Our entire society is plain wrong, doing things to address those injustices is good actually.
P.s you can't be "racist" against white people, in a white supremacists nation.
You can in Hawaii.
[X] Doubt
It's very difficult. Discriminating against white people in a fundamentally white supremacist society (which the US is) is a bit like farting in a hurricane. I mean... do you see footage of black cops casually murdering white people at least once every week?
[X] Doubt
Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't make it any less true - the US was built on white supremacism. Whether it can actually exist without white supremacism is an unknown and perhaps worth debating - but what it is right now is no mystery.
It can though. What kind of white supremacist country would have let a black man named Barack Obama anywhere near presidency? Then elected him twice? My boss is black, next door neighbors are black, some of the coolest actors in hollywood are black. It's not 1864 anymore and race is quickly becoming irrelevant. The last thing we need is another way to divide people up while the rich sit back and watch the infighting.
The fact that the US is failing at repressing black people doesn't mean the US isn't inherently white supremacist - just like the fact that the US was defeated in Vietnam and Afghanistan doesn't mean the US isn't fundamentally a colonialist empire. In both cases, the answer is in the affirmative - the US is fundamentally white supremacist and it is fundamentally colonialist. The fact that it has failed at both on many occasions doesn't negate the truth of that. Apartheid-South Africa was similarly fundamentally white supremacist - the fact that it failed to repress it's black population doesn't suddenly mean that Apartheid-South Africa wasn't fundamentally white supremacist.
You seem to believe that the fact that the long struggle black (and other people) have had to wage in the US simply to be seen as human (somehow) "proves" that the US isn't fundamentally white supremacist while completely ignoring the blatantly obvious reason why such struggles was necessary in the first damn place and are still ongoing.
LMAO "we solved racism cuz Obama"
The US is still a white supremacists nation where white lives are placed above non-black lives, you can bury your head in the sand but systemic racism is very much real.
You can pretend you care about class, but if you're analysis of the material conditions ignore the fundamental structure of the US, you're not helping anyone.
That's not how it's going to play out in reality, unfortunately. I truly wish it were.
Indeed. Such programs exist, and we need more of them.
Neither is ok. But only one likely violates the constitution. Congress could make legacy admissions illegal if they wanted to.
Congress could've made affirmative action illegal if they wanted to?
But only one side works as the majority's dog whistle.
Yes. Even noted red state California (/s) voted in a referendum to make the practice illegal.
I really appreciate this take, because it reminded me that I can always call my congressman (or at least their office) and voice my opinion to ears that might be able to do something about it.
I don't agree with legacy admissions but at least that's based on a choice that was made at some point rather than race alone. Race is a grouping you can never join or leave, while legacy admissions are a coupon that can be acquired by anyone after a generation and it only applies to 1 or 2 schools at a time. The nature of this division is very different and I think that makes affirmative action the squeaky wheel here, but both are silly ways to decide admission.
You can never change who your parents are, that's some real mental gymnastics to justify how hereditary acceptance criteria is good actually, but using race to identify those underservered by k-12 education, lacking in family connections, not having knowledge of college specific tricks to getting accepted & generally having less resources available to do the extra-ciricular activity to get in, and compensate for that bias is bad.
Affirmative action is only silly if you don't accept that systemic racism exists.
Just because AA isn't "silly" doesn't mean it's a correct policy
Most of AA "positives" can be achieved with income-based criteria, more seats in courses and the unachievable better base education and home environment
AA was meant to cause division not solve issues. Which becomes obvious when you realize having income-based criteria would help everyone that needed it, not just some black people that do and some that don't.
Did I say it was good or that you could change who your parents are? How is not being allowed to look at race... hurtful to specific races? At a predominantly black high school, does the 1 white kid somehow have the upper hand with college admissions?
Fine the mental gymnastics is to justify why hereditary admission criteria are more acceptable to you not "good"
Yes the white kid does.
To pretend a white kid in a predominantly black school doesn't have an advantage in "colorblind" admissions is to deny the existence of systemic racism.
I thought colorblind meant they couldn't see that kid's race. With AA, your response to racism can only be "hey that's not the kind of racism we want!" Without AA, racism in admissions is illegal.
No positive measure to counteract systemic biases are illegal.
Hereditary admissions when 80% of previous students were not black, is pretty explicitly racist and still very much legal
All the implicit systemic biases in the admission system are very much legal
The only thing you can't do is ensure black kids get admitted.
If you have a system and you know its giving you biases results you can compensate for the bias, without understanding every single component bias, that's what AA was, banning it, is sticking your head in the sand and going back to faux/real Naïvity about how system racism works.
We might as well start asking "why do black people prefer renting?", because as a nation we are commited to pretending to not understand that there are systemic reasons for things.
"Why do ~~black~~ poor people prefer renting?" You can solve this better by addressing wealth disparity
Black people only make up 12.6% of the population. If 80% of previous students aren't black, then black students are heavily over-represented in the student body.
Can be biased both for or against the student based on who the specific administrators are.
Can be biased both for or against the student based on who the specific teachers are.
Sure buddy, and if you're too stupid to get into any college you might believe both those have the same chance of happen 🤣
Yes. If a white person applies to an HBCU they can get minority scholarships. There was a big story about it a few years ago where a white person wrote about their experience being a minority and turns out being a minority sucks no matter who the majority is.