Jump to content

THE_TITAN

Members
  • Content count

    2,954
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About THE_TITAN

  • Rank
    All-Pro

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    England - land of Shakespeare and battered Cod

Recent Profile Visitors

7,601 profile views
  1. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    If the reason for your exclusion is race-based then that is inexcusable. That is affirmative action.
  2. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    I care about test scores but Harvard seems to care about the pigment of your skin. Racists.
  3. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    I care about people getting in on merit and being judged by their success and not by the colour of their skin. You don't seem to have an argument against that "Asian is not a skin colour" is just an empty reply and you know it. Loser.
  4. THE_TITAN

    US Senate races. Remember Trump is dumb..

    If I were on the Senate I would've voted for Ginsburg and Kagan as much as I would've for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. It's about qualifications to be on SCOTUS, not about whether they agree with your specific judicial philosophy.
  5. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    My concern is with people with better grades who are getting rejected BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR.
  6. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Strawman. Many of the Asians applying to Ivy League and are getting rejected based on affirmative action come from modest backgrounds, conversely some of the black students getting in via affirmative actions come from more privileged backgrounds. That's the problem with this type of discrimination, it only takes into account immutable characteristics.
  7. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Of opinion, not immutable characteristics.
  8. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Affirmative action does the complete opposite of judging applications on merit - hence discrimination versus Asians. It IS discriminating based on race, that's the WHOLE POINT of affirmative action.
  9. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Judging applications on merit isn't systematic discrimination. Stopping asians from attending Harvard because of their race is systematic discrimination. That's affirmative action.
  10. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Affirmative action isn't legal equality, it's legal discrimination.
  11. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Identity politics doesn't solve any problems of discrimination. I mean if we want to talk about DISCRIMINATION, identity politics has led to policies which openly advocate for discrimination under the guise of "equity" e.g. affirmative action policies that openly discriminate against asian and white student applicants to the Ivy League because of their race. That is discrimination that the identity politics left certainly supports because it forwards their so-called equity agenda.
  12. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    I'd struggle to term most of those examples as "attacking" those demographics as it was put. But the laws you mentioned i.e. criminal justice laws being a detriment to minority communities doesn't mean the laws are inherently discriminatory, it is usually behaviour on the other end that leads to the disproportionate affects i.e. higher crime rate among black populace. My point is you don't overcome any of those issues by pitting groups against eachother in the form of identity politics. It just leads to more polarized and extreme politics on both ends of the political spectrum.
  13. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Please provide evidence for any of the above, it is just empty narrative. And do you really think the civil rights movement was successful because of identity politics?! The people like MLK who really pushed that movement forward did it by being inclusive and illustrating the power of equality to all INDIVIDUALS. If it were a black vs white contest do you really think LBJ would've passed the legislation? No chance. Coalitions based upon sound ideas and appealing to individuals is the way forward. The policy issue was discrimination again minorities, yes, but this wasn't overcome by discrimination or disdain for other groups. It was overcome by open dialogue and debate to illustrate to individuals how powerful the argument and necessity of equality among the races instantiated in legislation actually was and still is.
  14. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    This obsession with identity of the group (which is usually some constructionist narrative whipped up by some far-left or far-right crackpot movement) has really alienated the rural working class vote for the Dems. When they used to focus on the individual worker, and talk about policies to assist the individual, that really resonated. But now they seem to be focused (or at least the dominant progressive wing does) on group-based policies. Without realising that a group isn't homogeneous in terms of its worldview just because individuals within that group share an immutable characteristic/s. At its core identity politics is extremely anti-liberal because of its disdain for the individual.
  15. THE_TITAN

    Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

    Strawman argument. We are talking about IDENTITY POLITICS as a phenomenon. Explain to me how it doesn't pit groups against eachother? (Not to mention that your strawman argument is a clear illustration of your subscription to the identity politics groupthink mentality. By assuming that all gays or trans people would agree with your assertion that the GOP are "going after them", I'm sure you'll find a diversity of opinion on that point. But it doesn't matter because you assume a groupthink > the individual mentality).
×