Journalist John Stossel perfectly illustrates why affirmative action is actually racist.
I think John Stossel has a knack for unintentionally proving that libertarians are consistently wrong about everything.
Wow. This kind of mickey mouse attempt to prove affirmative action is “reverse racism” was invented by literal teenagers in conservative/Republican student groups across university campuses in the 1990’s. Not only is it a total misunderstanding of how affirmative action works, it’s full blown trite at this point.
Upsetting that this passes for TV journalism and I’m upset for those people interviewed who had to undergo experiencing this microaggression for the sake of this inept clown to try to make a point.
affirmative action is “reverse racism”
I think we found the student who is “dumb as cardboard”
It’s not “reverse racism”, discrimination based on race is just “racism”.
Oh THANK GOD you arrived at just this point of my life to shine light on the fact I’m stupid as shit. WHEW!! Now I can no longer be burdened with any decision making for the rest of my life. What would I have done without your scathing insight and rapier wit??? I shudder to imagine all the pitfalls I would have befallen without the kind and gracious light you’ve now shone on my life.
Hey everyone! Let’s make @Unhappily_Coerced dictator for life! He’s solved racism! Surely he has all the answers to the rest of society’s ills!
If by “perfectly illustrates” you mean “bait-and-switched two situations that are not remotely similar for cheap propaganda to appeal to right-wing dipshits who don’t understand the difference between attempting to mitigate generational systemic economic oppression and buying an impulse item,” then yes… It did do that.
Nothing I say can make you see people of color as worth dignity, so I don’t care to expend the energy to try to convince you.
Nothing I say can make you see people of color as worth dignity, so I don’t care to expend the energy to try to convince you.
Now you’re implying that I’m racist while I’m clearly advocating for anti-racist policies… It’s certainly true that the leftys don’t get much smarter than this prime example.
Since when is charity dignifying for the recipient?
k
I appreciate what little insight you’ve provided and I hope you are more open to meaningful conversations in the future. Best wishes to you, my friend.
k
That’s not what affirmative action is you cretin. This situation is not even remotely comparable. If you think it is then you’re either a literal child or just a full on bird-brained simpleton (or possibly both).
Instead of seeking to lose a debate through name-calling, I encourage you to focus on constructive techniques that can foster a healthy discussion and lead to personal growth and learning.
It’s called satire… If you cannot comprehend the joke, I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Have a great day!
You straight up called me dumb as cardboard in another comment… In this same thread.
You are the least serious participant in this discussion.
Was I wrong? Why not instead of just spewing malarkey you try and bolster your position on the matter? Instead we get “mickey mouse attempt,” “reverse racism,” and “full blown trite”… How is any of that useful to the discussion at hand? It isn’t. If you want to be taken seriously, redeem yourself and give it a go.
This isn’t a debate. That person in the video is just a moron, as is everyone who thinks the video makes any kind of remotely valid point.
“iT’s SaTiRe” isn’t the automatic win card that you seem to think it is. The video is making a joke, but in that joke it’s attempting so say something (you know this because you referenced it in the title and caption of this post) — the thing that it’s saying is just stupid and wrong because it’s a false equivalency and a complete misunderstanding of the topic it’s taking about.
If someone proposes an argument and another person tries to counter the proposed argument with the goal being to critically analyze the topic and challenge a position, the conversation becomes a “debate”. Regardless of if the setting is formal or not. If you’d prefer to not call the conversation a debate, that’s fine, Libs are well known for trying to redefine words to fit their narrative and the definition of debate itself varies depending on which source you query…
Since this isn’t a formal debate and you were clear that you didn’t think it’s a debate at all, why then would you imply that the conversation must have a winner or a loser? Seems contradictory. I certainly didn’t tell you that I won because I pointed out something that was seemingly obvious to everyone, besides yourself.
You seem generally confused as you lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation. If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your education. Maybe then you might be able to comprehend the joke and attack it’s position and validity.
I truly hope you have a brighter future ahead of you. Best wishes.
For anyone viewing this comment thread, be aware that the tactic being used here is a common tactic among disingenuous and bad faith actors.
The tactic is to first make a volley that is divisive and controversial, usually lacking in respectful tone or tact with how brazenly illogical it is. Then once engaged with at the appropriate level (calling bullshit what it is), retreats into appeals for civility and decorum as it pertains to rational debate.
The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.
Don’t fall for this transparent ruse. Learn to identify this pattern. @Unhappily_Coerced has no intention of advancing a real debate.
SCOTUS disagrees and I am so pleased that years of blatant racism is being reversed regarding college admissions. Cannot wait to see what’s next!
Many people are saying that my position is wrong, but nobody has yet to try and explain why they think so. Instead we have “bait-and-switched,” “reverse-racism,” “microaggressions”, “bad faith actors,” “bird-brained simpleton,” etc… It’s both hilarious and sad that none of you can provide reinforcement for your positions.
Here’s mine: Racism is discrimination by an institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. Literally affirmative action and college admissions. But the libs and leftys will deny this to the death without ever trying to back it up. Why is that?
The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.
I couldn’t care less how many names the members of m/politics call me. It’s honestly hilarious how fresh this site is yet how much of an echo chamber it has already become. If you want to be m/lib-scum or m/donkey-politics… I’d totally get that, I wouldn’t support it, but I’d recognize that at least you tried. Instead, you’re m/politics, so you should surely expect that both sides of current arguments would be present. I was surprised that this assumption was false.
So, you get what ask for.
On another note, I’m not attempting to “appear as a victim,” we have enough leftys and libs doing that on a daily basis, I certainly wouldn’t want to come off as soft headed or cowardice as that lot. I’m simply calling out the bullshit as I see it. I’m certainly not claiming I’m innocent of bullshitting and name calling.
So, you get what you give.
Your respect isn’t worth earning.
