> I think that the idea is not to "dumb down" the kids, but to have a goal that everyone can achieve instead of a goal that is impossible to achieve for some [...]
You don't need to have a unified "goal". Just let the faster students learn more. Note California public schools started *removing* optional classes for faster students.
> I mean, being invisible and rightless, but allowed to work and get a tiny fraction of the value your work represents, until someone just murders you and then makes it out you were such a danger to them? [...] I would burn things down, too.
What are you talking about? Literally everything you are complaining about is false.
> being invisible
They are not invisible. There are riots with extreme violence when one of their criminals is shot by police, even though the cop is facing a murder trial. In contrast, Muslims in France committed multiple attacks against ethnic French people and there were zero riots. If the Muslims in France are invisible, how come a death of one of their criminals causes such indignation to result in a violent riot? But multiple terrorist attacks / targeted assassinations / stabbing / shootings / murders perpetrated by Muslim in France against the ethnic French population don't cause enough indignation to result in a riot?
Tell me, what rights do ethnic French people have that Muslim French citizens don't?
> allowed to work and get a tiny fraction of the value your work represents
You must not be familiar with the French welfare state. I guarantee that the Muslim immigrants and their children receive MUCH more from the government than the work they produce.
> until someone just murders you
And is prosecuted for it!
> I would burn things down, too
Consider you don't know what is happening in France before you proclaim support for riots and violence.
The difference is that employers at least *try* to pick the best candidate by ignoring characteristics such as attractiveness and height. For race and gender, it's the opposite: employers actively give preference to certain races and to women.
There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men."
Usually prostitutes are women and buyers are men. So they legalized the part where there are more women. That's either because women have more sympathy from society or for ideological reasons. Fixing crime was way below those reasons on those politicians priorities.
I wish it were so innocent. In reality it's libertarians literally hard for legalizing their prostitution startup dreams. These people would pimp their mother for a higher credit score, with their mother's consent of course.
There is no principled reasoning from those politicians. The rule is basically "Sign any law that advantages women. Be neutral or against any law that advantages men."
Ask these politicians how they are respecting men's body autonomy. They will look at you confused thinking "body autonomy" applies only to women or outright get angry and say you are arguing in bad faith.
> Simply put, being exposed to a a rich, diverse student body is good for everyone, not just minorities.
Why does the student body need to replace part of its Whites and Asians with minorities to be "rich and diverse"? Can't it be rich and diverse by having different people which are each his own individual not defined by his race?
Also, aren't you worried about how getting denied admission to a college because of your race will have a very negative effect for "society"?
> Why does the student body need to replace part of its Whites and Asians with minorities to be "rich and diverse"?
Hey, so there are two parts to your question, the "rich" part and the "diverse" part. I'll start with diverse because it's the most obvious.
In order to have a "diverse" student body, it should be represent a plurality of points of view. If everyone was White/Asian then the student body wouldn't be diverse, because, by definition, there would just be people from those backgrounds. Obviously there's more to diversity than just race, and I'm not not trying to argue there isn't. I am trying to keep this response short though, so forgive me from enumerating on other things when you asked specifically about race.
Ok so now the "rich" part of the question. College is an important time in one's life where many people get the opportunity to experience freedom for the first time, while they pursue a challenging, serious education. However homework and lecture is not the only place where our education happens. Being exposed to a lot of ideas, people, and experiences is also critical to the college education. By this line of reasoning being around people of all sorts of different backgrounds is part of that aspect of education.
I grew up in a suburb of Texas. There were not a lot African Americans. I actually can't remember there being any. My family wasn't wealthy though, and my parents are immigrants (just to give you some context and to keep my story honest). I truly think that if my university hadn't had its affirmative action program, there's a good chance I would have made it to adulthood without having ever been around non-white people in a meaningful sense. When would I have? I didn't choose what family, city, state, or country I was born in. All of those things happened outside of my control, and, frankly, from the perspective of someone who was from a city like New York or London I would have seemed pretty ignorant.
It's sort of like traveling, you know? Having the opportunity to travel gives you a baseline level of experience in the world that there really is no substitute for. I think having an ethnically diverse student body is similar, and that is why I said society is the primary beneficiary of affirmative action. That's my best way to answer the question without there being an actual person in front of me and being able to have a face to face discussion, so I hope you take my answer as one given sincerely, even if you don't agree with it.
> Also, aren't you worried about how getting denied admission to a college because of your race will have a very negative effect for "society"?
I am Italian. My "race" invented pizza, so no.
Edit: Also, kidding aside, give me a break. I don't even know how to answer that. You're acting like you're the victim of some kind of race war, and it's cringe. I hate to say it, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's true. You sound like one of my parents when they pretend like "you can't joke about anything anymore" or that everything is "so complicated with all the political correctness". Madonna.
> the red states are MUCH more reliant on federal government handouts that the blue states have to pay for, BECAUSE of their "conservative" policy choices.
Do you have any economics paper indicating that? The much more likely explanation is that red states are more rural and blue states are more urban (so have higher income). Florida and Texas' economies are doing great. Notice even California had a Republican governor until 2011.
Not only you are wrong, you are wrong and arrogant.
California was deep red when Silicon Valley was being built. And most “red states” voted Democrat until the 1990s (with the exception of Reagan). The richest ones, like Virginia, started voted Republican before the others. And richer areas, like the Atlanta suburbs in Georgia, started voting republican before the rest of the state.
Not with respect to “single payer health care, forgiving student loans, funding education, raising taxes on the wealthy, and ending corporate welfare.” Or taxes or regulation. The GOP has gotten more liberal with respect to the “policy choices” that OP claims causes red states to be “more reliant on federal government.”
> Not only you are wrong, you are wrong and arrogant.
Facing facts ≠ arrogance.
> Notice even California had a Republican governor until 2011.
And? California has long been a leading indicator of societal trends. (And 2011 was a dozen years ago.)
"Biden’s winning base in 509 counties encompasses fully 71% of America’s economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,547 counties represents just 29% of the economy." [0]
You don't need to have a unified "goal". Just let the faster students learn more. Note California public schools started *removing* optional classes for faster students.