-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
D
deleted171991
So now you're saying racism is OK?
Even just having a lottery among all the kids meeting the minimum (objective) standard would be fairer than all the subjective crap going on in American admissions.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I got both my grad degrees from Y during the same time, and I can tell you they met full demonstrated need.
D
deleted171991
That just doesn't happen in real life. We are diverse, just not equally diverse. That's what all modern biology, psychology and sociology shows, when it's allowed to (by the radical left which tries to block even studying the facts that may hurt their "feelings").
This leftist BS that all humans/groups are equal is about as correct as the success of communism. Humans are different, both as individuals and as groups. They have different genes, different evolutionary pathways, different talents, different histories, different hormones. WE ARE DIFFERENT. That also means that we are better/worse at a lot of things than others, sometimes at a genetic/biologic level (e.g. men vs women), not to mention the cultural level (the group that emphasizes education will do better than the one that doesn't).
So equality of outcomes does not happen, even with equal opportunity. Just look at the racial structure of the NBA or NFL. You will not see as many Asians there as in the general population, despite probably having equal opportunity. There are tons of examples around us. Difference in outcomes doesn't mean discrimination. Correlation is not causation.
D
deleted171991
I'm not going to teach you why equality of outcomes is utopic, and has lead to the postmodern radical left social justice "war". There are people who do it way better than me. Please Google it.
I grew up in an authoritarian society. What the American left is doing reminds me more and more of it.
D
deleted171991
I will. I don't believe in it. 25-30% of my serious ICU pathology is fixing stupid decisions by other board-certified (i.e. minimally competent) doctors, meaning iatrogenic stuff that should have been foreseen. Brains are important in medicine, hence so are science- and logic-based tests.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
deleted171991
Yes, they are (I know). That's because people hate to sue doctors they like.
I am sure communication skills also correlate a lot with patient outcomes and survival. /sarcasm
Btw, I am sure one could create an objective test for it, such as an essay that's graded blindly by a third-party (a la SAT), instead of subjective evaluations by admission officers.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see both sides of the AA debate. I wonder if there's a meeting point in the middle. I wonder:
Are those in favor of AA able to concede that AA is based on race and is therefore, inherently, partially racist?
Are those against AA able to acknowledge AA may be a necessary evil in the short term given the current educational system in the US does not allow for a meritocracy to exist?
HH
Are those in favor of AA able to concede that AA is based on race and is therefore, inherently, partially racist?
Are those against AA able to acknowledge AA may be a necessary evil in the short term given the current educational system in the US does not allow for a meritocracy to exist?
HH
D
deleted171991
You have just described my current position.
I just find it hypocritical when the protected classes complain that they feel being looked down upon, as if less than equals. One can't have it both ways.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't want to derail the AA discussion too much, but I found this post earlier in the thread worthy of a reply. I didn't have time when I first read it.
Briefly, FFP - I see your theoretical point and there are some examples I can think of to support this theory.
However, I suspect that a minority must exceed some unknown percentage of the entire population in even small nations (or communities) for your theory to hold.
In contrast, when the minorities make up such a small percentage of the overall population and have such a small impact on even small communities, they are likely to be viewed as individuals and not by the characteristic defining their minority status. And when minorities are seen in this manner, unjustified discrimination is typically non-existent. In fact, individuals from a very small minority are often treated better than the majority.
[[[[[[In addition to meeting a unquantifible threshold percentage, often a history of being a minority is needed to for discrimination.]]]
I suspect -- although I can't prove it -- that this is true in Iceland (at least as far as race goes until very recently). With more thought and research, I bet I can find better examples.
Either way, my point was just that the absolute statement Blade was posting was unlikely to be true and should not be used to support his point.
HH
D
deleted50478
Sure but the calculations are flawed and left the middle class in the donut hole, too rich for aid, too poor to pay tuition, especially if they have more than 1-2 kids.
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Race-blind policies are the only non-racist way move forward. Consider more than scores- extracurricular, grades, letters of rec etc. But the people making decisions should have ZERO knowledge of skin color.
AA is basically saying it’s OK to discriminate against individulals for a non-proven “greater societal good.”
AA is basically saying it’s OK to discriminate against individulals for a non-proven “greater societal good.”
Given that real median family income is shade under 65k, I think 125k more than aptly addresses the middle class. Further, aid extends all the way to about 185k family income, where you could expect approximately half of tuition to be covered. Tell me what other institution has such aid available based solely on need?
D
deleted87051
This is legitimate. While I oppose AA at the undergrad level, I support URM consideration in medical school.
Point one, when did I say anything about being ok with rape of any incidence? All rape is horrible, repulsive, and should be condemned to the full extent of the law. Trust me, I have two daughters and I'd be in jail before the rapist if one of them was ever submitted to that kind of violent assault.
Point two, don't always trust the "data" blindly. You should know that numbers can be massaged to say anything.
This says that AT LEAST 1 in 4 women will have been raped by the age of 44.
Here are 3 startling new stats on rape - Reveal
At least 1 in 4 women are raped by the time they turn 44, and that number isn’t budging, a robust new study finds.
www.revealnews.org
Hmmmm, ok....
You also have this...
...data covering 1995-2013 from the dept of justice that says that the incidence of rape OR sexual assault (so the actual rape incidence is gonna be less) for females 12 years old and up is 1.4 per 1000 per year, aka 0.14%. Now that incidence skyrockets to 0.43% during college age years of 18-24. So, if you math it up....
44 years old - 12 years old = 32 years to be raped by the age of 44. Then you take 32 years x ~ 0.2% chance of being raped OR sexually assaulted per year (remember now, that means rape is only a fraction of this number), and that gives you an overall chance of 64 in 1000, or 6.4% chance of being raped OR SEXUALLY assaulted.
Hmmmmmm...
NOW, add in the fact that people like Lena Dunham or this girl might be responding to your survey about whether or not they have been raped
And.....well, yeah. 'Nuff said.
So no, I don't believe the 1 in 4 nonsense.
Think about it. It takes two people for a rape to occur, yeah? Hey, there's the first thing I know we all can agree on 😉. And with a 1:1 ratio of males and females in America, I guess that 1 out of 4 men is a rapist?!?!??! No no, that's crazy. I know there are serial rapists, but what percent of rapists are repeat offenders? And how many rapes per serial rapist is typical? I don't know the answer, maybe someone does, but lets just say repeat offenders are responsible for half the rapes in the US. Is that fair? If so, then that leaves us with 1 in 8 women being raped by a one-time offender. Or in other words, 1 in 8 men are rapists. Imagine your anesthesia department. Mine has about 50 guys in it, so what, maybe 6 of them are rapists? And what about your immediate family. Do you have 8 male relatives about the age of 16? I bet most people do. I guess at least one of your family members is statistically a rapist then, right?
You really believe all that?
I go back to my original assertion. If I believed what you believe, I'd be depressed.
Now, as far as your asinine statement about the KKK being "alive and well," all I can say is, you need to turn the MSNBC off and take a look in the real world where the EXTREME MAJORITY of people are not racist at all - except those on college admission boards of course ; ) -
The KKK has roughly 3000 members according to this recent estimate.
"Alive and well?" Nah, that's more like "60 minutes into a code and someone's about to call it."
Last edited:
🤣
"Michelle, we are gonna have to let you go. Today is your last day here. I'm sorry."
"Wait, what? Why!?"
"Well, multiple factors went into my decision to fire you, including the fact that you're a woman, but trust me, this is not a sexist decision whatsoever."
Last edited:
"Michelle, we are gonna have to let you go. Today is your last day here. I'm sorry."
"Wait, what? Why!?"
"Well, multiple factors went into my decision to fire you, including the fact that you're a woman, but trust me, this is not a sexist decision whatsoever."
Love this.
Only makes sense that whatever factors we use to select people for a job/school etc should be equally ok to use as criteria to fire/deselect them.
No one in their right mind would argue it’s ok to fire someone because they are a woman, a Mexican or because their skin is black (even if it’s “one of many parts” of the decision). Why is it OK the other way around?
Would it be OK in your opinion to selectively lay-off white men when a company is downsizing, because there aren’t “enough” minorities at the company? It would be HIGHLY racist imo.... but when you think carefully, this is exactly the same concept happening in AA when you decide to consider skin color at all.
Last edited:
So you think all doctors coming out should be Chinese and Indian males. Got it.
"Michelle, we are gonna have to let you go. Today is your last day here. I'm sorry."
"Wait, what? Why!?"
"Well, multiple factors went into my decision to fire you, including the fact that you're a woman, but trust me, this is not a sexist decision whatsoever."
And hiring =\= firing. People usually get fired for screwing things up
Last edited:
People usually get fired for screwing up. Huge analogy fail
Exaggerate much?
No one said test scores should be the ONLY determinant of entrance. Grades, recommendations, extracurriculars etc are fine other tools.
We are just saying race (and sex) should NOT be considered at all....
You are dodging the question. Many more people are laid off (due to job elimination, relocation etc) rather than fired. Is it ok to use race as part of that decision?
So you DO want a society full of a Asian male doctors.
Should college and medical school class not represent the demographics of society as a whole? You may think not, but I (and apparently courts and admission committees) disagree
Citing court rulings as evidence of moral correctness or that a policy is "good" for some named or unnamed purpose, is an exceptionally weak rhetorical technique. The best we can really hope for is for a court decision to be a technically correct application of law to a question at hand.
Of course I agree, as everyone should 🙂, that the rule of law is the best system and that civilization itself is at risk if we don't accept and abide by court decisions. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means - and if enough people disagree with that interpretation, there's a mechanism to change the Constitution.
I would just remind you that the federal courts have shifted substantially to the right in the last 3 years. I expect you will be equally firm in your advocacy for accepting the rulings in the cases before the Court this term.
When Clarence Thomas pens the majority opinions for June Medical Services vs. Gee (abortion) and NYSRPA vs. City of NY (guns), I'll try to remember to bump this post, tag you, and we can further discuss the left's feelings regarding "the rule of law, except when they disagree."
D
deleted171991
Exclusive: 'I'm here': Hunter Biden hits back at Trump taunt in exclusive ABC News interview
No topic was off-limits when Hunter Biden sat down with ABC News' Amy Robach over the weekend.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Remember when Kennedy decided to try and put a man on the moon and said, “No matter what the outcome of Apollo 11, as long as the group of NASA engineers is diverse, we will truly have succeeded.”
Or was it LBJ who said that? I’m no good with history...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NYT: Bolton told Trump aide to alert White House lawyers on Ukraine and "grenade" Giuliani
Witness reportedly quoted Bolton in House testimony.
Only the best (criminals) serve on the Trump team
So you are saying that if we stop considering race (and only items of merit like scores, grades, extracurriculars etc) then suddenly most doctors will be Asian males? Other groups can’t compete successfully without a handicap? Strange- I’m not an Asian male and could have literally picked from any college and med school (and probably residency) in the country.
Jobs in general do not need to mirror the population. It’s a ridiculous assumption. Some groups excel at certain fields maybe due to culture and upbringing and desires. Just because 90% of nurses are female does not mean we need to bend over backwards and tell men across the country that we are lowering the standards for them but not females to increase male nursing student matriculation.
Also I like how you ignore my questions when they don’t fit your narrative (ie race based layoffs).
Finally, you should know I consider myself a moderate political person who is willing to listen to logical arguments. In other topics I agree with you (such as Trump being unfit to serve as president). But I stand by my assertion that AA is morally wrong.
Last edited:
Whoa whoa whoa dont dare pretend you’re open to listening to opposing views lest you be branded a concern troll here. Careful now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Point one, when did I say anything about being ok with rape of any incidence? All rape is horrible, repulsive, and should be condemned to the full extent of the law. Trust me, I have two daughters and I'd be in jail before the rapist if one of them was ever submitted to that kind of violent assault.
Point two, don't always trust the "data" blindly. You should know that numbers can be massaged to say anything.
This says that AT LEAST 1 in 4 women will have been raped by the age of 44.
Here are 3 startling new stats on rape - Reveal
At least 1 in 4 women are raped by the time they turn 44, and that number isn’t budging, a robust new study finds.
Hmmmm, ok....
You also have this...
...data covering 1995-2013 from the dept of justice that says that the incidence of rape OR sexual assault (so the actual rape incidence is gonna be less) for females 12 years old and up is 1.4 per 1000 per year, aka 0.14%. Now that incidence skyrockets to 0.43% during college age years of 18-24. So, if you math it up....
44 years old - 12 years old = 32 years to be raped by the age of 44. Then you take 32 years x ~ 0.2% chance of being raped OR sexually assaulted per year (remember now, that means rape is only a fraction of this number), and that gives you an overall chance of 64 in 1000, or 6.4% chance of being raped OR SEXUALLY assaulted.
Hmmmmmm...
NOW, add in the fact that people like Lena Dunham or this girl might be responding to your survey about whether or not they have been raped
View attachment 283366
And.....well, yeah. 'Nuff said.
So no, I don't believe the 1 in 4 nonsense.
Think about it. It takes two people for a rape to occur, yeah? Hey, there's the first thing I know we all can agree on 😉. And with a 1:1 ratio of males and females in America, I guess that 1 out of 4 men is a rapist?!?!??! No no, that's crazy. I know there are serial rapists, but what percent of rapists are repeat offenders? And how many rapes per serial rapist is typical? I don't know the answer, maybe someone does, but lets just say repeat offenders are responsible for half the rapes in the US. Is that fair? If so, then that leaves us with 1 in 8 women being raped by a one-time offender. Or in other words, 1 in 8 men are rapists. Imagine your anesthesia department. Mine has about 50 guys in it, so what, maybe 6 of them are rapists? And what about your immediate family. Do you have 8 male relatives about the age of 16? I bet most people do. I guess at least one of your family members is statistically a rapist then, right?
You really believe all that?
I go back to my original assertion. If I believed what you believe, I'd be depressed.
Now, as far as your asinine statement about the KKK being "alive and well," all I can say is, you need to turn the MSNBC off and take a look in the real world where the EXTREME MAJORITY of people are not racist at all - except those on college admission boards of course ; ) -
The KKK has roughly 3000 members according to this recent estimate.
"Alive and well?" Nah, that's more like "60 minutes into a code and someone's about to call it."
Thanks for sharing the articles. I read through most of it and I’ll finish up later. I agree that the statistics aren’t perfect, so thank you for providing data.
I’m not exactly sure that it proves your point that sexism and toxic masculinity isn’t a problem in this country. I think those numbers are too high and rape is such one measure of that. That’s why I asked what number you’d be ok with to prove your point that it’s not a problem.
I would encourage you to ask your female physician colleagues how often they encounter inappropriate sexual comments from patients and other physicians. Are your daughters adults or kids? If they’re adults I encourage you to ask them how often they’ve encountered inappropriate sexual comments, advances or touching from a man. If they’re still kids I hope you prepare them for the world we live in instead of ignoring certain issues.
I’m not getting my information from msnbc, I don’t own a tv. I’m getting my information from reading and experience. Getting called the N word is a real world experience for me. Having friends with derogatory racial slurs sprayed on their house is a real world experience for me. Having a man force his hands on me is a real world experience for me. In addition statistics back up these issues, although i don’t think we’ll ever get 100% of all incidents of sexual assault, harassment, hate crimes, etc.
Lastly, what is your end game to thinking that racism and sexism doesn’t exist? Why is this your hill to die on? Once again I never said that EVERYONE is sexist or racist, but it doesn’t negate the history of this country.
I’m not gay but when my gay friends have told me about negative experiences they’ve had based on their sexuality, my first reaction isn’t to argue that discrimination against gay people doesn’t exist. My first reaction is to listen to them, learn more by doing my own research and support them. Why is that difficult for you (and others)?
Last edited:
We, as a society, use affirmative action as a form of reparations. This is how you need to look at it. In order to make up for past discrimation the racial, ethnic, sex of the person is now a major factor in our society.
That’s why the discussion of monetary reparations is absurd. White America is already paying the cost for past misdeeds for the past 40 years.
That’s why the discussion of monetary reparations is absurd. White America is already paying the cost for past misdeeds for the past 40 years.
Do job-seekers with 'white' names get more callbacks than 'black' names?
...
Economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan wanted to explore racial bias in the job market.
They responded to help-wanted ads for a variety of positions in the fields of sales, administrative support, clerical services and customer services posted in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune with fake resumes. The researchers plugged in made-up names on the resumes that are associated with African-Americans (they used Lakisha Washington and Jamal Jones as examples) or whites (Emily Walsh and Greg Baker) based on naming data for babies born between 1974-79 in Massachusetts. The name on each resume was randomly assigned, so the same resume in some cases had a black name and in others had a white name.
Then they counted the callbacks.
The resumes with white-sounding names spurred 50 percent more callbacks than the ones with black-sounding names.
After responding to 1,300 ads with more than 5,000 resumes, the researchers found that the job applicants with white names needed to send 10 resumes to get one callback, but the black candidate needed to send 15 for one.
It didn’t matter whether the employer was a federal contractor or was described as an "equal opportunity employer," as those also discriminated like the others.
"We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names," their paper states. "These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market."
...
www.politifact.com
...
Economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan wanted to explore racial bias in the job market.
They responded to help-wanted ads for a variety of positions in the fields of sales, administrative support, clerical services and customer services posted in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune with fake resumes. The researchers plugged in made-up names on the resumes that are associated with African-Americans (they used Lakisha Washington and Jamal Jones as examples) or whites (Emily Walsh and Greg Baker) based on naming data for babies born between 1974-79 in Massachusetts. The name on each resume was randomly assigned, so the same resume in some cases had a black name and in others had a white name.
Then they counted the callbacks.
The resumes with white-sounding names spurred 50 percent more callbacks than the ones with black-sounding names.
After responding to 1,300 ads with more than 5,000 resumes, the researchers found that the job applicants with white names needed to send 10 resumes to get one callback, but the black candidate needed to send 15 for one.
It didn’t matter whether the employer was a federal contractor or was described as an "equal opportunity employer," as those also discriminated like the others.
"We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names," their paper states. "These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market."
...
Do job-seekers with ‘white’ names get more callbacks than ‘black’ names?
"Every day, a black name resume is 50 percent less likely to get responded to than a white name resume."
www.politifact.com
I think you’ve misread my posts. I haven’t ever said anything about racism, sexism, homophobia etc not existing. Of course there are bad people who treat people poorly. That’s undeniable. What I have a problem with is the hysterical, outrage, victimization, identity politics culture that is now the sad state of things in America, largely perpetrated by the main stream media and the left. They want to paint the picture that America sucks. America is a racist, sexist country where the evil white man oppresses everyone. And I think that’s hurting society as a whole and hurting relationships between different groups.
Are there racist cops? sure. Are all cops racist? Of course not, most are great, brave people putting their lives on the line every day for the public good. Yet when the media vilifies them and makes it seem like they are all evil and out to get black people, is that good for society? Do they ever publicize when a white cop shoots an unarmed white man? Of course not. Again, not to say racism doesn’t exist, but the hysteria and racist narratives CONSTANTLY being painted by the media hurts society.
Are there sexist people? Sure. Is society now, more than anytime in the past, a better place for women to succeed than it has ever been? Of course. Yet all you hear about is how our sexist president hates women and every male has inherit toxic masculinity and privilege and blah blah blah about mansplaining, man spreading, and what ever other man-whatever they wanna come up with. Repeated nonsense about the gender wage gap permeates every discussion about women in the work place and taints women’s views of society and makes them feel like they are victims before they even start the rat race. I don’t want my girls (they are little btw) growing up in a world where they are told that they are setup to fail and are oppressed by society as a whole, when it’s just not true. And of course I want them to be wary of dangerous situations and to be safe on dates and at parties, but I don’t want them to live in fear that they have a chance to be raped by every other guy they meet.
Is there climate change? Sure. Should we try and limit atmospheric (and other) pollutants? Sure. Should we have the crazy climate catastrophe hysteria that has people wanting transform the world based off of just that, hysteria? No. Should we ban our only cheap and reliable energy sources in favor of crappy technology that isn’t ready to replace fossil fuels? No. Should we raise taxes a bunch and make everyone stop flying in planes and ban every car that’s not electric? No. Should we crush developing societies around the world and literally endanger people’s lives who depend on fossil fuels to survive because we think the world is gonna end in 12 years? No.
The point being, all the evil things you say exist, DO exist, but not at all to the degree that the left claims, and I largely feel that the hysteria and victim culture that is so prevalent today is only driving people to be more tribal and to have more animosity towards each other because it isn’t giving people the opportunity to grow up and experience the world for themselves. Media tells our youth that they are entering a racist, bigoted, sexist world and warps their minds with nonsense so they are so skeptical of everyone before they even have a chance to interact. It’s not good. It’s just not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Again, have you had to give a young male in your family, “the talk” of driving while black? That’s not racist, it’s a binary truth, with not philosophical or rhetorical consequences, but grave and mortal outcomes. So, do me a favor and don’t speak for my community and conflate our situation to your own or even having a slight inkling what that might be like on an everyday basis. Such conversations are not warping their minds, but rather, saving their life...
The underlying narrative that the left wing media spouts is a lie. Like many things there is a glimmer of truth behind the lies but the agenda is what matters not the truth.
I can’t argue with your post because it’s true. But, at the same time most white people aren’t racist and perhaps you may want to stress that point as well.
If you children grow up and act intelligently and appropriately based on the standards most of use daily they will excel in society.
D
deleted87051
But if you have a moment of stupidity, drunkenness, or indiscretion, which race would you rather be?
Many of the posts recently remind me of Sowell’s comments on race in America.
He really is a genius and worth watching on you tube or reading some of his books
He really is a genius and worth watching on you tube or reading some of his books
Thanks but with all afforded respect I was not looking for either your your approval or counsel. My kids have graduated from both Ivy and med school (UCSF) so thanks for your consideration but I think they are doing just fine
D
deleted87051
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
My post was not meant to be disrespectful or just directed at you. It was more a commentary on other posts in this thread.
Rand Paul’s book just came out today. “The case against Socialism”
ABOUT
A recent poll showed 43% of Americans think more socialism would be a good thing. What do these people not know?
Socialism has killed millions, but it’s now the ideology du jour on American college campuses and among many leftists. Reintroduced by leaders such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the ideology manifests itself in starry-eyed calls for free-spending policies like Medicare-for-all and student loan forgiveness.
In The Case Against Socialism, Rand Paul outlines the history of socialism, from Stalin’s gulags to the current famine in Venezuela. He tackles common misconceptions about the “utopia” of socialist Europe. As it turns out, Scandinavian countries love capitalism as much as Americans, and have, for decades, been cutting back on the things Bernie loves the most.
Socialism’s return is only possible because many Americans have forgotten the true dangers of the twentieth-century’s deadliest ideology. Paul reveals the devastating truth: for every college student sporting a Che Guevara T-shirt, there’s a Venezuelan child dying of starvation. Desperate refugees flee communist Cuba to escape oppressive censorship, rationed food and squalid hospitals, not “free” healthcare. Socialist dictatorships like the People’s Republic of China crush freedom of speech and run massive surveillance states while masquerading as enlightened modern nations. Far from providing economic freedom, socialist governments enslave their citizens. They offer illusory promises of safety and equality while restricting personal liberty, tightening state power, sapping human enterprise and making citizens dependent on the dole.
If socialism takes hold in America, it will imperil the fate of the world’s freest nation, unleashing a plague of oppressive government control. The Case Against Socialism is a timely response to that threat and a call to action against the forces menacing American liberty.
ABOUT
A recent poll showed 43% of Americans think more socialism would be a good thing. What do these people not know?
Socialism has killed millions, but it’s now the ideology du jour on American college campuses and among many leftists. Reintroduced by leaders such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the ideology manifests itself in starry-eyed calls for free-spending policies like Medicare-for-all and student loan forgiveness.
In The Case Against Socialism, Rand Paul outlines the history of socialism, from Stalin’s gulags to the current famine in Venezuela. He tackles common misconceptions about the “utopia” of socialist Europe. As it turns out, Scandinavian countries love capitalism as much as Americans, and have, for decades, been cutting back on the things Bernie loves the most.
Socialism’s return is only possible because many Americans have forgotten the true dangers of the twentieth-century’s deadliest ideology. Paul reveals the devastating truth: for every college student sporting a Che Guevara T-shirt, there’s a Venezuelan child dying of starvation. Desperate refugees flee communist Cuba to escape oppressive censorship, rationed food and squalid hospitals, not “free” healthcare. Socialist dictatorships like the People’s Republic of China crush freedom of speech and run massive surveillance states while masquerading as enlightened modern nations. Far from providing economic freedom, socialist governments enslave their citizens. They offer illusory promises of safety and equality while restricting personal liberty, tightening state power, sapping human enterprise and making citizens dependent on the dole.
If socialism takes hold in America, it will imperil the fate of the world’s freest nation, unleashing a plague of oppressive government control. The Case Against Socialism is a timely response to that threat and a call to action against the forces menacing American liberty.
So what is your stance then? What’s you’re underlying disagreement with me? Are you claiming most people are racist? Are you claiming most cops are racist? What are you arguing? No one’s denying that there are some racist people in the world. Some of those people might happen to be cops. No one’s saying you shouldn’t have a talk with your kids about appropriate behavior when interacting with police. I do agree with Blade though that I think if you are respectful of police, cooperative, don’t scream at them for pulling you over unlawfully, don’t make them feel threatened, then things will most likely go ok. And you are aware that more white people are killed by cops each year than black people right?
I was pulled over by cops in undergrad leaving the art building late one night under the suspicion of theft. I was told get out of my car, get down on the ground with my hands out. I was freaked out, but I cooperated, they checked my car and realized I wasn’t who they were looking for. All was well even though I felt wrongly accused. I assume they had a report of theft by someone that either A)matched my description, or B)matched my car’s description. Either way I was innocent. Had I been uncooperative and refused to get down on my stomach, had I tried to run, or whatever, things may not have gone so smoothly.
Again, no one is denying what happened to you. No one is denying that some people in the world are racist. But I’ll ask again, what’s YOUR point? That al cops are racist? That most cops are? That most people are? What specifically do you tell your kids in the ‘talk?’
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
D
deleted50478
If affirmative action were reparations it would only apply to Native Americans and the descendants of slaves. Hispanics and black immigrants and their children shouldn’t benefit from affirmative action but they are a large portion of the beneficiaries.
I am saying my everyday reality is not yours, and don’t speak in such all in compassing platitudes about conditions and situations you don’t have to experience on a daily basis. Speak for yourself relative to your own corner of the world, not some blanket platitude.
And as to your comment about white folks getting killed by cops, that’s either just ignorant or being lazy on drilling down on the statistics. Specifically, as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. This means black Americans are over 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers. Facts, not pithy platitudes ...
- Status
