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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
Asking prospective students for their skin color when they apply to your school should be unthinkable.
"I want to attend your school just like my grandfather" = This is fine
"I want to attend your school because my grandfather wasn't allowed to" = This is not
Think about that for a second.
Legacy admissions shouldn't be a thing either, imo. It should be 100% about merit.
Absolutely.
And until that's the case, there's a clear double standard that benefits white people.
A pure merit-based approach also overwhelming benefits white people though, because they have a lot more generational income to help their kids get ahead in life.
This is a bad take.
Racial admissions existed to counter the other injustice - an imperfect solution to the inherent racism of legacy admissions.
Now that affirmative action has ended, the injustice of legacy admissions has been made even worse. Racism is now the law.
And it will never end.
So we need laws to not be racist? This is an insanely pessimistic take that nothing has improved the issue of racism in the US.
It's not pessimistic - it's simply an honest understanding of how white supremacism is fundamental to the US. To be clear, things like affirmative action didn't really improve things all that much - it was a band-aid on a traumatic amputation - but it was at least something.
It was a good band-aid for the time because racism was a massive problem back then, though, I sincerely doubt it's needed today. I'm not saying racism isn't a problem today, but the idea that universities must be regulated for them to accept non-white applications ignores the strides we've taken as a society. We don't need the band-aid anymore.
To be clear the Supreme Courts decision here is a regulation on the universities. Not a removal of regulations.
Affirmative action was an option that institutions could choose if they thought was appropriate... Now that option has been regulated away.
The US is as fundamentally white supremacist today as it was way back then - if you need reminding, just think back to 2016 when more than half of all white people in the US voted a KKK-approved colostomy bag full of tanning lotion into the Waffle House. Or you could just take a look at who the main victims of the carceral slavery system are.
Segregation; lynchings; slavery; these are all things that were systematically outlawed and struck down in our society today. To say that white supremacy is just as bad as it was in 1960 is an utterly blind take and completely ignores what we've accomplished today. It's still a problem today, yes. But if what we're complaining about is a spray-tanned muppet who is now being legally shredded apart, I think we've come a long way.
Stating purely that over half of white people voting for the clown is also ignoring the other half who did not- or the intentions of the half who did vote for him. I highly doubt that a majority of the half who did vote for him were crossing their fingers for the next racial uprising.
Segregation in the US is alive and well. We watch cops lynching black people on tv all the damn time, and slavery is literally enshrined in the constitution.
It's not a problem - it's a feature of a fundamentally white supremacist society.
A spray-tanned muppet that was enthusiastically endorsed into the Waffle House by the majority of white USians while he was hurling around white supremacist dog-whistles.
Its very easy to forget, but theres a difference between the majority of Americans and the majority of American voters... it was more like 15% of the country that voted for him and of that 15% about 60% were white, 40% nonwhite. so it's more in the range of 5-10 percent of the US population that you're misrepresenting as a majority white supremacist sentiment.
Ask me how I know you're white lol
Wait is this actually a thing?
Legacy is a much more weighted merit than affirmative action was.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Honestly, asking anyone for race on any application for anything shouldn't be a thing. With the exception of medical things specific to race, it's completely unnecessary. Unless I'm missing something glaring, other than perpetuating systematic disenfranchisement.
While I agree that requiring people to reveal their ethnicity should be a no-no for anything other than medical, asking for people to volunteer this information makes sense.
In UK in many places giving ethnicity is optional and the results are used to monitor how different groups aka "races" are doing. This then can be used for research.
It's a way for the college admissions to combat the systemic racism already present in USA society. It treats a symptom of a larger issue. A college cannot help with all the disadvantages minority students face throughout thier primary education but they can account for that in admissions.