Your altruism doesn't make your better, or superior. It makes you naive.

Altruism is synonymous with a wide-range of negative qualities, including caring only for those who comprise our own-group (feminism), caring only for those who comprise the 'out-group' (migrants), jumping to conclusions, and stirring up feelings of guilt in those who choose to not to co-operate with your outlandish appeals to 'morality.'

There's a sense of superiority which many derive as a result of being positioned on the left - 'the opposition is 'selfish', while we are 'altruistic.'

The conviction they hold towards this supposition makes it easy for them justify immoral behaviours, like to disregard any all criticism in relation to a group as 'racist', or threatening to rape a voter outside the Conservative Party conference, or harassing Nigel Farage and his family while they're out eating a meal, or purging all of their Conservative friends on Facebook after the General Election. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/05/if-youre-a-conservative-im-not-your-friend/

Tons of despots have risen to power in the 20th century on appeals to altruism - millions of lives have been lost in the process. An understanding that altruism can produce both great evil, as well as good, is crucial to the defence of vulnerable human freedoms.

Take the case of positive action. Universities have established admission standards which discriminate in favour of minority groups (and women), largely as a result of misplaced altruism (or what I would deem to be the infantilisation of minorities, in the same way we infantilise 'Africans in poverty'). What's the result? Under qualified students struggle to make the grade, and for those who do make it they are presumed to be 'beneficiaries' of affirmative action.

The entire banking crisis was predicated by misplaced appeals to altruism. The Government promoted home ownership in the US, under the well-meaning belief it stabilises families and communities. Government-sponsored organisations offered loans to less than qualified individuals, and allowed qualified borrowers to over-extend themselves.

Any concern about risk-reward was overlooked because the scheme had full Governmental backing. When economic conditions went south, many people lost their homes, or ended up with a home which was worth far less than they originally paid for it. Who was then responsible for the Government's altruism? The public.

Universities have established admission standards which discriminate in favour of minority groups (and women)

CitizenAct posts thread promoting selfishness and complaining about "the left".
Gets support from a guy who has "I have a very strong admiration for Adolf Hitler" in his signature.

Impressive start to thread.

How long before white genocide and Zionism is mentioned

Which universities are these, then?

CitizenAct posts thread promoting selfishness and complaining about "the left".
Gets support from a guy who has "I have a very strong admiration for Adolf Hitler" in his signature.

Impressive start to thread.

How long before white genocide and Zionism is mentioned

Lmao ****kk, thought you were joking, I thought people grew out of "le edgy 4chan satanist/hitler worshipper" phase at like 15 :/

You need to feed people this myth that altruism is most desirable, otherwise they wont cooperate and you cant build strong societies.

"Selfless altruism" is 99% a complete myth, and in fact, I would even go as far as saying caring for others when you stand nothing to gain from it, is unnatural.

LOOL, that was my favourite bit too, equivalent too "Now then, I have a few black friends so I'm not racist, but...."

Unfortunately this is what happens when you don't leave mother's basement and are sun-starved :'(

This is the second thread I see that defends or advances fascist ideas. Is Britain becoming fascist with the rise of UKIP and people like OP?

It is true that at Duke University, black students' Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores are, on average, significantly lower than those of white students. For the cohort of students they examined, students entering Duke in 2001 and 2002, the mean SAT score for the math and verbal sections for white students was 1416, and for black students it was 1275.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-a-darity-jr/why-were-wrong-about-affirmative-action_b_5613026.html

This one, I suspect, is more to do with turning a profit (universities live or die based around international intakes):

The official agent in Beijing for universities in the elite Russell Group claimed that it could secure over-subscribed places for a Chinese student purporting to have scored three C grades in their A-levels - when British students are required to have at least A, A and B.

Undercover reporters were also told to tell the UK authorities that the student would be returning home immediately after graduation - even if that was not their intention – in order to secure a visa.

Universities were accused of profiteering by rejecting tens of thousands of British teenagers, currently sitting A-levels, so they can fill places with more profitable foreign students.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9357875/How-foreign-students-with-lower-grades-jump-the-university-queue.html

I've found many similar examples, I'd need to dig them out.

This doesn't necessarily prove that Duke University lowered the bar for black applicants, largely because the SAT is one of several admissions criteria used by U.S. schools. Any fair comparison would control for GPA, essays, extracurriculars (that's a big one in America), AP scores and so on. It makes no sense to just take the average of SAT scores, ignore everything else, and conclude that there is necessarily some covert affirmative action taking place.

In any case, it's not really news that U.S. universities, especially private ones like Duke, try to diversify any given class, in more ways than one. Ever heard of 'legacy admissions?'



Again, even if this was true, it's not a matter of official policy by which this is being done and, in this case, refers to discrimination on the basis of financial desperation, which hardly amounts to the ethnicity-based affirmative action that you claimed in your OP.

It should also be mentioned that there is a fixed number of places for Home/EU and a (smaller) fixed number of places for international applicants for most courses; a quick look at university course pages will show you the number of places available on that course for the following academic year. So it really isn't a case of discrimination against Home/EU applicants because they're separated from internationals in the admissions process (i.e. the internationals can only compete for the set number of international places, not the Home/EU places). Furthermore, whether this constitutes discrimination or not depends on whether these applicants were doing international A Levels or not.

It's a case of corruption, not misguided official altruism towards ethnic minorities, as you've stated in the OP. The reason why I asked you to mention which universities you were referring to is because all applications to UK public universities (which is to say, virtually all UK universities) have to go through UCAS, which goes to quite some lengths to prevent affirmative action of the kind that you're talking about.

Given all this, I don't think that any of this substantiates your earlier claim about affirmative action (and given that we're on a predominantly British website, I was genuinely expecting you to mention some examples of UK universities that officially, and for the reasons that you've claimed, discriminate in favour of ethnic minorities -- which aren't necessarily equivalent to international applicants given that plenty of international applicants are from 'white countries', so to speak).

The financial woes of British universities (and the resulting corrective measures) are a different issue entirely to the one that this thread is about.