Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Liberals have declared war on reason Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    Why can't disadvantaged students of any race be given this opportunity?
    Its a fair question. But I find it sad that you pick on this organisation rather than the inequality that sees the majority of Oxbridge students coming from privately educated backgrounds. These students have access not only to the very best education money can buy, but influence and networks that allow them to tap straight into Oxbridge elite.

    Yet you choose to criticise an organisation that aims to help the most disadvantaged of disadvantaged people in the country. Odd!

    Why not target all disadvantaged people? A fair point. But as a white disadvantaged person applying to Oxbridge you are already significantly more advantaged than your black peer.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    You say that right wingers point to black racism as a justification of racism.

    The point is not to justify racism but to point to liberal hypocrisy and liberal wars declared on reason by liberals targeting white racism but seeming to ignore racism from “minority” groups.
    I never said right wingers were racist. I also never suggested that black racists were liberal. You are putting words in my mouth. Just because one person may not fit the bill does not mean there is hypocrisy across a whole movement. There is no liberal agenda I am aware of that says racism against blacks is worse than racism against whites.

    But it is a fact that in this country, racism against whites tends to be words of the sticks and stones nature. Racism against blacks sees barriers put up that prevent them getting jobs, accessing services and participating fully in society.

    You seem to be complaining about the "sticks and stones" aspect of racism, where as most black anti-racism activists simply want the same chances in society that white people take for granted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Its a fair question. But I find it sad that you pick on this organisation rather than the inequality that sees the majority of Oxbridge students coming from privately educated backgrounds. These students have access not only to the very best education money can buy, but influence and networks that allow them to tap straight into Oxbridge elite.

    Yet you choose to criticise an organisation that aims to help the most disadvantaged of disadvantaged people in the country. Odd!

    Why not target all disadvantaged people? A fair point. But as a white disadvantaged person applying to Oxbridge you are already significantly more advantaged than your black peer.
    Let’s say I start a firm and its mission statement is, I don’t know say “A computer on every desktop”. Why is it assumed that it’s overarching mission statement is to make the world equal? Maybe I don’t behave in equality or see a reason why everyone had to be equal, or why groups have to be equal.

    Why are people talking as this is an automatic premise?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    There are 480 million white people in the world which represents 6.5% of the worlds population so it isn’t a white world
    Go back to your whiteboard and then add in where the wealth of the world lies. Where is it based (i.e. where do the owners of that wealth live?)

    Yep - there are some wealthy oil barrens in the Middle East, but my back of an envelope calculations would see most of the world's wealth spread around Europe and the US. i.e. in whiteland.

    Population has nothing to do with anything. When it comes to equality in the world, it all boils down to money and power.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I never said right wingers were racist. I also never suggested that black racists were liberal. You are putting words in my mouth. Just because one person may not fit the bill does not mean there is hypocrisy across a whole movement. There is no liberal agenda I am aware of that says racism against blacks is worse than racism against whites.

    But it is a fact that in this country, racism against whites tends to be words of the sticks and stones nature. Racism against blacks sees barriers put up that prevent them getting jobs, accessing services and participating fully in society.

    You seem to be complaining about the "sticks and stones" aspect of racism, where as most black anti-racism activists simply want the same chances in society that white people take for granted.
    Well I think it depends on your definition of racism. Modern liberals tend to see all differences in outcomes as caused by racism.

    I would argue that these differences in outcomes are not caused by racism. The causes are first that newcomers to a nation take several generations to adjust and hence tend to have a much lower standard of living and secondly there are natural variations between all groups because Mother Nature does not believe in equality.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Go back to your whiteboard and then add in where the wealth of the world lies. Where is it based (i.e. where do the owners of that wealth live?)

    Yep - there are some wealthy oil barrens in the Middle East, but my back of an envelope calculations would see most of the world's wealth spread around Europe and the US. i.e. in whiteland.

    Population has nothing to do with anything. When it comes to equality in the world, it all boils down to money and power.
    The average person in the U.K. or USA today, if you covert their money to Indian Rupees and look at the purchasing power in India, they are very strong, but in their own context, many are holding two or three jobs just to pay their bills.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    secondly there are natural variations between all groups because Mother Nature does not believe in equality.
    Agreed. Across all people of the world, some are clever and some weak, some strong and some weak, some agile, some disabled.

    Sorry - but what has that got to do with race?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Agreed. Across all people of the world, some are clever and some weak, some strong and some weak, some agile, some disabled.

    Sorry - but what has that got to do with race?
    There are natural inequalities across race groups of course. Race is a group like may other group.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    The average person in the U.K. or USA today, if you covert their money to Indian Rupees and look at the purchasing power in India, they are very strong, but in their own context, many are holding two or three jobs just to pay their bills.
    Gosh - talk about mixing apples, oranges and bad metaphors. I was thinking more along the lines of - if you want a job in the world and especially one that pays a lot of money, are you going to be ultimately interviewed by a white person or a black person?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Gosh - talk about mixing apples, oranges and bad metaphors. I was thinking more along the lines of - if you want a job in the world and especially one that pays a lot of money, are you going to be ultimately interviewed by a white person or a black person?
    This is American census bureau income by ethnicity data from 2015.

    Rank Race Median household income (2015 US$)
    1 Asian 74,245[1]
    2 White 59,698[1]
    3 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 55,607[1]
    4 Some other race 42,461[1]
    5 American Indian and Alaska Native 38,530[1]
    6 Black or African American 36,544[1]

    Asian people earn more than whites, and it’s no coincidence that race and IQ studies found them to be the smartest group.

    This shows that this income disparity is not actually caused by racism but simply by group performance.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Its a fair question. But I find it sad that you pick on this organisation rather than the inequality that sees the majority of Oxbridge students coming from privately educated backgrounds. These students have access not only to the very best education money can buy, but influence and networks that allow them to tap straight into Oxbridge elite.

    Yet you choose to criticise an organisation that aims to help the most disadvantaged of disadvantaged people in the country. Odd!

    Why not target all disadvantaged people? A fair point. But as a white disadvantaged person applying to Oxbridge you are already significantly more advantaged than your black peer.

    "But I find it sad that you pick on this organisation rather than the inequality that sees the majority of Oxbridge students coming from privately educated backgrounds."

    Cambridge 2016 : Home Applicants

    State educated Applications: 66%
    Private schools: 28%
    Other: 6%

    I 'find it sad' when you make such statements without first checking your facts.

    "These students have access not only to the very best education money can buy, but influence and networks that allow them to tap straight into Oxbridge elite."

    It is too crude a measure to say private school good; state school bad. In some areas of the country, selective state schools have been completely abolished and it is a stark choice between the local sink school or go private. Hard-pressed parents downsize their houses; increase their debt and struggle like mad to allow their children to study without fear; not for any likelihood of buying elite influence. Meanwhile many state schools are in very wealthy areas; academically selective and provide better resources than most private schools.

    Yet you choose to criticise an organisation that aims to help the most disadvantaged of disadvantaged people in the country. Odd!"

    Apart from being black, students need to be 'high attainers'; the website for Target Oxbridge makes no reference to the students needing to be disadvantaged.
    The most disadvantaged group in society educationally are now white working class boys: just Google it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    No it’s no a they did it too argument - it’s a don’t be blind and don’t have an agenda and only target one group for having slaves when all groups had slaves.
    BLM, no ALM. Same nonsense. Look at your own faults first, not at others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    BLM, no ALM. Same nonsense. Look at your own faults first, not at others.
    I stared this thread to comment on liberal double standards and inability to see the balance of truth.

    Therefore my comment on the subject of slavery is liberals seeing white owned slavery but not the slavery that the rest of the planet owned.

    Yet you are accusing me of not looking at my own faults first! I perfectly well acknowledge white owned slaver and all other people’s owned slavery. It’s not be that has the double standard, it’s liberals!

    What you are trying to insinuate is that by not having a double standard I don’t acknowledge my own faults or the historic faults of my own people. You don’t need double standards to acknowledge faults.

    That is the difference between the liberal view and the centre alt-right view (as opposed to extremist alt-right view) which liberals think is horrible and racist for not having their double standards.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    This is American census bureau income by ethnicity data from 2015.

    Rank Race Median household income (2015 US$)
    1 Asian 74,245[1]
    2 White 59,698[1]
    3 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 55,607[1]
    4 Some other race 42,461[1]
    5 American Indian and Alaska Native 38,530[1]
    6 Black or African American 36,544[1]

    Asian people earn more than whites, and it’s no coincidence that race and IQ studies found them to be the smartest group.

    This shows that this income disparity is not actually caused by racism but simply by group performance.
    Oh dear. You are just plucking statistics out of thin air. Of course Asians in the US earn more than whites. There are not very many of them and they tend to be very well educated. But they don't hold much power.

    If you insist on looking at the US, line up the top 1000 wealthiest individuals in America. How much as a proportion of the total wealth in the US (or even the world) do they own and what is their race?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    "But I find it sad that you pick on this organisation rather than the inequality that sees the majority of Oxbridge students coming from privately educated backgrounds."

    Cambridge 2016 : Home Applicants

    State educated Applications: 66%
    Private schools: 28%
    Other: 6%

    I 'find it sad' when you make such statements without first checking your facts.

    "These students have access not only to the very best education money can buy, but influence and networks that allow them to tap straight into Oxbridge elite."

    It is too crude a measure to say private school good; state school bad. In some areas of the country, selective state schools have been completely abolished and it is a stark choice between the local sink school or go private. Hard-pressed parents downsize their houses; increase their debt and struggle like mad to allow their children to study without fear; not for any likelihood of buying elite influence. Meanwhile many state schools are in very wealthy areas; academically selective and provide better resources than most private schools.

    Yet you choose to criticise an organisation that aims to help the most disadvantaged of disadvantaged people in the country. Odd!"

    Apart from being black, students need to be 'high attainers'; the website for Target Oxbridge makes no reference to the students needing to be disadvantaged.
    The most disadvantaged group in society educationally are now white working class boys: just Google it.
    Fair play. I didn't fact check. But 30% is still way higher than the 6.5% of students educated privately in this country. Put it this way - you are more significantly more likely to go to one of the best universities in the country if you are privately educated. My argument holds.

    And those hard pressed parents who downsize and extend their mortgage to move into catchment? Where have you been? They are not the impoverished "hard working families" some might like to portray. They are the not-quite-middle class brigade who can't quite afford private education but can at least leverage their position in society by moving into good catchments. That said, the price is high for some. If you want your little Bessie to go to Altringham Girls Grammar school, you are looking at £1 million+ to move into catchment.

    So what were you saying about the genuinely underprivileged again?

    And just for reference, white working class boys are actually third in terms of attainment, behind service children and traveller's children. But that is about attainment in school, not about life chances overall.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    I stared this thread to comment on liberal double standards and inability to see the balance of truth.

    Therefore my comment on the subject of slavery is liberals seeing white owned slavery but not the slavery that the rest of the planet owned.

    Yet you are accusing me of not looking at my own faults first! I perfectly well acknowledge white owned slaver and all other people’s owned slavery. It’s not be that has the double standard, it’s liberals!

    What you are trying to insinuate is that by not having a double standard I don’t acknowledge my own faults or the historic faults of my own people. You don’t need double standards to acknowledge faults.

    That is the difference between the liberal view and the centre alt-right view (as opposed to extremist alt-right view) which liberals think is horrible and racist for not having their double standards.
    But you are not, that's that point. You say: "ok, that's bad, BUT what about them...". That's not actually caring, that's weighing something up. That is trying to put it into context. That is trying to justify it.

    If I had a friend and I approached him with a problem and he was "well that's bad, but this one time I...", that guy wouldn't be my friend very much longer.

    The only people having a double standard are people like you, that never outright accept something. That always point elsewhere to justify and to divert.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airplanebee2)
    Attachment 697484
    that's pretty metal lol ngl
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Fair play. I didn't fact check. But 30% is still way higher than the 6.5% of students educated privately in this country. Put it this way - you are more significantly more likely to go to one of the best universities in the country if you are privately educated. My argument holds.

    And those hard pressed parents who downsize and extend their mortgage to move into catchment? Where have you been? They are not the impoverished "hard working families" some might like to portray. They are the not-quite-middle class brigade who can't quite afford private education but can at least leverage their position in society by moving into good catchments. That said, the price is high for some. If you want your little Bessie to go to Altringham Girls Grammar school, you are looking at £1 million+ to move into catchment.

    So what were you saying about the genuinely underprivileged again?

    And just for reference, white working class boys are actually third in terms of attainment, behind service children and traveller's children. But that is about attainment in school, not about life chances overall.
    "I didn't fact check. But 30% is still way higher than the 6.5% of students educated privately in this country. "

    Snap! You didn't fact check again - still maybe next time (please don't be downhearted)

    The percentage of private students was not 30%, you have (accidentally I assume?) increased the figure by 2% - it was 28%. And, the percentage of students at private school in the sixth form jumps significantly. The percentage of students at private school in this age group is: 18%.

    So, there are 18% of students at private school and they represent around 28% of applications to Cambridge. A 10% difference. But a hardly surprising one given that these students will include the offspring of leading Cambridge-educated Labour politicians like Diane Abbott and LSE-educated Shami Chakrabarti (those tireless campaigners against privilege (except when it comes to their own children)).


    "If you want your little Bessie to go to Altringham Girls Grammar school, you are looking at £1 million+ to move into catchment."

    Have to take your word on property values; but thank you for agreeing that attendance at a state school like Altrincham Grammar School for Girls is by no means an indication of poverty. Hence my view that state school:bad and private school:good is simply too crude a measure.

    "So what were you saying about the genuinely underprivileged again? "

    I said working class white boys are now officially the most disadvantaged group in education, but no Target Oxbridge for them I'm afraid. There are some horrendously underprivileged students in our society, but they won't in general be helped by schemes like Target Oxbridge and Oxbridge Summer Schools.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    I said working class white boys are now officially the most disadvantaged group in education, but no Target Oxbridge for them I'm afraid. There are some horrendously underprivileged students in our society, but they won't in general be helped by schemes like Target Oxbridge and Oxbridge Summer Schools.
    Agreed. So isn't it thankful that Target Oxbridge is targeting some underprivileged students?

    Or are you advocating that because it is only hitting some students and not all, it should therefore be disbanded?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Agreed. So isn't it thankful that Target Oxbridge is targeting some underprivileged students?

    Or are you advocating that because it is only hitting some students and not all, it should therefore be disbanded?
    Are the only choices to target specific ethnic groups or disband it, or is there a third option, to target all ethnic groups?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.