That's a toxic way of thinking.

1) First off, it's not like only white people are capable of "squandering" opportunities. If you want to go that route, most could argue that minority groups "squander" theirs.

2) If you want to hold the parents liable, are you willing to hold minorities to the same fire? The statistics scream of young African-Americans being raised by single mothers. Do they not deserve a catch-up mechanic to a better life because "their parents squandered the opportunity".

3) Working hard and being successful don't have to come hand in hand with great wealth. There are very important jobs in society that people make a career out of, which we need for the country to succeed, that doesn't compensate well. Those white parents both happen to work those types of jobs.


Again, ECONOMICS are affording people opportunities in this country more than race is. We have a culture of Classism more than Racism. Nepotism as well. While money can't (or at least shouldn't) be used for the metric of how important a person's job is, it's becoming the factor to decide who succeeds and who doesn't in future generations. If that's the way it's going to be, fine, but then why the institutionalized racism that is Affirmative Action? If we want to be more socialist and give everyone the opportunity to succeed, then you need to bring up the people who have not, not the people who have lots BUT are asian american.


I'm against Affirmative Action. I think it's a socialist idea. Everyone should work really hard and get only what they deserve in my ideal world. But, the way Affirmative Action stands right now, isn't even socialist. It's just idiotic. It's arbitrary. It's not quite as bad, but close, as just giving people a boost up in the world if they were born in a specific month of a year. Rich? Poor? Every opportunity? None? Who cares! Just give them help because they were born in January, and that arbitrarily matters now. Affirmative Action is an out dated concept. It once actually meant that you came from a poor family if you were African American. That you went to bed hungry some nights. That glass ceiling has been shattered and generations of wealth have poured in. We have an actual class of upper class minorities, middle class minorities, and low class minorities. Time to adapt with the change.

Even assuming the parents were lazy as you say, why do you think the child should be punished for their parents actions?

I don't think they should be punished that's just the way it is. The cycle of proverty isn't an easy one to break. Try reading up on poverty and not just the economics on things. Poverty for the most part starts with a decision, Marriage for example is a business contract nothing more. Now if you put al your eggs in one basket in this case it's marriage and you get divorced half of your assets taken and your paying for the child, that was your fault. Marriage itself isn't a cheap event, so already you're financially hurting yourself instead of saving money for the family so your kid can grow with assets as opposed to having next to nothing which leads to a lot of short term values such as dealing MCdonalds jobs and what not.


I'm against laying off people who were already their to make room for other people, I understand they need help, but that's going too far and just creates another group of people that was forced into poverty.

Make more schools and make them more accommodating for the less fortunate, this way the kid will get an education and possibly a better job and they themselves can start generating wealth within the family. The kid will be raised on better values in terms of money. The education system is still a cookie cutting machine that the wealthy still succeed in a lot more than the poor ones.

It looks like you are still missing bod's main point.

In both the scenarios, both the girl and the guy get the same GPAs, same test scores, so they apply to a college/work, but since the indian chick is a "double minority", and the white guy is a "double majority", the indian chick is favored over the guy due to the "hardships" she surely must have gone through as such an oppressed human being (being a racial minority and a female).

But that's not the truth. The white guy had to overcome the hardships, and managed to get on the same level academically as the indian chick, even tho she had everything she could ever ask for, but in the end, since she is an indian female, AA favors her.

I got it, I ignored it because it's a hypothetical scenario which rarely happens.

Also in response to hard working people. Let me reiterate Hardworking Smart Business people with long term goals.

There are a lot of rich asian families in the US with daughters in them, there are also a lot of poor white families with sons. Just because his example takes it to an extreme it doesnt mean many many less extreme examples exist. Its a very valid scenario

You ignored my best friends reality.

My best friend went to my college prep school on scholarship, he couldn't afford to attend my school even at 4th grade let alone senior year of high school. Parents were divorced, both teachers, one teaches special education. Very rewarding, but doesn't make you rich. He's white. He actually got accepted and graduated MIT. Which pretty much makes him an academic elite.

We also had an Indian woman in our school. Family so rich, her bodyguard was in the passenger seat of her custom BMW when she was 15. She already had every advantage humanely imaginable. Though she's never worked a day of her life, she currently resides in a mansion her parents gave her, waterfront property, 50' boat, a collection of rare cars.

Luckily, she didn't have his grades, not even close. She was a bad student. But a bad rich student who they decided give all the affirmative action in the world to, she was accepted to University Miami. A great freaking school, very competitive, but much less so because of affirmative action.


Affirmative Action wasn't there for my best friend when he applied for his PhD program. He wasn't accepted into MIT's PhD program, despite solid grades, incredible internships, work experience, and overcoming incredible adversity.

Affirmative Action was there for the Indian American girl, who didn't study, didn't have great grades, but did get her first choice acceptance into Law School.


So to recap:
1) I'm against Affirmative Action period

2) Even if you're for AA, it should be NEED based not race based. Being a minority is far from the hardest adversity to overcome in 2017.

Okay, sorry about that, while I'm against AA, I'm not completely against it, I agree it shouldn't be race based at all, but an assessment of living conditions, income and such. I'm also pretty sure modern AA was designed with the Black community in mind and they still need it.

But i'm still saying his family maybe his grandparents took a wrong turn so now HE was the one to face the challenges of poverty. Poverty isn't something that just happens to a family, it's through various choices that leads a family to where it is now.

While she did have AA, In this case, I think she Needed to go to school, if she didn't study, had bad grades, she kinda sounds like a rich brat that needs an education.

"There are a lot of rich asian families in the US with daughters in them, there are also a lot of poor white families with sons. Just because his example takes it to an extreme it doesnt mean many many less extreme examples exist. Its a very valid scenario"

You know why those asian families are rich even in Canada? They're very smart business people, they didn't just come across wealth, it was careful planning and smart decisions and why there are poor white folk? Maybe they didn't obtain the same education nearly every white folk did during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, this also goes back to winning WWII, Nearly every family had something going on for them during probably the most peaceful time in American history. Some were playing the game, others I guess weren't.

I'm going to ignore the part where you said his grandparents took a bad turn. It's not a "bad turn" to raise kids that become teachers. Being a teacher is a great thing, and they're a necessity to society. They're the human capita of the future, because without education, there isn't future wealth. When teachers aren't compensated well, many go on to be unenthused. They "teach" boring classes (mostly by reading off pre-made powerpoints), they don't invest themselves in kids minds. When kids aren't stimulated to learn, they often don't. Then, when they aren't educated, they can't find work at high paying jobs. The cycle continues. One of the biggest reasons the poor stay poor, is because poor people are forced into going to public schools with very poor state funding, where they get shit teachers, and end up becoming nothing but the next generation of lower class.

What you said in bold, I agree with. I disagree with AA, if it needs to exist, it needs to be NEED based not race based.

What you said in italics, disagrees with your own point. AA DOESN'T NEED TO KEEP AFRICAN AMERICANS SPECIFICALLY IN MIND. That racist generalization is non-applicable in 2017. The disadvantaged are who AA need to keep in mind, not the modern African-American community. If you're disadvantaged, and you're African-American; sure reap the benefits of AA. If being African-American caused some sort of disadvantage, then you'll be economically disadvantaged, so AA will cover you. But when it didn't, and it doesn't for many many many families, AA isn't right to apply to you anymore. You can't be an eight year old african american, in the back seat of your dad's lexus, he's a successful stock broker, you're playing Hearthstone on the iPad dad got you for Christmas, then talk about how hard it is to get anywhere as an African American and how you need AA. It's not reasonable.

I'll say it again, so the point isn't lost: I'm not saying that there aren't very real disadvantages to being a minority. I'm saying, that those hinderances aren't anywhere near as large as the hinderance of being underprivileged. Underprivileged people of all colors deserve life, liberty, and a true shot at the pursuit of happiness. If we want to keep AA (which I don't), it needs to be properly modernized for the underprivileged Americans, not blanket application to "minorities".

And I say minorities because as a side-bar, women are considered minorities. Which is ironic, because AA is mostly applied to college acceptance, where:


So the majority of student's in college, are women. Not men. Men are actually in the minority of college students; however, women are still treated preferentially in college acceptances.

The AA is taken on the smart business people's children and on the children of the poor white folk. The children did not earn the riches, they also did not have any part in the planning (or lack of planning) of their forefathers.

Yet it is the children who have the biggest impact from AA. And the advantages are given to the non-whites based on race, not based on whether they need it socio-economically. You think this is the right way to go about it?