 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> In the News
33055
|
 Thu, Aug 24 2017, 8:25 pm
| SixOfWands wrote: | I'm quite confused as to why you think you know what schools I attended, and what type of graduate school I attended.
But here's a chart of admissions and attendance of African Americans at top schools; its the most recent data I could find quickly:
I am curious as to what type of graduate program you attended at an elite school that was so largely African American, and that awarded merit scholarships to 100% of those students. The only graduate program that I know of that's well-known for accepting a large percentage of minority students is Drexel Med, and that's less than 10% black/Latino (and not particularly prestigious).
I'm also curious where you attended high school that rivaled a CUNY education. Baruch, for example, is #57 on the list of top public colleges, and #64 on the "value" list. Queens is 88/118 on the same lists. And Hunter is 104/163. Both rank much higher than, say, Touro. Which isn't to say that there aren't many better colleges. But I'm very impressed that a high school is better than a school like Baruch.
But obviously our experiences were very different. My African American, Native American and Latino friends in college and graduate school were, in a word, brilliant. |
You announced early on where you went to school and what your degree is for. Since I went there and carry the same degree from another school, it stuck in my mind. I happen to be nearby and went there today.
The graduate program that was largely black was a different program than the one that gave merit scholarships to all the black students. Two separate graduate programs in two separate states.
I went to a good high school. I completed all of my freshman year and part of my sophomore year through AP. But that is not the point. You are knowingly being ridiculous. Did I say my high school was better than Burach? Not every CUNY college is well rated as you well know. Some CUNY schools had open admission and delivered junk degrees. This woman was not prepared for graduate school.
She turned out to be a close friend of mine. I felt sorry for her. She ended up back in CUNY and never got her professional license because she couldn't pass the exam.
I also met non-white brilliant people in college and graduate school. So what?
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 0
|
33055
|
Thu, Aug 24 2017, 8:34 pm
| SixOfWands wrote: | You would be correct. I don't follow city politics in Albany. Please provide a link to an article about it.
And if you want to talk about people running amok, how about Scott Baio, who addressed the RNC at the convention that nominated Trump, suggesting that Heather Heyer's murder was actually a false flag attack, using the "actors" as Sandy Hook (which was apparently also nothing more than a ruse).
 |
There are nuts in both ends of the political spectrum. It is just the nuts in the KKK et al have no interaction with me at all.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
33055
|
Thu, Aug 24 2017, 8:44 pm
So sorry. It wasn't a city counsel member.
It was Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie who pushed for the removal of the Battle of Gettysburg mural in the War Room of the state Capitol because it has a Confederate flag.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
SixOfWands
|
Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:25 pm
| Squishy wrote: | So sorry. It wasn't a city counsel member.
It was Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie who pushed for the removal of the Battle of Gettysburg mural in the War Room of the state Capitol because it has a Confederate flag. |
Actually, he said the exact opposite. Heastie talked about removing symbols that brought glamor to the Confederacy. A reporter then asked about the mural.
| Quote: |
“We should not look to glamorize,” Heastie said. “I believe that any place that glamorizes the Confederacy should be reviewed. I don’t think in any other war would we put up tributes to the enemy country.”
A spokesman later said that the speaker re-reviewed the mural and did not feel it brought glamour to the rebellion. |
http://www.politico.com/states.....14022
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
SixOfWands
|
Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:37 pm
| Squishy wrote: | You announced early on where you went to school and what your degree is for. Since I went there and carry the same degree from another school, it stuck in my mind. I happen to be nearby and went there today.
The graduate program that was largely black was a different program than the one that gave merit scholarships to all the black students. Two separate graduate programs in two separate states.
I went to a good high school. I completed all of my freshman year and part of my sophomore year through AP. But that is not the point. You are knowingly being ridiculous. Did I say my high school was better than Burach? Not every CUNY college is well rated as you well know. Some CUNY schools had open admission and delivered junk degrees. This woman was not prepared for graduate school.
She turned out to be a close friend of mine. I felt sorry for her. She ended up back in CUNY and never got her professional license because she couldn't pass the exam.
I also met non-white brilliant people in college and graduate school. So what? |
You must have me confused with someone else, as I've never referred to my college, grad school, or career here.
In any case, the 4 year CUNY schools are all generally decent. The open admission schools are all 2 year schools, and wouldn't get you into grad school.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
33055
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 7:31 am
| SixOfWands wrote: | You must have me confused with someone else, as I've never referred to my college, grad school, or career here.
In any case, the 4 year CUNY schools are all generally decent. The open admission schools are all 2 year schools, and wouldn't get you into grad school. |
I definitely do not have you confused with someone else. You can pm me if you want to continue this. But you claim to have attended the same university I did.
CUNY law school used to have open enrollment. They took everyone that applied and consequently had an abysmal pass rate. I was told the colleges had the same at time. In any event, she was not prepared for grad school. BTW she was hard working and earnest - just lacked the skill set necessary.
Imagine getting half the entrance exam score!!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
33055
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 8:36 am
| SixOfWands wrote: | | http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2017/08/18/heastie-nothing-in-new-york-should-glamorize-the-confederacy-114022 |
Different sequence of events than I heard. He mentioned it first and then backed off when told it was the Battle of Gettysburg.
This is what I read:
"Heastie has dropped his push for the removal of a mural in the War Room of the state Capitol, which happens to feature a Confederate flag. He flipped on being told that the artwork simply depicts the Battle of Gettysburg — which the rebels lost."
Your story may also be true, but I tend to believe mine. Yours is left leaning. Mine is to the right.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
SixOfWands
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 10:42 am
| Squishy wrote: | Different sequence of events than I heard. He mentioned it first and then backed off when told it was the Battle of Gettysburg.
This is what I read:
"Heastie has dropped his push for the removal of a mural in the War Room of the state Capitol, which happens to feature a Confederate flag. He flipped on being told that the artwork simply depicts the Battle of Gettysburg — which the rebels lost."
Your story may also be true, but I tend to believe mine. Yours is left leaning. Mine is to the right. |
Your source appears to be a NY Post article, found here:
http://nypost.com/2017/08/22/m.....ffle/ It includes a hyperlink to another article as a basis for that contention. That article, however, does not include anything about Heastie. http://nypost.com/2017/08/18/n.....take/
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
SixOfWands
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 10:51 am
| Squishy wrote: | I definitely do not have you confused with someone else. You can pm me if you want to continue this. But you claim to have attended the same university I did.
CUNY law school used to have open enrollment. They took everyone that applied and consequently had an abysmal pass rate. I was told the colleges had the same at time. In any event, she was not prepared for grad school. BTW she was hard working and earnest - just lacked the skill set necessary.
Imagine getting half the entrance exam score!! |
I know next to nothing about law schools, so I'll take you at your word about CUNY. Right now, it has a 44.84% admission rate, so I suppose that's no longer true.
And again, you have me confused with someone else. I've no desire to enter into a personal conversation, but as I've never shared my educational background, you're clearly mistaken.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
marina
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 11:00 am
| Squishy wrote: | You announced early on where you went to school and what your degree is for. Since I went there and carry the same degree from another school, it stuck in my mind. I happen to be nearby and went there today.
The graduate program that was largely black was a different program than the one that gave merit scholarships to all the black students. Two separate graduate programs in two separate states.
I went to a good high school. I completed all of my freshman year and part of my sophomore year through AP. But that is not the point. You are knowingly being ridiculous. Did I say my high school was better than Burach? Not every CUNY college is well rated as you well know. Some CUNY schools had open admission and delivered junk degrees. This woman was not prepared for graduate school.
She turned out to be a close friend of mine. I felt sorry for her. She ended up back in CUNY and never got her professional license because she couldn't pass the exam.
I also met non-white brilliant people in college and graduate school. So what? |
Everyone comes with their own experiences. The AA and Hispanic students in my graduate and law programs were... smarter and more capable than I will ever be, no matter how hard I try. They made me feel like maybe I could absorb some of that just by being around them, so I tried to hang around them.
And when I worked as a school psychologist in inner city schools, I got a very good glimpse of the horrors that many minority children face starting from the very beginning of life. Although I was initially against affirmative action, I quickly saw that those few students who make it despite everything in their entire lives, should have the red carpet rolled out for them because they (a) deserve it; and (b) they can make it, with some help.
Two examples:
* A black child who essentially lives on his own from the age of 7 because mom is in jail and grandma is bedridden, and who gets himself up and showers and finds food and goes to school every single day from the age of 7 completely on his own, even when the electricity and heating is shut off, and he graduates with even average grades- that kid deserves college and all the good things in life and if he needs a little help figuring out college, it is our societal moral obligation to step up and be there for that kid.
Not to say, "well, hey, I guess you just can't hack college cause you got in here because of your race, and that's why Affirmative Action sucks."
* A black girl who is raped by her mom's boyfriend weekly starting from 5th grade and still manages to show up to school and work hard and graduate, with or without a baby, she deserves college and all the good things in life and she can make it with some help and it's our obligation to provide that help. See above.
These are kids I actually saw and called CPS for. We all come to Affirmative Action with our own experiences and these are mine.
Last edited by marina on Fri, Aug 25 2017, 11:08 am; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
6
|
marina
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 11:06 am
A more global perspective on Affirmative Action:
No universities are obligated to consider race in admissions. This is their own choice, the choice of their CEOs and Board members.
It is completely 100% legitimate for a post secondary institution to decide what kind of class it wants. Some value classes where everyone is on a certain academic level and others value classes where there is diversity of experience, even if academic levels fluctuate.
Imagine that this woman in your class who got a lower score than you was a Yazidi refugee from an ISIS war camp, with all the terrors that implies. And your school accepted her for what she could offer in diversity and because of their perceived obligation to refugees, even if her academics were not up to your standards.
Would you still be so indignant? Would you still feel sorry for her because she couldn't pass the exam? Or would you be ashamed of the society that didn't put all its efforts into lifting this person up?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
Jeanette
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 1:38 pm
| Fox wrote: | I haven't been able to respond to this thread for a few days, but it's given me time to think and process things a bit.
In general, opponents of Trump seize on his latest gaffe and ask, "How can you still support him when he did/said XYZ?!"
This isn't a bad question, but it completely misses the mentality and concerns of most Trump voters/supporters.
While Trump supporters certainly don't believe that he's a Nazi sympathizer, they don't really care about whether he is "Presidential" or whether he is "bereft of morals." In fact, one op-ed I read (can't recall who or where) suggested that because Trump voters tend to identify as more religious, they neither expect nor even want a governmental leader to serve as a moral role model. They'll get their morals elsewhere, thank you very much. Whether this is an accurate read or not, I don't know, but it's worth considering.
Trump voters, IMHO, care far less about Trump's individual statements than about the fact that he has no hesitation whatsoever in bringing up uncomfortable subjects and has no desire to curry favor with powerful segments of society.
Let's take his rants against the media:
When Trump goes on one of his rants against the media, I cannot help but think of the Gawker trial. On one hand, my natural libertarian instincts were that the whole thing should have been settled in a gay bar with some scathing insults and a few tossed drinks (this would have saved us from having to consider Hulk Hogan's intimate life as part of freedom of speech, too!) rather than played out in a courtroom.
On the other hand, I couldn't help but cheer, feeling that the verdict against Gawker couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch!
I don't actually believe that most journalists are unpatriotic, evil, etc. But many people have become incredibly disturbed by how far purportedly "objective" media have slid into advocacy journalism. Some, like Christiane Amanpour, are completely upfront about it. Others, like Don Lemon, don't even realize that they are practicing advocacy journalism (watch his recent conversation with Ben Shapiro).
But most journalists and media outlets aren't even open to the discussion of the role of bias or whether journalistic ethics need attention. They act insulted that anyone would point out even mild shortcomings.
Public concern is not rooted simply in media responses to Trump. The Gawker case; the Rolling Stone case; the rehabilitation of Brian Williams; Dan Rather's fall from grace; and the anti-Israel bias of outlets like NYT have eroded the public's confidence in the motivations of those who report the news for decades.
So, yes, I'm sure many Trump voters wish he wouldn't go so far over the top and make stupid misstatements and exaggerations. At the same time, there is a strong sentiment that without Trump's passion (or craziness, depending on your perspective), these issues would never see the light of day.
* For example, James Damore's firing from Google (or "Goolag" as his t-shirt reads).
* Or shadow-banning on Facebook and Twitter. I lost, regained, and lost 25 percent of my Facebook feed this week. The posters are still there and I'm still following them. Their posts just don't appear in my feed. Strangely, all of these lost lambs just happen to be conservative public figures.
* Or attempts by PayPal to prevent certain organizations from collecting money through their service.
* Or demonetization by YouTube that seems directed primarily at conservative/libertarian voices.
Google any of these stories. You'll find a paucity of coverage among MSM outlets. Of course, that may be a function of Google's search algorithms, which would also prove the point.
Will Trump as President address any of these events? Maybe. Maybe not. However, we are willing to put up with Trump's rhetorical excesses because we believe he unashamedly calls out people who hijack the moral high ground and attempt to impose their ideology on others. Moreover, his example encourages people to confront those who would impose their worldview on others for the allegedly better good.
I recently heard James Damore described as "Patient Zero" in the unraveling of Silicon Valley's attempts to control speech. Without Trump in the White House, this "Patient Zero" would be dead and buried before he could even lawyer up; at least under the current White House, he stands a fighting chance, and we stand a fighting chance of learning exactly what goes on at Google. |
It's really important for the country right now to have an honest conversation about whether Michelle Obama is a secret male.
https://www.infowars.com/is-th.....-web/
These are the people being empowered by Trump's election. This is the great free speech rennaisance ushered in by the age of Trump.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
PinkFridge
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 1:41 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | It's really important for the country right now to have an honest conversation about whether Michelle Obama is a secret male.
https://www.infowars.com/is-th.....-web/
These are the people being empowered by Trump's election. This is the great free speech rennaisance ushered in by the age of Trump. |
I just want to say that I listen to a fair amount of conservative radio and I have never heard that discussed. If there was any serious discussion, it must have been on Michael Medved's monthly conspiracy program.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
SixOfWands
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 3:22 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | It's really important for the country right now to have an honest conversation about whether Michelle Obama is a secret male.
https://www.infowars.com/is-th.....-web/
These are the people being empowered by Trump's election. This is the great free speech rennaisance ushered in by the age of Trump. |
Alex Jones, today. But you forgot that the co-chair of Trump's NY campaign wanted Ms. Obama to, "return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla." The right wingnuts have long been obsessed with this.
Don't forget giving press credentials to Infowars. The NY Times is fake media, so its important to ensure that the site that harassed the parents of the babies murdered at Sandy Hook, claiming that they were "crisis actors" is able to provide us with information.
Not to mention Scott Baio, who spoke at the RNC, and who is now suggesting that Heather Heyer and her mother were also "crisis actors" (in fact, the same ones used at Sandy Hook), and that there wasn't really a murder.
And hey. What about the conservative site attacking Barron Trump for, well, for dressing like a normal kid. Who had to step up to defend? Chelsea Clinton!
But I'm really not of a mood to counter Fox's conspiracy theories about a secret cabal affecting her Facebook feed (and really, I assume that she doesn't get her news from Facebook), or about the evils of Google firing someone because he wrote a 3300 word essay on why women aren't genetically suited for tech jobs, in response to a company policy statement.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
Fox
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 3:35 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | It's really important for the country right now to have an honest conversation about whether Michelle Obama is a secret male.
https://www.infowars.com/is-th.....-web/
These are the people being empowered by Trump's election. This is the great free speech rennaisance ushered in by the age of Trump. |
Let me make sure I understand your argument.
Are you saying that true freedom of speech is a bad thing because some people will say stupid things when given the opportunity?
Or are you saying that you appreciate the efforts of Google and Facebook to police free speech so that no one is exposed to bad ideas?
Or perhaps you're saying that you believe freedom of speech is the equivalent of a crazy idea used by Alex Jones to entertain his audience?
Whatever the case, it demonstrates a desire and willingness to create a virtual public square in which only those ideas deemed "correct" may be exchanged.
Given the bully pulpit, it is shockingly hard to resist burning heretics at the stake. However, I would point out that things rarely ended well for the institutions and governments who attempted to control people's opinions via auto-de-fe or its contemporary equivalents.
Plus, if Google wants to compete with the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, they're going to need to upgrade everyone's wardrobe a bit.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
Fox
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 3:53 pm
| SixOfWands wrote: | | But I'm really not of a mood to counter Fox's conspiracy theories about a secret cabal affecting her Facebook feed (and really, I assume that she doesn't get her news from Facebook), or about the evils of Google firing someone because he wrote a 3300 word essay on why women aren't genetically suited for tech jobs, in response to a company policy statement. |
Are you seriously denying that shadow-banning exists throughout a number of platforms? Please do some research.
While you're at it, actually read Damore's memo rather than simply reading about it. Claiming that the memo said that "women aren't genetically suited for tech jobs" is a sick lie. The people promulgating that interpretation in the media and foisting it upon their unsuspecting audiences are no better than the Nazis and white supremacists that started this thread.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
SixOfWands
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 3:54 pm
We live in a topsy turvy world if people actually think that Trump is trying to create a free press, and that liberals (and mainstream Republicans) are trying to limit free speech.
Trump has removed or barred reporters from his rallies, and from briefings.
Trump posts, then deletes posts, possibly in violations of laws relating to preservation of presidential communications.
Trump has threatened to change defamation laws that protect the press in reporting on public figures such as himself.
Trump has referred to the free press as "the enemy of the American people." Not to mention his consistent attacks on anything he disagrees with as "fake news" or "failing" media.
He barred the US, but not Russian, press from a meeting.
Trump does not represent a free press.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
6
|
Fox
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 3:57 pm
| SixOfWands wrote: | | Not to mention Scott Baio, who spoke at the RNC, and who is now suggesting that Heather Heyer and her mother were also "crisis actors" (in fact, the same ones used at Sandy Hook), and that there wasn't really a murder. |
Wait! I recall some very snarky put-downs on another thread when I referenced an actress's idiotic tweet as an example -- not as the subject itself.
Can I now put my nose in the air and claim I "don't follow popular culture" as a response?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Jeanette
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 3:59 pm
| Fox wrote: | Let me make sure I understand your argument.
Are you saying that true freedom of speech is a bad thing because some people will say stupid things when given the opportunity?
Or are you saying that you appreciate the efforts of Google and Facebook to police free speech so that no one is exposed to bad ideas?
Or perhaps you're saying that you believe freedom of speech is the equivalent of a crazy idea used by Alex Jones to entertain his audience?
Whatever the case, it demonstrates a desire and willingness to create a virtual public square in which only those ideas deemed "correct" may be exchanged.
Given the bully pulpit, it is shockingly hard to resist burning heretics at the stake. However, I would point out that things rarely ended well for the institutions and governments who attempted to control people's opinions via auto-de-fe or its contemporary equivalents.
Plus, if Google wants to compete with the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, they're going to need to upgrade everyone's wardrobe a bit. |
Um, no.
I want a free exchange of ideas. I want an educated populace who can distinguish between differing viewpoints versus stark raving lunacy and conspiracy theories. I want a president who can do the same and doesn't keep giving a platform to the worst elements of the right. I want Alex Jones to be free to stand on street corners raving his blessed heart out.
You seem to think that Trump has done great things for free speech in america. I think he's done great things for people like Alex Jones. I'm still waiting for the great flourishing of intellectual conservative thought on college campuses. The people I've long read and respected as conservative thought leaders are as disgusted with Trump as I am.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
6
|
marina
|
Fri, Aug 25 2017, 4:03 pm
| Fox wrote: | Let me make sure I understand your argument.
Are you saying that true freedom of speech is a bad thing because some people will say stupid things when given the opportunity?
Or are you saying that you appreciate the efforts of Google and Facebook to police free speech so that no one is exposed to bad ideas?
Or perhaps you're saying that you believe freedom of speech is the equivalent of a crazy idea used by Alex Jones to entertain his audience?
Whatever the case, it demonstrates a desire and willingness to create a virtual public square in which only those ideas deemed "correct" may be exchanged.
Given the bully pulpit, it is shockingly hard to resist burning heretics at the stake. However, I would point out that things rarely ended well for the institutions and governments who attempted to control people's opinions via auto-de-fe or its contemporary equivalents.
Plus, if Google wants to compete with the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, they're going to need to upgrade everyone's wardrobe a bit. |
Can you help me understand what Google and FB - both private companies not affected by the First Amendment - have to do with free speech?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
