Based. WTF is your point here and in all of these other conversations?
This isn't exactly rocket science. Every country with diversity is a complete mess. And it barely has anything to do with what kind of diversity it is. Apparently, one of Botswana's great positives is that it has very little diversity. Same for China vs. India.
Anyone with a brain can see that diversity is a terrible thing. The issue is what do you do about it. And I think your solution is "kick out anyone who isn't white", which is not exactly moral.
I'm confused. Are these people "generally fine" or not?
The point is that we're not getting the cream of the crop from Africa, but that they're still generally fine. Certainly none of the stuff we see in your black communities.
I never said it was impossible. I fully acknowledge that a draconian structure like the 1950s could do it. No one wants, that, though so what good is it?
It's not really draconian, though obviously I do not favor it. You seemed to be denying that blacks can behave themselves, but they certainly can. At the very least, we agree that they behave themselves under the regime of the 1950s. There may also be other regimes under which they will behave themselves.
Until 1954, the southern states were working like crazy to make black schools more equal to white schools in order to avoid having to de-segregate (because the courts finally started upholding actual separate but equal, as opposed to separate and unequal). Laws are generally very ineffective at holding people down, evidenced by the great progress that blacks made between 1865 and 1960, and the many places where oppressed minorities do better than the majority. I wonder if more gradual reform, which would not have created too high expectations for equality of outcome on a short-term basis, only to shatter them, would have had a better outcome for blacks.
It was in CA where whites are no longer the majority so I don't know what conclusions to draw from that. Blacks may interpret it as helping Hispanics since they are far more visible in CA.
So why did Hispanics oppose it as well then? It's a very convenient explanation. That fairness wins even in the most left-wing state in America is a good sign that it has great appeal, contrary to your claims that "POC" just want benefits for their skin color.
68% of blacks support CRT, and every poll and study I've seen reveals they have a strong in group bias.
How exactly can you complain about an in-group bias among blacks, when your quarrel is that there is not a sufficient in-group bias among whites? Is it good or bad? Or is it good when you do it, and bad when others do it?
I want to end the diversity experiment that even you admit isn't working.
And how exactly do you want to 'end' that experiment?
This isn't exactly rocket science. Every country with diversity is a complete mess. And it barely has anything to do with what kind of diversity it is. Apparently, one of Botswana's great positives is that it has very little diversity. Same for China vs. India.
Anyone with a brain can see that diversity is a terrible thing. The issue is what do you do about it. And I think your solution is "kick out anyone who isn't white", which is not exactly moral.
The point is that we're not getting the cream of the crop from Africa, but that they're still generally fine. Certainly none of the stuff we see in your black communities.
It's not really draconian, though obviously I do not favor it. You seemed to be denying that blacks can behave themselves, but they certainly can. At the very least, we agree that they behave themselves under the regime of the 1950s. There may also be other regimes under which they will behave themselves.
Until 1954, the southern states were working like crazy to make black schools more equal to white schools in order to avoid having to de-segregate (because the courts finally started upholding actual separate but equal, as opposed to separate and unequal). Laws are generally very ineffective at holding people down, evidenced by the great progress that blacks made between 1865 and 1960, and the many places where oppressed minorities do better than the majority. I wonder if more gradual reform, which would not have created too high expectations for equality of outcome on a short-term basis, only to shatter them, would have had a better outcome for blacks.
So why did Hispanics oppose it as well then? It's a very convenient explanation. That fairness wins even in the most left-wing state in America is a good sign that it has great appeal, contrary to your claims that "POC" just want benefits for their skin color.
How exactly can you complain about an in-group bias among blacks, when your quarrel is that there is not a sufficient in-group bias among whites? Is it good or bad? Or is it good when you do it, and bad when others do it?
And how exactly do you want to 'end' that experiment?