You're ignoring the fact that affirmative action disproportionately got white women into colleges, not non-white women, and even almost surgically excluded asians.
This doesn't mean white women are stupid, just that white women from the bottom of the barrel were being picked up far more often than others.
I'm in STEM, specifically computer science, and you'd have to be retarded to not get an A in all but like 3 or 4 courses, and two of them are higher level math courses.
You could get a D in all 3 to 4 of those and still graduate with a 3.5 GPA or something. You'd even make president's or dean's list several times.
Engineering-related degrees, math degrees, and physics/chemistry degrees are probably all that's safe.
The most often happens via experience, however.
It doesn't matter how bad of a job you did as long as you meet X time requirement.
It doesn't matter how bad the things in your portfolio did as long as a known company backed it in some way.
Failing upward is a pretty common trend now.
You forgot about affirmative action, which extremely disproportionately, among women, let white women get admittance, not non-white women.
Considering white women made up the majority of accepted women, x10 sub-90 IQ women points most strongly at white women.
That doesn't suggest that white women have low IQ, just that low IQ ones were being accepted more than ever before.
You forgot googling.
A LOT of courses are available online now, and with no in-seat exams.
White women were the single largest beneficiary of affirmative action, and by a large margin, IIRC.
Also of note is that affirmative action actually prevented many Asian men and women from being accepted.
Colleges are disproportionately graduating white female retards, not black. IIRC black students were still more likely to attend majority black colleges than more prestigious ones.
Can't people sue over this?
Its active admittance of discrimination.
If you're trying to meet diversity requirements, you do that while going through applications, not outright denying non-PoC from applying.
Yeah but let's not pretend that if they did anything they wouldn't likely lose their job for daring to oppose the "brave female cop".
Take a look at Germany under the Nazi regime. How many actually hated Jews and then how many were going along with everything out of fear for their own, or their family's, wellbeing?
See the parallel?
Pretty sure everyone in America is aware of it being about getting as much money as possible lmao.
It still amazes me how they call everyone a fascist for disagreeing with them, even in absurdly minor cases, and don't realize that such a thing aligns them more closely with fascists than the vast majority of people they accuse.
Zero self-awareness or reflection in these people.
Isn't this topic like a month old now?
I remember hearing about this several weeks ago.
That said, some of the responses were funny if you're willing to wade through the BS the "researchers" wrote.
Never saw this comment, sorry.
I don't think you should disagree due to television, but I do agree that television was still likely overall damaging to the collective growth of humanity.
The difference between television and mobile devices is that the dopamine drip is omnipresent. With television, you had significant wasted time/growth, sure, but it was still at the very least on long-form content that required a minor form of irritation in the form of commercials, and it wasn't present while you were doing other constructive things.
Its the instant-gratification, zero-downtime dopamine feed that mobile devices provide that is damaging to growth. People are more impatient than ever, less likely to endure anything educational if it takes more than 2 minutes, etc., etc., etc. Then there's the dopamine burnout that's starting to become apparent in other aspects of peoples' lives.
Do you disagree with that premise?
As mentioned earlier, I think addressing fetuses with organs is much more reasonable than blanket bans.
This is fair, and I'd agree, but most people aren't considering the philosophical aspect of "when is it a human".
Important to note that the 'organ' cases are also likely going to be the ones where something is interfering with their ability to reasonably have a child, rather than not wanting one at all.
So only addressing that still leaves the majority of abortions that happen prior to ~12 weeks. People would still likely be upset about abortion, so more would still have to be done in some way.
Republicans might be able to do more
To be fair, its not just Republicans. Democrats don't seem to want to address the things that would be a net benefit to all that would also reduce the need for abortions, thus placating Republicans as well.
If abortions actually were rare like many leftists want you to believe, I doubt most people would make as much of a stink about abortion.
You don't want to incentivize welfare octomoms
Set a lifetime cap; 3-4 kids seems reasonable to me. After a certain point, you're either abusing the system or stupid enough that we don't want more of your genes spreading.
You also have to account for companies working around your legislation
Companies already do this, don't they? The crossover between those that do and those that would be likely do go further if they were required to provide better maternity leave is probably almost 1:1.
And after a certain point, trends start to become noticeable and they'd likely get nailed for discrimination.
Also, remote work becoming more prevalent, especially for HR/payroll, has improved that situation.
Do you know what the cases were if they were specifically adoption?
I'm curious if there's an angle states can use to bypass the precedent.
I'm going to assume that if it went to court they'd argue the obvious "the kid could be LGBT and grow up in an unloving home" argument, but it would set a VERY dangerous precedent if that was allowed to fly.
This is utterly fucked, and I don't even have a horse in the race of Christianity.
I have a feeling this will turn into a court case.
He should absolutely get some legal representation. This type of case could make a Lawyer's career in the current political climate; I doubt anyone would turn it down.
I'm not foolish enough to think its rare.
But that's why I think we should put more effort on addressing the reasons people get abortions. Not being able to afford a kid, it interfering with their career, etc., etc. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong here, there were surveys at abortion clinics showing that a significant portion got them for reasons other than simply not wanting a kid.
Do you think its valid to argue that those cases shouldn't be addressed first, considering they're infinitely more electorally popular and reasonable?
My arguments aren't based on the morality of it; I'd rather it didn't happen. If people want to argue morality, there's a lot going against a ban because of the downstream outcomes as well.
I think we **have ** to start doing UBIs, and at least get a start on a low one, even if its just $10, so all of the organization is set before shit hits the fan. Its inevitable with automation and people's decreasing attention spans and pools of knowledge, generationally.
The alternative is a more controlling government that focuses on optimizing and essentially enforcing higher learning to allow everyone to fit more technical positions. I don't think that would roll over very well with most people, especially since it would likely mean limiting social media or smart phone usage.
This has been the case for 20 or 30 years now.
Its been a tool used to draw votes, and that's it.
Attempting to change an argument with a word that's morally loaded and doesn't apply to the argument in reality doesn't really work in your favor.
I don't care about the moral argument.
Making it illegal is a net negative for society, not even because of bodily autonomy.
It just means people go back to back ally abortion clinics, you have unregulated "doctors" working in unsanitary conditions, people are forced to have kids which destroys their finances and likely careers, etc., etc.
You mean the Christians who are the largest adoption population in the US? Make a better argument that’s grounded in something other than black pill conjecture.
Christians adopting the most doesn't offset the impact of banning abortion. If you think this is a gotcha, then I'm sorry to inform you that your retardation is terminal.
We already don't have enough people adopting, even among Christians. You think the issue wouldn't be worse if you forced people to carry to term?
Actions have consequences, saying that people will still commit a crime is not a good reason to legalize it.
This isn't a justification. You could use this argument to justify almost anything.
Leftists have been doing this in sex ed for decades with negative success rates
Then why are birth rates lower in poorer countries where it's taught even where abortions aren't generally available?
You actually don't have any arguments with real merit lmao.
Imagine thinking someone is far left because they know that trying to make abortion illegal is actually braindead retarded, regardless of whether you like abortion happening or not.
This is an especially large issue in cities, especially near the coasts.
Its definitely going to reach a breaking point at some point, but I'm wondering when its going to happen, and what's going to happen after.
I think we need to revisit that little bit of legislative change that happened under Reagan, IIRC, which allowed that divergence in company profit and employee pay to grow unchecked.
The problem is that most people who are underpaid aren't aware that they're underpaid: that the person next to them that was hired 2 years after them is getting paid 20% more for the same work, despite less experience.
And both of them are still underpaid.
Can't ever forget the classic "your words are literally violence" line.
You must be blessed with a lack of Twitter.
Black people and other minorities tend to be very conservative socially and hate homosexuality.
No reason to think they wouldn't hate everything else in the alphabet army.
I'm seeing plenty of retards in STEM, at least in CSCI/CIS-related courses.
I imagine its plenty worse in non-STEM though.