Your stance says it. Objecting to using race as one of many criteria for admission in favor of a single test that clearly benefits your group ignores "all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating...."

Short sighted tribal reasoning was electing a lying cheeto with anger issues because it wore red.

Yes, but that score must, to be honest and have any value, include a measurement of the obstacles overcome to achieve that score. Taking financial, societal, opportunistic, familial, etc obstacles they've overcome doesn't seem to bother you, race is one more obstacle for many, one that's rightly taken into account when measuring a student's efforts required to achieve their current status, especially proper when diversity is part of the desired outcome of the computation.

Include a numerical modifier that takes overcoming those multiple obstructions into account and skin color might eventually be reasonably removed, but not before.

Lower scoring candidates should be chosen over higher scoring candidates based on other factors. Race is, right now, the best way to generalize those factors when trying to create a diverse student body, something we've determined is a benefit to all students. Of course, it would be better to examine all facets of performance on an individual basis, but schools don't seem to do that anymore, it's a Herculean task. Again, fund them better and they tend to do better.

@newtboy said;
"You wish to ignore all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating...."

No I don't. I never said that, you're the one that said anyone objecting to affirmative action is like that. At least I presume that's what you meant by: "short sighted, purely tribal reasoning"

I question the process for applications for jobs, grants, university/college or other places. If one has a color blind computational method of creating a qualification score for candidates, how do we most fairly use that score to choose candidates.

My view: Sort the candidates by qualification score and take the top ones.

Tell me if I understand your view right or not.
I understand your view as: Some times or to some extent, higher scoring candidates should be disregarded for other lower scoring candidates based upon race.

Please correct me if I misunderstand that.

Also, anywhere else that race is similarly systematically used to discriminate against people should of course be equally corrected. Again, I'm not American, are there other parallel examples of law and process that check for your race and replace you with lower scoring people because of it? You accused me of only looking at "the kind that harms white guys", but the reality is I only know of this example of law and regulation written specifically addressing race as something that must be used to raise/lower the scoring of candidates. Are there other direct examples?

Step one, eradicating for profit prisons.

This single idea was the worst thing that ever happened to our legal system, imo. It created billion dollar companies who's product is incarceration. Like any for profit company, they minimize their costs by warehousing people in illegally crowded cells as cheaply as possible with little or no treatments or support during or afterwards and maximize their business by lobbying for ever more incarceration. The prison guard union is the best funded lobbying group in Washington, and created minimum sentencing so every convict becomes a customer.

Make prison a government function again, who's goal is turning out functional citizens, not warehousing as many bodies as they can get paid for, and we might turn a corner.....but that won't ever happen, there's no multi billion dollar prison reform lobbying group to bribe senators into doing the right thing.

Try reading again. You have it totally backwards.

When was I insulting or dismissive? Because it was unforseen that educated people would elect a bombastic insulting sexist popularist con man who was obviously lying to them simply because he wore a red hat and tie? Those are facts, not opinion. Many of them are saying how much they regret it now.

I offered solutions you appeared to agree with, like funding lower education so everyone has a decent, if not equal, opportunity to get an education.
Using race as ONE criteria amongst many for admission is not ideal, as I said, but until a better system for identifying and addressing financial and societal issues that stymie opportunities for people often based on their pigmentation is created, it's the best we've got.

What we don't have is what you imply is the problem.....rich white men with 1570 SAT scores (old school SAT, I don't know how it's scored now) and 3.9 gpas are not being turned away from Yale to make room for indigent African American women with 990 SATs and 2.7 gpas...but the Latina woman with 1550 and 3.6 gpa earned while raising 2 siblings and holding a full time job, yeah, she gets the slot, and that's proper. One skewed test that benefits one privileged group is hardly a decent measure of their work ethic or intelligence....often it's only an indication they hired the right student to take the SAT for them. There were at least 3 hired test takers out of 30 students taking the PSAT when I took it, we talked afterwards.

It is the right (and people making the arguments you are) who are far more insulting and dismissive of non white people's frustrations at being racially discriminated against....to a level and consistency exponentially higher than the trifling discriminations whites suffer. That doesn't mean some whites don't suffer some deleterious effects, it means they come out way ahead in the discrimination game.

You wish to ignore all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating....but only the kind that harms white guys, forget the myriad of insurmountable racist mountains non whites climb daily, both institutional and societal, this speed bump for whites is unconscionable and must be removed immediately!

Come back and whine about institutional anti white bias when anti white racism permeates every facet of your life but not when your race doesn't give you a free leg up that one time. Maybe talk to your right wing friends about why funding education for others is good for you as step one towards eliminating programs like this that address inequities in opportunities, and giving the less fortunate extra opportunity to overcome their situation is good for all. After reasonable basic educational opportunities are available for all, schools will still take the student's home life, finances, and extra curricular activities into account....with luck that will be on an individual basis eventually, but that's not likely until education reforms occur that give everyone an opportunity to display their skills on a more level field..

1) Yes, but that's much more easily said than done, and many people disagree too. I feel that it's far cheaper to pay to educate other people's children (I have none) and have them become far more productive citizens than it is to insist (despite all evidence to the contrary) that hard work overcomes all obstacles, and everyone is capable of doing the work required for success. This theory removes responsibility to help others and puts blame squarely on those who've failed. Convenient, but just wrong.

2) In a vacuum, that makes sense, but not in real life. The refusal to acknowledge the disparities in opportunity to prepare for that singular performance is where the racism lies.
It's actually illegal to use just race over performance merit in most places as I understand it. Ethnicity/gender are usually only one small part of the equation. If they could be replaced with a numerical opportunity score, used to modify performance scores,
I would support that, but good luck figuring that one out to anyone's satisfaction.

3) Yes, people always resent being forced from a position of power. I do think it's important to constantly revisit the issue to insure policy doesn't foster inequities, particularly since that's the point of the policies, eradicating inequities.

4) Predicting the naive would be suckered by a professional con man telling them platitudes, sure, but predicting so many of the educated would go along for short sighted, purely tribal reasoning, that's tougher.

5) Certain groups of people have been claiming white men are the downtrodden powerless whipping boys since the 60's. It's getting closer to true, but we aren't near there yet, it just seems that way to those less socially powerful than their fathers. Sure, there are outliers where the white male gets the shaft due to race, but we still come out well ahead in the balance by any objective set of criteria..

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

Private background checks is full of privacy, communication, and liability issues, true, but that could be solved in various ways.
In gun store private sales, that's how California does it.
Does it stop all criminal sales? Clearly not. Does it minimize them and hold illegal sellers who ignore the law accountable for what others do with the guns they illegally sold, making illegally selling a criminal your gun insane? Yes.
If it was the law nation wide, would it severely curtail the illicit gun trade, and have a positive impact on gun crime rates? Absolutely, zero question.
Would it stop it altogether? Duh, no, no law is a panacea, the death penalty doesn't stop all murders, but it definitely stops most. That is not how law works. No law has EVER stopped the crimes they regulate altogether except those that legalize the crime out of existence....like legal marijuana eradicated illegal pot smokers completely.

It's the mentality, not the degree.
Ruin them all, let God sort it out is really what's happening, and it leaves those of us looking for equality and justice with a bitter taste and serious reservations.
Relatively minor? Career and reputation eradication isn't minor, especially based on accusations....once they're proven or admitted, ok.
I don't know what's happening with Asis, but the intent was clearly to ruin his career over his dates belated regrets, and refuse to acknowledge there's any difference between his inexperienced bumbling and forceful sexual abuse. That is unacceptable, and if that's what #me too is about now, fuck them...I'm out.

That is why you don't overreach, and don't lump minor offences with major ones. It turns reasonable people against your cause.

Again, if making distinctions are not proper, why is the minor distinction between the sexes on this issue front and center? Why are there no #me too accusers going after women?
This really is turning into a battle of the sexes rather than an honest attempt to solve a real, serious issue, sex abuse.
I think that's horrendous, and damns the needed movement to likely failure, certainly it begs for opposition.

?
Why did you quote this to me?

Edit: was this meant to show that some on the left do want trumpeteers eradicated? If so, I think get the fuck out is a step lower, and he's just one person, but point taken, that is disappointing.

This is the right wing mindset. After 8 years of publicly wishing the president dead, they naturally assume their political rivals are the same kind of human filth that wants anyone not agreeing with them eradicated.

Imo, the peace process isn't dead, but it's deathly ill because Israel keeps expanding.

Want and can accept are two different things.

We give them most of that military might, and back it with ours. Without that interference, they might be more fair and equitable, with it they clearly won't, they'll continue to bully their weaker, poorer, displaced neighbors.

Popular opinion in Israel seems to be the Palestinians should be eradicated, so fair, equitable, compassionate treatment is incredibly unlikely and not realistic without being forced into it.

No one told me that for thousands of years....I've never heard that said to anyone...ever....not seriously.
First, very few want a dick pic free world, and the anti pornography people can just stop looking. An unsolicited dick pic free world, yep, that should be the stated goal if they want support.
Second, demeaning a body part in that hyper sexist way is never appropriate, and makes Sam one of the infantile sexist douchbags she's railing against, just on the chick side instead of dude.
Third, it's just plain wrong. Plenty of people find penises attractive. If they didn't, explain gay porn.

Not necessary at all, any more than men body shaming women is necessary. It's nothing more than shameful bitter divisiveness, fostering the 'us vs them' mindset that is the problem.
You don't, can't eradicate inappropriate behavior by repeating it. That has never worked.