There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
In clearer words: I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda.
> Arcidiacono shows that, after narrowing down applicants to those with the strongest objective academic qualifications, Asian Americans were far more likely than blacks or Hispanics to receive a low personality score from admissions officers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvar...
So we know for a fact that Asians received lower "personality" scores than blacks and hispanics, as a racial group and regardless of their financial status, and these lower "personality" scores were used as a basis to reject Asians and accept black and hispanic candidates.
TL;DR we know for a fact this exact thing is happening.
> I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid
Is this not about the interaction between economic status and race in the context of affirmative action?
> At no point did I say that wasn't happening.
So it is happening, yet "I made it up"? It is both real and made up, at the same time?
https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/affirmative-action-hurts-asian...
How confident you are that you are not the ignorant one.
drives a semi through the weasel wording of 'other factors'
One wonders if slaves had other factors too.
> One wonders if slaves had other factors too.
This strikes me as deeply irrelevant and a major rhetorical escalation. My argument was that it's unreasonable to link economic discrimination and racial affirmative action.
> this is not a good criticism of affirmative action programs.
I then pointed out we have statistics showing affirmative action unfairly disadvantages Asians and that the supreme court is going to hear arguments about it.
"but but ... I was talking about ECONOMIC discrimination!".
No, you're just a fan of weasel words.
What you were trying to imply with your comment about "other factors" is that these asian students have less soft skills than other ethnicities (I know because this is a common defense). Apparently citing standardized test scoring as a reason for accepting less black applicants is racist, but citing soft skills as a reason for accepting less asian students isn't.
discrimination for me, but not for thee?
I do want to respond to this, though:
> What you were trying to imply with your comment about "other factors" is that these asian students have less soft skills than other ethnicities
No, I wasn't. By other factors I meant the other things the GP brought up: economics (" born in poverty"), being 'weird' or just not fitting in (which I felt was implied by "got bullied in school"), and nationality ("a rich black American kid" implies, at least to me, that our hypothetical Asian student isn't American). All of these have significant impacts in school admissions, especially nationality, which can make prospective students ineligible for some kinds of aid.
blink
This is your personal opinion.
> There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
This rests on sharing the former assumption. Hence, not necessarily dishonest or ignorant.
Or if you want to maintain it: Want to lay out that difference for those of us who are (in your opinion) ignorant? Because I don't see it.
To ignore all of that context and to treat them as exactly equivalent is reduction to absurdity, to the point where debate involving in any matter of subtlety is impossible, from my perspective.
Furthermore, I would encourage you to state the equivalent case on your side. Why should I ignore all context and subtlety, and treat the two scenarios as morally equivalent?
You are not in a position to impose it on the rest of us.
See some of the comments of human fungibility and realize that it may be a matter of perspective and that neither of you really are "wrong", "right", "good", "bad" or have an objectively higher ground.