Whites Only Scholarship Controversy

Andrew_Jay

-

Senjutsu

Andrew_Jay wrote:

Knuckle Dragger wrote:

Schrodinger wrote:

Well, in many parts of Africa, white people are still in charge, despite the fact that they're in the minority. Call it western imperialism.

Where?

Schrodinger is, at the exact same time, living in both the year 2006 and the year 1976.

But is he alive?

Deathmonger

Andrew_Jay wrote:

Knuckle Dragger wrote:

Schrodinger wrote:

Well, in many parts of Africa, white people are still in charge, despite the fact that they're in the minority. Call it western imperialism.

Where?

Schrodinger is, at the exact same time, living in both the year 2006 and the year 1976.

Righto.

In some African countries, Kenya being one of them methinks, white people's property was systematically expropriated by the new black governments - not to say the whites were victimized, but that whites don't have much control .

Real Western Imperialism is subsidizing the American agriculture industry and then dumping cheap food into local markets and warzones, facilitating poverty and wars.

Tigress

Here's my two cents on the issue.

I got a scholarship for being white. It was called the "Minority Presence Grant." I was going to a school that with a predominantly black student body. I got the MPG because I was a minority on the campus and it provided an incentive to increase diversity. It was just enough to pay for my textbooks, but it still was free money to help me with my education.

As for the scholarship in question, it's created by a bunch of priviledged white people with a victim complex and nothing else to whine about. And they don't like seeing them there darkies getting too uppity because they get minority prescence grants.

Schrodinger

Knuckle Dragger wrote:

Schrodinger wrote:

Well, in many parts of Africa, white people are still in charge, despite the fact that they're in the minority. Call it western imperialism.

Where?

Well, I guess "in charge" was overstating, but for instance:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L09479808.htm

In theory, all South African schools have been open to black and white students alike since the early 1990s. But because even state institutions set their own fees, the best schools remain the preserve of the still largely white middle class, while the poor are often forced to settle for sub-standard teaching, chaos and violence.

Of course, my knowledge of african politics and history is limited, which is why I wanted to keep this discussion in context (e.g., America).

Yar wrote:

The study on black vs. white names was very accurately discredited in Freakonomics. Levitt isolated the phenomenon to specifically between "educated" sounding names and "uneducated" sounding names, and showed that it was the level of education of the person who named you, and not your race, that actually determined your chance of a callback. There were names that were both "black" and "educated" and they got a higher number of callbacks.

Yes, that's why we rely on the law of averages when gathering statistics, not on the law of anecdotal. As for a name being "educated" sounding, how is that any different from just saying that the name sounds "white?"

It's just one of a million studies that tries to show racism without properly adjusting for social, economic, or educational disparities.

Their resumes were exactly the same, other than name.

As for the very unscientific study with a black professor and McVeigh, it's just a matter of playing the odds. If there is no noticable difference between pictures of two men, other than race, then I hate to break it to you but the black one is statistically much more likely to be a criminal.

Wow, I didn't even realize that 5 year olds typically read crime statistics broken down by racial breakdown and calculating the odds. Or are they just going off the media portrayals?

Scald wrote:

If you had actually read the thing you'd see he was talking about a second set of tests. Right at the beginning it specifically states

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html wrote:

Many times researchers found that the person using the ethnic dialect got no return calls.

They used an ethnic dialect in the calls, now a dialect is, from the dictionary

www.dictionary.com wrote:

a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

He very clearly used a different grammar when he was "talking like an african-american" compared to standard english

Sure, just like he clearly stole from his employers and came to the interview dressed out in a lot of bling-bling, because that's just what black people do. :roll: He specifically states that the grammar was the same. The fact that you're trying to rely on a fallacy of equivocation doesn't change that, nor does it make it "clear" that he was using different grammar.

BTW, From that same article: Speakers with German accents — even if they stumble into grammatical errors — are considered brilliant, his research has shown. The listeners may not even be able to name the accent as German-American. Baugh expects that the brainy stereotype comes from comics and cartoons mimicking Albert Einstein's German-American accent and from a duck — Walt Disney's Germanic scientist Ludwig Von Drake. So just out of curiousity, why are black people uneducated, but German people considered brilliant?

So would I be racist for refusing to deal with a caucasian who spoke a "southern hick" dialect?

Once again, you're making the racist assumption the professor was talking in ebonics, and that the difference wasn't solely in intonation. If a person called up with a heavy Southern accent, but still practiced good grammar and didn't din't use phrases like "Past-her-eyes", why would that throw you off?

The study fails to rule out the impact of improper grammar on peoples impressions of a speaker.

I find it amusing that you're just assuming he was practicing bad grammar, with no evidence, solely on account of the fact that listeners recognized his voice as sounding black.

Now that's an actual study, I'd be interested to see it repeated in different locations. It seems they confined the potential employers to local Milwaukee businesses. Racism among 350 Milwaukee businesses is hardly enough to convict the entire western world of institutionalized racism.

Really? Is there something unique about milwaukee that would make it far more racist than anywhere else?

Not only do I not believe it is anywhere near as prevalent as you are making it out to be, the study you linked only shows racism among individual business owners. Giving more scholorships to African-Americans, forcing Universities to have a set percentage of Black students, or even outright giving them money will in no way help.

Giving a cancer victim in the cancer ward regular helpings of food won't cure his cancer. That doesn't mean I stop feeding him. You're confusing a necessary condition to solve for racism with a sufficient condition to solve for racism. Just because scholarships aren't sufficient to solve the problem, doesn't mean it isn't necessary.

Thantos wrote:

If you'd actually read what he posted, the only difference between his standard English and African-American dialects was intonation.

If you read it closely, the part where he varies his intonation while keeping grammar the same was for a second test

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6500.html wrote:

In a survey of his own accents, he had hundreds score his disembodied voices and try to identify his background. In those tests, 93 percent identified his "professional English voice" as a white person; 86 percent thought the black dialect as a black person; and 89 percent identified his Latino voice as a Mexican.

He laughed about getting the least convincing score as a black person. His vocal differences in those tests were only in intonation, not in grammar.

It's a survey of his own accents, completely different from the experiment in the beggining, it has nothing to do with the callbacks.

All that proves is that he's capable of changing his percieved race simply by the way he says a word. Intersting, but nothing about racism.

It seems that he (or rather the writer of the article) seems to be using the words "accents" and "dialects" interchangeably.

And adding your own emphasis means little in this context. It would be like taking the phrase "I woke up from bed this morning," and reading it is as ""I woke up from bed this morning," implying that he's never woking up from bed before.

ElJeffe

Irond Will wrote:

Again, I don't have a cite, but I understand that, in contrast to what Jeff mentioned, criminality actually does increase at lower income levels beyond simply different types of crime.

I'd love to see someone less lazy than I dig up some stats on that, because I'm quite curious now.

Schrodinger

Men account for something like 90% of all murders. I once had a criminology prof once state that, "Any theory that you come up with on why people commit murder is going to have to explain why most of them are committed by men." This goes beyond things like socioeconimic factors and race.

But I don't think that any employer, given a choice between a male employee and a female employee, is thinking, "Better not hire the guy. He might go up and murder me!"

I've already cited a study showing that white males who admit to "having served 18 months in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell" will still still have a better chance of getting a response than a black guy with no record at all.

Loren Michael

we may stab you in the face, but at least we aren't beholden to our hormones and and can't get pregnant.

fjafjan

And in the end, is pregnancy just slow murder, the worst kind of murder?

tynic

Loren Michael wrote:

we aren't beholden to our hormones

Men's hormonal levels fluctuate as much in a few hours as women's do over a month.

And I don't know why people don't think anger isn't an hormonally-affected emotion.

Aroused Bull

Schrodinger wrote:

Men account for something like 90% of all murders. I once had a criminology prof once state that, "Any theory that you come up with on why people commit murder is going to have to explain why most of them are committed by men." This goes beyond things like socioeconimic factors and race.

I would think it would have something to do with men being larger, more powerful, more hormonal, generally more aggresssive animals.

tynic

Red Berry Blue wrote:

Schrodinger wrote:

Men account for something like 90% of all murders. I once had a criminology prof once state that, "Any theory that you come up with on why people commit murder is going to have to explain why most of them are committed by men." This goes beyond things like socioeconimic factors and race.

I would think it would have something to do with men being larger, more powerful, more hormonal, generally more aggresssive animals.

Being an anti-gender essentialist, I feel it's beholden upon me to point out that men are discouraged from expressing their emotions in non-destructive fashions, and much of the male aggression and anger problems that lead to violent crimes are quite likely socially induced. (Not to say physiology doesn't play a factor, of course).

blizzard224

I don't live in America. I'd say, in Australia, there is no longer any social bias against any race other than Muslims, who even then have it pretty good as far as I know (I have quite a few Muslim friends who will say that they've never been prejudiced against).

You can't all be serius when you say that black people are still disadvantaged in America, can you? I mean, really.... didn't you deal with this 50 years ago?

tynic

blizzard224 wrote:

I don't live in America. I'd say, in Australia, there is no longer any social bias against any race other than Muslims,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fucking idiot. We're fifty times more racist than the US, and the US is pretty racist. Go talk to some aboriginals.

bone daddy

tynic wrote:

Red Berry Blue wrote:

Schrodinger wrote:

Men account for something like 90% of all murders. I once had a criminology prof once state that, "Any theory that you come up with on why people commit murder is going to have to explain why most of them are committed by men." This goes beyond things like socioeconimic factors and race.

I would think it would have something to do with men being larger, more powerful, more hormonal, generally more aggresssive animals.

Being an anti-gender essentialist, I feel it's beholden upon me to point out that men are discouraged from expressing their emotions in non-destructive fashions, and much of the male aggression and anger problems that lead to violent crimes are quite likely socially induced. (Not to say physiology doesn't play a factor, of course).

I also wonder if there's not a little gender profiling tilting those stats away from women, since it seems unlikely that 100% of murder convictions are accurate. If police aren't looking at female suspects as closely as they should because "men commit 90% of murders," you can quite easily perpetuate the prejudice by hanging yet another murder on a man because you've got enough circumstantial evidence to convince a jury he's guilty even if the guilty party was a woman.

And, of course, if women are largely better at covering it up (no judgment of homicide/homicide with no suspects/homicide with no conviction), you're looking at a statistic that doesn't actually cover murders committed, but convicted murderers, and is an inaccurate tool. That's before we get into multi-party murders, where male and female defendants are equally responsible and equally involved in the crime, but a conviction for homicide is more likely for the male and a conviction for aiding and abetting is more likely for the female, so that's how the DA charges them.

bone daddy

blizzard224 wrote:

You can't all be serius when you say that black people are still disadvantaged in America, can you? I mean, really.... didn't you deal with this 50 years ago?

Yes, we're serious. Completely, utterly, and sadly serious.

Loren Michael

tynic wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

we aren't beholden to our hormones

Men's hormonal levels fluctuate as much in a few hours as women's do over a month.

And I don't know why people don't think anger isn't an hormonally-affected emotion.

i'll assume that that was just a PSA and that you didn't actually think i believed what i said.

tynic

Loren Michael wrote:

tynic wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

we aren't beholden to our hormones

Men's hormonal levels fluctuate as much in a few hours as women's do over a month.

And I don't know why people don't think anger isn't an hormonally-affected emotion.

i'll assume that that was just a PSA and that you didn't actually think i believed what i said.

:P No, I figured you were being facetious, I just decided to use it as a teaching opportunity. Never waste a good setup!

Loren Michael

you dyke bitch, you almost made me look like a ignorant and bigoted misogynist.

tynic

Loren Michael wrote:

you dyke bitch, you almost made me look like a ignorant and bigoted misogynist.

Lets make nasty athiest babies.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

blizzard224

tynic wrote:

blizzard224 wrote:

I don't live in America. I'd say, in Australia, there is no longer any social bias against any race other than Muslims,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fucking idiot. We're fifty times more racist than the US, and the US is pretty racist. Go talk to some aboriginals.

No, you're a fucking idiot. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about now. I've been to Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Brisbane in my time and in all my travels I've never seen a hint of racism. I realise that there is still some segregation in certain parts of the north, but I'd argue that it's self enforced by the aboriginies (as in it's them who don't want anything to do with the white people).

There are a few bad eggs in every society, but there's no way I'm basing a people's racism on a few horrible stories on the news.

Deathmonger

Earlier:

Schrodinger wrote:

Deathmonger wrote:

How can we tell when all social justice has been achieved anyway? When all groups are equally represented in all areas?

"How can we tell when we have adequate healthcare? When no one gets sick, ever?"

The issue isn't making sure that "all social justice has been achieved." It boils down to this: There are some pretty overt problems when it comes to race in this country. We should probably try to fix them.

Similarly it wouldn't surprise me if natural selection promoted certain traits in certain human populations, and as a result we wouldn't see even representation of all people in whatever occupations.

Yes, let's justify the discrepency by insisting that whites are simply genetically superior, with no hard evidence to support it.

This can be clearly seen in professional football and basketball.

Even if you assumed that was true, you're assuming that natural selection would apply to mental attributes the same way that it applies to physical attributes. There's no real evidence of that.

Ultimately scholarships should be given only by need to those who are talented and pursuing studies that will actually benefit society - engineering, medicine, teaching etc, as opposed to "Women's Studies" or "Comparative Literature".

Yes, women and literature haven't benefited society at all.

(A thousand pardons for such large quote . . . newayz)

Speaking of hormones, now that they seem to be all the rage in this thread, here be some links to consider - I'm not defending them, but they're worth reading.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/color_of_meritocracy.htm
http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/26/genetics/index.html

And, addressing Schrodinger:
I only referenced the obvious black dominance in certain sports - but you assumed that this meant I thought whites were superior. My point was that Affirmative Action, like the War on Drugs, or the War on Terror, has no exact objective. It will and has been used as a polarizing issue, i.e. "You're either racist or you're for AA" just like "You're either for unconstitutional government actions or you're with the Terroristas".

And scholarships . . . literature and the courses of "womens studies" do not provide anything close to the same benefits of engineering, medicine or teaching. They do not provide technological advances, or heal the sick or provide generations of citizens with the tools they need to succeed. Engineering is especially important as energy crisises (you know they're going to happen) loom on the horizon.

Regarding women's studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Studies

Deathmonger

Never mind - neither of the links cite information but they're still interesting. Reading about David Duke from the second one is funny though, but it doesn't bring any evidence here.

Hacksaw

blizzard224 wrote:

tynic wrote:

blizzard224 wrote:

I don't live in America. I'd say, in Australia, there is no longer any social bias against any race other than Muslims,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fucking idiot. We're fifty times more racist than the US, and the US is pretty racist. Go talk to some aboriginals.

No, you're a fucking idiot. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about now. I've been to Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Brisbane in my time and in all my travels I've never seen a hint of racism.

Did you ever once think to make a comment about the damn abos running wild all over the place, stealing all the white wimmens, or how the lebs and slanties are ruining the country?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Schrodinger

bone daddy wrote:

I also wonder if there's not a little gender profiling tilting those stats away from women, since it seems unlikely that 100% of murder convictions are accurate. If police aren't looking at female suspects as closely as they should because "men commit 90% of murders," you can quite easily perpetuate the prejudice by hanging yet another murder on a man because you've got enough circumstantial evidence to convince a jury he's guilty even if the guilty party was a woman.

The logic of which can just as easily apply to convictions regarding minorities.

Knuckle Dragger wrote:

And yet, you were the one that introduced African politics to this line of debate.

No, I really wasn't.

Schrodinger wrote:

Yall wrote:

The author seems to forget that and associates all of the advantages with "whiteness" rather than with "majority". (She rules out geogrphic location so a statement like "45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race."wouldn't hold true for a Japanese guy living in Africa, would it.

:roll:

Yeah dude, it's something called context. In this case, she's referring to the context of an American audience. If you have to go to an entirely different continent to find a rebutall...

The Cat

Hacksaw wrote:

blizzard224 wrote:

tynic wrote:

blizzard224 wrote:

I don't live in America. I'd say, in Australia, there is no longer any social bias against any race other than Muslims,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fucking idiot. We're fifty times more racist than the US, and the US is pretty racist. Go talk to some aboriginals.

No, you're a fucking idiot. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about now. I've been to Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Brisbane in my time and in all my travels I've never seen a hint of racism.

Did you ever once think to make a comment about the damn abos running wild all over the place, stealing all the white wimmens, or how the lebs and slanties are ruining the country?

Ahahaha, its like looking at Aus through a funshouse mirror

PSA: Poor stereotypes about australian aboriginals do not match up to those associated with african americans. The notion of an aboriginal 'stealing' a white woman or vice versa is pretty laughable, in fact. Stereotypes about substance abuse and domestic squalor are far more common. You can't actually directly compare racism in our two countries just because there's black people in both places, that's ridiculously simplistic and ignores pretty much our entire history.

t blizzard: Boxing day riots, you silly child. One Nation. The Yellow Peril is still a common scare-tactic in state and federal politics, for fucks' sake. Seriously, its like you dont' even own a TV...

bone daddy

Schrodinger wrote:

The logic of which can just as easily apply to convictions regarding minorities.

Seriously, are you autistic? The logic couldn't "just as easily apply to convictions regarding minorities," that's where it comes from. It's a standard-issue response to why racial profiling is fucked and doesn't actually predict anything more than the fact that you'll bust more of group x than group y for a crime if you go to group x more frequently than group y for suspects.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Crimson King

The Cat wrote:

Hacksaw wrote:

blizzard224 wrote:

tynic wrote:

blizzard224 wrote:

I don't live in America. I'd say, in Australia, there is no longer any social bias against any race other than Muslims,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fucking idiot. We're fifty times more racist than the US, and the US is pretty racist. Go talk to some aboriginals.

No, you're a fucking idiot. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about now. I've been to Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Brisbane in my time and in all my travels I've never seen a hint of racism.

Did you ever once think to make a comment about the damn abos running wild all over the place, stealing all the white wimmens, or how the lebs and slanties are ruining the country?

Ahahaha, its like looking at Aus through a funshouse mirror

PSA: Poor stereotypes about australian aboriginals do not match up to those associated with african americans. The notion of an aboriginal 'stealing' a white woman or vice versa is pretty laughable, in fact. Stereotypes about substance abuse and domestic squalor are far more common. You can't actually directly compare racism in our two countries just because there's black people in both places, that's ridiculously simplistic and ignores pretty much our entire history.

t blizzard: Boxing day riots, you silly child. One Nation. The Yellow Peril is still a common scare-tactic in state and federal politics, for fucks' sake. Seriously, its like you dont' even own a TV...

The position of Aborigines in society is probably a lot closer to the position of Native Americans, in fact. And I would suggest that the reason why you don't see a whole lot of racism towards Aborigines is because you don't see a whole lot of Aborigines. I cannot remember the last time I saw an Aboriginal person who wasn't asking me if I could spare 50 cents for a train ticket.

Yall

Schrodinger wrote:

bone daddy wrote:

I also wonder if there's not a little gender profiling tilting those stats away from women, since it seems unlikely that 100% of murder convictions are accurate. If police aren't looking at female suspects as closely as they should because "men commit 90% of murders," you can quite easily perpetuate the prejudice by hanging yet another murder on a man because you've got enough circumstantial evidence to convince a jury he's guilty even if the guilty party was a woman.

The logic of which can just as easily apply to convictions regarding minorities.

Knuckle Dragger wrote:

And yet, you were the one that introduced African politics to this line of debate.

No, I really wasn't.

Schrodinger wrote:

Yall wrote:

The author seems to forget that and associates all of the advantages with "whiteness" rather than with "majority". (She rules out geogrphic location so a statement like "45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race."wouldn't hold true for a Japanese guy living in Africa, would it.

:roll:

Yeah dude, it's something called context. In this case, she's referring to the context of an American audience. If you have to go to an entirely different continent to find a rebutall...

Actually, if you understood the point I was trying to make (which evidently you still don't) I was using Africa and a Japanese guy as an obvious example of a minority vs. majority situation. It had absolutely nothing to do with African politic. The example could have just as easily been a Chinese guy living in Brazil. It had nothing to do with Africa or Japan specifically.

Low Key

Crimson King wrote:

And I would suggest that the reason why you don't see a whole lot of racism towards Aborigines is because you don't see a whole lot of Aborigines. I cannot remember the last time I saw an Aboriginal person who wasn't asking me if I could spare 50 cents for a train ticket.

Haha, good job there.

Seriously we are the fucking capital of dumb, lazy racism. It's the probably unsurprising result of an irreverant, multicultural society where everyone is a just a varying degree of redneck. We don't know the difference between the Wog Boy and a race riot.

Loren Michael

Low Key wrote:

Crimson King wrote:

And I would suggest that the reason why you don't see a whole lot of racism towards Aborigines is because you don't see a whole lot of Aborigines. I cannot remember the last time I saw an Aboriginal person who wasn't asking me if I could spare 50 cents for a train ticket.

Haha, good job there.

Seriously we are the fucking capital of dumb, lazy racism. It's the probably unsurprising result of an irreverant, multicultural society where everyone is a just a varying degree of redneck. We don't know the difference between the Wog Boy and a race riot.

you guys make me proud to be an american.

Low Key

durr durr racial pride

Deathmonger

Erm National Pride/Nationalism?

tynic

Uh-oh. Nobody shoot a duke.

MrMister

ElJeffe wrote:

Overt racism should be weeded out and discouraged. But everyone says that the real culprit, the biggest problem, is institutionalized racism. The idea that even nice, non-bigoted white folks like you and I harbor secret, subconscious biases against minorities, and that's why we need programs in place to make sure minorities get a fair shake.

That's part of it, but you're also simplifying. Part of the critique of the system is not just that it allows our hidden biases to come out, but that it is also structured so that perfectly good-intentioned and fair-natured people wind up acting in such a way as to together reinforce racial priviledge. So it's not just that everyone's a little bit racist, though certainly a lot of people are, but that even non-racist among us wind up participating in an oppressive, unjust system.

I don't think these subconscious biases are going to be removed by a perpetual and omnipresent discourse on racial issues, though. Nor by a constant stream of programs that hammer home the notion that we're all different. I think they're going to be removed by society moving to a point where they honestly don't think about race.

See, I'm still stuck on that last bit. The more I've thought about race the less racist I've become. Honestly, I think a lot of my awareness is just from being gay, which opened my eyes towards the way that minority identity and the cultural mainstream can interact in nasty ways. Regardless, I don't think that the more one thinks about race, the more impossible it is to be truly non-racist. Rather, the first, untutored instinct that someone has without thinking about it is usually steeped in hostile assumptions, since the person in question is simply going off their cultural conditioning without any critical analysis, and we're nowhere near the place where our cultural conditioning is benign and awesome.

Ideally, I suppose, people wouldn't really think about race. Your color would be right up there with the length of your fingernails, and the type of cuisine you ate would be just about as important as your taste in music. However, I think that the way we get to that point is not through hush-hushing race or ethnicity. Usually that just equates to "everyone act white." Really, I think that the path to racial tolerance is really thinking hard about race and learning about it in depth.

I'm personally of the opinion that anthropology should be a mandatory course in high school, as general education for citizenship.

MikeMan

Schrodinger wrote:

Kantankeris wrote:

The only possible arguments I could think of are that there aren't enough requirements to get the scholarship (academic achievements or lower economic standing) and that white people get most of the non-segregated scholarships anyway.

I always find it amusing when white people (not you) complain that that "scholarships should be given based on class, not race!" As though no disadvantaged white person in all of human history has ever recieved a schoolship for anything. Heck, I'll even hear white people who HAVE won scholarships complain about this.

I also find it amusing whenever white people complain that, "Man, if I were black, I'd be set, because the scholarships would just be pouring in!" I find this amusing because a) it assumes that the white person in question is automatically more deserving than any minority who applies. b) it treats race as though it were something that minorities could simply switch on and off simply by checking a box. There's a big difference between actually being a minority and having to live with the discrimination that comes with it, and being a white person who doesn't have to deal with that discrimination, but does get to check in a box that grants minority status whenever it's convenient.

Yeah, I hate it when white people do all of that stuff.

...

Are you even fucking aware of what you're doing here?

Schrodinger

If I commented, "I find it annoying whenever gamers orgasm over the PS3," would you assume that I was referring to all gamers? Or would you assume that I was only referring to the ones who orgasm over the PS3?

If I commented, "I really hate it when steak is overcooked," would you assume that I was referring to all steak in general?

It's all about syntax. Think carefully next time, dude.