Boston University law students offered therapy in response to recent Supreme Court decisions

submitted by [deleted] from foxnews.com

all 14 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ClassroomPast6178 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

"They may couch their opinion in legal jargon, but we all know what this opinion aims to do: advocate for a ‘colorblind’ admission process."

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." – Martin Luther King, I Have a Dream

I think I’ve worked out how we can solve climate change.

[–]LyingSpirit472 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Judging people by the content of their character is bigoted against all the people who looked in the mirror and realized they're...they're just terrible. Check your privilege.

[–]clownworlddropout 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do these people not hear themselves? Yes, a colorblind system is what we want, how is that bad?

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One of the major pillars of the field of diversity, inclusion and equity is that “disparity equals discrimination”. From that they make their arguments for preferential hiring or admission practices/affirmative action and calls for representation and visibility.

In a colourblind system, the only deciding factor is ability, and therefore we wouldn’t expect the statistics to align with population statistics and therefore under their dogma that would be discriminatory in a bad way. It’s asinine, elementary school child-level ethics.

It’d be interesting to know if, correcting for legacies and donors, they’re admitting fairly across other demographic categories. I have to say that the US system of preference for legacy and donors is weird, and it’s weird that these woke admission policies allow it (maybe it clearly demonstrates the shallowness of the wokesters, that their principles don’t extend to affecting their funding sources but they’re happy to screw over some Asian kids).

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well of course they won't say anything for legacy/donors; that's how colleges really profit even more than jacked admission rates. If someone donates or went to the school, you put their idiot kid in as a favor so they'll donate more money.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Dr. King is generally regarded as the king (no pun intended) of the race traitors by white lefties and black racegrifters alike, so quoting him is essentially admitting that you're a racist.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If being on the same side as MLK makes me racist, then call me racist.

[–]JulienMayfair 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Remember that a lot of wokeness can be traced back to law schools. Many of them are completely ideologically captured at this point.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah. Critical Race Theory was developed at a law school by a law professor. Law schools were ground zero for that shit.

Even intersectionality, was developed as a legal argument, to explain why black women were being oppressed when white women and black men were not.

[–]JulienMayfair 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even critics of Crenshaw have given her credit for pointing out that a company could have policies designed to help women and policies designed to help blacks that could be implemented as designed without helping black women. She wasn't wrong. The problem was when the model of intersectionality was expanded far beyond its original application.

It's like the concept of safe spaces. The idea of a safe space was originally conceived as a way for college professors to let gay or lesbian students know that it was "safe" to talk to them in their office about issues they were facing, back before campuses had other resources for these students. In the 1990s, it made sense. You could get a "Safe Space" sticker for your office. Then it was expanded to the classroom and eventually to the entire campus as the idea that no one in an "oppressed group" should ever be exposed to an idea they don't want to hear. And people can go into hysterics and claim that the mere presence of someone who holds opinions they don't like makes them "unsafe." It's a complete perversion of the original intent.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have a critical race theory: Caucasians and Asians are fine, but the rest was a mistake.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My critical American race theory is that there are two races "white" and "black". But rather than based on "race" these are actually cultural identities independent of race.

"White" is simply success. People are accused of being race traitors by adopting and trying to emulate the lifestyles of people who are successful.

"Black" is failure. People egg each other on into bad lifestyle choices and habits of being in the same way misery loves company and an alcoholic encourages others to start the habit so they'll be less lonely.

It only gets messed up in American culture due to actual racial discrepancies due to slavery. Then generational propagation of bad ideas and a government that very much loves the split and takes full chance to opportunize off of it.

In the Marxist light the idea of "success" is simply replaced with oppressor, and "failure" is replaced with oppressed.

Like any essentialist theory it's only going to be true to a point, stupid people take it as gospel and try to apply it to all aspects of life regardless of thought. The same stupid people who will deliniate what activities are available to you based on your skin color rather than what is based on your own personal capability. The only judgement that one can take from skin color alone is perhaps how much sunscreen you need to use.

[–]cephyrious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By marxists.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't imagine being so upset over a supreme court case that they need therapy. They need to touch grass.