Great. Now give Asian Americans affirmative action in the NBA.
Any mental gymnastics used to support affirmative action in business or schooling should also apply to sports. If I hear someone complaining about lack of representation of X in certain field I will gladly point at NBA and Asian Americans ask them out that.
Sure, can you come up with an argument that AAs have a unique historical circumstance that crippled their athletic abilities, that this circumstance was bought about by decisions America made in the past, and that it is beneficial for the stability of the future of American society to fix this imbalance. If so you have a case to argue.
Is it important for all races to be equally represented in every field, or is it important for all races to have the ability to advance socio-econmically even if you are born poor?
One will result in focusing on education as a means for social mobility.
The reason for choosing new technology on the developers part is for job security. If everything were still php you would have outsourced his job to India ages ago. The fact is that the developers need to do this because of the ding dongs mbas in management.
Nah, it had nothing to do with PC. Back then, PC was about labels: "disabled" (they tried to get "differently enabled" to stick!) vs. "handicapped," "little people" vs. "midgets" and stuff like that. You were even supposed to say "queer" instead of "gay," and some were just starting to use "gender" in non-grammatical contexts like referring to a person's "gender" (which was look-it-up-in-a-textbook incorrect back then).
Out of Africa feels less PC to me, but I won't pretend to understand the rationale behind what is and isn't considered PC a lot of the time. But I agree with GP: we have relatively few DNA samples and try to draw pretty big generalizations between them. Ituitively, I would expect patterns of migration in and out of Africa and all the continents to be far more complex than 1-time events from which entire populations then developed complete independently.
edit: On a related note, my siblings' DNA test results say that they're something like 4% Native American, yet we have very reliable documentation of pure British genealogy back on all lines almost all the way back to the 1500s. Very unlikely to actual have a modern link. I'm sure the companies are likely overplaying the similarity more than anthropologists would, but am I to conclude that I have a closer link to Native Americans than other random samples from Europe?
The DNA tests just look at haplogroups and mtDNA lineages etc. to make _very_ broad generalizations about what population set some of your ancestors _may_ have belonged to.
It's more likely that at some point in the last 15,000 years someone in your lineage had a child with someone with some Siberian background way far back.
I'm not stating any claim to truth here, but which one sounds more pc? Caucasoids diverged from negroids 100k years ago. Or, Caucasoids diverged from negroids 2 million years ago.
You can look at the data yourself, it's not hidden.
Also, the classical meanings of terminology like "negroid" or "caucasoid" doesn't really map to genetics. My personal experience is that they're almost exclusively used by people who aren't familiar with modern understandings of human evolution. There are a lot of cranks talking about it, so it's often best to avoid archaic terminology that might get you mistakenly grouped with them.
I think accusing something of being PC implies it's not actually correct. So if you're saying one of these is more PC, that's a claim that it's less factual. Otherwise gravity is PC, 1 + 1 = 2 is PC.
How many startup people have actually read “Zero to One” by Peter Thiel?
Yang has gone from 0 to 1 and is going to see exponential growth as Iowa gets closer. All these articles are people who have a distorted views of reality and chalk up his support as bots in order to fit their world view. The most likely reason from my observation is bias against Asian American men in leadership positions.
Yang hasn't gone anywhere, he's been bouncing around in the same range for months with no systematic progress.
> and is going to see exponential growth as Iowa gets closer.
If he did something radical like doubling his support in Iowa in the, what, 10 days remaining, and the sources of support he gained were optimally distributed for him to move up positions, that would still only get him to fifth from his current sixth in Iowa, and he'd only be a little over half the support of #4.
I am opposed to Yang and his agenda, but I am sympathetic to his (and Yang Gangs) mistreatment.
I agree that Yang's passionate supporters grew quickly, and part of this 'bots' narrative is due to cognitive dissonance. But the 'bot' narrative is also a tactic to discredit Yang and his supporters.
Bias against Asian men may play a role, but there is much more going on here. The leadership of the DNC do not like to see people like Yang gain too much momentum.
Polls have outdated models that don’t accurately reflect the age of social media. Prior polling models don’t work with the changing environment. For example most the people they poll are in landlines and 65+ yrs old.
Let's not forget the media gives him dramatically less coverage, he receives less than proportional speaking time at debates, and it seems the amount of times the mess up facts about him is too high to be accidental, not to mention not even getting his picture correct and instead showing an image of some other asian.
I'm convinced that the outdated nature of polling entirely explains Biden's numbers. He appeals to clueless old people, and polling as practiced today over-samples that demographic.
Yes, there's now been published a single poll which has him outside the MoE of zero. (Not outside the MoE of his polling average for any month since October, though, and statistically you'd expect with the number of polls at least one with him at 8% if he was just hovering at 3.5% for this long.)
While that's a landmark, I guess, it's a thin reed to ground a conclusion of any, much less rapid or exponential, progress.
6 months ago the majority of the US didn't know about Yang (or much more importantly, basic income.). If 8% of voters now know about him and this issue it's a huge win.
Fundraising numbers. Others dropping out would count as progress too I guess. Although polling is still in single digit but 5-6% is certainly progress from 2-3%.
Fundraising is just a means to get money to spend (often, ineffectively) building/maintaining support. If you are raising and spending more money and not moving the needle in the polls, that's not progress.
> Others dropping out would count as progress too I guess.
No, if the field is narrowing and you aren't getting any of the support (and your remaining competitors are) that's also the opposite of progress.
> Although polling is still in single digit but 5-6% is certainly progress from 2-3%.
It would be, if he was consistently polling at the former and previously polling at the latter. But that's not what's happened to Yang. His national polling in January has ranged from 2-5%. His national polling in December ranged from 2-5%. His national polling in November ranged from 2-5%. His national polling in October ranged from 2-5%. And the margin of error on most of the polls is in the neighborhood of ±5%.
