Page 5 | Interview with Kara Dansky and Charlie Kirk

Appalonia · 2025-09-13T23:44:09+00:00

There's been a lot of pp saying how hateful he was, especially as regards to women, but I think it's useful to know that he was willing to platform someone like Kara Dansky, a self professed left wing feminist, and to know that he actually listened to what she had to say. I hate how polarised politics has become, and I think what we need right now more than ever is to actually listen to pp that we disagree with. Kara is at just the same risk of being murdered for her views as Charlie was, and he definitely didnt deserve to die for them. [[https://karadansky.substack.com/p/my-2022-interview-with-charlie-kirk?triedRedirect=true https://open.substack.com/pub/karadansky/p/my-2022-interview-with-charlie-kirk?utm]]_[[https://karadansky.substack.com/p/my-2022-interview-with-charlie-kirk?triedRedirect=true campaign=post&utm]]_[[https://karadansky.substack.com/p/my-2022-interview-with-charlie-kirk?triedRedirect=true medium=web]]

healthyteeth · 16/09/2025 08:24

GailBlancheViola · 16/09/2025 02:09

Exactly the tactics proponents of Gender Ideology and various other political ideologies use - manipulate and influence the young in schools, universities and on various platforms on social media, I guess that is okay by you though because you agree with them.

Universities especially should be where all sides of various political, religious and social ideologies are heard, evaluated, discussed, debated, agreed with or disagreed with.

Edited

Show quote history

Who has said I agree with Gender Ideology?!

I’m as gender critical as they come!

And yes I agree that it is a tactic as old as time. Doesn’t alter the fact that that’s what Kirk was doing. Pushing his agenda. A toxic one at that.

Just because I agree with him that gender is not fluid doesn’t mean his motives for that view were the same as mine. Mine are women’s rights. His were not motivated by women’s rights. He wanted to roll back all women’s rights. He just hates trans people. I don’t.

BundleBoogie · 16/09/2025 08:53

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 07:38

What you are missing here is diversity is a qualification. Diversity brings its own qualifications in the form of experience to the table that others lacked.

Cookie cutter copies as in old white men aren't going to bring anything new to interpretation of law.

And it's not as if Trump didn't indulge in his own limited pool of applicants/DEI when he appointed hard line Christo fundamentalists Amy Cony Barrett & Brett Kavenaugh to facilitate the demise of Roe V Wade.

All supreme court justices in fact are appointed based on political leanings by the prevailing party in power in the US.

Show quote history

Irrelevant to this point.

Your ‘evidence’ that CK was racist was that he pointed out that Ketanjie Brown was a diversity hire. Biden himself confirmed that he hired based on the colour of her skin.

You then made further claims that falsely generalised and decontextualised his discussion on the issues of ‘affirmative action’. These are well known and widely discussed yet you claim this is proof he’s a racist.

The women he named WERE ‘recipients of affirmative action’. It is not racist to discuss that and how patronising it is of the Left to undermine such highly qualified women.

Either provide actual racist things he said or withdraw your claim.

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 09:13

BundleBoogie · 16/09/2025 08:53

Irrelevant to this point.

Your ‘evidence’ that CK was racist was that he pointed out that Ketanjie Brown was a diversity hire. Biden himself confirmed that he hired based on the colour of her skin.

You then made further claims that falsely generalised and decontextualised his discussion on the issues of ‘affirmative action’. These are well known and widely discussed yet you claim this is proof he’s a racist.

The women he named WERE ‘recipients of affirmative action’. It is not racist to discuss that and how patronising it is of the Left to undermine such highly qualified women.

Either provide actual racist things he said or withdraw your claim.

Show quote history

Conveniently omitting the relevant point that CK knew KJB was overly qualified & pretended she wasn't is telling…

Where's your evidence that Michele Obama, Joy Behar & co were AA btw?

ScrollingLeaves · 16/09/2025 09:56

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 09:13

Conveniently omitting the relevant point that CK knew KJB was overly qualified & pretended she wasn't is telling…

Where's your evidence that Michele Obama, Joy Behar & co were AA btw?

Show quote history

Even if some people benefitted from affirmative action, the impression I have is that there have been some brilliant black women who rose to prominence in the USA, like Michelle Obama and Condoleeza Rice, or the black women mathematicians who helped the space program, who were far more able and ’perfect’ than many of their white peers. And it took these sorts of levels of attainment on their parts before affirmative action came into effect for them to give them a chance.

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 10:06

ScrollingLeaves · 16/09/2025 09:56

Even if some people benefitted from affirmative action, the impression I have is that there have been some brilliant black women who rose to prominence in the USA, like Michelle Obama and Condoleeza Rice, or the black women mathematicians who helped the space program, who were far more able and ’perfect’ than many of their white peers. And it took these sorts of levels of attainment on their parts before affirmative action came into effect for them to give them a chance.

Show quote history

Yep, 'out groups' being held to a higher standard has always been a thing.

localnotail · 16/09/2025 17:34

QOrion · 14/09/2025 13:56

I guess none of you are black. It’s the only way you can go out of your way to highlight this man’s ’virtues’. I don’t believe anyone is born bad or is irredeemably bad, I guess that’s my Christian upbringing, but I also don’t understand the deification of this man and the need for many people on this website to paint him in the best possible light. He’s not the first public figure to be shot and killed, even this year. If those deaths were even mentioned on Mumsnet, they certainly weren’t given much attention.

I’d never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was shot and his death had little impact on me. I have serious issues in my own life, people are shot and killed in America every day and there is a lot of suffering going on around the world, a lot of atrocities committed. It didn’t seem to be an incident that affected me in any significant way, even when I discovered his position on transgender ideology. I share essentially the same position on transgender ideology with many people I don’t want to be associated with.

Then I read his comments about black people. I can’t wax lyrical about how Charlie Kirk was ‘decent’ and ‘respectful’. How, ‘Isn’t it nice he gave his political opponents a platform’. And I can’t feel any kind of kinship with people who, knowing what he’s said about black people, still feel compelled to highlight his good qualities.

Let me be clear: I don’t believe he should have been killed. I don’t even support the death penalty in any circumstance, so I can hardly support Charlie Kirk being killed. But I am learning, not for the first time, that Mumsnetters in general, and users of this subforum (FWR) tend to ignore black people and our concerns, until we are useful. Whether that is taking cases to court when much is made of the claimant’s ethnic heritage (why?) or the perennial ‘transgenderism is womanface, it’s offensive like blackface’.

You have no idea and I think it is possible you will never understand just how much slights about my ethnic heritage cut deep. Slights to my womanhood are pretty trivial in comparison. I think this is something white women will never understand. So, you go on singing the virtues of Charlie Kirk. We’ll be here the next time you need to exploit us for your own purposes.

My teen DS came from school and told me "my friends told me some racist in the US has been shot". I said - "well, yep. Terrible that he has been killed like this". That's about all I could say on the matter... No one should be shot for their views, of course, but he was, predominantly, a racist.

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 18:00

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 01:58

Facts aren't "debatable".

Apart from the fact that KJB graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review she is also:

"the most experienced trial court judge to join the Supreme Court in almost a century.

Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923.
Jackson would be only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also served as a District judge, Circuit judge and Supreme Court justice.
Jackson would bring more years of experience as a judge than four of the sitting justices combined.
Jackson has more than eight years of experience as a judge; that’s more than Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett had combined when they were confirmed.
Jackson would be the first public defender to become a Supreme Court justice in the history of the Court.
She would be the first justice with substantial criminal defense experience since Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991."

https://demandjustice.org/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-is-one-of-the-most-qualified-nominees-for-the-supreme-court-ever/

https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/kbj/

"I suspect it wasn't really relevant to his point though. Someone can be totally qualified, even the best qualified, but if they were picked for diversity reasons, they are a diversity hire. That's one of the arguments against it, it follows people whether they are qualified or not, and casts doubts on their competence even when those doubts aren't deserved.

And the Democrats make those kinds of decisions a lot. And it's suspect to people because if they were really the best qualified, why make a diversity decision? If they weren't, then the criticism has teeth. A lot of American conservatives see this as a statement that Democrats don't think black Americans can achieve at the same level as white Americans."

It only casts doubt because of far right indoctrination of what diversity inclusion means…. a lot like what Kirk is doing here by pretending these women were not qualified. Diversity inclusion has never suggested merit isn't necessary rather that diversity is beneficial to organisations & as such should be considered for inclusion.

Cultural diversity by virtue of sex, ethnicity, class, geography etc brings different approaches & skills to the work place of which provide higher service/profit delivery. Now that's not to assume just because an individual has a different life experience they mustn't think the same as others but that often it does which is a qualification in its self.

The great con the far right pull off here is the 'suspicion' angle. 'You are only raising suspicion' which in the context of who actually substantially gets the free ride in the college system is white people via legacy, donor & 'country club' sporting admissions. That Affirmative Action admissions are a minuscule fraction of this is conveniently ignored. Of course white people must never be 'sus'….they have always 'earned' their place…..

Show quote history

No one is disputing "facts" the question is, how do you decide who is most qualified for the SC. It's not just down to a list of jobs held, much like any job.

Apart from that - yes, you have made the typical progressive argument for diversity hiring, many people agree with that approach.

You have totally missed the point however which is that just because others don't agree with it does not mean they are "dismissing" anyone's qualifications. That's not the substance of the argument they are making.

You additionally seem unable or unwilling to understand that people can have varied views on the benefits and problems, and even principles, involved in affirmative action, without being, personally, racists. It should be possible to have political discourse about this stuff without assuming bad faith in other people - the inability of progressive politics to do this has become a serious problem.

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 18:03

Pallisers · 16/09/2025 02:03

I suspect it wasn't really relevant to his point though. Someone can be totally qualified, even the best qualified, but if they were picked for diversity reasons, they are a diversity hire. That's one of the arguments against it, it follows people whether they are qualified or not, and casts doubts on their competence even when those doubts aren't deserved.

And yet no one seems to worry about white men being picked. Given what I know about legacy admissions and the networks in the US (I live in the US and my children all went to private prep schools that fed places like harvard) the average white graduate in Harvard is as likely to be a legacy or network hire as a black candidate is to be a DEI hire.

But no one worries about that. Wonder why?

I mean , some people do worry about legacy admissions and think they should stop. It is something that gets talked about, I don't see why you would say it isn't.

It's not really the same thing though, there are black legacy candidates in places like Harvard. It's meant to be about maintaining family connections to particular institutions.

Whether you think it's a good or bad idea it has nothing to do with DEI admissions and the reasons to support it or not are unrelated.

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 18:09

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 09:13

Conveniently omitting the relevant point that CK knew KJB was overly qualified & pretended she wasn't is telling…

Where's your evidence that Michele Obama, Joy Behar & co were AA btw?

Show quote history

Because they said so, that was the context of the comment.

BundleBoogie · 16/09/2025 18:44

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 09:13

Conveniently omitting the relevant point that CK knew KJB was overly qualified & pretended she wasn't is telling…

Where's your evidence that Michele Obama, Joy Behar & co were AA btw?

Show quote history

So no actual proof CK was a racist? Just lies.

Pallisers · 16/09/2025 19:17

Whether you think it's a good or bad idea it has nothing to do with DEI admissions and the reasons to support it or not are unrelated.

But the argument against it could be the same.

That's one of the arguments against it, it follows people whether they are qualified or not, and casts doubts on their competence even when those doubts aren't deserved.

This ought to be as true for legacy admissions as DEI admissions. It should follow people whether they are qualified or not and cast doubt on their competence deserved or not. The only person I've seen that happen to is Jared Kuchner. there are plenty more like him and not just in Harvard. That's why the college admissions scandal was so baffling - no idea why those people didn't just make a generous donation.

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 22:50

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 18:00

No one is disputing "facts" the question is, how do you decide who is most qualified for the SC. It's not just down to a list of jobs held, much like any job.

Apart from that - yes, you have made the typical progressive argument for diversity hiring, many people agree with that approach.

You have totally missed the point however which is that just because others don't agree with it does not mean they are "dismissing" anyone's qualifications. That's not the substance of the argument they are making.

You additionally seem unable or unwilling to understand that people can have varied views on the benefits and problems, and even principles, involved in affirmative action, without being, personally, racists. It should be possible to have political discourse about this stuff without assuming bad faith in other people - the inability of progressive politics to do this has become a serious problem.

Show quote history

You don't seem to understand how SCJ appointments are made. KJB not only had bi partisan congress support for appointment but was rated as highly/well qualified by both the New York Bar Association & American Bar Association. Apart from this necessary support, as already mentioned up thread SC appointments are selected by the political party in power for reasons that usually reflect their values/political agenda. Trump did so 3 times & achieved the political outcomes he campaigned for as in the demise of Roe V Wade by selecting candidates with conservative religious beliefs.

https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/ketanji-brown-jackson-qualifications-for-supreme-court/

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/03/aba-committee-rates-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-well-qualified/

So by conflating DEI with this process is not only specious because KJB met the necessary conditions/qualifications but misleading because this form of politically motivated preferential selection is the long held standard.

CK knew all of this but engaged in racist tropes & misinformation to mislead the public.

"You have totally missed the point however which is that just because others don't agree with it does not mean they are "dismissing" anyone's qualifications. That's not the substance of the argument they are making.
You additionally seem unable or unwilling to understand that people can have varied views on the benefits and problems, and even principles, involved in affirmative action, without being, personally, racists. It should be possible to have political discourse about this stuff without assuming bad faith in other people - the inability of progressive politics to do this has become a serious problem."

Strawman.
I never said Dansky was a racist or that anyone who disagreed with AA was a racist…just Kirk & showed why. You don't seem to have read the thread where I made the point that Dansky achieved no gains for her cause by pursuing Kirk & his audience as by virtue of being his audience were already well versed & opposed to gender ideology.

Whatever Dansky's motivation, the messaging effectively reflects an alliance with Kirk to her audience. She presents herself as a feminist but introduced KIrk…a far right proponent to her centrist & centre left fans as an ally with out any push back about his anti woman views.

And lets not forget the point of this thread is to critique her interview with Kirk which in my view is problematic because its dilutes the far right agenda making them more palatable to a wider audience.

I actually have no issue with the left debating or holding discussions with the far right & have watched many podcasters on the left do this that to Kirk's credit was very civilised. But the difference here is the push back. Kirk's views were challenged so any new audience were very clear what this person actually stood for.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Qualifications for Supreme Court | New York City Bar Association

The New York City Bar Association has concluded that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is Highly Qualified to be a Justice of […]

https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/ketanji-brown-jackson-qualifications-for-supreme-court

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 22:53

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 18:09

Because they said so, that was the context of the comment.

Show quote history

What? Where? 😂

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 22:58

BundleBoogie · 16/09/2025 18:44

So no actual proof CK was a racist? Just lies.

Show quote history

Um, he lied about KJB…but you know that….

Kirk is also an unabashed white nationalist & proponent of Great Replacement Theory so I suggest you do you find out what all that means…

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 23:02

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 18:03

I mean , some people do worry about legacy admissions and think they should stop. It is something that gets talked about, I don't see why you would say it isn't.

It's not really the same thing though, there are black legacy candidates in places like Harvard. It's meant to be about maintaining family connections to particular institutions.

Whether you think it's a good or bad idea it has nothing to do with DEI admissions and the reasons to support it or not are unrelated.

Show quote history

It has everything to do with AA because both allow lower academic achievement. The fact that some minorities are legacy admits is irrelevant given the overwhelming majority are not & comparatively numbers wise are significantly larger than AA admits.

JanesLittleGirl · 16/09/2025 23:09

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 22:50

You don't seem to understand how SCJ appointments are made. KJB not only had bi partisan congress support for appointment but was rated as highly/well qualified by both the New York Bar Association & American Bar Association. Apart from this necessary support, as already mentioned up thread SC appointments are selected by the political party in power for reasons that usually reflect their values/political agenda. Trump did so 3 times & achieved the political outcomes he campaigned for as in the demise of Roe V Wade by selecting candidates with conservative religious beliefs.

https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/ketanji-brown-jackson-qualifications-for-supreme-court/

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/03/aba-committee-rates-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-well-qualified/

So by conflating DEI with this process is not only specious because KJB met the necessary conditions/qualifications but misleading because this form of politically motivated preferential selection is the long held standard.

CK knew all of this but engaged in racist tropes & misinformation to mislead the public.

"You have totally missed the point however which is that just because others don't agree with it does not mean they are "dismissing" anyone's qualifications. That's not the substance of the argument they are making.
You additionally seem unable or unwilling to understand that people can have varied views on the benefits and problems, and even principles, involved in affirmative action, without being, personally, racists. It should be possible to have political discourse about this stuff without assuming bad faith in other people - the inability of progressive politics to do this has become a serious problem."

Strawman.
I never said Dansky was a racist or that anyone who disagreed with AA was a racist…just Kirk & showed why. You don't seem to have read the thread where I made the point that Dansky achieved no gains for her cause by pursuing Kirk & his audience as by virtue of being his audience were already well versed & opposed to gender ideology.

Whatever Dansky's motivation, the messaging effectively reflects an alliance with Kirk to her audience. She presents herself as a feminist but introduced KIrk…a far right proponent to her centrist & centre left fans as an ally with out any push back about his anti woman views.

And lets not forget the point of this thread is to critique her interview with Kirk which in my view is problematic because its dilutes the far right agenda making them more palatable to a wider audience.

I actually have no issue with the left debating or holding discussions with the far right & have watched many podcasters on the left do this that to Kirk's credit was very civilised. But the difference here is the push back. Kirk's views were challenged so any new audience were very clear what this person actually stood for.

Edited

Show quote history

Sorry sunbeam, I am unable to pay any attention to you after the first two posts you placed on this thread.

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 23:59

Pallisers · 16/09/2025 19:17

Whether you think it's a good or bad idea it has nothing to do with DEI admissions and the reasons to support it or not are unrelated.

But the argument against it could be the same.

That's one of the arguments against it, it follows people whether they are qualified or not, and casts doubts on their competence even when those doubts aren't deserved.

This ought to be as true for legacy admissions as DEI admissions. It should follow people whether they are qualified or not and cast doubt on their competence deserved or not. The only person I've seen that happen to is Jared Kuchner. there are plenty more like him and not just in Harvard. That's why the college admissions scandal was so baffling - no idea why those people didn't just make a generous donation.

You are really missing the point here which is not to argue the pros and cons of affirmative action.

TempestTost · 17/09/2025 00:02

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 22:50

You don't seem to understand how SCJ appointments are made. KJB not only had bi partisan congress support for appointment but was rated as highly/well qualified by both the New York Bar Association & American Bar Association. Apart from this necessary support, as already mentioned up thread SC appointments are selected by the political party in power for reasons that usually reflect their values/political agenda. Trump did so 3 times & achieved the political outcomes he campaigned for as in the demise of Roe V Wade by selecting candidates with conservative religious beliefs.

https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/ketanji-brown-jackson-qualifications-for-supreme-court/

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/03/aba-committee-rates-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-well-qualified/

So by conflating DEI with this process is not only specious because KJB met the necessary conditions/qualifications but misleading because this form of politically motivated preferential selection is the long held standard.

CK knew all of this but engaged in racist tropes & misinformation to mislead the public.

"You have totally missed the point however which is that just because others don't agree with it does not mean they are "dismissing" anyone's qualifications. That's not the substance of the argument they are making.
You additionally seem unable or unwilling to understand that people can have varied views on the benefits and problems, and even principles, involved in affirmative action, without being, personally, racists. It should be possible to have political discourse about this stuff without assuming bad faith in other people - the inability of progressive politics to do this has become a serious problem."

Strawman.
I never said Dansky was a racist or that anyone who disagreed with AA was a racist…just Kirk & showed why. You don't seem to have read the thread where I made the point that Dansky achieved no gains for her cause by pursuing Kirk & his audience as by virtue of being his audience were already well versed & opposed to gender ideology.

Whatever Dansky's motivation, the messaging effectively reflects an alliance with Kirk to her audience. She presents herself as a feminist but introduced KIrk…a far right proponent to her centrist & centre left fans as an ally with out any push back about his anti woman views.

And lets not forget the point of this thread is to critique her interview with Kirk which in my view is problematic because its dilutes the far right agenda making them more palatable to a wider audience.

I actually have no issue with the left debating or holding discussions with the far right & have watched many podcasters on the left do this that to Kirk's credit was very civilised. But the difference here is the push back. Kirk's views were challenged so any new audience were very clear what this person actually stood for.

Edited

Show quote history

You are missing the point which is that qualifications aren't the issue, it is the legitimacy and wider effects of giving people jobs based on their race.

Howseitgoin · 17/09/2025 00:10

TempestTost · 17/09/2025 00:02

You are missing the point which is that qualifications aren't the issue, it is the legitimacy and wider effects of giving people jobs based on their race.

Show quote history

Qualifications are the issue, because people are concerned they aren't being considered because of a deliberate propagandist campaign of equating DEI with lack of merit. The narrative being DEI & merit are mutually exclusive when they clearly aren't.

That people are 'confused' about the merit of a policy doesn't necessarily invalidate it or give grounds to.

TempestTost · 17/09/2025 00:11

Howseitgoin · 16/09/2025 23:02

It has everything to do with AA because both allow lower academic achievement. The fact that some minorities are legacy admits is irrelevant given the overwhelming majority are not & comparatively numbers wise are significantly larger than AA admits.

Show quote history

So what?

You can have any opinion you want about legacy admissions, No one is saying you need to support it, so why are you talking about it in this thread?

The discussion is about basing how hard it is for people to get admitted to university on their race, or basing job offers on race.

Making admission for some easier because of their race, and admissions for others harder, based on their race.

Giving some jobs because of their race, and denying others jobs because of their race.

Is't an institutionalisation and systematisation of racial discrimination and advantage, that's the problem.

Pallisers · 17/09/2025 00:12

TempestTost · 16/09/2025 23:59

You are really missing the point here which is not to argue the pros and cons of affirmative action.

Show quote history

I'm really not. but you do you.

TempestTost · 17/09/2025 00:18

Howseitgoin · 17/09/2025 00:10

Qualifications are the issue, because people are concerned they aren't being considered because of a deliberate propagandist campaign of equating DEI with lack of merit. The narrative being DEI & merit are mutually exclusive when they clearly aren't.

That people are 'confused' about the merit of a policy doesn't necessarily invalidate it or give grounds to.

Show quote history

People disagreeing with you is not propaganda.

Do you seriously believe that when people disagee with you on something that's significant, they must have been influenced by propaganda?

Howseitgoin · 17/09/2025 00:29

TempestTost · 17/09/2025 00:11

So what?

You can have any opinion you want about legacy admissions, No one is saying you need to support it, so why are you talking about it in this thread?

The discussion is about basing how hard it is for people to get admitted to university on their race, or basing job offers on race.

Making admission for some easier because of their race, and admissions for others harder, based on their race.

Giving some jobs because of their race, and denying others jobs because of their race.

Is't an institutionalisation and systematisation of racial discrimination and advantage, that's the problem.

Show quote history

The point you are spectacularly missing is white affirmative action via legacies is racial preferential treatment.

It's a matter of consistency. Both effectively favour racial outcomes.

Howseitgoin · 17/09/2025 00:33

TempestTost · 17/09/2025 00:18

People disagreeing with you is not propaganda.

Do you seriously believe that when people disagee with you on something that's significant, they must have been influenced by propaganda?

Show quote history

Strawman.
My point is disinformation has an influence on people's accuracy in understanding. See: Vaccines.

RingoJuice · 17/09/2025 04:41

People always point to legacy admissions as a reason why we should keep doing affirmative action or caring about DEI.

Why don’t they ever just advocate for the end of legacy admissions? I think most people would agree with that (except the extremely wealthy).

Universities themselves however like to be at the nexus of power, so getting them to stop is very challenging.

But IME progressives don’t care. It’s just that they point to it as a reason why they should keep affirmative action policies in place.