Either you are misunderstanding, or you are being intentionally obtuse.
On aggregate, the students receiving those perks are generally wealthy, and generally white.
Of course there are wealthy black students, and poor white students, but the achievement gap isn't based in particulars, but in aggregates and statistics.
Side note: I do realize that your alias is a play on Andrew Anglin, creator of neo-nazi website Daily Stormer. Very clever. You could do with being more subtle in your framing of these posts though.
No, you are to understand that white students in aggregate are the beneficiaries of privileges that in sum are equal to double schooling. A combination of (in aggregate) better educated parents, more at home supervision and guidance, more extracurricular educational enrichment, better nutrition, an environment of children improved with the previous privileges, etc.
What's the alternative? That the black children are inherently less smart? The same used to be said of Asian kids, and that achievement gap persists for Asian kids who grow up in neighborhoods of other poor uneducated Asians. Meanwhile, Shanghai and Korea have shown that these kids can learn.
Why do you characterize normal parental investment as privilege? Is it to exculpate parents who neglect their children? Again, as the students in The Promise School not only enjoyed these "privileges" but also twice as much schooling, what would happen if all students received twice as much schooling? Does it stand to reason that the claimed success in closing the achievement gap would persist? In terms of resource allocation, why should some populations be excluded from receiving this additional benefit?
I have never heard anyone express any prejudice toward "Asians" regarding a lack of intelligence. In fact, the usual stereotype is precisely the opposite.
> Why do you characterize normal parental investment as privilege? Is it to exculpate parents who neglect their children?
Children usually can't choose their parents. The point of public school services like those described in the study is to lower the burden on disadvantaged children.
> Why do you characterize normal parental investment as privilege?
Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
The children of educated parents have many advantages, some of which I have enumerated. Black children are born disproportionately to uneducated parents due to generations of denying blacks education followed by generations of denying them good education in an environment that is conducive to education (where there are multiple parents at home who can help, for example).
> Again, as the students in The Promise School not only enjoyed these "privileges" but also twice as much schooling, what would happen if all students received twice as much schooling?
As I already stated, white students in aggregate are already receiving more extracurricular educational enrichment. Adding more schooling would be substitutive with that additional education.
> In terms of resource allocation, why should some populations be excluded from receiving this additional benefit?
Excluded from what? This should be an option to anybody. White students in Harlem had the same access to these programs.
> I have never heard anyone express any prejudice toward "Asians" regarding a lack of intelligence.
The literacy rate in Korea was 22% at the conclusion of WW2, but Korea now performs near the top in international exams. Descendants of Chinese who arrived in the 19th century continue to perform poorly on intelligence tests, yet we see Hong Kong and Shanghai perform very well on those same tests.
The 19th century stereotype of Chinese was of opium-addled superstitious barbarians.
You had the advantage of good schooling in a decent (though not great) environment, just as the Koreans and Shanghai kids did or are an outlier. You take one advantage and claim that's the only one. Blacks have for generations lived in an environment where they did not have access to jobs that require an education, even if they were able to obtain one by sheer force of will, leaving entire communities without a drive for attainment.
Perhaps you will be unsurprised to learn that this poster's first contribution to HN was, in fact, a multi-paragraph impassioned defense of said Nazi hate site: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16731182
These shaming tactics are not helpful, and to be quite honest it's kind of creepy that you actually went through his post history just to find some 'dirt' on this person.
Indeed. I'm quite certain I'm under no obligation to engage with disingenuous neo-Nazi's on the internet, and I see little good that could possibly result from trying.
They absolutely are helpful. This website doesn’t need racists to try to recruit new people here by attempting to engage in “debate.” Look up Stormfront, what they believe, and how they try to “recruit”
I read some of Mein Kampf once imagining that on every page I'd find the vilest, most abhorrent statements, ill-informed and manifestly damaging to society.
Surprisingly some elements of what Hitler said on education made sense.
Someone can be a racist bigot and still have a good idea in another field.
I feel lucky as a non-Jew non-black that I won't have to live in terror of the people radicalized by the Daily Stormer's conspiracy theories and hate speech. Maybe you do too. That doesn't mean it's right for a company to give the Daily Stormer a platform for radicalization, which the company is under no legal obligation to do.
I feel lucky as a Jewish American that I live in a country where the rights of Nazi's are respected.
I do not want to get into a legal argument of if CloudFlare is allowed to discriminate (they likely are). But I do want to live in a world where they are not allowed to.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I hate Nazis.
Then, they came for me, and there were no institutional protections, because they would have protected those damn Nazis.
In the case under discussion, Cloudflare established the president that they could terminate service to customers based on what they say. We have already decided as a society that we do not want the government to have that sort of power. Why are we now insisting that private companies must have and use that power?
Freedom is not defended by defending people that we like. It is defended at the periphery; by defending people that most of us do not like.
>In the case under discussion, Cloudflare established the president that they could terminate service to customers based on what they say.
Cloudflare didn't establish a precedent. It's standard boilerplate for any web service to reserve the right to terminate any account any time for any reason, as well as to alter their terms of service in any way at any time, for any reason, without notice.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not Cloudflare should have exercised their rights in this case, but they didn't upset the applecart of free speech by doing so.
>We have already decided as a society that we do not want the government to have that sort of power. Why are we now insisting that private companies must have and use that power?
As a society, we believe that government should be limited in scope to only those powers explicitly granted to it by the people. The people meanwhile enjoy the full scope of rights not granted to government, and those rights are considered inalienable and irrevocable.
Private entities like Cloudflare have and have always had greater power than governments to choose what to publish, and what not to publish, with whom to associate and not, merely by virtue of being private entities.
Cloudflare did reserve the right to do so in their ToS; but they had a precedent of not using that right to police speach (and activly argued that it was not their place to do so). While they did not establish any legal precedent here, they still established a social precedent.
>They didn't upset applecart of free speech by doing so.
Yes they did. Just because private companies are not subject to the first amendment does not mean that they are not arbiters of free speech.
>As a society, we believe that government should be limited in scope to only those powers explicitly granted to it by the people.
And we have already decided that one of those powers is to prevent private companies from discriminating. See the Civil Rights, which defined the notion of public accommodations. Despite being (potentially) privately owned, these public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate based on protected classes.
I would also like to point out that, in the course of this thread, we have gone from 'Andre_Wanglin should not be listened to because his defense of Cloudflare demonstrates that he is an impassioned Nazi sympathizer' to 'reasonable people can disagree, but Cloudflare's behavior did not violate the constitution or break any law'.
> First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I hate Nazis.
By your reductionist logic, we shouldn't jail pedophiles who have abused children. Those pedophiles, like the Nazi radicalizers are harming other people through their actions.
We shouldn't (and don't) jail people who advocate for the right to have sex with pre-pubescent children. Simmilarly, we shouldn't (and don't) jail people who advocate for the killing of all Jews [0]
When the Nazis escalate to actual violence, I have no problem with taking legal action against them. (Although I do still have a problem with private companies bowing to public pressure to act against them in a vigilante manner. ) If you want to propose a specific rule/law you would like to see applied, you can do so and we can debate the merrits of that rule/law.
You should not get to decide on a specific group that the rules/laws should or should not get applied to.
[0] We do make illegal specific incitements to violence. But not the mere advocacy of violence.
> We shouldn't (and don't) jail people who advocate for the right to have sex with pre-pubescent children. Simmilarly, we shouldn't (and don't) jail people who advocate for the killing of all Jews [0]
But we should (and do) applaud when companies remove a platform for people who incite others to pedophilic abuses, and we should (and do) applaud when companies remove platforms for people inciting others to violent acts against groups.
In fact, your comment is a lie as my first "contribution" was a simple one-line assertion based on information I happened to be aware of.[0] It was only after being prodded for substantiation that I bothered to type a whopping 3+ paragraphs of facts relating to the matter under discussion.
Of course there are wealthy black students, and poor white students, but the achievement gap isn't based in particulars, but in aggregates and statistics.
Side note: I do realize that your alias is a play on Andrew Anglin, creator of neo-nazi website Daily Stormer. Very clever. You could do with being more subtle in your framing of these posts though.