[afavour]

But that isn’t a connection. It’s a coincidence. Where is the evidence that an Oxford with only 4 A* students would not have any such language on its campus? There is none.

If I argued that his comments were an obvious sign that Oxford needs to stop admitting people whose last name starts with A you’d rightly say I was being absurd. But basing the argument around his grades is no more valid.

“allegedly due to ideological fit” says it all. We’re just making stuff up to fit preconceived notions.

[programjames]

If you already believe he got in on merits, then obviously this is all a coincidence. But obviously the other guy you're arguing with believes he got in due to ideological fit, so it's no coincidence he espouses the ideology. You're dismissing your antagonist's cruxes as if they never existed. That's so rude.

[afavour]

> You're dismissing your antagonist's cruxes as if they never existed

Because there’s no evidence for them! They themselves used the word “allegedly”. Asking for evidence to back up an assertion is not rude, it’s table stakes for any kind of debate.

[programjames]

No? That was me. Also, it's very strange to say, "there's just no connection at all," instead of, "I don't think his lower offer letter was due to affirmative action, but probably due to skills in other areas (heck, he's the president-elect of the Oxford Union!)."

[afavour]

Apologies, I misread. But my point still stands: there’s no actual evidence for OP’s assertion. Why is pointing that out “rude”?

[programjames]

EDIT: This rant isn't directed at you specifically. It's more just frustration at a phenomenon I see a lot on Reddit and (to a lesser extent) Hackernews. I'm fine if you feel personally attacked, I'm just putting this edit here so you don't feel specifically attacked.

This is what was actually said:

>> I provided a citation for the ABB grades, which is relevant to the comment I replied to.

> An extremely tenuous connection. Abaraonye (and even less his words on Kirk) had absolutely no relevance to the criteria by which the Times assesses universities, thus had no impact on Oxfords placement, thus has no relevance to the conversation.

>> I provided a recently prominent example of someone recently admitted to Oxford with lower than 3 A grades on the A-Levels. I only mentioned Kirk's murder as context because, as I keep repeating, the person a) only became prominent because b) he publicly cheered said murder c) after debating Kirk in person. I don't know what else you can ask for here.

> Perhaps a demonstration of any kind of connection between his grades and his views on Kirk? The implication in what you're saying is that an ABB student is saying bad things than a 4 A* student would never say. I'd love to see anything backing that up. There are plenty of ABB students who said nothing of that nature and I'd wager you could find 4 A* students (albeit with a lower profile) who did. Absent that connection it just looks very much like you're using the person's grades as a tenuous excuse to bring them up.

Do you see how this comes across to a third party as @TMWNN vaguely hinting about ideological picks doing ideological things, you knowing this is what they're doing, but then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that and just repeatedly saying, "show me the connection!" when you know very well what it is?

This is what worries me about the left. Why must you refuse to even acknowledge someone can hold views antithetical to your own? My best guess is the left has stricter ideological purity tests, and just saying something that can be misinterpreted as accepting anti-left views is dangerous. So, you cannot have an honest conversation with a racist because just saying, "maybe you think some races are superior, but..." could be weaponized in inter-party fighting as a tacit endorsement of racism. And so, you pretend to stick your head in the sand as if racists aren't out there, and the person vaguely hinting at racist things is literally babbling nonsense instead of sensible-through-a-racist-lens ideas.

The issue with this kind of discourse is it's entirely ineffective. I like to say, 'racism is stupid, because people usually only use race as the explanation when they're not smart enough to figure out the actual problem.' The solution to racism isn't to pretend the problem doesn't exist (to deviate from racism for a bit: OBVIOUSLY Abaronye's comments are a symptom of Oxford losing prestige; don't pretend you couldn't make that connection), it's to offer a better explanation. This is why I said,

>>> It's very strange to say, "there's just no connection at all," instead of, "I don't think his lower offer letter was due to affirmative action, but probably due to skills in other areas (heck, he's the president-elect of the Oxford Union!)."

Obviously the right has issues with obfuscation and dishonesty too. They're just worse at it. @TMWNN's vague hints were... anything but subtle. I don't like to play these obfuscation games, because pretty much tautologically they make it harder to agree on reality. But I find it very worrying when calling out obfuscation and explicitly writing down what everyone is already thinking is met by digging one's heels in and moving over to another patch of sand. Why not just actually try to reach common knowledge? Why do I have to drag you around, kicking and screaming, before you'll even acknowledge your actual point?

> My point still stands: there’s no actual evidence for OP’s assertion.

You're making this out to be some kind of final stand, when this is the first time you have even gotten close to putting your point in writing. But which assertion are you referring to? There are lots of implied ones, and no explicit ones (again, why obfuscation is frustrating). I think your point is:

> Abaraonye was admitted on his merits, and there is no actual evidence for OP's implicit assertion that he is an affirmative action admit.

If so, why wasn't this your entire reply to @TMWNN?? It's rude to start a debate without doing your due diligence of actually saying what you mean, and giving your best effort to parse what they mean!

[afavour]

> vaguely hinting about ideological picks doing ideological things, you knowing this is what they're doing, but then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that and just repeatedly saying, "show me the connection!" when you know very well what it is?

> You're making this out to be some kind of final stand, when this is the first time you have even gotten close to putting your point in writing.

“show me the connection” is a request for evidence. You’re saying I’ve said that repeatedly then you’re claiming I’ve only done it once at the end. What else would “a demonstration of the connection” mean?

> So, you cannot have an honest conversation with a racist because just saying, "maybe you think some races are superior, but..." could be weaponized in inter-party fighting as a tacit endorsement of racism.

I’m not a member of the left wing debate club you have in your mind (if it exists at all) but my starting point when having an honest conversation with a racist would be to ask “what evidence justifies your racism?”, because absent that we’re not having a conversation based in reality.

Same here. The reason I’m asking for evidence is basically what you’ve already said: OP’s assertions are vague at best. Yours haven’t been a lot better. It’s all attributable to “ideology”. Then you say he’s “one of the most prominent voices for that ideology”. What ideology? And by what metric is he one of the most prominent voices?

This is my problem with much of the right: it’s gotchaism. The only reason he’s prominent is because statements he made in a private WhatsApp chat were leaked and circulated in right wing circles. The president of the Oxford students union is not normally a person you ever hear anything about on the national stage. The vast majority of Oxford students don’t even care about who they are.

So the right makes a relative unknown prominent by excessively hyping their statements then turns around and says “look at this prominent spokesperson!”. The union have disowned his comments. He has disowned his comments. And yet, despite his views being endorsed by absolutely no one, he’s still held up as emblematic of a larger, completely unattributable larger movement (the “ideology”) that is responsible for all kinds of problems, apparently including Oxford university’s ranking. And anyone associated with that “ideology” (vague enough that it encompasses whoever it needs to) must atone for the sins of this newly prominent spokesperson they never even heard of a week ago.

That’s why I have asked repeatedly what these supposed connections are. Because when we actually get into the details none of this adds up to anything. And none of it has anything to do with Oxford’s university ranking, the actual topic at hand.