Controversial Fake News Law, Shane Dawson, Ace Family Backlash, Harvard's Huge Ruling, & More
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
kinnoyu
How to tell if your institution is racist using 2 scenarios: Scenario 1: There are 4 kids and you can only accept 1. Theres a rich white kid, a rich black kid, a poor black kid, and a poor white kid. Both rich kids get a 4. 0 GPA. The poor white kid gets a 3. 7 gpa and the poor black kid gets a 3. 6 gpa. Every other variable is the same/not relevant. Scenario 2: same 4 kids. Both rich kids have a 4. 0 gpa, but this time the poor black kid has the 3. 7 gpa and the poor white kid has the 3. 6 gpa. Results: If you institution chose the poor black kid both times, congrats You just commites an act of institutional racism against the poor white kidIf your institution chose the poor white kid both times, congrats You just committed an act of institutional racism against the poor black kidIf you chose a rich kid both times, congrats You value money and status over dedication and raw talent. While the rich kids likely worked hard as well, they probably already had access to various resources that gave them a starting advantage over the poor kids and thus, you cant accurately say they have the same level of dedication/talent as the poor students who still got a very high gpa despite not having access to such resources. If you chose the rich black kid both times or the rich white kid, you likely have a racial bias, but since there was no change in their position, you were simply being consistent. If you chose the 3. 7 gpa kid both times, congrats You're not racistIf you chose the 3. 6 gpa kid both times, congrats You're not as exclusive as you thought.
reply
How to tell if your institution is racist using 2 scenarios: Scenario 1: There are 4 kids and you can only accept 1. Theres a rich white kid, a rich black kid, a poor black kid, and a poor white kid. Both rich kids get a 4. 0 GPA. The poor white kid gets a 3. 7 gpa and the poor black kid gets a 3. 6 gpa. Every other variable is the same/not relevant. Scenario 2: same 4 kids. Both rich kids have a 4. 0 gpa, but this time the poor black kid has the 3. 7 gpa and the poor white kid has the 3. 6 gpa. Results: If you institution chose the poor black kid both times, congrats You just commites an act of institutional racism against the poor white kidIf your institution chose the poor white kid both times, congrats You just committed an act of institutional racism against the poor black kidIf you chose a rich kid both times, congrats You value money and status over dedication and raw talent. While the rich kids likely worked hard as well, they probably already had access to various resources that gave them a starting advantage over the poor kids and thus, you cant accurately say they have the same level of dedication/talent as the poor students who still got a very high gpa despite not having access to such resources. If you chose the rich black kid both times or the rich white kid, you likely have a racial bias, but since there was no change in their position, you were simply being consistent. If you chose the 3. 7 gpa kid both times, congrats You're not racistIf you chose the 3. 6 gpa kid both times, congrats You're not as exclusive as you thought.
reply
Misadventurer
Singaporean viewer here. Honestly with the new law in place it isnt much different to whatever we already have. (Speaking from a general citizen perspective) It is already against the law to defame the government. When it comes down to public opinion towards the government, if you are unfavourable, it is relatively difficult to express genuine concerns when it comes to topics such as gender inequality, racial discrimination, lgbt and other topics that could directly impact harmony. But the public genuinely do not feel the impact of this law nor truly understand the gravity of having such a law because we already have been living with it wether we realised it or not. We have already been conditioned to think that the government is doing great and the critique them, is a job we can only do in private and not in the polls. The checks and balances when it comes down to journalistic freedom mostly are in the hands of the government. I am not saying its all bad but its not all good either. But with social media giants among us, I doubt any form of radical change would happen, simply because people do not care/understand the true gravity of having/not having journalistic freedom. And all in the name of harmony. Singaporeans are generally not critical people. We are analytical but not critical. (Just an honest opinion)
reply
Singaporean viewer here. Honestly with the new law in place it isnt much different to whatever we already have. (Speaking from a general citizen perspective) It is already against the law to defame the government. When it comes down to public opinion towards the government, if you are unfavourable, it is relatively difficult to express genuine concerns when it comes to topics such as gender inequality, racial discrimination, lgbt and other topics that could directly impact harmony. But the public genuinely do not feel the impact of this law nor truly understand the gravity of having such a law because we already have been living with it wether we realised it or not. We have already been conditioned to think that the government is doing great and the critique them, is a job we can only do in private and not in the polls. The checks and balances when it comes down to journalistic freedom mostly are in the hands of the government. I am not saying its all bad but its not all good either. But with social media giants among us, I doubt any form of radical change would happen, simply because people do not care/understand the true gravity of having/not having journalistic freedom. And all in the name of harmony. Singaporeans are generally not critical people. We are analytical but not critical. (Just an honest opinion)
reply
Brian Shim
Hey Phil, Im from Singapore and I would be glad to share some insights about the fake news law- Basically it stems from the fact that were a uniquely racial harmonious society in SG. Many of my peers frankly do not care about the law, as we know that whatever the government takes down with the law needs to be througly justified by the government. I went for some conferences where the law minister and speaker of the house gave additional insights; that in this digital age of rapid dissemination of information, there is a need to take rapid action against fake news, especially since it couls potentially antagonize racial and religious groups in SG that would be extremely detrimental to our society. When the concerns about freedom of press etc. were bought up, they argued that the misuse of the law could be easily picked up by the people, and especially in this age of information, such misuse is unlikely to happen as it would gather more unhappines and social unrest, which is what the law is targeted at tackling. The last thing we want is a situation like in Hong Kong, they said. these are some insights as a local singaporean that had the opportunity to talk to ministers about the issue. Hopes it gives yall a new perspective to this issue: )
reply
Hey Phil, Im from Singapore and I would be glad to share some insights about the fake news law- Basically it stems from the fact that were a uniquely racial harmonious society in SG. Many of my peers frankly do not care about the law, as we know that whatever the government takes down with the law needs to be througly justified by the government. I went for some conferences where the law minister and speaker of the house gave additional insights; that in this digital age of rapid dissemination of information, there is a need to take rapid action against fake news, especially since it couls potentially antagonize racial and religious groups in SG that would be extremely detrimental to our society. When the concerns about freedom of press etc. were bought up, they argued that the misuse of the law could be easily picked up by the people, and especially in this age of information, such misuse is unlikely to happen as it would gather more unhappines and social unrest, which is what the law is targeted at tackling. The last thing we want is a situation like in Hong Kong, they said. these are some insights as a local singaporean that had the opportunity to talk to ministers about the issue. Hopes it gives yall a new perspective to this issue: )
reply
Rennes Lee
HELLO FROM SINGAPORE I am that 0. 3%. It's okay we never had freedom of speech in the first place You cant take away something we never had. Also not to mention as well that we are all fully aware the government's capability to look at all our postings so it's not just a fear that it will happen it's simply a reality. I neither disagree or agree to this ruling but having worked in journalism/traditonal media here as well, nothing is not vetted by the government because our media giants are all arms of the government anyway (that includes CNA too. The main goal of the bill is to crack down on speech relating to terrorism and people have been jailed for private threats/chats without them actually doing anything. So it essentially is a black mirror society where no/zero crime happens cause the crime is stopped before it even happens. That's kinda the upside to measures such as these but the downside is not being able to disagree with political parties. But from my perspective having worked in the US I prefer that kinda safety over the kinda crimes/hate speech/violence I see in the US on a daily basis. I see the pros and cons to both but safety is the most important to me, and should not be overlooked.
reply
HELLO FROM SINGAPORE I am that 0. 3%. It's okay we never had freedom of speech in the first place You cant take away something we never had. Also not to mention as well that we are all fully aware the government's capability to look at all our postings so it's not just a fear that it will happen it's simply a reality. I neither disagree or agree to this ruling but having worked in journalism/traditonal media here as well, nothing is not vetted by the government because our media giants are all arms of the government anyway (that includes CNA too. The main goal of the bill is to crack down on speech relating to terrorism and people have been jailed for private threats/chats without them actually doing anything. So it essentially is a black mirror society where no/zero crime happens cause the crime is stopped before it even happens. That's kinda the upside to measures such as these but the downside is not being able to disagree with political parties. But from my perspective having worked in the US I prefer that kinda safety over the kinda crimes/hate speech/violence I see in the US on a daily basis. I see the pros and cons to both but safety is the most important to me, and should not be overlooked.
reply
Littlewings -
Maybe I missed this as I'm not from the US so haven't followed this story super closely but when they take into account race when it comes to admissions are those numbers the percentage of people accepted in total or a percentage of the people accepted of that particular ethnic group? So as a very generalised example is the 20% Asian American admissions 20% of all admissions are Asian American or 20% of Asian Americans who applied that were successful? Have the latter been taken into consideration when finding the former? I mean only 20% of admissions being Asian American sounds bad but what if those 20% were 100% of the Asian Americans that applied for a place at the school?
reply
Maybe I missed this as I'm not from the US so haven't followed this story super closely but when they take into account race when it comes to admissions are those numbers the percentage of people accepted in total or a percentage of the people accepted of that particular ethnic group? So as a very generalised example is the 20% Asian American admissions 20% of all admissions are Asian American or 20% of Asian Americans who applied that were successful? Have the latter been taken into consideration when finding the former? I mean only 20% of admissions being Asian American sounds bad but what if those 20% were 100% of the Asian Americans that applied for a place at the school?
reply
Polly g
#fkn Singapore Im 50 when i was 12 my family went to Singapore for a holiday we got of the plane and going through customs my father and i were literally dragged into a backroom, we had no idea what was happening, about 30minutes later a old woman came in with a pair of those huge steel scissors with the red handles and we were told we had to have our hair cut or back on the next plane, we had saved for 5 years to go, and it ended up been a crap holiday, everybody smoked everywhere. Cleaners, cleaning your room while smoking, and now of course Singapore [an Malaysia are banning vapes yet they have a huge problem with smoking illness
reply
#fkn Singapore Im 50 when i was 12 my family went to Singapore for a holiday we got of the plane and going through customs my father and i were literally dragged into a backroom, we had no idea what was happening, about 30minutes later a old woman came in with a pair of those huge steel scissors with the red handles and we were told we had to have our hair cut or back on the next plane, we had saved for 5 years to go, and it ended up been a crap holiday, everybody smoked everywhere. Cleaners, cleaning your room while smoking, and now of course Singapore [an Malaysia are banning vapes yet they have a huge problem with smoking illness
reply
LovinaVargas1076
I have an issue with her saying that the admissions officers used those descriptors with non-Asian applicants. It begs the question: how much did they do that compared to the Asian applicants? Because if we compared the Asian applicants with (since these id's were mentioned by name) to the African-American, Latinx, and white applicants, then what are we going to see? Are we going to see a few quiet black kids, a few quiet Latinx kids, a few quiet white kids, and a tidal wave of quiet Asian kids? That point of her argument doesn't quite hold water because it doesn't address relative quantities.
reply
I have an issue with her saying that the admissions officers used those descriptors with non-Asian applicants. It begs the question: how much did they do that compared to the Asian applicants? Because if we compared the Asian applicants with (since these id's were mentioned by name) to the African-American, Latinx, and white applicants, then what are we going to see? Are we going to see a few quiet black kids, a few quiet Latinx kids, a few quiet white kids, and a tidal wave of quiet Asian kids? That point of her argument doesn't quite hold water because it doesn't address relative quantities.
reply
DexTeks Gaming
For me personally I think using race as a factor at all is wrong. Even if race helps minority groups having race not help all races including white people equally is a form of discrimination because how is it fair that just because of the color of ur skin u get a better chance at higher education regardless as not all white people are rich and some genuinely desperately need help funding college or education and giving that aid to a black or Asian or Latino kid because of how they were born is in my eyes unfair and a form of racial discrimination
reply
For me personally I think using race as a factor at all is wrong. Even if race helps minority groups having race not help all races including white people equally is a form of discrimination because how is it fair that just because of the color of ur skin u get a better chance at higher education regardless as not all white people are rich and some genuinely desperately need help funding college or education and giving that aid to a black or Asian or Latino kid because of how they were born is in my eyes unfair and a form of racial discrimination
reply
Jesse C
The biggest sham here is anyone thinking they NEED harvard to have a successful life. College is, for the most part, a joke. It has it's place, but if you're using it to set the bar for what you think you'll achieve in your life you're not destined for much to begin with. Powerful people take their life into their own hands and would never let admissions stop them. There's hundreds of famous people who either never went or quit higher education to pursue and achieve an incredible life. Stop giving colleges so much power.
reply
The biggest sham here is anyone thinking they NEED harvard to have a successful life. College is, for the most part, a joke. It has it's place, but if you're using it to set the bar for what you think you'll achieve in your life you're not destined for much to begin with. Powerful people take their life into their own hands and would never let admissions stop them. There's hundreds of famous people who either never went or quit higher education to pursue and achieve an incredible life. Stop giving colleges so much power.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
23:8
13:18
16:12
12:55
13:56