I find amusing the notion of bigots launching a campaign to reclaim "queer" as an insult.

I can only imagine how Roy Cohn felt during the Army-McCarthy hearings when Joseph Welch quipped that "a pixie is a close relative of a fairy"...

Geek was actually the specific term for a carnival entertainer who bites the heads off of live chickens, before it became a generic term of abuse, before it became a specific term for someone who is passionate about a particular interest.

Also possibly because the original meaning of "weird" has become lost, or at least outmoded, as a result of tarnishing by association with the slur. Nowadays, high school and college literature professors have to preface discussions of Moby-Dick with a disclaimer to the effect that the passage

Well, well, well! Stubb knows him best of all, and Stubb always says he's queer; says nothing but that one sufficient little word queer; he's queer, says Stubb; he's queer - queer, queer; and keeps dinning it into Mr. Starbuck all the time - queer, Sir - queer, queer, very queer. And here's his leg! Yes, now that I think of it, here's his bedfellow!

has nothing to do with sexuality at all.

(Melville knew what he liked, I guess.)

That makes sense.

I hate to get involved in political discussion, but that seems inconsistent with the data: dropout rates for men in the US are slightly higher than for women, but the difference is only about three percentage points. Perhaps more saliently, the gap appears to historically have been larger for black and Hispanic students than for whites (it still is for Hispanics), which is exactly the opposite of what I'd expect if "nonstop denigration of whites, males, white males, and dead white males" was a major factor.

which has a lot to do with massive male drop out rate. That strikes me as both testable and improbable.

I have basically no desire to have an extended discussion on this matter with someone who seems to have had their mind killed by politics (whether or not I've had my mind killed as well). Of particular note is second clause of

No one gets beaten up for being black - and very few people ever did.

which is historically ignorant to an almost absurd point-- a point I don't think I've seen anyone take before. I will note that random irrational violence is almost always done by victims of one kind or another. High status people don't get into fights as a rule. Low status people are much more likely to-- this isn't surprising when considering what kind of behaviors get selected for in a mammal dominance hierarchy. Males with few to no mating possibilities because of their low status are much more likely to risk their lives in combat in order attain higher status and mating opportunities. Alpha elephant seals with large harems don't pick fights with the young bulls who lack harems. Obviously black people who beat up white people do not experience a substantive status change when the succeed but we all know evolved software misfires.

(Unfortunately it may need to be said that I don't consider the above explanation for violence to be a justification for violence)

It seems that you are going out of your way to spread general mind-killing to this thread.

Your second point, regarding differential admissions to colleges is potentially much more interesting. The claim that there's both directed harm and actual inefficiency resulting is a pretty strong type of argument. And you even back it up with sources.

But you start off your post with a claim that even if it were true is only marginally related to the topic at hand and is going to create a clear negative emotional reaction in almost any reader. And that claim is made with zero sourcing other than your own say so.

Depending on your viewpoint one can classify the following as either Dark Arts or as good communication: when talking to people about controversial subjects you don't need to throw out every claim that could potentially help one viewpoint, and this is an especially bad idea when one of those supporting arguments will give a negative association to the claims in question. This is true whether or not the supporting argument is factually accurate.

Here's an example that will be likely less controversial here. If I'm discussing evolution with a religious Jew or Christian, it more efficient to stick with the easily discussed factual issues. If they make specifically religious objections one can simply say that that's something they'll need to resolve and just lightly note that some people seem to be able to do it. You aren't going to get very far if your central arguments are something like fossil record, genetics, oh and your religion is all bullshit.

Don't mindkill when you don't have to.

I am surprised that this is so severely downvoted.

The second and third paragraphs are excellent, with sources, and I have very different standards for voting depending on the speaker and what I expect from him or her. Do others not? I would encourage sam0345 to make more posts like this until they are standard for him, and then later dowvote him for such posts when posts like this are typical for him.

Upvoted.

No one gets beaten up for being black

May 2011 : Greece: Fascists attempt to kill immigrants : one migrant stabbed to death, 17 hospitalized.

Sorry, don't follow the metaphor.