211–220 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Postponing it because they aren't "diverse" enough is a snub.
Again, how so?
Now you'll tell me that you'd think they did the right thing and that you won't consider that a snub. And I sure will believe that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That you don't see it is framed as a question. To restate: "I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior[. Could you please clarify]?" Thought it was implied. Sorry to be unclear. >Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know e…
> 1 + 1 = 2 1 No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying: 1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. > It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. ... According to you.
To restate again, for clarity:
1 type + 1 type = 2 types
2 types > 1 type
1 type = 1 type
How is this false?
---
I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, how so?
Let's imagine someone organizes a conference and every single speaker ends up being a black woman. The organizers proceed to postpone it because it isn't "diverse" enough. Now you'll tell me that you 'd think they did the right thing and that you won't consider that a snub. And I sure will believe that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, how so?
Let's imagine someone organizes a conference and every single speaker ends up being a black woman. The organizers proceed to postpone it because it isn't "diverse" enough. Now you'll tell me that you 'd think they did the right thing and that you won't consider that a snub. And I sure will believe that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1 + 1 = 2 1 No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying: 1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. > It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion. ... According to you.
If you assume I mean, contrary to my intent, that the units are individuals rather than groups, perhaps. To restate again, for clarity: 1 type + 1 type = 2 types 2 types > 1 type 1 type = 1 type How is this false? --- I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context.
But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1".
> I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
I'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion.
As a European, I keep getting baffled about how out of hand these things seem to be in the USA. I live in the Netherlands, a very open-minded country with same-sex marriage, equal rights and were women seem to me to be even slightly more dominant over men (but this is just my perception). All this without safe spaces, forced quotas at conferences, codes of conduct and people that police every word you say. There are…
The U.S. faces challenges the Netherlands does not. Take race for example. One out of every eight Americans are here because their ancestors were slaves. That's not the distant past. Heck, many people today are fighting for the right to commemorate the pro-slavery side of that story. More recently, if Bill Gates had been born in the south, he likely would have gone to a racially-segregated school. And the effects of…
"Hey, if you need a special training to realize you can't shove large cumbersome objects up somebody's ass, then maybe you're too fucked up to be in the police force in the first place. ... Let's try something else -- intelligence and decency. You never can tell, it might just work, it certainly has never been tried before."
I feel that in such areas USA just refuses to acknowledge the existence of a very, very basic common sense.
Social justice is not justice. Social justice is not compatible with truth (science, math, physics, software engineering, etc). https://youtu.be/Gatn5ameRr8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's imagine someone organizes a conference and every single speaker ends up being a black woman. The organizers proceed to postpone it because it isn't "diverse" enough. Now you'll tell me that you 'd think they did the right thing and that you won't consider that a snub. And I sure will believe that.
Let me know if that ever actually happens. I'd be happy to discuss when it does.
As I knew, this is what you hope starts happening. So don't pretend that what you want is diversity, it was patently obvious from your first statement that it isn't what you want, and your backpedaling in every single reply didn't work.
Glad you're back to your original intent, though, it's honest.
As a European, I keep getting baffled about how out of hand these things seem to be in the USA. I live in the Netherlands, a very open-minded country with same-sex marriage, equal rights and were women seem to me to be even slightly more dominant over men (but this is just my perception). All this without safe spaces, forced quotas at conferences, codes of conduct and people that police every word you say. There are…
"a very open-minded country" cough Geert Wilders is the most popular politician in the Netherlands cough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you assume I mean, contrary to my intent, that the units are individuals rather than groups, perhaps. To restate again, for clarity: 1 type + 1 type = 2 types 2 types > 1 type 1 type = 1 type How is this false? --- I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.
> 1 type + 1 type = 2 types > 2 types > 1 type > 1 type = 1 type Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1". > I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works. I…
But it is what I said.
>But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1".
As to whether it is appropriate to postpone or cancel the event, I'd say that's up to the organizers, their goals, etc. If they specifically only want to put on a >=2 event, and they cannot, the justification seems adequate.
I'm not sure how, in that context, it equated to discrimination. I'd expect them to have cancelled regardless of the "1" in question, in this case.