91–100 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Human rights lawyer?" That's an "interesting" euphemism for a tax lawyer.
He litigate a case of 8 1/2 month jailed pregnant women put in isolation. The without monitoring her. She woke up with a dead baby. Then the jailed doctored the records, pretending the baby died in the hospital. I think this qualifies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He litigate a case of 8 1/2 month jailed pregnant women put in isolation. The without monitoring her. She woke up with a dead baby. Then the jailed doctored the records, pretending the baby died in the hospital. I think this qualifies.
Source? His website certainly doesn't mention it. When I search for Shaye Marie Bear, the woman in the case you're talking about, Barnes does not show up.
Also, talks about his other case he settled, where a jailed prisoner wasn't given epilepsy medication, defecated on himself, was mistreated by the guards and died. [41-44 minute mark]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think their move here is illegal. I think it's ill-advised, bad PR, will backfire and probably predatory on the group they are ostensibly trying to help. (Maybe even without them even understanding why.) That all said, I was almost going to downvote your comment, but it made remember how much Uber actually has made a business model out of breaking the law in every country they are active in. Move fast and bre…
> I don't think their move here is illegal. This seems illegal to me, but I really don't know. What are the laws surrounding race-based company promotions/discounts?
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
The aim is to surface black-owned restaurants. But the solution is to remove the delivery for those restaurants. Do they have a filter for restaurants with no delivery fee? Are they also tagging the restaurants to make it obvious which are in this scheme?
Secondly, how do you determine which restaurants qualify? Is it just applied to independent businesses or is it something larger chains can game as well? It seems full of holes at the foundation.
The whole thing screams of a marketing department that think they should do _something_ to make it look like they're supporting protests but put in the tiniest amount of effort they could manage.
That's racist.
A more useful definition from So you want to talk about race: Racism is any prejudice against someone because of their race, when those views are reinforced by systems of power. This definition is useful in the sense that it helps focus efforts on what needs to be addressed - systemic racism - vs trying to convince 100% of individuals to stop being racists in their day-to-day.
I respect what they're going for here, but an explicitly race-based discount seems very illegal.
All: I think it's time to note that semantic arguments about the word "racism" are always the same and always turn nasty in the same way. That makes them off-topic here, as are canned arguments in general: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... . They keep discussion stuck in superficial and uninteresting places, and that's the opposite of what HN is for. Curious conversation means exchanging…
But there’s an effort to redefine racism to include any policy that acknowledges race, as opposed to the normal definition that holds a policy is racist if it promotes the superiority of one race over another.
Semantic arguments are bad when they obscure and distract from the central point. But they are good when the distinction at issue is important to the issue at hand. In this case, the distinction is critical. In a world where widespread racism exists, but policies are not allowed to acknowledge race, then policy cannot address racism, thus it continues.
> ...keep discussion stuck in superficial and uninteresting places...
Sigh
Leaves me with so little hope. I guess we get to go around and around again on all this.
After "fight fire with fire", through awful virtue signalling comes "fight racism with racism". Nice move, Uber!