831–840 of 898 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So in other words, without DEI, white people are evil and with DEI, white people are evil. Are you sure "white people" are actually in control?
Yes, by white people who use DEI for power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people fighting against affirmative action need to propose an alternative rather than just complain about it Not only is an alternative proposed, it's already implemented for quite a while: discrimination is illegal. Equal outcome vs equal opportunity. You can argue for any side you want, just don't pretend you don't see or don't understand the other position.
I see this as just as simple and misguided of a take as noticing that affirmative action is racist. People have been making this argument forever, we passed all laws and did all the work we needed to when we ended slavery, oh wait nope we got it right in 1967 with the civil rights act, no more work to do, the only tragedy left is that the damn "riff raff" and lefties just can't stop talking about race. They're the re…
As for "simple and misguided" - that is exactly how I see affirmative action where the recipients are selected by skin color and not by socioeconomic status and where the help comes in the form of outcomes and not opportunities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your response to me is utterly uncalled for, and you continue to double down after I pointed this out. There is no point in having a discussion with you, as you are determined to straw man me, libel me, and otherwise behave in a manner which is inappropriate for HN and civil discourse generally. You know nothing about me, and your claims about me are not only wrong, they’re laughably so. I hope I never have to work w…
What's "uncalled for" about what I said? Is this an outrage copypasta you got from somewhere? You could paste what you wrote in reply to nearly any comment on this platform and it'd be about as valid. And I didn't say I knew anything about you? I said things that are true for any thinking, breathing human. Honestly, what a weird reaction. You clearly feel attacked, which I guess makes sense if you genuinely are the w…
> shut the fuck up and take in the knowledge.
> You get called racist for saying racist things; if you don’t like it, stop doing it
> I really cannot overemphasize how detrimental to your argument what you just wrote is to any thinking human being.
> Blindly claiming all research, from literally every institution in the world, is both inaccurate and rigged somehow on a widely studied topic, is an insane claim only made when you've given up on the entire concept of rationality.
(note that the parent never made this claim, you're falsely imputing it on him)
> You really would rather throw all of science under the bus before you let black people get an even footing in society, wouldn't you? Incredible.
I suspect these comments likely violate even a very narrow reading of the site guidelines. Your account is relatively new, so maybe you aren't aware but you might want to take a look before mods intervene (guidelines are linked at the bottom of the page).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's "uncalled for" about what I said? Is this an outrage copypasta you got from somewhere? You could paste what you wrote in reply to nearly any comment on this platform and it'd be about as valid. And I didn't say I knew anything about you? I said things that are true for any thinking, breathing human. Honestly, what a weird reaction. You clearly feel attacked, which I guess makes sense if you genuinely are the w…
A collection of openly hostile remarks you've made in this thread: > shut the fuck up and take in the knowledge. > You get called racist for saying racist things; if you don’t like it, stop doing it > I really cannot overemphasize how detrimental to your argument what you just wrote is to any thinking human being. > Blindly claiming all research, from literally every institution in the world, is both inaccurate and r…
None of those lines are in any way openly hostile, unless you fall into the worst category of what I wrote, which is the racist who is trying to find any excuse to remove black people from the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Continuously asserting that they are “thoroughly researched” does not make them so. Comparing “criticizing DEI” with “advocating flat earth” is pretty absurd, not least of all because DEI programs are incredibly diverse (of course, you are unhelpfully referring only to the “good ones”).
Criticizing DEI is fine. Acting as if it isn't effective when properly implemented is on the same level as "advocating flat earth" theories, as they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data. And you're right, claiming something does not make it so. What makes it so is all of the data supporting it, which is readily available to anyone who actually cares about this topic (up to you if that's you).
Who is arguing that DEI is ineffective when properly implemented (what does "properly implemented" even mean, concretely?).
> they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data
You keep referencing this data... Where are the metanalyses that show concretely that DEI programs are effective? To be clear, I'm aware of and believe that increased diversity makes organizations more robust, but again that's attributed to viewpoint diversity and it's not at all clear to me that modern DEI programs deliver on that viewpoint diversity. It's not even clear to me that there is widespread consensus that "viewpoint diversity" or "organizational robustness" is a goal of these programs--one definitely gets the impression that the primary goal is diversity of identities with little mind paid to the impact on viewpoint diversity or organizational robustness.
Here's HBR (https://hbr.org/2019/07/does-diversity-training-work-the-way...) talking about whether or not diversity training programs are effective; note that the implication here is that the goal is ideological agreement--they're not even looking for viewpoint diversity:
> What did we find? Let’s start with the good news. The bias-focused trainings had a positive effect on the attitudes of one important group: employees who we believe were the least supportive of women prior to training. We found that after completing training, these employees were more likely to acknowledge discrimination against women, express support for policies designed to help women, and acknowledge their own racial and gender biases, compared to similar employees in the control group. For employees who were already supportive of women, we found no evidence that the training produced a backlash.
Regarding the research into DEI, a lot of the measures of its efficacy (that I'm aware of) hinge on Implicit Association Tests which are a famously plagued with issues (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-as...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A collection of openly hostile remarks you've made in this thread: > shut the fuck up and take in the knowledge. > You get called racist for saying racist things; if you don’t like it, stop doing it > I really cannot overemphasize how detrimental to your argument what you just wrote is to any thinking human being. > Blindly claiming all research, from literally every institution in the world, is both inaccurate and r…
(same person, different account, HN is trying to throttle me) None of those lines are in any way openly hostile, unless you fall into the worst category of what I wrote, which is the racist who is trying to find any excuse to remove black people from the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh boy. Look, I just wanted to ding Rayiner for buying Rufo's schtick. In the Rufo cinematic universe, Gramsci is the most dangerous thinker of the 20th century. Would Crenshaw agree that Fanon is the beginning and end of CRT? Race, Reform, and Retrenchment[1] contains an extended, detailed critique of Critical Legal Studies for instrumentalizing and superficializing Black struggle, and for the premise that in a conf…
> Look, I just wanted to ding Rayiner for buying Rufo's schtick It’s so funny that criticism of Rufo always revolves into this esoteric academic debate. I’m a plebe and I’ve never heard of any of those people. Rufo came to my attention because he leaked material that was given at a teacher training in Loudoun County, right next to where I grew up. As far as I can tell the bulk of his journalism is just publishing the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(same person, different account, HN is trying to throttle me) None of those lines are in any way openly hostile, unless you fall into the worst category of what I wrote, which is the racist who is trying to find any excuse to remove black people from the conversation.
You're welcome to litigate your comments with the moderators, I'm just giving you a friendly heads-up that I don't think the mods will agree with you (and the fact that you've been throttled suggests you've probably been warned by the mods before). I'm also not sure they'll take kindly to creating throwaway accounts for the purpose of circumventing the rate limit, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
anything on bash.org is pretty solidly mid->late era IRC, not "early IRC" as was discussed above. "Early IRC" ends with The Great Split (ircnet fork). Heck, most of Early IRC is extremely Euro-centric even.
ngl the implication that something happened in the world of irc that turned it from this apolitical, progressive utopia to a jew-joke, rape-joke, -ism-everywhere cesspool is fascinating and please tell me more about it, not sarcastic
As we did.
I don't know how much of a cesspool it would have been back then as IRCOps back in that day were famously proactive, thin-skinned and intolerant of divisive bullshit. Generally trolls were k-lined quickly. Especially because operating a server then was an individual's labour of love and not using large, corporate resources. Server operators had to keep trash off their server in order to stay in their network. Individual servers could only handle _hundreds_ of connected users.
It was neither utopian, nor progressive. It was ruthless, impersonal and dog-eat-dog.
The shift towards what it is now was that the resources to operate a network became absurdly cheap and caring about who was on your network and doing what went completely out the window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Criticizing DEI is fine. Acting as if it isn't effective when properly implemented is on the same level as "advocating flat earth" theories, as they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data. And you're right, claiming something does not make it so. What makes it so is all of the data supporting it, which is readily available to anyone who actually cares about this topic (up to you if that's you).
> Acting as if it isn't effective when properly implemented is on the same level as "advocating flat earth" theories Who is arguing that DEI is ineffective when properly implemented (what does "properly implemented" even mean, concretely?). > they both fly in the face of a whole lot of data You keep referencing this data... Where are the metanalyses that show concretely that DEI programs are effective? To be clear, I…