4 ms·

Those are all protected classes under the law, so it doesn't hold up. It's the "and is probably a rapist" (or more likely to be than the average student) (accor

Those are all protected classes under the law, so it doesn't hold up. It's the "and is probably a rapist" (or more likely to be than the average student) (according to the university's tribunal) which is the important part. "Is probably gay", "is probably transgendered", "is probably a jew" and "is probably disabled" are not analogous and I hope I don't have to explain why.

Dr_tldr 10y ago
Ask anyone sufficiently conservative/radical feminist which groups of people they think are "probably rapists", and you get the same results as baseless discrimination but through a different explanation. People tend to think "probably" a lot more often with a lot less evidence about individuals or groups they dislike for any reason. For instance, I think you're probably a crypto-nazi and should lose your job, but that's almost certainly a totally unfair belief based on my very limited and highly subjective viewpoint.
- deciplex 10y ago
  Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefully well-defined process which still comes short of the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.
  - Dr_tldr 10y ago
    Rigorous? Citation needed, since a great deal of evidence points to the opposite--that these are politically motivated kangaroo courts with decisions being made by a single individual with no appeals process and no oversight.
    - deciplex 10y ago
      At this point I don't know what to tell you other than to re-read my post. I am clearly talking "ought" there, and not "is". This should be especially obvious considering I allocated a paragraph in my OP to explain that I think the tribunals currently are not doing good work, not to mention another paragraph to claim that the consequences of their findings are too high. It seems like you're reading just enough of what I write to type up an indignant reply, but no more than that. "Dr_tldr", indeed.
      - Dr_tldr 10y ago
        yes, clearly swimming seamlessly between what you think should exist and what actually exists and then only distinguishing between the two when you're called out is both clear communication and rhetorically effective. Especially on the internet, where everyone has full context of your life and personal views, can see your face, listen to your intonation, and hear the comment out loud in your voice, as it was intended. Oh wait... It's not like leaving incoherent posts on HN is a war crime, but it makes the site less good when you do that. So maybe you shouldn't do that.
learc83 10y ago
Gay and transgendered aren't federally protected classes. Many states have laws protecting them, but many do not.

Dr_tldr 10y ago

Ask anyone sufficiently conservative/radical feminist which groups of people they think are "probably rapists", and you get the same results as baseless discrimination but through a different explanation. People tend to think "probably" a lot more often with a lot less evidence about individuals or groups they dislike for any reason. For instance, I think you're probably a crypto-nazi and should lose your job, but that's almost certainly a totally unfair belief based on my very limited and highly subjective viewpoint.

deciplex 10y ago
Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefully well-defined process which still comes short of the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.
- Dr_tldr 10y ago
  Rigorous? Citation needed, since a great deal of evidence points to the opposite--that these are politically motivated kangaroo courts with decisions being made by a single individual with no appeals process and no oversight.
  - deciplex 10y ago
    At this point I don't know what to tell you other than to re-read my post. I am clearly talking "ought" there, and not "is". This should be especially obvious considering I allocated a paragraph in my OP to explain that I think the tribunals currently are not doing good work, not to mention another paragraph to claim that the consequences of their findings are too high. It seems like you're reading just enough of what I write to type up an indignant reply, but no more than that. "Dr_tldr", indeed.
    - Dr_tldr 10y ago
      yes, clearly swimming seamlessly between what you think should exist and what actually exists and then only distinguishing between the two when you're called out is both clear communication and rhetorically effective. Especially on the internet, where everyone has full context of your life and personal views, can see your face, listen to your intonation, and hear the comment out loud in your voice, as it was intended. Oh wait... It's not like leaving incoherent posts on HN is a war crime, but it makes the site less good when you do that. So maybe you shouldn't do that.

learc83 10y ago

Gay and transgendered aren't federally protected classes. Many states have laws protecting them, but many do not.