5 ms·

> That is the original text. But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. > Wild that

> That is the original text. But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. > Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread. It don't think that's too popular on HN. It probably appears at the top only due to recency. It's probably more popular among the general population of the US, which is kinda what matters.

beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > Have you been a minority in tech? Yes. > any environment controlled by a HR policy. Well, HN isn't really "controlled by an HR policy". Yet, contrary to your expectation, my original comment is already being downvoted.
  - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
  - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-lgbtq-rights-often-stops-with-transgender-rights/amp/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-l...
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      That's among the general US population, which kinda supports my point?
      - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
slg 4y ago
>But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. So you are not even sure what Title IX does and are instead basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"?
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"? I'm talking about the current executive order. What's there to evaluate except "likely"s and "probably"s? My support for repealing parts of the civil rights laws is mostly based on Richard Hanania's argument about how it lead to wokeness.
  - slg 4y ago
    > argument about how it lead to wokeness. Ok, so there was no point in responding to you.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > Ok, so there was no point in responding to you. Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Hanania's argument: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...
      - slg 4y ago
        My most recent comment was not about the merits of the argument for repeal. It was about the way you used the term "wokeness". You didn't say something like "wokeness has gone too far." That would grant some ethical ambiguity to the word. You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. People who do that generally have an awful definition for the word and are usually already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
        4y ago

beepbeepcabbage 4y ago

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> Have you been a minority in tech? Yes. > any environment controlled by a HR policy. Well, HN isn't really "controlled by an HR policy". Yet, contrary to your expectation, my original comment is already being downvoted.
- beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
- beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-lgbtq-rights-often-stops-with-transgender-rights/amp/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-for-l...
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    That's among the general US population, which kinda supports my point?
    - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago

slg 4y ago

>But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. So you are not even sure what Title IX does and are instead basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"?

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"? I'm talking about the current executive order. What's there to evaluate except "likely"s and "probably"s? My support for repealing parts of the civil rights laws is mostly based on Richard Hanania's argument about how it lead to wokeness.
- slg 4y ago
  > argument about how it lead to wokeness. Ok, so there was no point in responding to you.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > Ok, so there was no point in responding to you. Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Hanania's argument: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...
    - slg 4y ago
      My most recent comment was not about the merits of the argument for repeal. It was about the way you used the term "wokeness". You didn't say something like "wokeness has gone too far." That would grant some ethical ambiguity to the word. You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. People who do that generally have an awful definition for the word and are usually already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
      - 4y ago