4 ms·
I agree with what I think your point is, but dang is right. Although significantly disparate impact can be indicative of discrimination, it isn't necessarily.
by torstenvl 4y ago
I agree with what I think your point is, but dang is right.
Although significantly disparate impact can be indicative of discrimination, it isn't necessarily. Title VII and Ricci essentially acknowledge this. I don't see anything in the article that would satisfy Title VII post-Ricci (but admittedly I haven't read the pleadings). This is all by long way of saying the following: even though I am generally inclined toward what I believe your view is, I still found your comment to be snarky and bordering on trolling.
HN Guidelines: "Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- sn0w_crash 4y agoThank you. You are correct about my point. However I don’t think That posting “this will get thrown out in court” in a humorous / sarcastic tone is “using my account for ideological battle.” and warrants a personal callout by Dang. There is snark all over HN in many worse instances and it looks suspect to myself and the audience when a mod flags this specific content. Lets be real : if I used the exact same phrasing but it was anti-Twitter / anti-Elon snark our mod friend would turn into Stevie Wonder in an instant. It would benefit HN to at least pretend to enforce the rules evenly.
- dang 4y agoDon't miss the word "primarily" in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33912023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33912023. That's a critical bit, and when I use that word it always means that I'm not just responding to one comment but to a repeated pattern of behavior. (More on this in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33930212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33930212)