4 ms·

To me, it seems that they are very closely related.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago
Protected categories = you can't refuse to hire someone because they're not white Affirmative action = you can give someone an advantage in a hiring process because they're not white, with the intention of correcting historical discrimination They are closely related in that they deal with race, gender, and class distinctions. But the ethics of the two are quite different. Banning discrimination by protected categories is uncontroversial. People have a lot more disagreements about affirmative action.
- mutant_glofish 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - whats_a_quasar 3y ago
    No? Refusing to hire someone because they are white is unlawful discrimination based on race. Discrimination against whites is not a hot topic in America because of the historical and social context, but the law makes no distinction.
wwtrv 3y ago
Could you try to explain how? Do you generally oppose all race/gender/etc. based anti discrimination laws?
consilient 3y ago
They're not. Most protected classes are things like "race" or "marital status" - not "black" or "married". (Age is an exception here, at least federally: young people are not protected.)
- mutant_glofish 3y ago
  That's usually what the literal interpretation of the law would be. However, the courts have set the precedence so that it is more or less legal to consider race to increase "diversity". For example, see Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. [1] With the recent SCOTUS ruling, things have changed a little bit. Unfortunately, that really doesn't prevent people from finding ways to get around the ruling. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C... [2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/thomas-jefferson-high-school-for-science-and-technology-supreme-court-affirmative-action-racism-discrimination-disparate-impact-dbcb6296 https://www.wsj.com/articles/thomas-jefferson-high-school-fo...
  - dang 3y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mutant_glofish 3y ago
      > requests to stop. *request, there was only a single request. Also, you had already applied a whole lot of restrictions to my account before the "request", without any warnings or explanations. So, who cares? I'm not playing on a level playing field. You are definitely politically biased, in the sense that you don't apply your rules consistently. And you don't seem to care about that. Also, you guys definitely use dishonest moderation techniques, which you don't like to call "shadow-banning". But the issue isn't what we should call it, it's the dishonesty. And if the ban was really because you thought I am not contributing to the community (and just using it as tool for "ideological battle), then why one of my submissions is on the front-page at this very moment? [1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37368148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37368148
      - dang 3y ago

Protected categories = you can't refuse to hire someone because they're not white Affirmative action = you can give someone an advantage in a hiring process because they're not white, with the intention of correcting historical discrimination They are closely related in that they deal with race, gender, and class distinctions. But the ethics of the two are quite different. Banning discrimination by protected categories is uncontroversial. People have a lot more disagreements about affirmative action.

mutant_glofish 3y ago
[flagged]
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  No? Refusing to hire someone because they are white is unlawful discrimination based on race. Discrimination against whites is not a hot topic in America because of the historical and social context, but the law makes no distinction.

wwtrv 3y ago

Could you try to explain how? Do you generally oppose all race/gender/etc. based anti discrimination laws?

consilient 3y ago

They're not. Most protected classes are things like "race" or "marital status" - not "black" or "married". (Age is an exception here, at least federally: young people are not protected.)

mutant_glofish 3y ago
That's usually what the literal interpretation of the law would be. However, the courts have set the precedence so that it is more or less legal to consider race to increase "diversity". For example, see Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. [1] With the recent SCOTUS ruling, things have changed a little bit. Unfortunately, that really doesn't prevent people from finding ways to get around the ruling. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C... [2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/thomas-jefferson-high-school-for-science-and-technology-supreme-court-affirmative-action-racism-discrimination-disparate-impact-dbcb6296 https://www.wsj.com/articles/thomas-jefferson-high-school-fo...
- dang 3y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mutant_glofish 3y ago
    > requests to stop. *request, there was only a single request. Also, you had already applied a whole lot of restrictions to my account before the "request", without any warnings or explanations. So, who cares? I'm not playing on a level playing field. You are definitely politically biased, in the sense that you don't apply your rules consistently. And you don't seem to care about that. Also, you guys definitely use dishonest moderation techniques, which you don't like to call "shadow-banning". But the issue isn't what we should call it, it's the dishonesty. And if the ban was really because you thought I am not contributing to the community (and just using it as tool for "ideological battle), then why one of my submissions is on the front-page at this very moment? [1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37368148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37368148
    - dang 3y ago