4 ms·

Re “US Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting…” This is not the title of the article

mdhb 1y ago
It’s actually much more accurate and helpful than the one in the article which is itself editorialised. This just states the main outcome neutrally.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
aredox 1y ago
But it is the content of the article, and of the decision. You would not play on words, if you were "colored".
dgfitz 1y ago
Title as of 1339 EST on TFA: US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids Title here: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Thank you. Flagged; will unflag once fixed. From the HN guidelines: “…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change. I think dang has to do that not even the OP.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change Better buried than said dishonestly.
    - dttze 1y ago
      Nothing about the title is dishonest. They are literally letting them target based on race.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > They are literally letting them target based on race Not really. SCOTUS lifted a district court's stay. Trump wanted that. SCOTUS gave in. The district court now goes back to figuring out what's going on, except with the stay lifted instead of in place. "Allow" is too permissive a term because nothing was sanctioned and eventual challenges based on racial profiling have not been precluded; that's why Reuters didn't use the term. From a Reddit standard of discussion, "allow" works. If you have any knowledge of our legal system, it misrepresents the opinions.
        dttze 1y ago
        So they allowed it. And it will continue to happen. They could have stopped it but chose not to. So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > they allowed it No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.
        UncleMeat 1y ago
        The district court did stop it. The material reality is that yesterday the government could not implement this policy and tomorrow they can.

mdhb 1y ago

It’s actually much more accurate and helpful than the one in the article which is itself editorialised. This just states the main outcome neutrally.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

aredox 1y ago

But it is the content of the article, and of the decision. You would not play on words, if you were "colored".

dgfitz 1y ago

Title as of 1339 EST on TFA: US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids Title here: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

Thank you. Flagged; will unflag once fixed. From the HN guidelines: “…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

kjkjadksj 1y ago
Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change. I think dang has to do that not even the OP.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change Better buried than said dishonestly.
  - dttze 1y ago
    Nothing about the title is dishonest. They are literally letting them target based on race.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > They are literally letting them target based on race Not really. SCOTUS lifted a district court's stay. Trump wanted that. SCOTUS gave in. The district court now goes back to figuring out what's going on, except with the stay lifted instead of in place. "Allow" is too permissive a term because nothing was sanctioned and eventual challenges based on racial profiling have not been precluded; that's why Reuters didn't use the term. From a Reddit standard of discussion, "allow" works. If you have any knowledge of our legal system, it misrepresents the opinions.
      - dttze 1y ago
        So they allowed it. And it will continue to happen. They could have stopped it but chose not to. So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > they allowed it No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.
        UncleMeat 1y ago
        The district court did stop it. The material reality is that yesterday the government could not implement this policy and tomorrow they can.