MockObject

Asking about high school is ridiculous, but how is it age-ist? They had high schools back in the old days, too.

It is indeed doing that!

But Trump does this, and he's from Queens. I don't actually think there are regional differences in the five boroughs.

Think of it as less of a euphemism, and more of a specific type of slavery.

> The vast majority of readers can quickly make the connection between 'politically powerful' and 'rich white people' assuming they live in America. It's not on random HN commenters to be egalitarian humanities writers who deconstruct every concept

They shouldn't have to make such a connection, because such sloppy racism is not in keeping with the tone of this forum, nor with any international audience.

Are we speaking different languages? Read this thread back! Does it make any sense? Not to me. I can barely understand what it means.

Do you not agree that affirmative action is a discrimination based on race?

And your "solution" is to increase the amount of discrimination? The doing of nothing at all, which you're accusing me of promoting, is obviously absolutely better than that.

You want me to list specific solutions, but that’s not what I’m here to do.

I’m here to limit the set of such solutions to policies that actually decrease the total amount of discrimination.

Your positive discrimination increases the total amount of discrimination. Therefore it does not qualify as a policy that decreases discrimination.

But you haven’t offered an argument.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

Do you think it should be eliminated? Then why are you arguing against its elimination? Why do you claim to think it should be eliminated? Why should I be convinced that you actually believe it should be eliminated?

Not “suck it up.” End it. The exact opposite of what you just characterized.

Your thinking on this topic seems very to contain many inversions.

"Your solution to racism is to treat everyone equally"

Yes. This is the logical solution. The way to end X is that everybody stops doing X. It's very clear, simple, and I'm sure you would agree with virtually all values of X.

> Why should the affected groups, or society at large, accept this? Why shouldn't we band together to try to make things fair in light of this fact?

That's exactly what the court just did. It prevented universities from being racist.

People naturally mix. They work together, worship together, and marry each other, unless this natural mixing is opposed by external forces.

> However in my more conpsiracy minded moments I can't help but wonder if the focus on race is designed to keep the power and the middle class fighting each other over things like that rather than fighting against the people that have the power.

But is there really any better explanation?

Life is becoming very safe, but we evolved under conditions of deadly risks around every corner. What we can and should ask is that the risk takers only jeopardize their own lives.

In 1988, IRC's competition was a VAX program called RELAY that ran on BITNET, not the internet.

J2EE hasn't been called that in 20 years. It's JEE now, and it's much nicer.

Most of your recent comments are dead, and they don't seem too offensive.

Am I the only one who can't help doing ctrl-F "boffin" whenever I read The Register? I can't be.

We were a more philosophically individualistic society in previous generations, during which children played freely in cities and suburbs.

Exactly true. Race, money, and caste all vanish from existence if nobody continues to use the concepts.

What was he saying, in particular?

How is it useful, if it requires such attention?

The craziness appears when you realize that US governments are no more accountable than US corporations. Nobody lost their job over 9/11, or the Afghanistan pullout, or any other debacle you can name from the past few decades. Charges were dropped against the low level jail guards who allowed Jeff Epstein to die; Acosta resigned as Labor Secretary only due to public outcry and 12 years later.

Responsibility is a quaint tradition of a lost America.

Old enough to remember when Google was the plucky newcomer in a crowded search engine industry.

I'd never heard of him, so I looked up his history. His banning causes me to reconsider participation in this forum at all. And it's sad to see the quality of those 2017 threads compared to today. So thoughtful, so many citations.

The American revolution was a succession, and not a revolution in the sense that it wasn't an attempt to overthrow the British crown. It turned out remarkably well compared to most others though, although I'm being noisily reminded of its shortcomings on a dreary, daily basis.

In general, meet the new boss -- same as the old boss, and for the most part, upheavals swap one ruling class for another. The children of the revolutionaries become the new privileged ruling elite. This is as inevitable as bureaucracy, regardless of whatever glowing utopian rhetoric the activists had used to mobilize the masses for the revolution.

"They" has been used for the unspecified singular in English since long before our births; "ne" is completely unfamiliar and resembles a typo.

"The original poster said that their dog bit their cat, and then barked at their TV."

But we're discussing people being additionally qualified by accident of birth, having afforded them opportunities, and not because Dave met someone in a pub last year.

Is it "shit" that Liza Minelli had a great head-start in her entertainment career by being Judy Garland's daughter?

The quotes, because luck implies counterfactual outcomes. You're lucky if you miss a car accident by a minute, but it's not clear that you could have been born as someone else, because then you wouldn't be you, and that's nonsensical.

> Doesn't it make sense to question or try to change these assumptions? Or are things fine the way they are?

Pretty much every new government since the US or French revolutions have tried, and the outcomes have been less than ideal. Inequality is a constant feature of human society that cannot be engineered away.