HN is the most heavily moderated, manipulated and astro-turned forum I've even seen, but you don't realize that until the mods start suppressing your posts and comments. Titles are constantly edited for no apparent reason, users who post unpopular facts are permanently penalized, and you can watch as negative stories about large tech companies are quickly flagged off the front page.
There's literally zero transparency here. At least on Reddit you can track the censorship in real time.
COVID vaccines aren't eligible for the VICP and have a laundry list of horrific side-effects, that's plenty of reason for any reasonable person.
> It's just selfishness and not caring about the greater good and health of society, your neighbours, colleagues, friends or family.
You can say the same about fat people, smokers, drinkers, and all other people who take unnecessary risks of any kind. They're all burdens on the healthcare system that reduce access and affordability for everyone else.
> You can say the same about fat people, smokers, drinkers, and all other people who take unnecessary risks of any kind. They're all burdens on the healthcare system that reduce access and affordability for everyone else.
They cannot kill someone by walking by them in a grocery store.
Or they have other reasons for not getting it, reasons that are personal/mocked/dismissed by others, and the emergency approval was the easiest way to get these street preachers to make like a tree.
Vaccine effectiveness is changing every day. In Israel they're seeing 16% efficacy 6 months after the 2nd Pfizer dose.
Also, benefits are only one half of the cost:benefit analysis. Where is the public data on side effects? It doesn't exist because all we have is completely unverified VAERS claims.
You can't make an informed decision when you only know half the equation.
If that instruction was contextually intended to support non-white employees who felt like they had to "play white" in order to succeed, I think the advice is generally good ("be yourself").
If that was contextually directed primarily towards white employees, it's offensive and inherently racist.
I didn't (and now can't) see the context, but context matters. "White before black" is offensive/racist in many contexts, but not in the rules of chess.
Exactly. If the video was about inventory shrinkage and was titled "Be Less Black"
they would have (rightfully so) been sued out of existence.
Racists exists in every human group, and they're predominately non-white outside the West. e.g Groups like Boku Haram are anti-White racists in Africa.
Can you cite that? Boko Haram is an Islamist movement, so I would expect them to recognize fellow Islamists anywhere of any race, and indeed Wikipedia notes they are allied with Islamic State in the Levant and Iraq. There are many Islamists who absolutely anyone would recognize as white, just look at some of the people from the Balkans or Chechnya who have gone to fight for ISIS.
There have been recent movements in Nigeria that specifically opposed whites in general, but they have generally been from an Afrocentrism perspective and often were just as mistrustful of Islam as Christianity, arguing for a return to indigenous African spirituality instead.
> If that instruction was contextually intended to support non-white employees who felt like they had to "play white" in order to succeed, I think the advice is generally good.
That's far from obvious to me. Implicitly equating success with "acting white" is just as toxic as stereotyping all white people as arrogant, ignorant and defensive. These attitudes are the opposite of genuine inclusiveness.
Funny how people are jumping out of the woodwork to defend racism. There's literally no context where attributing qualities to people based on their skin color is OK.
When did we go back to the 1950s? I sure hope you don't feel comfortable being this racist in real life.
> There's literally no context where attributing qualities to people based on their skin color is OK.
Strongly disagree. Talking about likelihood of having sickle cell anemia without talking about race would be absurd.
This probably sounds pedantic, but my point is that we should stop all of these emotionally charged over reactions, on both sides. Saying "attributing any characteristic based on skin color is racist" is almost as absurd as what you're arguing against. There has to be room for nuance.
There is clearly one area where your ethnicity/race matters: genetics. Your ethnicity can can be used to approximate genetic clustering and that is done to some degree within pharmacogenomics.
Apart from the that one carve-out, their point is correct.
However, ethnicity is only rough approximation for genetics as clustering is not perfect (obviously). Thus the cure for even this area is improved NGS testing.
So actually, their point is completly correct as-is.
You're changing the subject. This topic is about personality traits, not medical conditions.
This statement is still true: "There's literally no context where attributing qualities to people based on their skin color is OK."
You wanted to be pedantic, so you ignored the context in which that statement was made. If you hadn't ignored the context, you would've known the statement was about personality traits and not medical conditions.
The person I am replying to used the phrase "literally no context" and you're saying I am ignoring the context in order to make an argument. My entire point is that the OP is throwing away context, and in so doing falsifying their own argument. The lack of context is the whole point of contention. You're attributing to me the very thing I'm disagreeing with.
Once again, you are ignoring the context in which the statement was made and then using that to change the subject and justify your pedantry.
The statement was obviously about personality traits, that much was clear based on the context in which the statement was made (this HN thread). You are now ignoring the context in which the statement was made and instead focusing on the use of the word 'context' within the statement itself. To make it easier for you to understand, here is what was implied by the statement given the context in which it was made "There's literally no context where attributing PERSONALITY qualities to people based on their skin color is OK."
Your argument about medical conditions is not only wrong (as pointed out by another commenter), it's completely irrelevant and off-topic. The discussion was only about personality traits until you tried to derail it.
The justice department tried to count all the federal criminal laws once. The best they could come up with was a rough estimate, and that didn't even include state or local laws. There are literally so many criminal laws now that no one is able to count them all, let alone understand them.
Is it fair to penalize someone if they couldn't possibly know their behavior was criminal?
A better solution is probably simplifying and reducing the number of laws, not making the government prove that you knew what you did was against the law.
9-9-6 schedule, "brainwashing" training, public humiliation for mistakes, automatic termination at age 50, penalties for integrating with EU culture. This isn't employment, it's slavery.
Here's a little summary of Kristallnacht for anyone who thinks the Capitol protest was comparable:
> Rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany, Austria and the Sudetenland. Over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed, and 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps.
> Estimates of fatalities caused by the attacks have varied. Early reports estimated that 91 Jews had been murdered. Modern analysis of German scholarly sources puts the figure much higher
This is exactly the type of hyperbolic rhetoric that only enflames political tension.
Also, don't forget that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden were cheering on the BLM rioters who killed 30 people and caused $2 billion in property damage.
I think it's fair to equate the actions of any and all groups, those actions covering murder and sysmetiatic intimidation through violence at least. You don't get to dismiss violence simply because you have sympathies with a particular cause.
I condemn all extremist violence and rehtoric. I have no sympathies with supporters of Trump, let alone the subset of his base living inside a Q fantasy. However, I feel I'm going insane seeing the differing standards applied to groups based on political party association.
But have at it, you deserve everything you get. Continue to call your opponents Hitler and Nazis while condeming dark and inciting language. Continue to support domestic terrorism from some groups while wretching at the sight of it from others. It's your society, destroy it in whichever fashion you feel gratifying in the moment. Dehumanise at will.
I don't think any sane person cares about the intent of the person carrying out assault against their person, and it would be unreasonable to ask them to divine intent. Supporting one and condemning the other reeks of special pleading.
There's literally zero transparency here. At least on Reddit you can track the censorship in real time.