> This is the next batch of folks who will be doing your IPO paperwork:
No these are not the next batch of people filling out your IPO... that article you picked is like half a dozen randos attending an optional one time event that from the selective information they gave doesn't even seem to represent progressive views. Then soundbites were taken out of context by a hardline conservative outlet and you were told that this is what the left stands for. Can you honestly tell me that you believe progressives want to mandate that you begin every day chanting "i am tango-unchained and i am racist"?
Back to the article, what did the rest of that conversation look like besides a single screenshot? Is there any context where it might make sense to say "i am racist" without literally wearing a white hood. Maybe those words are being used to capture concepts that are more difficult to explain than firing someone based on the color of their skin or telling your daughter she shouldn't marry outside her race. These aren't dumb people and they made the decision themselves to say these things and I'm sure had good reasons that made sense in the moment.
The professor screenshotted here has like 22 years of legal teaching experience. Don't you think there's a chance he was having an interesting conversation about intellectual concepts and was taken out of context? That article you posted never asked these questions or got the "other side" and asked him to explain himself. Instead we just have quotes from a few conservatives that were offended by the training. It kind of reveals the purpose of this article.
It's fine to have ideological disagreements, but to frame this article as representing a movement let alone a generation of thinking is dishonest and hysterical.
I'm sorry, but I think today's partisan politics are clouding your memory. There's been multiple points in history where poltically left leaning professionals were systematically kicked out of their jobs and blacklisted from their careers.
> berate the white ones for not being vaccinated, and then ignore the lack of vaccination among the non-white ones.
People around me are being given like $100 and a pat on the back when they get vaccinated around here. Antivaxxers are idiots, but people getting vaccinated are having the gold carpet rolled out to them.
Also it doesn't look good to repeat a racist fox news soundbite that's already been debunked about how the blacks are invading our cities and spreading covid [1].
> Also it doesn't look good to repeat a racist fox news soundbite that's already been debunked about how the blacks are invading our cities and spreading covid [1].
This is a strawman argument. The OP proposed that on average whites are more vaccinated than blacks, which your citation supports. So vaccine marketing should target the biggest vaccine skeptics, otherwise the racially inequal outcomes will only grow.
A) White people, like black people are not homogenous, so certain white groups could benefit from being targeted
B) There are more white people in America than black people. So, while in relative terms there may be less vaccinated black than white people, in absolute terms, there are more unvaccinated white than black people.
The vaccines don't care about the proportion of various demographic groups. The community benefits from there being more vaccinated people overall.
> The vaccines don't care about the proportion of various demographic groups. The community benefits from there being more vaccinated people overall.
Careful, you might pull something with those mental gymnastics.
You’re right that more vaccinated people is what matters so everyone should do their part. That means per capita should be the same across all demographics. Any group that has a lower per capita is dragging covid progress, regardless of how large or small the group is.
You ignore my previous point about the fact large segments of the white population also being vaccine hesitant. The problem is more obvious with black people because the demographic information collected during vaccinations doesn't generally include things like voting intentions, strength of religious faith, profession, understanding of who won the last election, or opinion on what caused the twin towers to collapse.
However, if you look at the cross tabs of opinion polling, supporters of a particular party are much more hesitant to get the vaccine.
> There's been multiple points in history where poltically left leaning professionals were systematically kicked out of their jobs and blacklisted from their careers.
Well, communists right? Literal sympathizers with the US' greatest geopolitical foe?
> Also it doesn't look good to repeat a racist fox news [blah blah blah fox news..]
Wait are the vaccination rates between whites and blacks actually substantially equal? And your link is just playing the trick of swapping out percentages for absolute numbers to make a tendentious argument.
Vaccination rates for whites is 10-15 points higher than for Black people in blue states, but about the same in the poorest and most rural states.
That’s my point—what you’re looking at is low vaccination rates among disadvantaged groups. Public health officials have just forgotten that non-college rural whites are one of those groups.
Twitter has great tech content and really isn't any more toxic than other social media (and remember, HN is social media too!). For instance, foone threads regularly apear on HN. A lot of the hate here IMO is just people's rationalized politic opinions and not having the discipline to avoid being baited into the politics side of the website. Which again, only has the same problems as getting into political arguments elsewhere online. I have seen plenty of flamewars here too, especially last year.
I have had a really good experience with the platform and actually met friends with my super niche interests that way. It's how I keep up with people in my small academic field in an informal way and talk about the human side of doing science. Also, I believe my papers have gotten more attention since posting there.
The only thing I'm not a huge fan of is how replying boosts posts and there's no downvote. It leads to noobs getting baited into responding to trolling or low effort content and giving it a ton of attention. However, everyone knows about that after their first month on the platform and uses workarounds so it isn't an issue.
Their new surveillance tech is terrifying. How long until the Chinese government requires them to compare photos on their phones against a database of "communist party abuse material" and report violators?
Advancement of the surveillance state is especially terrifying after this past summer of police abuse. We already know that in our country people in power abuse their authority and nothing happens (unless international protests prompt an action). This just collects more power under the disgusting guise of "won't somebody think of the children" while calling the people opposed pedophile supporters.
Does anybody have recommendations on what to do to help oppose this instead of just feeling helpless?
No these are not the next batch of people filling out your IPO... that article you picked is like half a dozen randos attending an optional one time event that from the selective information they gave doesn't even seem to represent progressive views. Then soundbites were taken out of context by a hardline conservative outlet and you were told that this is what the left stands for. Can you honestly tell me that you believe progressives want to mandate that you begin every day chanting "i am tango-unchained and i am racist"?
Back to the article, what did the rest of that conversation look like besides a single screenshot? Is there any context where it might make sense to say "i am racist" without literally wearing a white hood. Maybe those words are being used to capture concepts that are more difficult to explain than firing someone based on the color of their skin or telling your daughter she shouldn't marry outside her race. These aren't dumb people and they made the decision themselves to say these things and I'm sure had good reasons that made sense in the moment.
The professor screenshotted here has like 22 years of legal teaching experience. Don't you think there's a chance he was having an interesting conversation about intellectual concepts and was taken out of context? That article you posted never asked these questions or got the "other side" and asked him to explain himself. Instead we just have quotes from a few conservatives that were offended by the training. It kind of reveals the purpose of this article.
It's fine to have ideological disagreements, but to frame this article as representing a movement let alone a generation of thinking is dishonest and hysterical.