The point is, its unreasonable to restrict rights to make it convenient for policing.
We both know, there would be outrage if men were so profiled (by restricting their rights wholesale). To ignore this part of the issue is disingenuous.
We both know, there would be outrage if men were so profiled (by restricting their rights wholesale). To ignore this part of the issue is disingenuous.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18946801
I also wasn't at any point suggesting it was okay. I posted several clarifications concerning that detail while new comments to the same effect continued to pour in, some of them snarky one liners.
I don't know what's going on here, but it's probably not what you and others are claiming is going on.
Remember women couldn't buy property back in the 1970's, for plausible reasons (most didn't have jobs so no cash flow). Its that fresh in some folks' minds.
Hypothetically and theoretically standing up for the author's right to sit at the bar and acting like my remarks on HN somehow undermine her rights while dozens of comments pile on to uncreatively beat a dead horse and say the same thing to me over and over and over is a great tactic for shutting women up on HN while pretending we are all doing the opposite.
Sexism, racism and other social ills tend to be kept alive by such events while the participants believe they are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I'm not accusing anyone of conscious, intentional malice aforethought. I'm just trying to describe a common social phenomenon.
Have a great day.