Hacker News Reader

He's convinced himself that a contentious (re: Clarence Thomas and crew) legal precedent is actually a moral, philosophical, or logical position to hold.

Disparate impact is a matter of practicality. It isn't how a person should base their life or interactions with other human beings.

View on HN

I'm not sure what you are saying? I don't know what Clarence Thomas has to do with this, and "he" is incorrect as well if you are referring to me.

I am but more broadly the movement toward legalism and the ad-hoc justifications wrapped around it.

Cutting to the chase... You have been describing disparate impact as a philosophical principle in and of itself. Whereas, in reality, disparate impact exists as a matter of political expediency. Its not a doctrine that should be adopted. Its one that may be necessary to adopt when real intentions and real motives are concealed.

Well... that's just like, your opinion, man.

The dude abides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com