PierceJoy

> Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct.

No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that.

> Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.

And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking.

> I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that.

It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote.

So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?

> It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say,

I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply.

> and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason.

An interesting reply from someone who is making no substantive arguments at all.

> The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them.

Agreed. Good thing I didn't.

> You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification.

They gave no clarification. If you actually look at the thread, someone else jumped in to try and claim the parent wrote something they didn't. The parent has not been part of this at all. Now you've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Just think about that for a second.

So again, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

> So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'

In that specific sentence, they weren't stating any opinion about the justification. They were stating what their prototype woke person is thinking. Now based on everything else they wrote, it's obvious they disagree, but that wasn't the point of that sentence.

You're not making any substantive points here. Basically just arguing semantics. They made their points, I addressed them. We obviously don't agree, but there was no misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.

In this case, we can expand your previous statement to also include:

It’s insane to think that kids can be cis gendered because a huge part of what makes us men or women happens during puberty.

So given both of those positions, exactly what point are you trying to make in relation to this thread besides trying to imply that prepubescent transgendered kids don't exist, when they clearly do by their own accounts as adults?

I understand exactly what happened. The parent brought up an example of how Jews and Asians were discriminated against as a means to try and make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians. In reply, I said why I believe we focus more on discrimination against black/latino/gay people. No one is ignoring discrimination against Asians.

The other commenter addressed this well, but it bears repeating. Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not a human being. Period.

The US is the only country regressing on this issue. This is only temporary, of course. You will join the rest of the world eventually. Even with this regression, 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

> I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement.

Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written.

> You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here

I'm really not.

> but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem,

I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education.

Maybe the part you missed is where I stated

> It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.

This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education.

> It’s insane to think that kids can be trans because a huge part of what makes us men or women happens during puberty.

As far as I can tell, nearly all kids are fairly certain about their gender identity by the time they start school. What makes you so certain that those of them who are transgender will have no idea?

If you can't see that this topic is far more nuanced than streams=good no_streams=bad, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that any of my opinions are right.

Note that I didn't state an opinion. I said:

> You say things like “supposedly”. What if it is?

Are you are completely closed off to the idea that there may be more to this than you currently think?

> but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians

They literally wrote that though:

> For example, no discussion is given to the fact that...Similarly no discussion is given to the fact that...There is no discussion on the...Why? Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work.

> I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling

I didn't say they were overrepresented in higher education. This thread isn't specifically about the Harvard problem. It's about the parent thinking that "woke" people only care about discrimination against black, latino, and gay people.

I'm saying that the focus is on those groups because they have typically been the most effected by discrimination. If Asian people are overrepresented in what society might call successful careers, then I think it absolutely makes sense to focus on groups that are underrepresented.

It's also not at all true that Asian racism is ignored. There was huge outcries when Asians were being assaulted randomly.

> The primary motivation for holding back students _was_ gender/race concerns. It’s plainly stated in the GP’s linked document and in many other documents on the CA education “reforms” that differentiating students into different tracks is supposedly racist.

You say things like “supposedly”. What if it is?

> No, it hasn’t.

Yes, it has. I witnessed parents complaining about the removal of specialized tracks in the 90’s, in nearly 100% white communities. It had nothing to do with race, and everything do with with parents not wanting to accept that their kid didn’t have the same abilities as other kids. Maybe the focus has changed to race now, but this is nothing new.

> I see you’re not familiar with the history of American discrimination towards Asians. Maybe we do need some education in our schools on racism against Asians to teach people like you?

People like me? That’s very rude, and very much in bad faith, which is against the HN guidelines. I’ve tried to avoid that language myself, and would appreciate if you did as well. As for me not being familiar, my father was in an internment camp. I'm likely more familiar than you are.

> I don’t see how you can compare gay bashing to literal concentration camps, systemic bans on Chinese immigration, and indentured servitude of Chinese railroad workers.

Yes, I am comparing the murder and system oppression of gay people. I am also comparing the enslavement and systemic oppression of black people.

It seems that your question is why don’t we focus more on the oppression of Asian people? You answered it in your previous reply:

> Because Asians are “overrepresented”

It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.

> Would you feel the same if you worked your ass off and got rejected but saw people with inferior achievements around you get accepted because of their skin color? If I was your boss and I promoted your black coworker over you because of his skin color wouldn’t you be mad? Don’t dismiss the hard work of millions of high school students applying to college with a simple “being rejected by Harvard”.

Yes, my answer would absolutely be the same.

I can’t speak to the CEA, but we do teach kids about Japanese internment. Let’s assume that we focus more on black and gay issues though. The parent answered his own question as to why we might focus more on black and gay issues

> Because Asians are “overrepresented”

It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.

Transgender is also not a sexual identity, so then what exactly is the parent horrified about? If they misspoke and meant to say open gender identities, then my question still applies.

> If a girl likes to dress in what is traditionally recognised as boys clothes and play with trucks, that just kids being kids, there's nothing transgendered to be found there.

There is nothing *necessarily* transgendered about this. However, the grandparent stated there are openly transgendered kids in a second grade class. Are you saying it’s impossible for a child to know if they’re trans or not? I think we generally accept that some gay people knew they were gay at that age, why can’t the same be true for trans people?

> The idea that second graders have "open" sexual identities should be absolutely horrifying

So you find it horrifying if a young male openly identifies as a boy, and a young female openly identifies as a girl?

> Because the charge that this is indoctrinating young children to be anti-conservative would be valid.

Is a hard truth indoctrination?

> This isn't a free speech issue, it's a question of appropriateness.

Excellent point. Doesn't this apply to the so-called censorship on Twitter as well? No one is getting arrested, and thus is cannot be a free speech issue. Should Twitter not get to decide what is appropriate on their platform?

> Making an comment about how conservatives are more racist than liberals is not appropriate for a math textbook.

What if the purpose of math textbooks should be to teach how math is applied in the real world? A graph of oranges vs lemons isn't going to be good at that.

This sounds like the same argument used to justify "shielding" kids from homosexuality.

> How would you feel if that graph instead showed "56% of all crimes are committed by African Americans"? That statistic is true, but is that appropriate for a math textbook without a deeper conversation about underlying causes?

This is a great rebuttal. Alone, I would agree it's not appropriate. But if the textbook then proceeded to use math to show why that might be the case, then I would fully support it. In fact, that would be an excellent addition to a statistics lesson for kids.

This is an interesting comment on a thread which is essentially about free speech. If the data shows that conservatives are more racist than liberals, why should that be censored?

Regarding the first part, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with gender or race. The question was whether gender/race education has been prioritized over math/science, and if so, did it result in worse math/science education.

What you described has been happening long before anyone cared about gender and race.

> Modern woke "education" on race/gender focuses exclusively on black/latino races and LGBT peoples.

Because those are the groups who have historically been most oppressed in North America. I'm sure students will have discussion at some point about Asians being discriminated against by Harvard, but it's clear that slavery and gay bashing has had a much worse effect on black and gay people than being rejected by Harvard has had on Asian people, and I say this as an Asian person.

You quoted one small part of the bill, and not the part people are concerned about.

Care to address any of my other examples, or the people actually arrested due to right wing laws?

> Diluting mathematics education, claims it promotes white supremacy.

And Florida recently rejected math textbooks claiming they push critical race theory.

> I wouldn't want my kids to be schooled in a place where gender/race takes precedence over math/science.

But that wasn't happening. Do you have any evidence these things resulted a worse mathematics education?

> In fact it is making me judge whether I should defect and not vote for Democrats in the next election.

While I don't think your position on free speech is unreasonable, to overlook the harmful things the right is doing and base your vote on Twitter's moderation policies seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Off the top of my head:

* Don't say gay bill * Huge restrictions on abortions that have been enacted recently and will undoubtedly be upheld by the SCOTUS. Even in cases of rape and incest. * Gerrymandering, ensuring the right will stay in control even if they are not supported by the electorate. * Restrictions placed on voting that target minorities

I also think phrasing this as crushing political dissent is a gross exaggeration. We're talking about very extreme people being suspended from a social media website. No one is getting arrested. If you want to see examples of people being arrested, look at Texas where a woman was recently arrested for suspicion of having an abortion, or Florida where Desantis had a researcher arrested for releasing COVID data.

You demand citations from the parent, and then immediately make an opposing claim without providing any citations.

Should do it for all models. The new Ford Bronco is in high demand with low supply. Some dealerships are adding anywhere up to 40k on top of the MSRP as a “market adjustment”.

In what way is it a hit piece?

Would you consider one of the main organizers themselves to be a credible source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericanFascism2020/comments/snw7jn...

> The idea behind protests is not just to move out of some conceptual territory, but also to stop movement into such territory if we're headed in that direction.

No, the reason for these protests is a bunch of grown adults are scared of a safe and effective vaccine in a global pandemic, and are now terrorizing downtown Ottawa.

> When have citizens ever had to carry papers around to enjoy the benefits of full citizenship? Let's not pretend that the scenario we find ourselves in falls well within the boundaries of precedent.

Agreed. The scale of impact of this pandemic is without precedent. Thus the response is obviously without precedent as well. I don't know why you're surprised at that.

> By definition, this is forced. Force means to make someone do something against their will.

Yes, but they aren't required to get the vaccine against their will. They have the choice to quit. That's what makes it a choice. If they had no choice to quit, then you would be correct.

> In this case the choice is be fired or take the vaccine.

Exactly.

> They obviously don't want to be fired, so they are being forced to take the vaccine.

Some choices are hard. That's life. As you wrote in the previous sentence, it is a choice.

> Yes, it isn't physical force, but it is forced none the less

No more forced than any other condition of employment.

> The thing I'm trying to address is your claim that it's just fine and dandy for them to redirect all the money to charities because that's equivalent to what the original organizers were going to do anyway. It's not.

Not just any charities, charities that were going to be chosen by the organizers, which is in line with the agreement the organizers accepted. I honestly don't understand how you can believe something nefarious was going on when they were following the agreement that was made with the organizers.

> It's so obviously not appropriate that GFM immediately realized they could never get away with that and changed their minds and decided to refund all of the money instead. So I don't know why you're even bothering to defend their original plan.

That's one interpretation. A much simpler interpretation is that they realized it's 100x easier to just refund the money instead of having to vet every charity chosen by the organizers to make sure the money wasn't being embezzled or used for actual nefarious purposes. Go head and look into the organizers of this protest. They're overt white supremacists.

Can you point me to the part of the Canadian Human Rights Act that defines vaccination status as a protected class?

> The cases are not comparable because if an at-will employee loses a job with one employer, the employee can often find a job with another employer.

And so can anyone fired for not begin vaccinated, since there are many more jobs that don't require a vaccine than those that do.

> The cases are not comparable because, as far as I know, there is no testing option in the Canadian regulation.

It depends which jobs we're talking about. Make so mistake, this "trucker" protest has been coopted by basically anyone mad about vaccines. So for instance Alberta healthcare workers do not have to get vaccinated, but are subject to periodic testing instead.

> "Do X or you're fired" -- this is coercion by any reasonable definition.

Do X or you're fired is literally the basis for all employment.

> If you think it's easy to just "get another job", you are speaking from a position of immense economic privilege. It's tantamount to "let them eat cake".

Demand for labour is immense right now. I'm sure you've noticed. People are fired all the time for a number of reasons.

> Urbanites will regret their fickle treatment of the key workers who provide them with food and Amazon deliveries.

They won't, because the vast majority of truckers are vaccinated, working, and against this occupation.

> I neither believe it is truthful to call it "occupying the nations capito

People who live in Ottawa disagree.

> To help you along, I also wouldn't be surprised for a charity to redirect 100% of its income to its executives. But that wouldn't mean I would say it was fine for them to do that, even though the reason I gave the money was for clean wells in Africa. That's what you're defending.

This is a textbook strawman. We're talking about a specific situation here, so stop trying to invoke entirely different situations to defend it.

The fact is that this has turned into an occupation. It's not reasonable to expect GFM to fund that.