_jasper

Of course we all want this to be true, but the fact that individuals and companies are folding to twitter mobs mean there is real power; and why would people with power want to give it up

I think there’s plenty of nuance here. Taking your position consistently, would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” or any muslim Y as “anti-women Y”? I think the label would be out of place in most cases, and needlessly divisive.

For me personally, the phrase "anti-gay group" muddies the waters because although Salvation Army (1) does (or did) have some anti-gay policies, and (2) is a "group", its main purpose is to be a food or shelter charity; not to pursue the disenfranchisement of gays through say, political compaigning.

To illustrate, I might refer to an organization under religion X as an "anti-women religious group" because perhaps religion X had some policy on women's activites that I believed were sexist; then for me "anti-women religious group" would be a technically correct phrase in that X is "anti-women" and "a religious group", but the phrasing would probably be objectionable to practitioners of the religion who don't see those particular policies as fundamental to their religion, and perhaps didn't even consider the policies sexist in the first place.

In general, I don't think I often see this loose use of terminology applied to other cases; like I don't think people call Nike a pro-child-labor company, although if that were the topic of discussion I might say Nike uses child labor. To me it's about avoiding ambiguity.

I think there's a real possibility that the new Google employees and their kids would "make" the schools in their Kansas town better, through a bunch of different mechanisms. I live in an excellent school district in the rural middle of nowhere, and it's 100% because of the large state university that happens to be here.

So I think it's possible for colleges to make progress on the legacy admissions front without even touching affirmative action. I would just hope the courts make the right decisions in the future. I doubt affirmative action is a solution that really makes anyone "happy", including the people it is intended to benefit.

Can someone explain this to the uninitiated? I remember when that black hole picture came out, it turned out actually to be: "how this algorithm we invented generates an image of a black hole", so not really a "picture" in the colloquial sense.

Here I'm having trouble understanding how we could actually "record video" of a bond forming and I'm not even sure the words "record" and "video" are what I think they mean. For instance, could the frame rate of our video-recording technology really be high enough to "capture" something that probably happens near-instantaneously? And what "wavelength" is the light used to record these videos -- wouldn't it need to be tinier than the kind of light we usually use, in order to capture atoms? I'm sorry if this is vague, but I don't know enough terms to pose this question rigorously.

With you on 1 and 3 and I'm curious how this decision polls with other stakeholders (i.e. alumni with college-age children whom they want the best for).

Your #2 is basically a restatement of mismatch theory[1] which has generated tremendous controversy when applied to the affirmative action debate.

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-nee...

Suppose for a moment that for whatever reason, airbnb has a vested interest in preventing sex workers from using their platform to pursue their sex work. And suppose that sex workers are disproportionately from the LGBTQ+ community. If airbnb aggressively targets and removes sex workers from its platform, does that automatically mean they are "abusing" LGBTQ+ people, or could it mean they just do not want their platform associated with sex work?