theredlion

Sure they do it by choice. You also have the option to live somewhere else though

Maybe you should learn more. Then you will find mundane things obvious more often and you will be less annoyed by people who know more than you

Whelp... Go ahead and check your definitions, because it absolutely applies to individuals in a private space

It is very much NOT limited to public figures and is pervasive in large companies. Individuals get effectively blackballed because of disagreeing with the mob

I don't think that quote makes this move surprising

Talking about should is well and good so long as we remember that many things which have been implemented with the intent of helping ended up being very bad

Because publicly funded universities hold different ethnicities to different standards which favor particular underrepresented groups simply due to their group identity rather than to a consistent, objective standards.

I asked because the response to that question helps me understand w the point of view one is coming from

> Dating when you're older is already difficult so making it even more difficult isn't exactly great.

Honestly 50 people have given this similar vibe. You people make it seem like someone has a gun to your head, forcing you to use a dating app. There are alternatives. It's a free market. If you don't like something, don't spend money on it.

Gay men can choose not to pay if they are unhappy with the price

Not op, but I'll counter with the question: how do you feel about public universities discriminating based on race and sex, which they do

How do you feel about universities being more strict towards particular ethnicities?

Well they better make sure to give more points to non whites or they run the risk of being racist

Source: look at news on the internet from sites other than the ones calling what we have in this country "American apartheid"

No because it's racist if white people do it

> Are there calls for collective ownership of the means of production that I've been missing?

Apparently yes

No. You provide examples of why you think Snopes is worthy of believing.

There is no reason to believe them simply due to the fact that they are posited as an unbiased site.

They present information in bad faith then contradict themselves on the exact same page in the explanation of their claim to validity.

Burden of proof is on he who makes an outrageous claim, so by all means feel free to state your case as to why you think a particular, clearly untrustworthy website, is worthy of trust

I can copy and paste the entire thing again if you'd like to see the part which is very clearly not being straightforward. I'm not sure how one could read that text and not recognize the dishonesty oozing out of every sentence.

> Donald Trump is such a good President that he is best friends to the superior China (Peoples Republic of).”

Is there something unclear about what I'm saying?

Yep I'm aware of that as I've heard it for going on decades now. You're right in that it is an old joke, because if we're going to act as if the left in the USA now is the same as it was 10 years ago, then we aren't operating in the same version of reality

No radical left in the USA? Have you been following the news for the past 2 months?

I've noticed on a number of occasions what appears to be what I would consider a very staunch difference in Snopes' declaration of a claim vs what they say below in their explanation

> “Do you know what rhymes with Donald Trump? America. Greatness in America only comes from Donald Trump. Donald Trump,” read the message, which was cross posted on several subreddits. “Donald Trump (唐纳德·特朗普) is the best, greatest, premier of the peoples Republic of the United States of Ameria [sic]. Batman, was a billionaire. Do you know what Superman was too? Batman. All four were Batman. You know who else was and still IS a billionaire? Donald Trump. Donald Trump is such a good President that he is best friends to the superior China (Peoples Republic of).”

What part of that is supposed to be pro-Trump

> Do you think the US administration has enough integrity to be trusted with such matters?

If they are doing it as a direct response to China, then yes. If China decides to start playing nicely, then we will roll it back.

We act in response to how they conduct themselves. China is like a child. If they behave, we play toys with them. If they misbehave, we put them in timeout

Governments and companies are going to be spying on everybody either way thanks to technology.

If asked, given the current state of these two entities, I would choose being spied on by the US government 100 out of 100 times over being spied on by the Chinese government.

> Of course some demographics might have had a head start, but over a long period of time the numbers should equalize.

What on earth makes you imagine this to be the case in absolutely any situation?

How can one possibly think this is a given?

Well the this article is obviously nonsensical to any rational individual.

Why?

Because they are taking and end result and, instead of trying to discover or understand the many factors which go into said end result, they are slapping the old "racism" sticker on it and inferring causation.

This way of thinking is pathological and it is infecting the entire tech industry, which is supposed to be reliant on science and reason, but is sacrificing itself to horridly formed arguments

You're being downed because suggesting that something socialism-related may not work in a circumstance is basically admitting you are a Nazi as far as people on these sites are concerned

These people are fighting misinformation with misinformation

How about quit posting this garbage to HN?

Are you too full of cynicism to see that that is exactly what I am advocating for or is your hatred of white men too much for you to think that someone can be both defending white men AND women AND minorities?

> Funny how its 'blantant' when men are at a disadvantage. Where was this comment the other 99% of the places, when women and minorities are nearly non-existant? Not worth mentioning?

I'm not sure when or what you are talking about, but if there is injustice against anybody, I speak out against it. It just so happens that movements can go too far and become retaliatory, which is what I would like to prevent.

Women and minorities should OBVIOUSLY have equal opportunity, but the implementation of that cannot harm majority males BECAUSE::: that is not a good long term strategy for society. It WILL cause (and already has caused) resentment and anger and I do not want to see a USA devolve into an actual second civil war.

> I know its an idealistic comment, that the world should be fair in every place. But because these comments come out only when men are not in their usual favored position, I cannot help but see them as a kind of 'institutional bias' for men.

These comments do not ONLY come out in defense of men. Perhaps it is the particular posts you view, but to say there isn't overwhelming defense of women and minorities in the case of injustice is telling me that you aren't seeing the full picture.

I just explained in this post that MYSELF, a person wary of a situation disadvantaging white men, also speaks up when a minority or woman is disadvantaged for their sex or skin color.

Injustice is injustice.