Not relevant. The surrounding context created an unfair playing field that is reasonablly rebalanced. Further, even if the playing field was equal, which it isnt based on a cursory review of the facts, society benefits from diverse perspectives in most domains. For examples, if we have no black doctors, medicine demonstrably under performs for black patients, same with any demographic. A broad coalition of perspectives creates a richer ecosystem of ideas and abilities that makes the entire discipline better. A trite commitment to being "race blind" really ends up justifying racism that is an entrenched artifact of deliberate policy choices in the past, not a genuine commitment to antiracism.
Your premise (the premise behind DEI) that people of different races differ in "ideas and abilities" is like weird, old-timey racism. Nobody can ever explain to me what different "ideas and abilities" I bring to a team compared to a white person.
Race is a culturally defined separation of human individual not merely how much sunscreen they need. Irish and Italian people were not considered “white” and ineligible to get many jobs, rent apartments and generally excluded from American society.
I am from the south, black children are taught that they way they speak is inferior and they need to learn “proper” English. That has nothing to do with how much sunscreen they need and everything to do with how other individuals and society treats them.
You are conflating race, culture and class. They are multiple variables that affect what opportunities people have. While I would be the the first to agree with you that race isn’t the basis for any difference between people it is how the world defines the social class and culture of a specific demographic that ends up determining many of the cascading differences between “races”.
No, you're conflating race, culture, and class. You're the one who said people from different races have different "ideas and abilities." And you're defending a DEI system that stereotypes people based on skin color. It's a system that treats people as proxies for their racial groups despite their individual circumstances. The affluent non-white kid from the suburbs is treated as somehow bringing the perspective of disadvantaged inner-city non-white kids. While the poor white kid from rural Oregon is grouped together with more affluent white kids and treated as "privileged."
Let’s stop and outline what we agree on because you seem to be attributing more extreme positions than I feel I am making and we likely have more agreement than it appears. I agree class, wealth, geography, gender and other factors can have an equally significant influence on disparity of opportunity and outcome. I agree that a low income kid from rural Oregon shouldn’t be grouped with wealthy white kids from New York. And I would go further and say they may deserve more of a boost than wealthy minority students.
I would also agree that DEI should not distinguish people solely along racial lines. But I don’t believe it does. And to the extent it does I would argue against that approach.
But you seem to be collapsing arguments based on ranges to binaries. It is possible that race alone doesn’t determine one’s class, wealth, or access to opportunity while also being the most predictable factor in a multi variate causal relationship.
I am curious if you would acknowledge that meaningful parts of American society have divided people along racial lines specifically to preserve wealth, class and geographical segregation. I would be the first to acknowledge meaningful progress to compensate for that reality and the only question is what work remains to reach the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
If your argument is that we should boost people based on individual analysis of multiple factors that increase or decrease their social mobility, access to opportunity and ability to reach their full potential in participating in the social contract then we are in agreement. If you go further and say race should never be considered because it has no relation to depriving individuals of opportunity then I would continue to argue that you aren’t correctly evaluating the facts of the past or present.
The president is a convicted criminal. He's slept with children. You think they couldn't make this happen? You think its a coincidence this is happening now?
Blindsight is probably my favorite novel, and I liked echopraxia fine but it was definitely of a different class to me. The worst parts of blindsight are Watts' descriptives (where is everyone right know? What does this area look like? What actions are currently happening?) and Echopraxia suffers from this even more than Blindsight already did.
I'd still prefer tuta or fastmail. It doesn't matter so much about their privacy stance - competition is good. We don't want proton to become the new Gmail.
> Xennials, also called Xillenials, are a social cohort encompassing people born on the cusp of or during the later years of Generation X and the early years of the Millennials generation.
> Many researchers and popular media use birth years from 1977 to 1983, though some extend this further in either direction. Xennials are described as having had an analog childhood and a digital young adulthood.
Depends a lot on your background. I was online in 1994 as a kid, but my peers weren’t until nearer 1999. Same age. We all got mobile phones when we went to university in sep 2000
> Xennials are described as having had an analog childhood and a digital young adulthood.
Pretty bang on description actually. As a 46 yo, sometimes I can't believe I have actual memories of using a rotary phone, or when my family first got a microwave or even VHS recorder. Yet I do. Feels like eons ago.
That's the rub, numerous times you can't cancel until the x is done (for gym memberships it used to be a whole year). Or alternatively look at prime cancelling is made difficult.
Another issue is they tend to get more unnoticed as time goes on and little additional fees start creating in.
Just avoid subscriptions when possible has served me well
reply