i have never understood the argument that "preferences in partners" isn't racist but preferences in ... employees, customers, contractors, movie stars, politicians, etc is.
note: the answer here is not that the latter choices aren't racist.
>The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
>What the fuck is it with this site and shitty, specious analogies?
This site is full of privileged people that have been told their entire lives that they're smart. So they assume that their reductive hypotheses, informed by their sheltered experiences, are novel/insightful/smart. They also presume themselves to rational/dispassionate arbiters (because that's what hn styles itself as a forum of) and so they never doubt their biases.
Btw your comment will get elected downvoted flagged shortly (and dang will show up to admonish about the rules and the sacrosanctity of hn) but the person's to whom you responded won't. And so that kind of reasoning/behavior is rewarded reinforced.
>While not perfect free market/capitalism pulled up more people from poverty than any other system
Nope not true - that award goes to communist China
>China lifting more than 800 million people out of poverty since the start of its economic reform is a "great story in human history", World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said today, underlining that there is "lessons to be learned" from this Chinese experience.
>Over the past three decades, China has successfully led the greatest poverty alleviation program in the history of the world. During that time, an estimated 500 million Chinese were lifted out of extreme poverty.
False. I'm drawing attention to the amendment and what the will of the people was/is and efforts made to subvert that will. The amendment as on the ballot said nothing about requiring money as a prerequisite. That's what Florida voted for: returning freed felons their rights. To ascribe some other interpretation to "terms" is to subvert the will of the people of Florida.
Ultimately the courts will decide whether the legal language "terms" includes fines and restitution. Seeing as these felons are free and fines are a civil matter I don't know how the courts could find that such things are part of their criminal sentence.
Edit: also btw I linked to reputable sources. I didn't obscure anything or omit anything.
It's right there on wiki:
>However, by mid-2019 Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law which originated in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, which required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights"
It's a post facto qualifier. If fines were implied by the initial amendment this bill would be unnecessary.
and republicans are still trying to subvert it by sneaking in restitution as a prerequisite. it was challenged in the courts, overturned, and now appealed
What do you think share cropping and Jim crow laws were? What do you think the several civil rights acts following the 14th amendment were addressing? What do you think separate but equal and then desegregation was? Why is it that there's always someone asking for "proof" of racism? Anyone with a high school diploma knows about these things and yet all of that well known history is insufficient proof.
edit: we rightfully so recognize people demanding proof of the holocaust as bad actors. why not with this?
>there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
do you think the laws are literally broken or figuratively broken then? also there are many laws at many levels of priority. some of them in effect enable you to kill protected classes of people under convenient circumstances
really? wild interpretation? it's a weird construction that's widely known to have been used by the police chief during similar circumstances? how big does the donkey have to be before you pin the tail on it? i wager there could be a video of trump composing the tweet with a biography of the police chief in view and open to the page with those words and you'd still claim to doubt the intent.
it's exhausting having to take this kind of bad faith skepticism seriously.
That's because we're conditioned to think of constructors as functions rather than as types. I think that's not that odd honestly but I do see how counterintuitive it is for people that don't work much in typed languages. I'm not a Haskellite but there you can clearly see the distinction when defining/instantiating sum types (where the type and data constructor live in different namespaces).
Hello there false equivalence. Being upset about money as speech leading to unlimited campaign spending and supporting a company's rights manipulate their own product isn't internally contradictory.
note: the answer here is not that the latter choices aren't racist.