How is this not their fault? They clearly didn't test their software properly. Their software produced completely unacceptable results. They're right to apologize.
You're admitting bad behavior and bad decisions for something that was good behavior and good decision-making
Good decisions? Sorry, but releasing poorly tested software like this was obviously a bad decision. The bad outcomes were a direct result of their poor decision making.
Reasonable people take responsibility for their mistakes. They don't play pretend that "they did everything right" and that their failures were completely beyond their control.
You sound like the kid who demands a trophy for participation.
And to me, it looks like he knows that the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, but that he doesn't stand by them - who wants to be seen as a monster?
Then why say it at all? I get "This is what some people with think, but I don't care."
I don't see how you've managed to interpret it in any other way. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt agrees that his comments were inappropriate!
setting aside this particular instance, does intent matter?
Yes, intent matters. He's already stated his intent -- it wasn't satire -- it was an inappropriate joke.
Have we moved beyond satirizing idiotic viewpoints?
No we haven't. Though in this particular case, it's completely irrelevant as his comments were clearly not satirical. Don't take my word for it, take his!
Let's assume the third-hand preface you mentioned in your last post is true:
"Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am"
To me, that looks like an admission that he knows the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, and he'll look like a monster, but he intends to stand by them none-the-less.
Rather than excuse his "joke" it actually makes it worse.
Again, even he agrees that his comments were inappropriate. We've moved beyond the kinds of attitudes and values "jokes" like that exemplify.
By following the simple process outlined in the "Get Windows 10" notification that magically appeared on millions of computers last month. If you run windows, you'll find it in your system tray. It's the white windows logo.
Be warned: It's a highly technical process that involves "clicking".
What you fail to address, at least in my understanding, is the difference in the premise. Golf players are on unequal grounding because of their abilities. Not someone else's prejudice or bias they depend on.
That's because it's not relevant. It's a simple example to show why giving everyone the same advantage does not address inequality. The reason why their exists an inequality simply isn't necessary to explain why that particular solution cannot work.
So, you've gotten past denying the higher likelihood of Blacks belonging to a gang, and are now listing excuses for it? Nice.
Did you read what I wrote? It's not a racial issue at all. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. Gangs for regardless of race due to specific social factors.
You keep saying these things, but remain unable to explain, why these very same racist police do not treat Asians just as badly as they (supposedly) do Blacks.
Bigotry and stereotypes! Try to pay attention here.
Citations? Single anecdotes don't count — statistics, please... Cite me a study or two.
Gaines, Larry K. (2002) An Analysis of Traffic Stop Data in the City of Riverside. Riverside, CA: City of Riverside.
Lundman, Richard J., and Robert L. Kaufman. (2003) Driving while black and male: Effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on citizen self-reports of traffic stops and police actions. Criminology 41(1): 195-220
Parker, Robert Nash. (2001) Traffic Tickets, Ethnicity, and Patrol in Riverside, 1998: Evidence for Racial Profiling in Patterns of Traffic Enforcement. Riverside, CA: The Press Enterprise
Smith, Michael R., and Matthew Petrocelli. (2001) Racial profiling: A multivariate analysis of police traffic stop data. Police Quarterly 4(1): 4–27.
It took seconds to find that. I can see why you'd be hesitant to spend that much time investigating the issue.
You're clearly not interested in developing an informed opinion, or even productive dialog. What do you want, exactly?
I'll answer your ridiculous questions, though I suspect you'll simply continue to deny reality.
And where would this assumption you claim exists — without any citations, BTW — have come from?
You're asking where stereotypes come from? That's certainly not so simple. Gangs used to be predominately white, after all. Not just any white people, of course, but white immigrants. Immigrants who suffered from discrimination and abuse simply because of their national origin. Remember "No Irish need apply"? Many researches believe gangs are mostly an immigrant problem and that long-standing black and latino gangs are a symptom of ongoing racism. (It's a lot harder to tell that a second generation Irish teen is Irish than it is to tell a 10th generation hispanic teen is hispanic.)
Why do they form? That's pretty simple. When you're pushed out of the economy (as is the case for white immigrant gangs, and well as other gangs today) underground economies are created out of necessity. When you can expect not protection, but abuse, from the police, it's only natural that alternative forms of protection come in to being. Gangs meet these needs rather well, providing resources and protection to their communities.
Allow these disadvantaged communities access to the larger economy and offer real protection by police and government and you'll see the need for gangs disappear, just like Irish and Italian communities before them.
Until you can explain, why the same "historical inertia and ongoing racism" — whether they actually even exist or not — do not cause Asians
There are dramatically different stereotypes associated with Asians -- most of them exemplifying positive traits. The most popular? They're good at math, they work relentlessly, and they're terrible drivers. Consequently, they're not as subject to things like police harassment as black and hispanic people, who are considered, by default, to be criminals because of absurd racial stereotypes. They're expected to perform well at many work-related tasks simply because they're Asian, where black and hispanic people are assumed to be lazy.
That doesn't mean those positive stereotypes aren't harmful -- all stereotypes are harmful. The point is that they face fewer challenges that black and hispanic people when it comes to issues that lead to financial success.
Where did those stereotypes come from? Our perception of Asian schools and parents. We think that Asian schools are strict and disciplined, almost to the point of being abusive. We hold the same perception about Asian parents. I suspect this developed sometime after WWII when we started to take a greater interest in Asian cultures. Why math specifically? I'd put that on Korean immigrant children, who study math differently than we do here in, putting Korean immigrant students just a little bit ahead when they first arrive.
historical inertia and ongoing racism
Stereotypes are a form of racism. As for inertia, I'll blame confirmation bias. Not just in the case of Asians, but for other groups as well.
Please, explain, how a "racist cop" manage to distinguish between Black immigrant and Black native born.
That's laughably simple. Just listen to them.
Not that the cops are likely to do that. We get a new story every week of police abuse and unequal treatment of white vs black suspects. Mass shooter evades police before being caught? He's white, so they go out and buy him food from Burger King because he's a little hungry. Selling loose cigarettes on the corner? He's black, so choke him to death. Pregnant women dropping her kid off at school has a disagreement about parking with a fine upstanding white woman? She's black, so slam her face-down on the ground. All blacks are violent criminals in the minds of police.
Police have a long history of treating people of different races and national origins differently. You'll find that we'll see a dramatic change in black and latino stereotypes once police abuse becomes the exception, rather than the rule.
An analogy has to fit the situation. You cannot wish it into being sensible when it does not work out.
It's a simple example to show why giving everyone the same advantage does not address inequality.
That was its purpose. I make it perfectly clear that that was its purpose. It was perfectly adequate for that purpose. That you want to attach other, unrelated, meaning to it is your problem.
If someone likes to tell racist jokes, that's a pretty strong indicator that they're racist. Why would they tell them otherwise? Who, aside from racists, would find them funny?
To tell that kind of unfortunate "joke" at an event like that tells me that he thought that those attitudes and values expressed in his "joke" are normal and socially acceptable. He was very wrong. We live in an enlightened society that does not view homophobic, misogynistic, or racist comments as acceptable. Not in private (some small bigoted circles excepted) and certainly not at an event like the one in question.
All that aside, you can believe that his "joke" was, in fact, a joke and that telling such a "joke" does not reflect his personal views and still see that it was completely inappropriate.
Put his comment in any reasonable context and it's still inappropriate. Ascribe to him any personal qualities you like and his comment is still completely inappropriate.
Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress it into some narrow minded thought policed travesty.
You're in for quite a surprise! See, we already live in an enlightened society. We don't find racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or other bigoted speech acceptable. We think it's wrong to discriminate against others. We find bigoted attitudes and values to be harmful. If you tell bigoted jokes, you should expect to face social consequences.
This will really flip your lid: We've lived in an enlightened society for a VERY long time. 44 years ago, there was a TV program called All in the Family. The show was about a bigot trying to cope with the world as it was at the time -- a world that left his attitudes and values behind.
You're one of the last holdouts of a long dead society. We've moved on. We moved on ages ago. Before you know it, we'll look at homophobia and misogyny the same way we look at racism. We'll look upon those who insist on promoting those disturbing attitudes the same way we look at skinheads and other hate groups today.
When you make "jokes" or disgusting comments like Hunt did, don't expect to be rewarded. Don't expect people to laugh. Certainly don't expect people to freely associate with you. Don't expect spread that kind of ugly speech with impunity. The world has moved on without out you. Hunt's case is a clear-cut example of that.
Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress others with your narrow minded attitudes and values.
Ah, I see. You're confused about what the issue actually is. See, this is about artificial boundaries that unnecessarily inhibit people in some groups from participation. You've bought the nonsense MRA line that it's about equal representation in various careers.
There's really nothing I can say to you there. You're arguing against an imaginary position predominantly espoused by it's opponents. I'm sorry that you've been mislead. I can assure you that I've done everything in my power to make the issue I'm discussing clear and unambiguous.
If you want to talk about the actual issue, I'll happily engage you. Otherwise, I have nothing to say.
Out of fairness, I'll answer your questions: Yes, I'd be deeply concerned about the plight of women trash collectors if women interested in that career faced similar artificial obstacles. Though, like men in child daycare, I don't have enough information to hold an informed opinion on the matter. (Has this ever been studied or is this just another empty MRA talking point?) The problem of men in nursing, however, is longstanding and I fully support men in that case. Why? Because they face artificial barriers that that unnecessarily inhibit them from pursuing that career.
It's quite simple, really, once you understand the issue.
In Hunt's case, his comments were NOT taken out of context. That is, unless you believe the "it's a joke" excuse. Though even if you accept that it was indeed a joke, it's still wildly inappropriate as illustrated by another post I made here. Calling a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted statement a joke does not make that statement any less racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted.
So if you can't find a better parallel to draw, one has to assume your expectation is that $minority has a lower level of ability if he needs a leg up. And that's just fucking wrong.
So you don't like my analogy and insist on interpreting it in a way that is 1) not implied in any way by my original post and 2) explicitly denied by the followup.
I can't help you if you insist on being willfully obtuse.
. Anything you do, anything you accomplish, anywhere you get, it's not because you're good at what you're doing, it's not because you proved that you're not only on par but actually BETTER than any of the self proclaimed "better people", oh no. They can always point at that affirmative crap and claim that this is the only reason for your accomplishments.
Those people are a serious problem. If they didn't exist, there's a good chance that we wouldn't need special programs to help disadvantaged groups. Unfortunately, you express the exact same attitudes that they do, using the exact same talking points.
You're not going to change anything by agreeing with the people with a vested interest in the status quo.
It's a simple example to show why giving everyone the same advantage does not address inequality. It is not intended to imply anything about any disadvantaged group.
In this case, what was said was not properly reviewed, nor was the context properly framed
I'll disagree. I've read the article, several others, his defense, his wife's defense, defenses from his students.
The initial assessment was quick, but perfectly correct. (The only point of contention is that it was a 'joke' which changes absolutely nothing.) Even he agrees that his comments were inappropriate! He's just upset about how quickly he was judged, not about the accuracy of the judgement. He was upset that he wasn't extended the courtesies to which he believed he was entitled.
We can have a reasonable discussion about the severity of the response, if it was too severe or not sever enough. We cannot disagree that his comments were inappropriate.
the consequences to speech shouldn't be given so quickly in reaction to a social media cabal
Speed is a misdirection. "It happened too quickly" is just a way to imply that the situation hasn't been properly assessed. It's a way to cast doubt. Well, the facts are in and his comments are still inappropriate, he should still offer a real apology, and those organizations are right to disassociate with him.
Yes, there is a real danger in putting a persons life in the hands of the "social media cabal" and there are countless examples you could find to support that. This particular case, however, is not one of them.
The way to redress inequality is to remove the advantage a group has
What? That would be terrible!
you do it by giving that advantage to everyone, EQUALLY.
That makes no sense. Take golf, for example. Two unequal players can compete fairly by use of a handicap. If you gave both players the handicap, you do nothing to redress the inequality!
simply remove the restriction that prevents equality!
It's no that simple. It's certainly not that simple in this particular case. For example, how would you redress inequality here by "simply" removing some restriction?
In your gay marriage example, it is a simple matter of permitting marriage. (Though the process certainly wasn't simple, nor does it address discrimination and other problems that particular group faces related to marriage.)
You argued his person rather than his argument.
I called him out, like I'd call out any bigot. I also addressed his arguments directly. In no way did I attempt to dismiss his arguments by dismissing him.
What people are against is giving only certain groups of people things, in the name of equality.
That's how you redress inequality. You give some affordance to the disadvantaged group. If you offer it to everyone, you do nothing to reduce inequality. You give a handicap in golf to put the players on equal footing, if you gave it to both, nothing would change.
Because Slashdot likes clicks. Think about the kinds of posts we'll see:
1) The singularity nuts hailing this as a sign that the end is near, and we'll all be living in Kurzweil's video game afterlife by Thurday. 2) Anyone who knows anything about the subject telling us this isn't news. 3) The attention seekers telling us how they did exactly this when they were in high school/college/basement. 4) The indignant, telling us how this is exactly like [some other thing] (to be followed by the Singularity nuts telling them that it's like totally different) 5) Philosophical musing of varying quality about the ramifications or lack thereof 6) Hopeful game designers posting whatever they can remember from last weeks episode of 'Extra Credits' 7) Unhelpful lists telling us what kind of posts we'll expect to see here.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this not their fault? They clearly didn't test their software properly. Their software produced completely unacceptable results. They're right to apologize.
You're admitting bad behavior and bad decisions for something that was good behavior and good decision-making
Good decisions? Sorry, but releasing poorly tested software like this was obviously a bad decision. The bad outcomes were a direct result of their poor decision making.
Reasonable people take responsibility for their mistakes. They don't play pretend that "they did everything right" and that their failures were completely beyond their control.
You sound like the kid who demands a trophy for participation.
You're the only person who thinks it's satire.
And to me, it looks like he knows that the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, but that he doesn't stand by them - who wants to be seen as a monster?
Then why say it at all? I get "This is what some people with think, but I don't care."
I don't see how you've managed to interpret it in any other way. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt agrees that his comments were inappropriate!
setting aside this particular instance, does intent matter?
Yes, intent matters. He's already stated his intent -- it wasn't satire -- it was an inappropriate joke.
Have we moved beyond satirizing idiotic viewpoints?
No we haven't. Though in this particular case, it's completely irrelevant as his comments were clearly not satirical. Don't take my word for it, take his!
You're jumping to a huge conclusion.
Let's assume the third-hand preface you mentioned in your last post is true:
"Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am"
To me, that looks like an admission that he knows the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, and he'll look like a monster, but he intends to stand by them none-the-less.
Rather than excuse his "joke" it actually makes it worse.
Again, even he agrees that his comments were inappropriate. We've moved beyond the kinds of attitudes and values "jokes" like that exemplify.
Like I've said many times already, it doesn't matter if it's a joke. It's still wildly inappropriate.
He's already admitted that his comments were inappropriate. What more do you want? Why not take him at his word?
Solve the BIG problem (useful, scalable, humanlike AI) and you solve the energy problem as a side effect.
I've seen some crazy stuff from the singularity nuts, but this one takes the cake!
It's not even close to the level that Android/iOS mobile is at in terms of UI and UX.
Come on, it's not that bad! Even saying it's comparable to Android and iOS is a bit extreme, but to call it worse is just too much.
By following the simple process outlined in the "Get Windows 10" notification that magically appeared on millions of computers last month. If you run windows, you'll find it in your system tray. It's the white windows logo.
Be warned: It's a highly technical process that involves "clicking".
What you fail to address, at least in my understanding, is the difference in the premise. Golf players are on unequal grounding because of their abilities. Not someone else's prejudice or bias they depend on.
That's because it's not relevant. It's a simple example to show why giving everyone the same advantage does not address inequality. The reason why their exists an inequality simply isn't necessary to explain why that particular solution cannot work.
So, you've gotten past denying the higher likelihood of Blacks belonging to a gang, and are now listing excuses for it? Nice.
Did you read what I wrote? It's not a racial issue at all. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. Gangs for regardless of race due to specific social factors.
You keep saying these things, but remain unable to explain, why these very same racist police do not treat Asians just as badly as they (supposedly) do Blacks.
Bigotry and stereotypes! Try to pay attention here.
Citations? Single anecdotes don't count — statistics, please... Cite me a study or two.
Gaines, Larry K. (2002) An Analysis of Traffic Stop Data in the City of Riverside. Riverside, CA: City of Riverside.
Lundman, Richard J., and Robert L. Kaufman. (2003) Driving while black and male: Effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on citizen self-reports of traffic stops and police actions. Criminology 41(1): 195-220
Parker, Robert Nash. (2001) Traffic Tickets, Ethnicity, and Patrol in Riverside, 1998: Evidence for Racial Profiling in Patterns of Traffic Enforcement. Riverside, CA: The Press Enterprise
Smith, Michael R., and Matthew Petrocelli. (2001) Racial profiling: A multivariate analysis of police traffic stop data. Police Quarterly 4(1): 4–27.
It took seconds to find that. I can see why you'd be hesitant to spend that much time investigating the issue.
You're clearly not interested in developing an informed opinion, or even productive dialog. What do you want, exactly?
I'll answer your ridiculous questions, though I suspect you'll simply continue to deny reality.
And where would this assumption you claim exists — without any citations, BTW — have come from?
You're asking where stereotypes come from? That's certainly not so simple. Gangs used to be predominately white, after all. Not just any white people, of course, but white immigrants. Immigrants who suffered from discrimination and abuse simply because of their national origin. Remember "No Irish need apply"? Many researches believe gangs are mostly an immigrant problem and that long-standing black and latino gangs are a symptom of ongoing racism. (It's a lot harder to tell that a second generation Irish teen is Irish than it is to tell a 10th generation hispanic teen is hispanic.)
Why do they form? That's pretty simple. When you're pushed out of the economy (as is the case for white immigrant gangs, and well as other gangs today) underground economies are created out of necessity. When you can expect not protection, but abuse, from the police, it's only natural that alternative forms of protection come in to being. Gangs meet these needs rather well, providing resources and protection to their communities.
Allow these disadvantaged communities access to the larger economy and offer real protection by police and government and you'll see the need for gangs disappear, just like Irish and Italian communities before them.
Until you can explain, why the same "historical inertia and ongoing racism" — whether they actually even exist or not — do not cause Asians
There are dramatically different stereotypes associated with Asians -- most of them exemplifying positive traits. The most popular? They're good at math, they work relentlessly, and they're terrible drivers. Consequently, they're not as subject to things like police harassment as black and hispanic people, who are considered, by default, to be criminals because of absurd racial stereotypes. They're expected to perform well at many work-related tasks simply because they're Asian, where black and hispanic people are assumed to be lazy.
That doesn't mean those positive stereotypes aren't harmful -- all stereotypes are harmful. The point is that they face fewer challenges that black and hispanic people when it comes to issues that lead to financial success.
Where did those stereotypes come from? Our perception of Asian schools and parents. We think that Asian schools are strict and disciplined, almost to the point of being abusive. We hold the same perception about Asian parents. I suspect this developed sometime after WWII when we started to take a greater interest in Asian cultures. Why math specifically? I'd put that on Korean immigrant children, who study math differently than we do here in, putting Korean immigrant students just a little bit ahead when they first arrive.
historical inertia and ongoing racism
Stereotypes are a form of racism. As for inertia, I'll blame confirmation bias. Not just in the case of Asians, but for other groups as well.
Please, explain, how a "racist cop" manage to distinguish between Black immigrant and Black native born.
That's laughably simple. Just listen to them.
Not that the cops are likely to do that. We get a new story every week of police abuse and unequal treatment of white vs black suspects. Mass shooter evades police before being caught? He's white, so they go out and buy him food from Burger King because he's a little hungry. Selling loose cigarettes on the corner? He's black, so choke him to death. Pregnant women dropping her kid off at school has a disagreement about parking with a fine upstanding white woman? She's black, so slam her face-down on the ground. All blacks are violent criminals in the minds of police.
Police have a long history of treating people of different races and national origins differently. You'll find that we'll see a dramatic change in black and latino stereotypes once police abuse becomes the exception, rather than the rule.
An analogy has to fit the situation. You cannot wish it into being sensible when it does not work out.
It's a simple example to show why giving everyone the same advantage does not address inequality.
That was its purpose. I make it perfectly clear that that was its purpose. It was perfectly adequate for that purpose. That you want to attach other, unrelated, meaning to it is your problem.
What?
If someone likes to tell racist jokes, that's a pretty strong indicator that they're racist. Why would they tell them otherwise? Who, aside from racists, would find them funny?
To tell that kind of unfortunate "joke" at an event like that tells me that he thought that those attitudes and values expressed in his "joke" are normal and socially acceptable. He was very wrong. We live in an enlightened society that does not view homophobic, misogynistic, or racist comments as acceptable. Not in private (some small bigoted circles excepted) and certainly not at an event like the one in question.
All that aside, you can believe that his "joke" was, in fact, a joke and that telling such a "joke" does not reflect his personal views and still see that it was completely inappropriate.
Put his comment in any reasonable context and it's still inappropriate. Ascribe to him any personal qualities you like and his comment is still completely inappropriate.
Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress it into some narrow minded thought policed travesty.
You're in for quite a surprise! See, we already live in an enlightened society. We don't find racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or other bigoted speech acceptable. We think it's wrong to discriminate against others. We find bigoted attitudes and values to be harmful. If you tell bigoted jokes, you should expect to face social consequences.
This will really flip your lid: We've lived in an enlightened society for a VERY long time. 44 years ago, there was a TV program called All in the Family. The show was about a bigot trying to cope with the world as it was at the time -- a world that left his attitudes and values behind.
You're one of the last holdouts of a long dead society. We've moved on. We moved on ages ago. Before you know it, we'll look at homophobia and misogyny the same way we look at racism. We'll look upon those who insist on promoting those disturbing attitudes the same way we look at skinheads and other hate groups today.
When you make "jokes" or disgusting comments like Hunt did, don't expect to be rewarded. Don't expect people to laugh. Certainly don't expect people to freely associate with you. Don't expect spread that kind of ugly speech with impunity. The world has moved on without out you. Hunt's case is a clear-cut example of that.
Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress others with your narrow minded attitudes and values.
Ah, I see. You're confused about what the issue actually is. See, this is about artificial boundaries that unnecessarily inhibit people in some groups from participation. You've bought the nonsense MRA line that it's about equal representation in various careers.
There's really nothing I can say to you there. You're arguing against an imaginary position predominantly espoused by it's opponents. I'm sorry that you've been mislead. I can assure you that I've done everything in my power to make the issue I'm discussing clear and unambiguous.
If you want to talk about the actual issue, I'll happily engage you. Otherwise, I have nothing to say.
Out of fairness, I'll answer your questions: Yes, I'd be deeply concerned about the plight of women trash collectors if women interested in that career faced similar artificial obstacles. Though, like men in child daycare, I don't have enough information to hold an informed opinion on the matter. (Has this ever been studied or is this just another empty MRA talking point?) The problem of men in nursing, however, is longstanding and I fully support men in that case. Why? Because they face artificial barriers that that unnecessarily inhibit them from pursuing that career.
It's quite simple, really, once you understand the issue.
In Hunt's case, his comments were NOT taken out of context. That is, unless you believe the "it's a joke" excuse. Though even if you accept that it was indeed a joke, it's still wildly inappropriate as illustrated by another post I made here. Calling a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted statement a joke does not make that statement any less racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted.
This isn't complicated.
Well, if you deny the problem even exists, what is there to discuss?
So if you can't find a better parallel to draw, one has to assume your expectation is that $minority has a lower level of ability if he needs a leg up. And that's just fucking wrong.
So you don't like my analogy and insist on interpreting it in a way that is 1) not implied in any way by my original post and 2) explicitly denied by the followup.
I can't help you if you insist on being willfully obtuse.
. Anything you do, anything you accomplish, anywhere you get, it's not because you're good at what you're doing, it's not because you proved that you're not only on par but actually BETTER than any of the self proclaimed "better people", oh no. They can always point at that affirmative crap and claim that this is the only reason for your accomplishments.
Those people are a serious problem. If they didn't exist, there's a good chance that we wouldn't need special programs to help disadvantaged groups. Unfortunately, you express the exact same attitudes that they do, using the exact same talking points.
You're not going to change anything by agreeing with the people with a vested interest in the status quo.
It's a simple example to show why giving everyone the same advantage does not address inequality. It is not intended to imply anything about any disadvantaged group.
In this case, what was said was not properly reviewed, nor was the context properly framed
I'll disagree. I've read the article, several others, his defense, his wife's defense, defenses from his students.
The initial assessment was quick, but perfectly correct. (The only point of contention is that it was a 'joke' which changes absolutely nothing.) Even he agrees that his comments were inappropriate! He's just upset about how quickly he was judged, not about the accuracy of the judgement. He was upset that he wasn't extended the courtesies to which he believed he was entitled.
We can have a reasonable discussion about the severity of the response, if it was too severe or not sever enough. We cannot disagree that his comments were inappropriate.
the consequences to speech shouldn't be given so quickly in reaction to a social media cabal
Speed is a misdirection. "It happened too quickly" is just a way to imply that the situation hasn't been properly assessed. It's a way to cast doubt. Well, the facts are in and his comments are still inappropriate, he should still offer a real apology, and those organizations are right to disassociate with him.
Yes, there is a real danger in putting a persons life in the hands of the "social media cabal" and there are countless examples you could find to support that. This particular case, however, is not one of them.
The way to redress inequality is to remove the advantage a group has
What? That would be terrible!
you do it by giving that advantage to everyone, EQUALLY.
That makes no sense. Take golf, for example. Two unequal players can compete fairly by use of a handicap. If you gave both players the handicap, you do nothing to redress the inequality!
simply remove the restriction that prevents equality!
It's no that simple. It's certainly not that simple in this particular case. For example, how would you redress inequality here by "simply" removing some restriction?
In your gay marriage example, it is a simple matter of permitting marriage. (Though the process certainly wasn't simple, nor does it address discrimination and other problems that particular group faces related to marriage.)
You argued his person rather than his argument.
I called him out, like I'd call out any bigot. I also addressed his arguments directly. In no way did I attempt to dismiss his arguments by dismissing him.
Not really. This is closer to using Markov chains to make music. This is decidedly nothing new or interesting.
What people are against is giving only certain groups of people things, in the name of equality.
That's how you redress inequality. You give some affordance to the disadvantaged group. If you offer it to everyone, you do nothing to reduce inequality. You give a handicap in golf to put the players on equal footing, if you gave it to both, nothing would change.
Because Slashdot likes clicks. Think about the kinds of posts we'll see:
1) The singularity nuts hailing this as a sign that the end is near, and we'll all be living in Kurzweil's video game afterlife by Thurday.
... Oh ...
2) Anyone who knows anything about the subject telling us this isn't news.
3) The attention seekers telling us how they did exactly this when they were in high school/college/basement.
4) The indignant, telling us how this is exactly like [some other thing] (to be followed by the Singularity nuts telling them that it's like totally different)
5) Philosophical musing of varying quality about the ramifications or lack thereof
6) Hopeful game designers posting whatever they can remember from last weeks episode of 'Extra Credits'
7) Unhelpful lists telling us what kind of posts we'll expect to see here.
Ad hominem
You don't know what that means.
People that support the idea of Special and preferrential treatment of minorities are the very problem. They are the ones creating inequalities
That would only be true if we already had equality. We clearly do not have equality.
How, then, would you propose that inequality be addressed without making special accommodations for disadvantaged groups?