UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

Re:UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, contr... by andybak on Monday September 26, 2016 @04:50AM (#12580288)

Positive discrimination has been endlessly debated but to wheel it out here without even bothering to acknowledge the nuances of the debate is a touch lazy and intellectually ham-fisted, surely?

And to use the Daily Express to support any your point is going to reflect fairly poorly on your stance for anyone that is aware of it's reputation.

Also - are we talking about the US or the UK here? Mixing the two situations together in a single discussion is going to make a murky issue even murkier.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, contr... by smsm42 on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @05:28PM (#12601512)

I'm not sure how "whites aren't accepted" is positive in any sane meaning of the word. For me, the situation is very clear - either you say "discrimination on racial basis is prohibited" and then "whites can't apply" must be prohibited too, or you say "discrimination on racial basis is OK, as long as it's against right class of people" - and then this should be in the open, not "can't discriminate".

[ Parent | on HN ]