GP doesn't exactly seem fun at parties, but calling them racist seems pretty extreme

I spotted that too. By contrast I'd prefer this person shouted it out loud without code so that everybody could see them for who they are.

What codewords would those be?

No racism implied. I just don't prefer the communist infiltration of society by the liberal arts majors. They're divisive, net-negatives and a sign that a corporation is now doing activism instead of being a neutral place to work.

Uh, you just called the position of Chief Diversity Officer "Corporate Welfare". That's not really on the "implied" side of the fence. It's more on the "just saying it directly" side.

It is corporate welfare. It's hiring people with no useful skills to espouse communist propaganda within your organization. Why? Because it's cheaper to do that than to make meaningful changes to your hiring practice that would actually improve the ability of disadvantaged people to get real jobs in engineering.

Nobody in the C-suite of a corporation is a communist. That's like saying the HR department exists to help unionize the workers.

These are some wild takes, it's only Monday my dude.

>> my dude.

Talk about code words.... that right this is big code word...

If you know, you know.

Names like phpisthebest and linuxftw have to come from the same mind

I don’t know, please help me and explain what this code word means.

"my dude" is used by people in a clear and narrow ideological perspective, if you see someone using "my dude" in the context where I can predict their political bent, and position on just about every social issue facing society today

I have no idea what you're talking about, my dude. I am just using it because it seems trendy today, otherwise I have never heard it before, my dude.

I think its use probably has a loose correlation to younger, east coast, Big Lebowski fans.

Which as we know puts you down an irreversible ideological path of... something?

"php" is used by people in a clear and narrow ideological perspective, if you see someone using "php" in the context where I can predict their political bent, and position on just about every social issue facing society today

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

This is in the site guidelines:

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You have no meaningful understanding of "communism". And I see you denying climate change in another thread, so it's probably safe to say that your opinions are worth very little.

"communist propaganda". Again, another public artifact of you making yourself look like a complete embarrassment. Thanks for sharing.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You started a hellish flamewar in this thread, and perpetuated it badly. If you keep doing this, we're going to have to ban you. We've had to warn you about this more than once already.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

You're not getting anybody on your side with your completely bewildering use of the word "communist". It's not, like, the 1950s. You don't sound remotely sane when calling anything you dislike "communism".

What words exactly?

Hating ideologally obsessed activists and hating people for the color of their skin are not even close to the same thing.

It's true rainbow activist types use sexual orientations and minorities as shields when their politics get criticized, as already seen above.

If people say "listen to gay people" they hardly mean say, UK writer Douglas Murray or the activist group Gays Against Groomers.

If people say to listen to black people, I'm quite sure they don't mean economist Thomas Sowell.

If they say transpeople, they definitely don't mean Scott Newgent of "What is a Woman?" fame.

But they don't mean Newgent either. All these people have the correct identity groups, but they're no-nos because they have the wrong politics. The DEI people clamoring for better representation definitely don't want offices staffed with Sowells and Murrays. Because the identity is just a shield, and the politics is the point, as eg. Rep. Ayanna Pressley put when she said they need "more black faces willing to be a black voice" - again, Sowell certainly is black and has a voice, but Pressley meant having the correct politics to count as representative.

Wanting less DEI is wanting less of a certain kind of politics, not wanting less people of whatever sexual orientation or skin colour. Because the politics is the point.

Make no mistake that both sides on these issues contain ideologically motivated groups. However one group proposes something that benefits marginalized people, and the other seems to only to propose things in opposition.

I have found that reactionary positions are not good ones and contain people who don't know what they want, only what they are opposed to.

Hear hear.

> However one group proposes something that benefits marginalized people

Do they? A lot of the benefits of DEI policies are simply more quotas for people who were already well off and capable of gainful employment, where it's more inter-elite competition than anything.

But what of the actually underprivileged? I can't fathom a way in which forbidding teachers from keeping order in class (because discipline problems are unevenly distributed, and thus racist - I wish I was kidding) helps actual minority kids from genuinely underprivileged situations. Instead, the teachers are mandated to aid and abet the very dysfunctions that keep them down.

Or what's shown in this tweet? https://twitter.com/FreeBlckThought/status/17085822241767754...

Active recommendation that "Schools should NOT 'encourage students to change their behavior or families to do more things that were like white families do, like reading to their children or adopting a growth mindset'"

These are upper class ideologues adopting nice-sounding, feelgood ideas, inflicting them on genuinely underprivileged people, and won't themselves have to pay for the consequences of these beliefs. The poor black kids will pick up the tab.

A friend of mine commented on the video that: "People who really, actually hate minorities and want to destroy their children's futures must feel so frustrated that teachers' unions, Ed schools, and school bureaucracies have left them with nothing more to do. Clearly, the point of education is to keep kids doing what they were already doing that was working so well."

These very same education people will, if asked, swear that poverty causes dysfunctions and bad outcomes, but we should never ever try to drag people out of those dysfunctions.

This is what I meant above: The politics are the point, and this shit is a disaster, as far as I can tell. I couldn't imagine better policies to tear people down if I tried. And the teaching establishment gets lauded for it.

And this is just the stuff disguised as kindness, or born of misplaced kindness. It's not getting into the actively hateful side of their culture, because they have carte blanche to spread hate, if the target is right.

>Active recommendation that "Schools should NOT 'encourage students to change their behavior or families to do more things that were like white families do, like reading to their children or adopting a growth mindset'"

The Smithsonian—*The Smithsonian*—did the same thing. Three years later I still can't believe it. <https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...>

The Smithsonian's chart is one part stunning in its various bigotries and one part just tiresome in how predictable and accepted things like that are in the modern day.