I don't think he said anything factually incorrect though?

And yet again comes someone pretending as if unhinged far right rants embracing racism and white victimhood is some sort of objective truth seeking. It's unfortunate that this has become so normalized here.

Where in those comments is the "white replacement theorist"?

> White males are actively discriminated against

The words are unambiguous and not up for debate.

“Not up for debate” is a much scarier string of words than anything that guy has said.

Debating the meaning of words in order to avoid owning what you explicitly said or supported whenever it's inconvenient should be condemned. What kind of person would be scared by that over someone supporting an advocate of the ethnic cleansing of London?

If someone says a word has a different meaning, then that necessarily affects the meaning of what they said. You are not in a position to assert that your interpretation of their words is more objective than theirs, unless you're explicitly intending to be intellectually dishonest, or come with further evidence proving their intellectual dishonesty.

If you're being intellectually honest, you would explain which parts of the words I quoted is ambiguous instead of questioning my integrity with vague hypotheticals.

I don't need to in order for my comments to be intellectually honest. My prior posts in this thread stand on their own as statements of principle: that declaring an interpretation "not up for debate" is at minimum intellectually empty; I would go further and describe it as both foolish and dangerous.

If you choose a normatively loaded assertion in place of a good-faith argument about meaning, you're not resolving the disagreement; you're simply declaring your own interpretation authoritative, to no end. That's literally how primary school children argue in the school yard.

I'm assuming he was talking about a specific situation where discrimination occurred? Anyway that's two completely different things.

It seems to me like the more intellectually honest characterization of things like hiring quotas and admissions quotas is "discrimination in the interest of the good" or "compensatory discrimination" rather than "this isn't discrimination". It's not a little-known practice and it doesn't negatively affect only white men (it also negatively affects East Asian men, for instance).

If you think those hiring practices are justified against a backdrop of ongoing white supremacy, patriarchy, etc., say that. If you think they're only a small adjustment in the big picture in a world where tacit norms of credibility, transgenerational wealth, and interpersonal connections still overwhelmingly favor white men, say that. But when someone says "hiring practices actively try to tell people apart by race and ethnicity in a way that disfavors my odds" and you reply amounts "nuh-uh, and you can't say that!", you frankly weaken the left, because you aren't addressing the real contention and you look to outsiders like you are denying an obvious fact.

These tweets all seem extremely reasonable and resonates with my experience.

White males don't have a monopoly on discrimination but it certainly exists.

When I worked at a fortune 50 company part of my annual bonus was dependent on how many minorities I hired. When I was job shopping I was told directly by recruiters that white males should not apply, but if I know any minorities to send them their way

If these things don't count as discrimination, I don't know what would

Where is the data that shows there are a disproportionate number of white men among the unemployed population? Without that data, this kind of rhetoric can only be seen as a pretext for actual discrimination.

Also, you think jumping to support someone who got backlash for claiming that only a third of the London population (aka white people) are "native" to the city and the rest should be driven out of their homes is "extremely reasonable"? It boggles my mind that people are lining up to say how normal this is. It's anything but.

No disproportionate number of men are required for discrimination to be going on. Its not a competition.

Discrimination can occur at the individual level. If I fire someone the color of their skin, but the numbers balance out somewhere, I still committed an act of discrimination.

Also,I dont care about their back story. I suspect you and I have very different understanding of truth if you think them having said something offensive means everything else they say is false.

That sounds exhausting. I'll judge the truth of a given statement by its contents.

None of that makes any sense whatsoever. In your hypothetical scenario where "the numbers balance out," that's by definition indiscriminate termination. You can't discriminate without it showing up in the numbers because that's how math works.

It's also offensive that you accuse me of fallaciously bringing up an unrelated story. You said the "tweets all seem extremely reasonable," including the one where Kling viciously defended DHH's call for ethnic cleansing in London. There is no "backstory" here.

Then we have different definitions. Discrimination is a matter of bias and motive. Statistics are irrelevant.

For some definitions of systemic discrimination, you may look for an effect, but even that doesn't rule out two way discrimination.

If a black person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, and a white person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, there is still a hell of a lot of discriminatory behavior happening.

If you personally hold that events themselves cannot be discriminatory, even if they are motivated by racial bias or malice, you will continually run into disagreement with others.

The overwhelming majority of people and legal systems recognize that events can be discriminatory. If you fire someone and provide their skin color as the reason, you will lose that discrimination lawsuit in every state in the US, no matter your statistical fetish.

Statistical fetish? That's one hell of a way to turn your lack of proof into an ad hominem attack.

If people are being fired for being white and male, then the number of unemployed white men increases compared to other demographics. It's that simple.

oh come on, at least try to engage with what I said.

drop the covo into your llm of choice and see what it thinks

PS, I dont see anything I would call vicious, any mention of london, or any mention of ethnic cleansing

The tweet clearly mentions that Kling "stands with @dhh" citing backlash against his "racist and transphobic views." You called that "extremely reasonable" and you should own it.