initstick

While your statement is quite vague it is no less completely inaccurate. "Supporting violence" is subjective and ambiguous. Are action movies and video games supportive of violence? How about war documentaries?

Furthermore, while "hate" speech is not the best use of our ability to communicate it does fall under the protection of free speech - at least in the United States. In some groups hate speech (however it is you describe it) is acceptable.

Just as you are free to not associate with those groups the internet should be free to express the ideas you disagree with.

You don't have the freedom to interfere or disrupt the freedoms of others.

We don't know what we don't know... There already is censorship. The worst prison is the one where you can't see the bars.

How would you QUALIFY an expert in database consistency? Measure their skills and history I presume. Which is precisely my comment which kicked off this thread.

> He needs to be replaced by a more qualified individual

Being a woman doesn't make you an expert in sexism. Anyone, regardless of race, gender, or creed could fit that role. So long as they are QUALIFIED.

So how many ways do you cut the diversity pie? You've now introduced skin color on top of gender. You've also removed the slice that represents "white" (whatever that means) males. Is it your stance that the pie now only represents females? What about other groups of people, how about we slice it into socioeconomic pieces, age, hair color, weight, etc.

The point is, your vision of diversity is just anti-white-male. You'll be satisfied until you find too many representatives of whatever arbitrary label you come up with next.

FTFY: He needs to be replaced by a more qualified individual. It doesn't matter what gender they identify as.