Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@PBruce @freemo @olives Make sure you understand what Pat means by those phrases, though, Dr. Freemo. 'Banning "Gay"' *of course* doesn't actually mean "banning gay". And so on.

@dclr42 @freemo altho Vermont has a Republican governor 😂

@TruthSandwich @freemo @freepeoplesfreepress @alecui I wouldn't worry too much about fascism? (Although I suppose people mean different things by that term.) I don't think Biden is quite as bad as Freemo does, but I did think it was ironic that Biden and Harris won in the wake of BLM & defund the police.

What's the thinking behind replying to someone to let them know you blocked them? I've noticed this quite a bit.

Today someone replied to let me know I had made an "obnoxiously cishet" comment about how any service that isn't e2e has to divulge secrets when subpoenaed and that I would now be blocked.

I mean, I guess I can try to be less cishet going forward; was that the goal?

@AnCuRuadh @OutOnTheMoors @crowgirl (To be clear, this post was a response to the question "And?")

@AnCuRuadh @OutOnTheMoors @crowgirl Then use e2e encryption so such snitching is impossible, or don't use services. Sad to say those are your choices, as far as I know.

@OutOnTheMoors @crowgirl Really important to keep this in mind: any US company, at least, will and must pretty much freely hand over all information they have to law enforcement upon request. Any data the company has access to is *not* secret in that sense.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Oh I assumed "centralized power" meant centralized into the hands of the state. I see your point.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Regarding centralized power, I don't think of left–right this way. (I'm in US, FWIW) Here, at least, the "right" party, Republicans, are the party of deregulation and lower taxes – at least that's the brand: I know a lot of times they vote for higher taxes and control, but to the point here it's what they talk about and sell themselves as. I know, we want to think of Trump as "authoritarian" because of his statements about controlling media and so on, but even his administration is known for focusing on deregulation. (Whether they did so successfully is an interesting question, but not the point here.) The "left" party, Democrats, have instead branding about more about sensible government doing sensible things, yes? Regulating where needed and so on.

Of course, we think of right-authoritarians like fascists etc. Worth noting though even those often keep businesses privatized at least (Pinochet, Hitler, etc)

Additionally, as noted here, left-anarchists are anti-statist as well, so clearly correlation between what people talk about as left-right and being statist/anti-statist is not so great.

@GhostOnTheHalfShell maybe they have and the thing they want isn't the thing you think they want?

@GhostOnTheHalfShell I mean, the point of the case was how Asians are getting the shaft for Harvard admissions because they outperform white males.

@MaybeMyMonkeys @skykiss I think the disagreement is in how best to balance them, not whether they're balanced. Anyone not hiding in a cave knows there isn't "balance".

I think the disconnect is in how to address it: some want policies to push "groups" up or down, while others are uncomfortable with that and want an individualistic approach.

Here's two quotes I read recently:
1.) "Asians are 6% of the population & 26% of Harvard admissions"
2.) "Practically speaking... (Harvard) effectively mandated that Asian-American applicants score 140 points higher than white students"

Which pisses you off more?

As far as I can tell most people like the individualist philosophy: affirmative action polls pretty badly.

@Npars01 @skykiss Or, maybe they just really like due process.

IIUC the right, for example, is more likely to support extremely harsh punishment for rape, so I'm not so sure about your "right to abuse" argument.

@GhostOnTheHalfShell that was the point of the plaintiffs in this case, wasn't it?

@Steve98052 Exactly. While a/a is remarkably unpopular, I think some of the sorts of things you are proposing here most people would support.

Colleges already look at this sort of thing, right? If you have certain test scores/gpa/etc, it's more impressive if you also had to overcome some kind of hardship: moving from a non-english-speaking country, illness, etc. So a lot of the things you list should be considered – if not already? – victim of crime, underfunded k-12, etc.

(I think those things are more popular than a/a because they focus on the individual's circumstance rather than the group one belongs to.)

@Alienfysh Affirmative action doesn't poll well at all, so I doubt this will be the catalyst.

@Nobody https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil FWIW

@QasimRashid It's an interesting shibboleth; consider these two facts:

1.) "Asians are 6% of the population & 26% of Harvard admissions"
2.) "Practically speaking, the school (Harvard) effectively mandated that Asian-American applicants score 140 points higher than white students" (https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-america-fell-out-of-love-with-affirmative-action)

Which of those facts pisses you off more?

I think in some way it has to do with how you think of individuals vs. groups.

----

Regarding the decision: schools are allowed to consider individual circumstances, but I don't know how practical it is to use that to address this problem.