Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   "Professor of Law" insists SCOTUS opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County actually legalized sex discrimination instead of banning it   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Gender, Gender role, Discrimination, Supreme Court, Transgender, Sexual orientation, Supreme Court of the United States, Homosexuality  
•       •       •

2228 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2020 at 10:36 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-07-13 10:39:09 PM  
15 votes:
Isn't The Hill the publication where the CEO's wife got a do-nothing job in the Third Lady's office as a favor?
 
2020-07-13 12:45:37 PM  
8 votes:
So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.
 
2020-07-13 10:49:54 PM  
7 votes:

stoli n coke: Isn't The Hill the publication where the CEO's wife got a do-nothing job in the Third Lady's office as a favor?


The very same.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06​/​30/publishers-wife-played-undisclosed-​role-for-melania-trump-345053

The same guy that helped John Soloman, who formerly worked at The Hill and left for a job with Fox News, concoct the Ukrainian conspiracy theory bullshiat with Rudy Giuliani.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/media/​j​immy-finkelstein-the-hill-ukraine/inde​x.html
 
2020-07-13 11:28:21 PM  
5 votes:
Is this the math Republicans do to make themselves feel better?
 
2020-07-13 11:29:12 PM  
4 votes:
What I get out of that is "I found a way to feel victimized as a white male".
 
2020-07-14 4:46:39 AM  
3 votes:

LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.


Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.
 
2020-07-13 11:32:55 PM  
3 votes:

Gyrfalcon: What I get out of that is "I found a way to feel victimized as a white male".


"Found a way?"  About the only skill white men have ever had is finding a way to feel victimized and then raping and murdering everyone within arms' reach to assuage their precious fee-fees.  Any advances, inventions, or discoveries were just ways to extend that arms' reach and/or body count.
 
2020-07-14 2:30:35 AM  
2 votes:

LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.


But
xy + xy + xy = 3xy

and
xx + xx + xx = 3x2

and
xy + xy + xx = x2 + 2xy

Your math is off.
 
2020-07-13 11:42:59 PM  
2 votes:

phalamir: Gyrfalcon: What I get out of that is "I found a way to feel victimized as a white male".

"Found a way?"  About the only skill cisgender, straight white men have ever had is finding a way to feel victimized and then raping and murdering everyone within arms' reach to assuage their precious fee-fees.  Any advances, inventions, or discoveries were just ways to extend that arms' reach and/or body count.


Slight clarification.  We're just as much their victims as anyone else.  (And it sucks.)
 
2020-07-14 5:10:44 AM  
1 vote:

keldaria: LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.

Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.


This.
 
2020-07-13 11:06:07 PM  
1 vote:

pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.


What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.