Remix clone Hacker News

All social injustice stems from the first law of economics: there isn't enough to go around. DEI will come and go, but so long as we lack the wealth to meet everyones needs (and wants), there will always be inequity. The real question is, does anyone have an idea of what a fair world looks like in the mean time? Why do people disagree on what that fair world looks like? Is it a fools errand to try and make the world fair when there's no clear goal to move towards? How do folks who support DEI think of it in the above context?

▲

harimau777 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it's important not to make things too black and white. Certainly it's difficult to put in place or even define a perfectly fair world. However, that doesn't mean that we can't make things more fair.

	▲	disambiguation 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Of course, that's the reality of it - fairness is iterative and reactive. My questions are: - Do you think DEI was the right path forward? Did it achieve its goals? If not was that because of counter currents or something else? - If and when we have "perfect DEI" will we declare the world a fair place? If not, what comes next?

▲

jensensbutton a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this is a perfect example of gp's comment.

▲

disambiguation a day ago | parent [-]

GPs comment is a perfect example of GPs comment. The burden of proof is on the person trying to make a point. They gave no arguments or evidence in their favor. I lay out a point that shows they have no ground to stand on.

▲

harimau777 19 hours ago | parent [-]

It is unfortunately impossible to prove the negative. I did give examples of what I would like to see in a discussion. There's unfortunately no realistic way for me to "provide evidence" that I only rarely see it.

	▲	7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]