The guidelines ask you to write more carefully as topics get divisive, but you're doing the opposite: talking about the "madness" of affirmative action is emotional language that does nothing but polarize the thread. Plenty of HN people respectfully and carefully disagree with affirmative action; if you can't be one of them, step aside and let them do it instead.
You understand that there are many coherent rational arguments in favor of affirmative action, and that what you're really having is a disagreement over some pretty complicated premises that are unlikely to be disposed of in short, pithy comments, right? I try hard to listen to conservatives despite being a liberal and have learned to dial my hackles down in conversations about race-based affirmative action because, while I disagree with conservatives on that point, I'm not going to get anywhere by claiming that the fairness and practicality of affirmative action is a received truth. You're going to have to do the same thing with your opposition to affirmative action.
All you know about this professional is that he was willing to talk to the NYT about how hard it is to be a black mathematician. That made you uncomfortable, and so you've constructed a whole mathematics code of conduct to forbid it that exists only in your head, which you further projected from to slander them about their competence.
>I do not think any race is inferior/superior to any other and as such people of all races should be treated equally in all fields of professional achievement
>Conservatives and Liberals should openly talk about these issues for the common good
What's difficult to process here is that you lay out a cogent argument--or at least a coherent rationale--for why you oppose affirmative action. Essentially, you believe no race is superior to others. That's great.
But, of course, people can plainly see that you are excluding the actual reason that affirmative action exists--having nothing to do with the inherent features of any race, and everything to do with historical racial inequities. And, it is very difficult to believe that you are unaware of these inequities (or their bases for affirmative action, for that matter).
Now, you can make the argument that you don't believe affirmative action is the appropriate remedy for past racial injustices. But, that's not the argument you're making. Instead, you ignore this salient factor and instead posit some saccharine, red-herring rationale for eliminating it. And, this must be purposeful. I mean, surely you don't earnestly believe that affirmative action is intended to mitigate inherent racial inferiorities (or do you?).
So, given this, it appears that you are not earnestly interested in "talking about these issues for the common good", to say the least.
"surely you don't earnestly believe that affirmative action is intended to mitigate inherent racial inferiorities (or do you?)."
Of course, I don't. That's not what I've been saying at all!
No matter what it appears to your point of view.
The common good is optimized when the best people, regardless of their skin color, occupy the positions they deserve in all fields of professional activity.
The common good is also optimized by openly and fairly having these discussions, in a way that pushes people to see each other's point of view, hence pushing all sides towards the middle.
It is a way to prevent the election of extremists in high positions of power who then polarize us even further apart.
>Of course, I don't. That's not what I've been saying at all!
Right. So, the point is that if you know the purpose of affirmative action is not to mitigate racial inferiorities, yet you make the argument that affirmative action isn't needed because there aren't racial inferiorities, then your argument is obviously disingenuous.
That is, there's something else motivating your distate for affirmative action; something you'd clearly prefer to conceal. But, the rest of your comment offers a clue.
In any case, if you find people unwilling to engage in a discussion with you "for the common good", it's because they see through your transparent attempts at misdirection.
The only point of view you're willing to entertain is your own, the one that says that "skin color" has no bearing on how people are treated professionally. When a credentialed professional tells the NYT that that hasn't been their experience, you take offense, and from your offense construct a claim that they must not be professional or even competent.
Btw, to ascertain the competence for a given individual in a given field it is easy to check. Go to Google Scholar and look at the number of citations.
For Edray Goins it is a relatively low number, that's why I used the word "mediocre."
