> Sarcasm is great, its meant to get people riled up, you should try it, makes these comments more entertaining while also exaggerating another's end goal to show where those ideals lead.
You aren’t exaggerating another’s “end”. You don’t actually know what that is.
You are simply being dishonest in your representation.
> At this point you aren't stating much, just trying interview me or something, so I'll assume all I want.
Lying about another person’s position is just that.
> Disregards that white men have better access to college prep classes, paid more while they go to school, less chance of hardships,
Even if true historically or when you went to college.
This is certainly not true of every white man today..
Whilst it’s certainly true that statistically Black people are less likely to have resources like college prep classes, that is a function of money. There are more poor white people than there are poor black people, even if statistically if you have black skin you are more likely to be poor.
There are also large numbers of rich and middle class black people who live in nice neighborhoods and have all the supports you mention.
That’s why it’s racist to base your discriminatory policies on race rather than actual hardship.
If you want to argue that people who have fewer resources should receive supports that others don’t, I will agree with you.
If you want to argue that being white means you have access to college prep, I think you are delusional.
> I didn't graduate, not the end of the world, still had it easier. And no, not college age, but if you are, I swear life is better when older.
You may have had it easier in your day, but as the article explains things have changed.
> I mean, you are debating heavily to prove that men have it worse, "in terms of" whatever, I can take that another step and just say you are complaining.
> you are debating heavily to prove that men have it worse
The article indicates that they do, at college. I’m not ‘arguing that’, I’m referencing it.
If you are claiming that I’m making a more general claim, then you are just misrepresenting me - I.e. you are intentionally lying about what I am saying.
> Could go further with sarcasm and take if further but you pointed out you are not a fan.
I’m not a fan because you are being at best fooling and at worst dishonest.
> I get your argument,
The evidence is that you don’t.
> but I am pointing out that while you are saying "same" you literally mean men should have access to support that is reserved for different people that have different hardships, in order to try to make the playing field more level.
I’m not arguing that some general “playing field” should be more level.
I am arguing that men are just people, and there is no reason they should receive less support in their education.
> You, (not saying you personally, but in case you go there), can't say we should have the same access to support in college while having much different obstacles in life.
Your position continues to embody racism and sexism
It seems like you are saying that men today should receive a worse educational experience than other people because men in the past like you had more advantages in life.
The problem is that this hurts those men who are less advantaged deliberately on the basis of their sex.
If there are advantages men as a category receive later in life, then those need to be addressed, but it’s reprehensible to use that as a justification for harming people’s educational experience.
worse educational experience? thats dramatic as hell. You are just mad that can't steal support reserved for other folks.
You keep throwing around priveledge and advantage but I don't think you get it. Do women make less money than men, underrepresented in industries, way higher percentage of being victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault? But your argument, is always "some men", but we are talking about "in general". Huge difference between situational advantage and systematic disadvantage.
Calling me reprehensible, and you are all high and mighty about how mean sarcasm is hahaha. This whole thread, is you getting all bent out of shape because you think the white man isn't getting enough, just leave it at that. I hope one day you see how ridiculous that is.
Please make this your last comment thread on HN, this was painful to read. This type of discourse does much better on twitter or reddit, feel free to keep it there.
"you know what this old thread needs? some hacker news superiority" - you
You jumping in a old thread, and you expect me to believe it's because you want me to stop? sounds like to showed up late to the party and just sad everyone left, and you want me to jump back in to talk to you. How you doing?
You aren’t exaggerating another’s “end”. You don’t actually know what that is.
You are simply being dishonest in your representation.
> At this point you aren't stating much, just trying interview me or something, so I'll assume all I want.
Lying about another person’s position is just that.
> Disregards that white men have better access to college prep classes, paid more while they go to school, less chance of hardships,
Even if true historically or when you went to college.
This is certainly not true of every white man today..
Whilst it’s certainly true that statistically Black people are less likely to have resources like college prep classes, that is a function of money. There are more poor white people than there are poor black people, even if statistically if you have black skin you are more likely to be poor.
There are also large numbers of rich and middle class black people who live in nice neighborhoods and have all the supports you mention.
That’s why it’s racist to base your discriminatory policies on race rather than actual hardship.
If you want to argue that people who have fewer resources should receive supports that others don’t, I will agree with you.
If you want to argue that being white means you have access to college prep, I think you are delusional.
> I didn't graduate, not the end of the world, still had it easier. And no, not college age, but if you are, I swear life is better when older.
You may have had it easier in your day, but as the article explains things have changed.
> I mean, you are debating heavily to prove that men have it worse, "in terms of" whatever, I can take that another step and just say you are complaining.
> you are debating heavily to prove that men have it worse
The article indicates that they do, at college. I’m not ‘arguing that’, I’m referencing it.
If you are claiming that I’m making a more general claim, then you are just misrepresenting me - I.e. you are intentionally lying about what I am saying.
> Could go further with sarcasm and take if further but you pointed out you are not a fan.
I’m not a fan because you are being at best fooling and at worst dishonest.
> I get your argument,
The evidence is that you don’t.
> but I am pointing out that while you are saying "same" you literally mean men should have access to support that is reserved for different people that have different hardships, in order to try to make the playing field more level.
I’m not arguing that some general “playing field” should be more level.
I am arguing that men are just people, and there is no reason they should receive less support in their education.
> You, (not saying you personally, but in case you go there), can't say we should have the same access to support in college while having much different obstacles in life.
Your position continues to embody racism and sexism
It seems like you are saying that men today should receive a worse educational experience than other people because men in the past like you had more advantages in life.
The problem is that this hurts those men who are less advantaged deliberately on the basis of their sex.
If there are advantages men as a category receive later in life, then those need to be addressed, but it’s reprehensible to use that as a justification for harming people’s educational experience.