I use a “real name” domain. My last name ends in the letters “in”, so I bought a .in domain, such that the domain name is my last name with a dot in it.

Can’t honestly recommend that approach. It’s a cute gimmick, but when non-technical people ask for your email address and it doesn’t end in a TLD they recognize, their heads explode. I usually give out my gmail address.

Tipping is ingrained in our culture so much that people will still feel obligated to. The best way to stop it is to take the tip line off the receipt entirely.

That’s a big departure from the spare tire analogy. The spare tire analogy is based on the principle that affirmative action should be a stepping stone that gets us to the place we want to be and then stops being needed. Whether we’ve gotten to that point or not isn’t a topic I want to get too weighed down on, but I think the point is that the goal is a world where we don’t need affirmative action.

But a wheelchair is (in general) a tool that compensates for a permanent problem. People who need wheelchairs need them forever. Are you arguing that’s what affirmative action is? Systemic racism can never be undone and affirmative action has to live on in perpetuity?

Not trying to get too bogged down in the analogy itself, but it seems you’ve got a fundamentally different view of the issue than the person you’re replying to.

From the majority’s opinion

nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice

Sounds like schools can still look at specific circumstances of a person’s life; just can’t make a blanket assumption that because they look a certain way they must have had things hard or easy.

If the goal is to provide restitution to people who have been impacted by government policies, evaluating whether or not they were actually affected, and to what extent, seems reasonable to me.

Piling on more systemic racism makes things worse, not better. We should focus our efforts on addressing systemic racism in the areas where it still exists, not on compensating for it elsewhere. Provide better funding for schools in low income areas. Support economic development to pull those areas out of poverty, etc.

Why does lemmy consider this post from a year and an half ago to be “hot”?