I'm with u dude, it's extremely odd phrasing to say that the airbnb "LETS" you run the bookstore when the article makes clear that running the bookstore is a requirement of staying at the airbnb. There's no option described that involves NOT running the bookstore so it seems like an extremely poorly phrased title.

I think it's meant to be parsed more as conveying the sense of opportunity rather than choice. As in "this luxury car lets you experience a comfortable ride."

It sounds like you need to meet more people or you need to provide evidence. Otherwise it’s just a lazy assertion providing no value to the conversation.

Podcasts are a huge market because Americans drive a shitload and an increasing percentage of cars on the road have Bluetooth audio.

You appear not to understand the concept of a safe word.

The entire point of a safe word is that it is SHORT and MEMORABLE, not long and generic. "I quit the experiment" is a highly generic phrase, easily forgotten. Calling that phrase a "safe word" is absolutely absurd.

Also, even if I accepted your argument that "I quit the experiment" Is somehow a "safe word"-- it still wouldn't be technically correct to say, because it's not a word, it's a phrase / sequence of words. Have you ever heard of a "Safe phrase?" Me neither. That's because making a "safe word" a phrase completely defeats the concept of a safe word. It needs to be short enough to be said and understood in as little time as possible. Making a "safe word" a phrase instead of a short and easily-communicable SINGLE WORD is so deceptive and intellectually dishonest that it's clearly a willful and intentional misunderstanding of the safe-word concept. It's trickery, pure and simple.

Good safe word: "Banana."

Bad safe word: "Stop."

Terrible to the point of being unusable safe word: "I quit the experiment."

Zimbardo's lack of addressing this issue in his so-called "rebuttal": pathetic.

Zimbardo has lost all credibility, the fact that this begins with anything but a point-by-point refutation of the Medium article just highlights that fact.

The Medium article was highly illuminating and included so many different sources that Zimbardo's response here just reads as a desperate attempt to regain credibility that's LONG gone.

Realest HN comment of the day. Damore ignored all natural laws (re: conform or get ostracized) to try and make a point about how natural laws will always assert themselves. Ironically he proved his own point that natural laws will always assert themselves by failing to conform and then getting ostracized.

The rest of his argument was pretty incoherent tho.

>Correcting the effects of slavery is much more important because its effects are much more pervasive.

Uh, source?

You're just making an arbitrary value judgement. Who are you to compare the effects of racism-against-blacks against the effects of racism-against-asians? You're making an arbitrary value judgement and then using that value judgement to justify systematic discriminations against Asians.

You're also ignoring the fact that Asians were enslaved too in Japanese internment camps -- and what's more that slavery was more recent than African-American slavery.

Weird to see you throw your own ethnicity under the bus in your haste to agree with the racist value judgements of elite bureaucrats tbh.

And someone who insists on absolute racial blindness is not making a value judgement? Isn't the issue mostly about which group to feel sorry for, why, and how? And you want a literary or published source for that empathy? Or are you saying that it is not self evident that a group, one that has been enslaved for hundreds of years, is not disproportionately poorer, grow up in single-parent households, or experience incarceration? Is that pattern even possible without a history of systematic, long-term oppression?

The way I see it, one group is arguing from a place of historical hardship, and the other is arguing from a place of privilege. I don't mean someone growing up poor in Appalachia as being privileged simply because s/he is white; to me, that historical background definitely counts towards raising diversity. I'm just trying to put myself in other people's shoes. It's not necessarily about race or ethnicity or recentness of oppression, it's the compounded interest of those oppressions and inability to rise out of that enforced debt. Our institutions have to factor that historical indebtedness.

Unless you really put yourself in another person's shoes, I honestly don't think this discussion will go anywhere. I mean, imagine growing up poor in a single household family, going to lowly ranked high schools, being disproportionately more likely to be stopped over and imprisoned for minor offenses, and getting questioned about academic abilities constantly.