‘Male’ and ‘female’ plugs and connectors – gendered language

[woody]

To be fair, I can't really say I've done much "good" with the time I've spent in this thread.  It is theoretically possible that I could have discovered something profound tinkering somewhere else.

The more people you add to the list who were impacted, the more you could easily predict that substantial good impact statistically could have been produced in its stead.

I tend to enjoy these types of pondering questions.  In the past I would try to generate the numbers myself. The great thing about AI is that we can do speculative type inquery like this in a hurry.
I prompted Gemini with these:

Code: [Select]

Generally speaking, what is the estimated number of hours spent on woke, dei, or other similar objective training, discussions, meetings. Unless there's research, just generalize something for the past 15 yearsand then

Code: [Select]

total this for the numbers of people generally covered under such Western things in those countries involved and include the guess of time spent on it for discussion and meetings
Conservative scenario (100 million core workers): ~7.6 billion hours
Upper-bound scenario (150 million workers, including frequent ERG leads): ~11.4 billion hours

7.6 billion hours. 

I asked ChatGPT the same but replaced woke, DEI etc with 'drinking coffee'. The answer, for the 88 million workers in the 6 countries it had data available for (Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK):

    ~88 million people × ~1,375 hours = ~121 billion person-hours of coffee breaks over 15 years.

Oops!

[Cyclotron]

To be fair, I can't really say I've done much "good" with the time I've spent in this thread.  It is theoretically possible that I could have discovered something profound tinkering somewhere else.

The more people you add to the list who were impacted, the more you could easily predict that substantial good impact statistically could have been produced in its stead.

I tend to enjoy these types of pondering questions.  In the past I would try to generate the numbers myself. The great thing about AI is that we can do speculative type inquery like this in a hurry.
I prompted Gemini with these:

Code: [Select]

Generally speaking, what is the estimated number of hours spent on woke, dei, or other similar objective training, discussions, meetings. Unless there's research, just generalize something for the past 15 yearsand then

Code: [Select]

total this for the numbers of people generally covered under such Western things in those countries involved and include the guess of time spent on it for discussion and meetings
Conservative scenario (100 million core workers): ~7.6 billion hours
Upper-bound scenario (150 million workers, including frequent ERG leads): ~11.4 billion hours

7.6 billion hours. 

I asked ChatGPT the same but replaced woke, DEI etc with 'drinking coffee'. The answer, for the 88 million workers in the 6 countries it had data available for (Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK):

    ~88 million people × ~1,375 hours = ~121 billion person-hours of coffee breaks over 15 years.

Oops!

Except drinking fluid and breaks are required and are healthy. See false equivalence.

Oops.

[tszaboo]

I asked ChatGPT the same but replaced woke, DEI etc with 'drinking coffee'. The answer, for the 88 million workers in the 6 countries it had data available for (Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK):

    ~88 million people × ~1,375 hours = ~121 billion person-hours of coffee breaks over 15 years.

Oops!

Far comparison. One group wants to get through the work day, and maybe increase the productivity.
The other group fights to destroy western civilization as we have it. Time almost as well spent.

Nope.  Race science is psuedoscience.

This is all true, unless you actually look at the data. As I linked before, they had sequenced the entire human DNA and grouped people by it. The headlines that say "no difference" usually quote a single number of genetic difference, losing all nuance. It's like saying there is no difference between humans because we are mostly made out of water anyway.

[paulca]

We share something like 90% of our genes with cabbages.  Although for some people I swear thats higher.

[tom66]

This is all true, unless you actually look at the data. As I linked before, they had sequenced the entire human DNA and grouped people by it. The headlines that say "no difference" usually quote a single number of genetic difference, losing all nuance. It's like saying there is no difference between humans because we are mostly made out of water anyway.

No, it's not true in any objective sense; whilst you can say that someone who has black skin colour might have some genes more prominent than other genes (like the ones that code for increased melanin production), you can't do a DNA test on someone and say objectively what ethnicity that person is.  Because there's more variation inside a group than the average variation between individuals.  It isn't a useful correlation.  Across a large population you might be able to do some better correlations, but you still have to ask that population what group they think they belong to to fit it to one label or another.  You can think of it in the same way that there is no way to know that someone will have blonde hair or blue eyes just by doing a DNA test, since there are too many variations in the genome to pin such specific traits down.

So, if ethnicity/race is established to be a sociological opinion (the opinion of the individual and/or of society) it obviously does not mean anything when it comes to selecting people for a job.  And therefore it should be excluded as part of the decision making process.  Which is the law in the UK and is perfectly reasonable.  And that's all the EDI course I did said on the matter. 

A lot of people construe DEI / EDI with more malicious policies where there can be an aim to change society at large by, for instance, sacking people in the wrong groups. And I agree, so-called "positive" discrimination is not ok. 

[tszaboo]

This is all true, unless you actually look at the data. As I linked before, they had sequenced the entire human DNA and grouped people by it. The headlines that say "no difference" usually quote a single number of genetic difference, losing all nuance. It's like saying there is no difference between humans because we are mostly made out of water anyway.

No, it's not true in any objective sense; whilst you can say that someone who has black skin colour might have some genes more prominent than other genes (like the ones that code for increased melanin production), you can't do a DNA test on someone and say objectively what ethnicity that person is.  Because there's more variation inside a group than the average variation between individuals.  It isn't a useful correlation.  Across a large population you might be able to do some better correlations, but you still have to ask that population what group they think they belong to to fit it to one label or another.  You can think of it in the same way that there is no way to know that someone will have blonde hair or blue eyes just by doing a DNA test, since there are too many variations in the genome to pin such specific traits down.

So, if ethnicity/race is established to be a sociological opinion (the opinion of the individual and/or of society) it obviously does not mean anything when it comes to selecting people for a job.  And therefore it should be excluded as part of the decision making process.  Which is the law in the UK and is perfectly reasonable.  And that's all the EDI course I did said on the matter. 

A lot of people construe DEI / EDI with more malicious policies where there can be an aim to change society at large by, for instance, sacking people in the wrong groups. And I agree, so-called "positive" discrimination is not ok.

This is just for the Europeans. If you do the same for more groups, you will find that there is about two order of magnitude less different genes between me and a random Irish guy, than someone from another continent.

But feel fre to deny the science.

[dcrookston]

Maybe consider or reflect on why you felt the need to post that false equivocation?  That's about all I got.   

I'm sorry, I don't understand.  Am I just being autistic?  You said something straightforward and false.

[dcrookston]

Yes. I am familiar with that argument. I have studied critical race theory. The fact that elements of it are so widely accepted by society, including this forum, is really alarming. It's good to post it for the benefit of others who haven't had the time or inclination to research CRT.

I don't know much about CRT, except what I learned by skimming the wikipedia article.  May I ask what you don't like about it?  My understanding is that it's basically "racism is systemic and not due to individual people actively suppressing anyone."

If race were truly a social construct, then genes wouldn't mater at all and no one would have a problem with a European person identifying as black or whatever, but Rachel Dolezal's (look here up, if you're unfamiliar) experience shows otherwise.

Race really is biological not social. People look at another person and within a few seconds determine them as other by their facial features. It's true there are other cues such as dress and language and it doesn't always align perfectly with genetics, but we mustn't be fooled by critical race theory.

Well, it's both, isn't it?  Social constructs can be based on physical reality while not accurately capturing all the nuances.  I don't think that anyone (except some genuine loonies) are out there saying that race or gender are completely unrelated to biological realities.  But the way we categorize people (black, asian, man, woman) is necessarily simplistic and does not reflect the complex realities of genetics and biological sex.  We use these categories because they're useful, and they work most of the time, but the extent to which they do not reflect reality is the same extent to which they are merely social constructs.

As far as the genetic tests that tell you where your ancestors are from... there's so much "that's not how it works" there that any time I try to write a response I start to suffer exisential dread and can't go on.

I only briefly heard about Rachel Dolezal.  My understanding is that the backlash against her was mostly because she lied about her genetics.  I grew up in an area that was mostly black people, and I can tell you that it's entirely possible for a white person to be accepted as socially black without trying to conceal their actual genetics.  Ms. Dolezal knowingly deceived her audience, which is not the best way to win a popularity contest.  I'm sure there were people who had complaints about appropriation as well, but I don't really pay attention to complaints or arguments about cultural appropriation so 

[dcrookston]

You can think of it in the same way that there is no way to know that someone will have blonde hair or blue eyes just by doing a DNA test

It seems that you are making a sort of "god of the gaps" argument here, if you'll excuse my mangling a metaphor.  We cannot currently determine a person's hair or eye color based on a DNA test.  That does not mean it is impossible to determine a person's hair or eye color from a DNA test.  If it became possible to reconstruct a person's physical appearance based on their genome, would you change your position?

Also, surely you know the difference between genotype and phenotype?  Our ideas about race are based on phenotype (the physical characteristics we can see,) not genotype.  Everyone contains a lot of genes that are not expressed at all, or expressed incompletely.  That doesn't change the fact that we all have physical characteristics that can be seen and categorized.

It also seems like you're making the mistake of saying that because the boundaries between categories are not clear cut, that the categories do not actually exist.  Or that the categories we have invented are somehow not representative of reality.  That's a pretty tough position to support when everyone knows from their lived experience that it's possible to identify (with better-than-random accuracy) what race / ethnicity someone is just by looking at them.  Not 100% accuracy, but nobody's claiming our categories are perfect.  Just that they're useful.

[Zero999]

It is worth noting that race and ethnicity are social constructs.   They are not real in any sense of the word.   There is no DNA test or biological test that can show someone is Spanish or black or whatever else.  We can look at the how the DNA compares to people who identify as being Spanish and say someone is 85% similar to that but also 40% similar to someone from Norway, etc.  So race/ethnicity (they more or less mean the same thing but ethnicity is the more modern term) is based on someone's statement of their background.  If someone says they are Spanish then they are Spanish.  They might be more broadly categorised into a white southern European group.  On their passport however it probably would say that their nationality is Spanish and place of birth in Spain, we would call a person like that "Spanish" and I don't think most Spanish people would find that offensive, but it's up to them to correct it if they want.

In reality, if you can trace your family back to the same country more than a few generations, then more often than not your DNA will match your ethnicity. The exception is in multiracial societies such as most of the New World, where the majority are mixed in some way, although even then more often than not if your DNA is around half-West African you'll be noticeably black and treated as such by society.

If race were truly a social construct, then genes wouldn't mater at all and no one would have a problem with a European person identifying as black or whatever, but Rachel Dolezal's (look here up, if you're unfamiliar) experience shows otherwise.

Race really is biological not social. People look at another person and within a few seconds determine them as other by their facial features. It's true there are other cues such as dress and language and it doesn't always align perfectly with genetics, but we mustn't be fooled by critical race theory.

Nope.  Race science is psuedoscience.

Just because the original scientific theories regarding race were incorrect, it doesn't mean that it isn't biological, or that it doesn't exist.

Critical race theory which starts of with the premise that race is a social construct is pseudoscience.

  There is no biological fact of race.

Genetic studies consistently show that there is far more genetic variation within any given racial group than between different groups.

So what? There is greater genetic variation between wild animals within the same species, compared to domestic animals which have been selectively bread, yet differing breads look vastly different to one another, compared to the naturally occurring variation in the wild species.

Human genetic variation is continuous and clinal (gradual change over geographic distance) rather than neatly divisible into distinct, discrete categories.

There is gradual variation, but when populations have been isolated from one another for thousands of generations, they become more stark.

While individuals inherit specific geographical ancestry (which can influence traits like skin pigmentation or susceptibility to certain localised diseases), the concept of "race" as a rigid biological taxonomy is arbitrary and culturally defined rather than scientifically validated.

No it is not culturally defined, because when someone looks at another individual and notices their inherited characteristics are starkly different to their own i.e. hair texture, skin colour, facial features etc. they determine them to be another ethnic group.

There are merely correlations between people that share appearances and backgrounds.  The idea that you can deterministically say someone is black or white or whatever is false.  Race exists only as a social classification which people can opt into.  Race is also ascribed by society, for instance, a US police report may describe someone as "African American" even if they have "black skin colour" with no particular association with the USA.

And the correlations between appearances are due to genetics. I can normally tell the difference between an Italian and an English person, just by looking at their facial features. Heck, went to a Rotary event in Ukraine, where there were Georgians as well as Ukrainians the differences between the two races were obvious to me, even though we were all wearing roughly the same attire and I could not distinguish between their accents.

And whilst I think Dolezal is/was a nutter, because race is a social construct, she's free to call herself whatever she wants.

Why do you think she's a nutter?

She does not have to be accepted by the wider group to think that she is that race.  It's a free association.

Do you apply that same rational to someone who is biologically male but believes they're a woman?

[Cyclotron]

Maybe consider or reflect on why you felt the need to post that false equivocation?  That's about all I got.   

I'm sorry, I don't understand.  Am I just being autistic?  You said something straightforward and false.

Well, from one person who suffers from autism to another, did you look up "false equivocation"? 
   
If you did, start there and tell me what you don't understand.

If you didn't look it up, start there, and if you have questions, see the prior if statement if you are unclear.

[EEVblog]

A lot of people construe DEI / EDI with more malicious policies where there can be an aim to change society at large by, for instance, sacking people in the wrong groups. And I agree, so-called "positive" discrimination is not ok.

But that's the outcome of the entire DEI movement.

[paulca]

A lot of people construe DEI / EDI with more malicious policies where there can be an aim to change society at large by, for instance, sacking people in the wrong groups. And I agree, so-called "positive" discrimination is not ok.

But that's the outcome of the entire DEI movement.

Yep and they don't even hide it when it's at it's extreme.  "Affirmative action".   Is literally racial selection and firing.

Thats not all they "hid" in there.  What does the E stand for?  You think it stands for "equality", think again.  Look closer.  A lot of them have just quietly replaced it with "Equity" which has quite different implications.   It isn't "apt" in a capitalise societies or arguable in a functional one.

[Cyclotron]

A lot of people construe DEI / EDI with more malicious policies where there can be an aim to change society at large by, for instance, sacking people in the wrong groups. And I agree, so-called "positive" discrimination is not ok.

But that's the outcome of the entire DEI movement.

Yep and they don't even hide it when it's at it's extreme.  "Affirmative action".   Is literally racial selection and firing.

Thats not all they "hid" in there.  What does the E stand for?  You think it stands for "equality", think again.  Look closer.  A lot of them have just quietly replaced it with "Equity" which has quite different implications.   It isn't "apt" in a capitalise societies or arguable in a functional one.

I had not really thought about the socialist dogma embedded in these destructive policies and actions. That's settling in my mind now. Wow.
It's striking now the juxtaposition of this consideration with the common refrain I hear from coworkers no matter their political believes, "back to the retracing camp with you". 

[tszaboo]

A lot of people construe DEI / EDI with more malicious policies where there can be an aim to change society at large by, for instance, sacking people in the wrong groups. And I agree, so-called "positive" discrimination is not ok.

But that's the outcome of the entire DEI movement.

Yep and they don't even hide it when it's at it's extreme.  "Affirmative action".   Is literally racial selection and firing.

Thats not all they "hid" in there.  What does the E stand for?  You think it stands for "equality", think again.  Look closer.  A lot of them have just quietly replaced it with "Equity" which has quite different implications.   It isn't "apt" in a capitalise societies or arguable in a functional one.

I had not really thought about the socialist dogma embedded in these destructive policies and actions. That's settling in my mind now. Wow.
It's striking now the juxtaposition of this consideration with the common refrain I hear from coworkers no matter their political believes, "back to the retracing camp with you".

I never heard actually spell it out loud, but I think this is what's happening:
So communism was the revolution of the working class, taking away the lives, money of the rich people.
What we have now in woke, left, SJW and all these kinds is the same thing. Except they moved from the working class people to the unemployed, to people who have no skills that would be useful to society. And taking the same principles. basically instead of the "rich farm owner who can employ like 5 other people" that they hate (and want dead) it's now everyone who has a job by merit. It's moving from the "proletariat" to the "tunyejadstvo" or "тунеядство".

[paulca]

I think they have already made ground on that Equality -> Equity as the common privacy restrictions on salaries has been eroded away nearly completely and open salary discussion and sharing is common and not discouraged anymore.

Thats the first step.  Make salaries "searchable" and you put the employees against each other.  "Why does so and so get paid 10k more than me? We have the same job title!"

And so it starts.  "We should all be paid the same regardless of what value we actually add"

EDIT:
Putting my own "socialist" hat on though.  I have been known to get annoyed with people "bending" the labour equation.  For example.  "Work extra hours" = "Get a bonus/promotion".   This is unfair to those who simply can't ... due to kids etc.  Or is it?

A harder point to argue lunch breaks.  People who work lunch breaks devalue the labour of others who don't.  If they work an extra hour every day for the same "salary rate", they are literally under cutting the market and should be treated with hostility.

But thats less of a "socialist" view/hat and more of a "labour" point of view a union like point of view.  The labour contract needs to be kept clear and have solid boundaries or it shifts into "exploitation" rapidly.

[Cyclotron]

I think they have already made ground on that Equality -> Equity as the common privacy restrictions on salaries has been eroded away nearly completely and open salary discussion and sharing is common and not discouraged anymore.

Thats the first step.  Make salaries "searchable" and you put the employees against each other.  "Why does so and so get paid 10k more than me? We have the same job title!"

And so it starts.  "We should all be paid the same regardless of what value we actually add"

EDIT:
Putting my own "socialist" hat on though.  I have been known to get annoyed with people "bending" the labour equation.  For example.  "Work extra hours" = "Get a bonus/promotion".   This is unfair to those who simply can't ... due to kids etc.  Or is it?

A harder point to argue lunch breaks.  People who work lunch breaks devalue the labour of others who don't.  If they work an extra hour every day for the same "salary rate", they are literally under cutting the market and should be treated with hostility.

But thats less of a "socialist" view/hat and more of a "labour" point of view a union like point of view.  The labour contract needs to be kept clear and have solid boundaries or it shifts into "exploitation" rapidly.

I don't see your socialist hat being all that "socialist," to be honest. Managers who reward people for working extra hours outside of the standard compensation aren't doing their jobs properly. It isn't in the company's best interest to reward those activities outside of compensation for hours because it creates an unrealistic view of the possible work outcomes. When someone leaves, the new person may not be interested in working extra hours. The long term impacts of this management style are negative.

Individuals are ranked and compensated based on their merit. But teams should be too if the process is expected to work. So I see many of your issues as being about calling out a teammate. There are always star players on a ball team, but if they are asses, the team suffers, and it likely impacts their ability to win.

[dcrookston]

Well, from one person who suffers from autism to another, did you look up "false equivocation"? 
   
If you did, start there and tell me what you don't understand.

If you didn't look it up, start there, and if you have questions, see the prior if statement if you are unclear.

I don't understand why you would accuse me of something I didn't do.  Perhaps you can demonstrate my error by showing examples taken from the original text?

[Zero999]

I think they have already made ground on that Equality -> Equity as the common privacy restrictions on salaries has been eroded away nearly completely and open salary discussion and sharing is common and not discouraged anymore.

Thats the first step.  Make salaries "searchable" and you put the employees against each other.  "Why does so and so get paid 10k more than me? We have the same job title!"

And so it starts.  "We should all be paid the same regardless of what value we actually add"

EDIT:
Putting my own "socialist" hat on though.  I have been known to get annoyed with people "bending" the labour equation.  For example.  "Work extra hours" = "Get a bonus/promotion".   This is unfair to those who simply can't ... due to kids etc.  Or is it?

A harder point to argue lunch breaks.  People who work lunch breaks devalue the labour of others who don't.  If they work an extra hour every day for the same "salary rate", they are literally under cutting the market and should be treated with hostility.

But thats less of a "socialist" view/hat and more of a "labour" point of view a union like point of view.  The labour contract needs to be kept clear and have solid boundaries or it shifts into "exploitation" rapidly.

I know this is anecdotal but I've noticed that men who have children often work harder than those who don't and that single men tend to work the least hard. I put this down to the fact that single men don't have partners to spend money on an men who also have children need to earn even more. The situation appears to be the reverse for women. Single women work more than mothers who quite often work part time, allowing them more time to look after their children. I know I am generalising and there are exceptions, but it explains the gender pay gap quite well.

I agree with the above comments regarding DEI to be a form of socialism. In theory there's nothing wrong with the idea of affirmative action, if it means when there are two equally qualified candidates for a job, selecting the one from an underrepresented minority/poorer background but that's clearly not how it works in real life.

I not a lawyer but I believe part of the way the anti-discrimination laws in the US and UK are written and implemented. Lawyers have managed to successfully argue that any policies which negatively affect minorities are a form of indirect discrimination i.e. making applicants take tests tests which a racial minority is less likely to pass, even if conducted in a colourblind manner are racist and should not be allowed..

[Cyclotron]

Well, from one person who suffers from autism to another, did you look up "false equivocation"? 
   
If you did, start there and tell me what you don't understand.

If you didn't look it up, start there, and if you have questions, see the prior if statement if you are unclear.

I don't understand why you would accuse me of something I didn't do.  Perhaps you can demonstrate my error by showing examples taken from the original text?

Assuming you are confirming you feel you understand the concept of false equivocation, its easy. Show me how your accusations are equal to the legal concept that was the subject of your commentary. This is simple science/math.

[Cyclotron]

I not a lawyer but I believe part of the way the anti-discrimination laws in the US and UK are written and implemented. Lawyers have managed to successfully argue that any policies which negatively affect minorities are a form of indirect discrimination i.e. making applicants take tests tests which a racial minority is less likely to pass, even if conducted in a colourblind manner are racist and should not be allowed..

Affirmative action in practice was found to violate anti-discrimination law and hence why it was struck down in the US.

[fourfathom]

Managers who reward people for working extra hours outside of the standard compensation aren't doing their jobs properly. It isn't in the company's best interest to reward those activities outside of compensation for hours because it creates an unrealistic view of the possible work outcomes. When someone leaves, the new person may not be interested in working extra hours. The long term impacts of this management style are negative.

It depends, doesn't it?  Most of my engineering career has been as "salaried exempt", where I got a fixed salary whether I worked 20 hours or 80 hours a week.  My raises and promotions and future opportunities were based on my results, and the combined results of the entire company.  I often had stock-options so there was motivation beyond just my salary.  In my last two companies this paid off very well for me, and for all our employees.

So as I see it, depending on the company and your role, there can be strong justification for encouraging and rewarding extra hours worked.  I reject the concept of "wage slave" -- at least in the USA employees are allowed to quit. (In my first full-time job I ran a drill press and we worked 10 hours a day, four days a week.  My boss said we had Friday off so we could look for a better job.)

[Bud]

Overtime is not supposed to be used at a will. Usually it is a necessity to support business operations. And it should be written in the job description and officially paid for, double rate perhaps. If an employee leaves the role, the replacement employee will have to work overtime too, because it is part of the role.

[dcrookston]

Assuming you are confirming you feel you understand the concept of false equivocation, its easy. Show me how your accusations are equal to the legal concept that was the subject of your commentary. This is simple science/math.

I take issue with your use of the word "accusations."  I was offering a correction to your false statement that all forms of discrimination are illegal.

For supporting evidence, here is an excerpt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Emphasis mine.  If your position were correct, the bolded words and the list of protected categories would not be included.  As we are given an explicit list of bases on which we may not discriminate, it follows that discrimination based on traits or categories not mentioned remains legal.

And we have court cases upholding my position.  Rucho v Common Cause (2019) considers whether the 2016 North Carolina Congressional Plan is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 1st Amendment.  (As I'm sure you know, the Equal Protection Clause was added to guarantee rights to black Americans, making this case relevant to the question of discrimination.)  SCOTUS upheld the lower court's ruling that the 2016 plan violates the Constitution, which is irrelevant.  What is relevant is their reasoning when making this decision.  I trust you can follow along without any trouble, but I am worried that I might not reproduce the chain of logic very well (or may not do a good job of communicating it) so here is a link to the entire decision if you want to look it over yourself:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1295/44836/20180427114851513_17-1295%20Rucho%20v%20Common%20Cause%20Motion%20to%20Affirm%20by%20the%20Common%20Cause%20Appellees.pdf

The appellants argued that the District Court failed to adopt a "predominant intent" standard, which SCOTUS has applied in racial gerrymandering cases in the past, which is how this ties into our discussion about discrimination.  There are two analytically distinct lines of racial-gerrymandering cases, and a "predominant intent" test only applies in one of them.  One of these analytical lines is from Gomillion v Lightfoot (1960,) the Gomillion line, and the other is from Shaw v Reno (1993), the Shaw line.

In the Gomillion line of decisions, SCOTUS has never applied a "predominant intent" standard, relying instead on an "invidious intent" standard.  In the Gomillion line, proving invidious intent is sufficient to make the inclusion of racial consideration a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The Shaw line of cases require proof that the map-drawers considered race in the drawing of district lines, and that racial considerations were the predominant consideration.  It is not required that invidious intent be proven in the Shaw line, as race-based considerations are "uniquely odious," and they therefore prohibit even well-intentioned use of race (as the predominating factor) when redrawing voting districts.

SCOTUS rejects the appellants' argument regarding "predominant intent," as the appellants themselves openly admitted that they had invidious intent; therefore the predominant intent standard does not apply, and their case would fall under the invidious intent line.

Now we get to the important part:

The legitimate use of political classifications does not violate the Equal Protection Clause even if political considerations “predominate.”  The District Court’s test, therefore, makes partisan gerrymandering claims harder to prove than racial ones. Racial-gerrymandering plaintiffs may show either invidious intent (Gomillion) or the predominance of racial considerations notwithstanding the absence of invidious intent (Shaw); partisan-gerrymandering plaintiffs can succeed under the District Court’s test only by proving invidiousness.

So there we have it.  It is perfectly fine to discriminate based on political affiliation, so long as you are not discriminating with invidious intent.

[Cyclotron]

Assuming you are confirming you feel you understand the concept of false equivocation, its easy. Show me how your accusations are equal to the legal concept that was the subject of your commentary. This is simple science/math.

I take issue with your use of the word "accusations."  I was offering a correction to your false statement that all forms of discrimination are illegal.

For supporting evidence, here is an excerpt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Emphasis mine.  If your position were correct, the bolded words and the list of protected categories would not be included.  As we are given an explicit list of bases on which we may not discriminate, it follows that discrimination based on traits or categories not mentioned remains legal.

And we have court cases upholding my position.  Rucho v Common Cause (2019) considers whether the 2016 North Carolina Congressional Plan is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 1st Amendment.  (As I'm sure you know, the Equal Protection Clause was added to guarantee rights to black Americans, making this case relevant to the question of discrimination.)  SCOTUS upheld the lower court's ruling that the 2016 plan violates the Constitution, which is irrelevant.  What is relevant is their reasoning when making this decision.  I trust you can follow along without any trouble, but I am worried that I might not reproduce the chain of logic very well (or may not do a good job of communicating it) so here is a link to the entire decision if you want to look it over yourself:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1295/44836/20180427114851513_17-1295%20Rucho%20v%20Common%20Cause%20Motion%20to%20Affirm%20by%20the%20Common%20Cause%20Appellees.pdf

The appellants argued that the District Court failed to adopt a "predominant intent" standard, which SCOTUS has applied in racial gerrymandering cases in the past, which is how this ties into our discussion about discrimination.  There are two analytically distinct lines of racial-gerrymandering cases, and a "predominant intent" test only applies in one of them.  One of these analytical lines is from Gomillion v Lightfoot (1960,) the Gomillion line, and the other is from Shaw v Reno (1993), the Shaw line.

In the Gomillion line of decisions, SCOTUS has never applied a "predominant intent" standard, relying instead on an "invidious intent" standard.  In the Gomillion line, proving invidious intent is sufficient to make the inclusion of racial consideration a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The Shaw line of cases require proof that the map-drawers considered race in the drawing of district lines, and that racial considerations were the predominant consideration.  It is not required that invidious intent be proven in the Shaw line, as race-based considerations are "uniquely odious," and they therefore prohibit even well-intentioned use of race (as the predominating factor) when redrawing voting districts.

SCOTUS rejects the appellants' argument regarding "predominant intent," as the appellants themselves openly admitted that they had invidious intent; therefore the predominant intent standard does not apply, and their case would fall under the invidious intent line.

Now we get to the important part:

The legitimate use of political classifications does not violate the Equal Protection Clause even if political considerations “predominate.”  The District Court’s test, therefore, makes partisan gerrymandering claims harder to prove than racial ones. Racial-gerrymandering plaintiffs may show either invidious intent (Gomillion) or the predominance of racial considerations notwithstanding the absence of invidious intent (Shaw); partisan-gerrymandering plaintiffs can succeed under the District Court’s test only by proving invidiousness.

So there we have it.  It is perfectly fine to discriminate based on political affiliation, so long as you are not discriminating with invidious intent.

You used the base term "accuse" first.  You seem to be taking exception with yourself, you can keep that private. Maybe you don't know what those terms mean either?

More straw manning and false equivocation.

Pro-tip, don't take words out of context, make some pedantic claim, generate a straw man to back up your claim, make a false equivocation and stand their snuggly and say you're correcting someone.

If you don't understand the context of the topic being discussed and only have such petty things to say, don't be surprised when you get corrected. Take your content and consider how you might have spent that time and effort actually having an intelligent discussion about the topic at hand.