Dudebros was purposefully in quotes -- basically in reference to these days if you aren't a bleeding heart leftist and being actively engaged in being an ally, or other social justice cause (or at least give the facade that you are on social media) you are guilty by association, or at least placed in a less advantageous position versus your similar compatriot who is following the cultural winds. Gone are the times where you can keep your political beliefs at home, which ironically is now a form of workplace discrimination. That's something I think we will find out that previous generations got right.
The previous generation you're referring to is one that actively discriminated against women and people of color in the work force... probably wasn't hard for them to keep politics out of the work place because there was more homogeneity.
Discriminating against those who hold discriminatory views is different than discriminating against people based on their ethnicity or gender. And yes, I fully understand that what is or isn't a "discriminatory viewpoint" can be subjective. My point is that it's still a false equivalency to say that discriminating against someone who thinks women are lesser than them is the same as discriminating against women.
> The previous generation you're referring to is one that actively discriminated against women and people of color in the work force.
Some part of the previous generation did that. Some, obviously, did not, just as some part of the current generation continue to do that, and some do not. In some cases there is a real, legitimate argument that the discrimination has reversed -- there is a lot of discrimination and exclusion going on in this country all in the name of tolerance, inclusion and diversity.
In any case I appreciate you making my point for me.
It appears you're saying that only "100%" and "0%" states are distinguishable from each other, and that the universe of the superposition of states boils down to "some do and some do not", which are all indistinguishable from each other.
Can you clarify that that's what you're asserting? That's what it looks like, and I sincerely hope I'm wrong, because that's a very weird hill to defend.