Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

That's not so much an argument as it is a tired play on words, an attempt to define away the debate. Your opponents in this debate do not believe that working to correct overt exclusion of women and people of color from the industry is a form of racism or sexism. Meanwhile, everyone agrees that such overt exclusion, if it exists, is racist or sexist.

So you can argue about whether that exclusion exists, but you can't shut down the argument by claiming that it's somehow racist/sexist against white men.

View on HN

> overt exclusion

Low turnout does not imply someone is being excluded.

Different groups of people tend to have different interests.

> everyone agrees that such overt exclusion, if it exists, is racist or sexist.

> So you can argue about whether that exclusion exists, but you can't shut down the argument by claiming that it's somehow racist/sexist against white men.

I don't even know what kind of fallacy this is, but it's definitely out there.

"If this hypothetical thing we made up does exist, that would make your argument wrong, so you can't use that argument."

Whatever pie-in-the-sky claims you want to make, the direct, practical, and real-world effect of these policies is subverting meritocracy and discriminating against groups of people who are political targets (white and Asian men). It is absolutely both racist and sexist in any sane, non-doublespeak sense of the words.

It doesn't, you're right, and I'm not saying it does. "There is no exclusion of women or people of color in technology" is a colorable argument. It's one I think you will ultimately lose, but it's still valid. But that's not the argument they made.

(I'm ignoring the rest of your comment, since I can't map it onto anything I said or anything I'd want to respond to.)

By trying to 'correct overt exclusion of women and people of color from the industry'you will basically treat those people preferential over the prevailing population (i.e. white, asian and jewish men). What's not racist and sexist about that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com