Hacker News Reader

Comment by geomark | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that's an argument that it is not sexist and racist. It is expressly so. The argument you are making is that it is justified to be expressly sexist and racist to counterbalance past sexism and racism.

View on HN

It is really not “racist” and “sexist” in the way that GP is claiming. But you’re either someone who thinks all instances of discrimination are morally equivalent or not.

I disagree. To say something is sexist or racist would imply that the intent is to favor these groups due to a belief that they are superior, or due to a hatred toward the other groups rather than as a strategy to counter the effects of historical racism/sexism. You could argue they are discriminatory, though.

I guess we must fundamentally disagree. The decision is based on the sex and race of the founder. That speaks for itself. Justification for it is based on history. All the other dressing up is just an attempt to avoid being labeled a racist/sexist.

> The decision is based on the sex and race of the founder.

What you just described is the definition of discrimination, not racism or sexism. These words have meanings and you can look them up. Saying it's racist and sexist is just a disingenuous way to shore up drama when a more accurate (but less provocative) term is available.

Yes, it is discrimination based on sex and race. I think you are arguing that what matters is the feelings of the person when they discriminate. The intent is the same - choose one over the other because of their sex and race. But if they feel they are righting a past wrong then it is not sexism/racism, whereas if they are doing it because they dislike one group then it is sexism/racism. And that is where the fundamental disagreement lies. I don't subscribe to the feelings argument.

It's not about feelings; it's about intent. The intent is not at all the same, and you know it. There's a huge difference between discrimination designed to suppress a group of people, and discrimination designed to give disadvantaged people a chance that they should have been given in the first place. The former describes 200+ years of American history, and the latter describes a handful of efforts in recent history.

From the Merriam-Webster English dictionary:

> sexism > noun sex·ism \ ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm \ > 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

> racism > noun rac·ism \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \ > 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Racism is defined as discrimination based on race or ethnicity.

Sexism is defined as discrimination based on gender or biological sex.

Both are well defined terms in English both in dictionaries and general usage. Stop trying to play games with words and start explaining why you think racism and sexism are ok.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com