4 ms·

There's no need to add something new. I'm just resisting the rise of these new more insidious forms of racism and sexism.

by b6 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago
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.
- lobster2 9y ago
  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?
- wyager 9y ago
  > 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.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    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.)
dang 9y ago
> There's no need to add something new. "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There's no need to add something new. I'm just resisting the rise of these new more insidious forms of racism and sexism.

by b6 9y ago

There's no need to add something new. I'm just resisting the rise of these new more insidious forms of racism and sexism.

tptacek 9y ago

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.

lobster2 9y ago
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?
wyager 9y ago
> 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.
- tptacek 9y ago
  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.)

dang 9y ago

> There's no need to add something new. "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html