5 ms·

> I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of his racist sycophants. Much appreciated, but the way you word this implies that if some one di

by mises 7y ago

> I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of his racist sycophants. Much appreciated, but the way you word this implies that if some one disagrees with you, he is a racist sycophant. > Every one of his racist sycophants I've ever encountered have been men. But I've usually heard "man splaining" defined as a man explaining "at" a woman. Have all the targets of his "racist sycophants" been women? You are making sex an issue where it does not need to be one. > Many how have an extremely simplistic, distorted understanding of what racism is. That doesn't make them right. You can't just claim every one who disagrees with your point of view on this has a "simplistic, distorted understanding" without supporting that. My understanding is pretty simple: racism is deliberately treating people differently because of race. I guess you could take that as simple, but I view it as a stark moral wrong and so don't see the need for a more complex one. If you disagree, please feel free to discuss why. > criticizing their political beliefs by associating them with Eric Raymond's racist beliefs No reason to try to draw a baseless association between other stuff and bad stuff some one has said. > objective facts. Any thing you didn't provide a link for I consider subjective. You can't declare your opinions "the objective fact". > If they don't have a problem with the hostile political messages that ESR adulterates all of his arguments with, then they should be able to tolerate mine too. I don't like the political message with which he adulterates his beliefs, nor did I say I did. I opened my above reply by criticizing him. However, I see no reason why I cannot criticize you for adding unnecessary political opinions to a discussion. > Perhaps they should read ESR's Sex Tips for Geeks This whole "writing" seems to be contemptible. I'm not defending it. In summary, I'm not defending this guy; I don't like him either. I just don't like the way you stated your objection.

DonHopkins 7y ago
> My understanding is pretty simple: racism is deliberately treating people differently because of race. That's precisely what I meant by a simplistic, distorted (mis)understanding of racism. I could refer you to wikipedia, but that would be leading a horse to water.
- mises 7y ago
  Merriam webster, 3: racial prejudice or discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism Seems pretty simple to me. I could be sarcastic and snarky too, but I'm not going to. If you've got a reason to prefer your definition, I'm genuinely open to being convinced other wise. Affirmative action is, by that definition, racist. Do you have a different definition which is for some reason preferable which states otherwise?
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    You're wrong. Read the entire definition again, this time not skipping 2/3 of the meanings. Affirmative action is certainly not based on the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". Quite the opposite. You led yourself to water, and still didn't drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism: "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity." How exactly is affirmative action based on the belief that one race is superior to another, and how exactly is it discrimination and prejudice? Affirmative action's aim is meant to compensate for the effects of discrimination and prejudice, and it's based on the belief that races are equal. The opposite of racism, not the definition of racism. But if you want to ignore those important facts, and contradict the actual meaning of both the dictionary and wikipedia definitions of racism, in order to cling to Eric Raymond's conveniently simplistic mis-definition of racism, which is based on his mistaken beliefs that races are not equal, go knock yourself out. When you lay down with the dogs, you get up with fleas. Are you going to whine about "reverse discrimination" next?
    - mises 7y ago
      > not skipping 2/3 of the meaning No, I picked the third definition entry. You have to give me a better reason to prefer than "it's got a lower number in Merriam Webster's". More importantly, affirmative actions essentially posits that black people cannot get ahead because of an inherent characteristic - skin color. It says that race effectively determines the capacity of a black without other intervention. It's demeaning. > Labor force participation != gender equality. If women want to stay home, it's their choice. Wage equality is a bogus measurement, especially considering that men move more, stay overtime (including unpaid) more, die more on the job, work outside more, work more hours, etc. Same goes for estimated earned income. Gender ratio of bureaucrats is inconsequential; fewer women run. Again, their choice. Professional and technical workers again bogus; their choice. Literacy is fine in a nation where every one is supposed to be literate (such as America), but college and post-grad are again choices and therefore bogus. Life expectancy is bogus; women live longer and so that can't be counted. Women in parliament is bogus; not all nations have those. Also, again, people choose to run or not run for office; fewer women run in America. Ministerial positions are what, exactly? This is clearly written for commonwealth nations and those set up according to the English prototype. America is not, therefore she is not easily compared in this area. Years with female head of state is bogus. Individual choices. It is discrimination and prejudice when you down-weight the application of a more-qualified asian to a less-qualified black. That is definitionally discriminatory and prejudicial, as you are attempting to select more blacks at the expense of others because of race. > Affirmative action's aim is meant to compensate for the effects of discrimination and prejudice, and it's based on the belief that races are equal. The opposite of racism, not the definition of racism. What discrimination? What prejudice? Blacks are equal. Can you quantify any? > But if you want to ignore those important facts, and contradict the actual meaning of both the dictionary and wikipedia definitions of racism, in order to cling to Eric Raymond's conveniently simplistic mis-definition of racism, which is based on his mistaken beliefs that races are not equal, go knock yourself out. When you lay down with the dogs, you get up with fleas. I'm not sticking with Eric Raymond's definition, I'm using the one which I believe to be correct. You can't use yours, other wise saying blacks can't vote would technically not be racist (by your definition only) if you didn't believe they were inferior but did so for purposes of politics. Your definition takes the issue to one of belief (which cannot be quantified), whereas mine deals with concrete actions. That said, the burden to prove your definition is still on you, and you haven't actually defended the substance of the definition based on its merits. You've just said "mine's got a higher number in the dictionary". > Are you going to whine about "reverse discrimination" next? Depends on the definition, again. By my definition, [0] qualifies (music festival tried to charge whites double). By yours, it wasn't based on a belief of superiority and so didn't qualify. However, I don't believe there is significant racism on either side. [0] https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/festival-white-people-of-color-backtracks-tickets https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/festival-white-people-...
eesmith 7y ago
> My understanding is pretty simple: racism is deliberately treating people differently because of race. Out of curiosity, I looked through your history and found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727302#19737906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727302#19737906 where you decided to use the Wikipedia definition of racism - "the belief in the superiority of another" - to support your argument that a facial recognition systems which provided more precise results for light skinned people was not 'unintentionally racist'. Have you changed your mind in the last three months?

by mises 7y ago

DonHopkins 7y ago

> My understanding is pretty simple: racism is deliberately treating people differently because of race. That's precisely what I meant by a simplistic, distorted (mis)understanding of racism. I could refer you to wikipedia, but that would be leading a horse to water.

mises 7y ago
Merriam webster, 3: racial prejudice or discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism Seems pretty simple to me. I could be sarcastic and snarky too, but I'm not going to. If you've got a reason to prefer your definition, I'm genuinely open to being convinced other wise. Affirmative action is, by that definition, racist. Do you have a different definition which is for some reason preferable which states otherwise?
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  You're wrong. Read the entire definition again, this time not skipping 2/3 of the meanings. Affirmative action is certainly not based on the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". Quite the opposite. You led yourself to water, and still didn't drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism: "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity." How exactly is affirmative action based on the belief that one race is superior to another, and how exactly is it discrimination and prejudice? Affirmative action's aim is meant to compensate for the effects of discrimination and prejudice, and it's based on the belief that races are equal. The opposite of racism, not the definition of racism. But if you want to ignore those important facts, and contradict the actual meaning of both the dictionary and wikipedia definitions of racism, in order to cling to Eric Raymond's conveniently simplistic mis-definition of racism, which is based on his mistaken beliefs that races are not equal, go knock yourself out. When you lay down with the dogs, you get up with fleas. Are you going to whine about "reverse discrimination" next?
  - mises 7y ago
    > not skipping 2/3 of the meaning No, I picked the third definition entry. You have to give me a better reason to prefer than "it's got a lower number in Merriam Webster's". More importantly, affirmative actions essentially posits that black people cannot get ahead because of an inherent characteristic - skin color. It says that race effectively determines the capacity of a black without other intervention. It's demeaning. > Labor force participation != gender equality. If women want to stay home, it's their choice. Wage equality is a bogus measurement, especially considering that men move more, stay overtime (including unpaid) more, die more on the job, work outside more, work more hours, etc. Same goes for estimated earned income. Gender ratio of bureaucrats is inconsequential; fewer women run. Again, their choice. Professional and technical workers again bogus; their choice. Literacy is fine in a nation where every one is supposed to be literate (such as America), but college and post-grad are again choices and therefore bogus. Life expectancy is bogus; women live longer and so that can't be counted. Women in parliament is bogus; not all nations have those. Also, again, people choose to run or not run for office; fewer women run in America. Ministerial positions are what, exactly? This is clearly written for commonwealth nations and those set up according to the English prototype. America is not, therefore she is not easily compared in this area. Years with female head of state is bogus. Individual choices. It is discrimination and prejudice when you down-weight the application of a more-qualified asian to a less-qualified black. That is definitionally discriminatory and prejudicial, as you are attempting to select more blacks at the expense of others because of race. > Affirmative action's aim is meant to compensate for the effects of discrimination and prejudice, and it's based on the belief that races are equal. The opposite of racism, not the definition of racism. What discrimination? What prejudice? Blacks are equal. Can you quantify any? > But if you want to ignore those important facts, and contradict the actual meaning of both the dictionary and wikipedia definitions of racism, in order to cling to Eric Raymond's conveniently simplistic mis-definition of racism, which is based on his mistaken beliefs that races are not equal, go knock yourself out. When you lay down with the dogs, you get up with fleas. I'm not sticking with Eric Raymond's definition, I'm using the one which I believe to be correct. You can't use yours, other wise saying blacks can't vote would technically not be racist (by your definition only) if you didn't believe they were inferior but did so for purposes of politics. Your definition takes the issue to one of belief (which cannot be quantified), whereas mine deals with concrete actions. That said, the burden to prove your definition is still on you, and you haven't actually defended the substance of the definition based on its merits. You've just said "mine's got a higher number in the dictionary". > Are you going to whine about "reverse discrimination" next? Depends on the definition, again. By my definition, [0] qualifies (music festival tried to charge whites double). By yours, it wasn't based on a belief of superiority and so didn't qualify. However, I don't believe there is significant racism on either side. [0] https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/festival-white-people-of-color-backtracks-tickets https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/festival-white-people-...

eesmith 7y ago

> My understanding is pretty simple: racism is deliberately treating people differently because of race. Out of curiosity, I looked through your history and found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727302#19737906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727302#19737906 where you decided to use the Wikipedia definition of racism - "the belief in the superiority of another" - to support your argument that a facial recognition systems which provided more precise results for light skinned people was not 'unintentionally racist'. Have you changed your mind in the last three months?