6 ms·

>There's really no difference between a person proudly declaring they only like "white" people and a person declaring they only like "tall" people. I get where

>There's really no difference between a person proudly declaring they only like "white" people and a person declaring they only like "tall" people. I get where you're coming from -- criticizing people for what they are, rather than for what they do, is exceedingly unfair -- but I can think of at least three important differences, chief among which are: 1. The shortness of men (barring outright dwarfism) has never been the object of widespread theories about their fundamental inferiority, nor have such theories been enshrined into widespread law. 2. Social institutions have never explicitly conspired to marginalize short men. 3. Redlining, lynching, the selling of persons into slavery, ghettos, etc. have no equivalent in the realm of height. And to be frank, it's rather shocking that you would suggest otherwise. I don't doubt that you've been treated unfairly, and you are perfectly entitled to complain about it, but that doesn't require you to twist reality.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
- omginternets 5y ago
  I have, actually. That's the part where I agree with you. The point at which I disagree is when you imply that this is somehow comparable to institutionalized slavery and Jim Crow laws.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Me?
    - omginternets 5y ago
      You seem to be defending the thesis in the original comment, so yes.
      - PretzelPirate 5y ago
        I think you may have misunderstood the OP and didn’t align with the HN rules of assuming the best meaning. They didn’t equate racism and discrimination based on height, they said that there’s no difference in someone discriminating based on that - meaning discriminating based on something that wasn’t a choice and cannot reasonably be changed.
        omginternets 5y ago
        Respectfully, your accusation does not hold. It doesn't hold because: 1. I pointed out this distinction in my initial comment, and the OP has not conceded the point that "x and y are members of set S" is different from "there are no differences beetween x and y". 2. This in turn negates the "best meaning" you seem to be assuming. And the first point bears repeating. Even if height discrimination and racism are both instances of prejudice based on immutable characteristics, there are very important differences between them. Your waiving of the rulebook in response to this is puzzling.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        >>> You seem to be defending the thesis in the original comment > Even if height discrimination and racism are both instances of prejudice based on immutable characteristics, there are very important differences between them. I meant what I said. You claimed that one of the differences between heightism and racism is that "The shortness of men (barring outright dwarfism) has never been the object of widespread theories about their fundamental inferiority". That claim is blatantly false. Why did you make it?
  - bscheckerhere 5y ago
    - omginternets 5y ago
      Again, I recognize the injustice you are facing. But surely you can recognize that there are important, meaningful differences with respect to racial discrimination? To put it differently: I object to your sense of proportion.
      - bscheckerhere 5y ago
        magicalist 5y ago
        > I don't know whats worse. Slavery and having a chance at contributing to the future gene pool with other slaves or plantation owner's wives. Or not having a chance at all at contributing to the gene pool not because of your skin color but because of your height or the amount in your bank account or not wearing clothes that fit or not deciphering the code she emits, etc... Actually when you are a slave you still have a voice. I don't even know how to respond to this post but I don't think it's worth having no one respond to it. I'm going with direct. Being a slave is worse. What in the actual fuck.
        Emma_Goldman 5y ago
        Being a chattel slave is orders of magnitude worse than being short. That you are not able to see that suggests that, perhaps, your personal struggles and disappointments are warping your judgement. You are 'catastrophising'.
      - shortzportz 5y ago
        No omginternets, you are wrong here. Heightism and racism really is the same thing. If someone who is 160 cm doesn't get the manager job because however is recruiting don't believe his subordinates would respect him because of his lack of stature, then that is just as bad as a black person would't get the manager job because perhaps his subordinates don't respect black people. The point is how limiting the discrimination is, not whatever the historical background was. In many countries, some jobs are de facto unavailable to short men. Next time you visit a schoolyard. See who the bullied kids are. They might have something in common. It might not be their skin color. It's not talked about a lot because it is taboo. It may be your sense of proportion (haha) that is incorrect.
Gimpei 5y ago
Height does appear to be correlated with income[1]. So it’s entirely possible that discrimination has existed and continues to exist. People seem to think that because something is difficult to measure, it isn’t there, but that simply isn’t true. Lookism could also be a big problem, but the causal effects of being unattractive are hard to identify. Imagine trying to assemble a treatment and control group for that. Who is going to self identify as being ugly? I understand your objection to drawing an equivalence between racial discrimination, but even if it isn’t as “bad” can’t it still recognized as a lesser form of bigotry? https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf
- omginternets 5y ago
  >even if it isn’t as “bad” can’t it still recognized as a lesser form of bigotry? Yes. In fact, that's exactly what I said. It's also worth calling out the sheer madness of equating height discrimination to racism, and pretending not to see the problem.
  - chrischen 5y ago
    They are equated under the principle of injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. You could make the argument that Black people have suffered more at the hands of society, but the injustice of both are in the same class: prejudice.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      >You could make the argument that Black people have suffered more at the hands of society, but the injustice of both are in the same class: prejudice. Again, this is exactly what I am saying. I am also saying that you go further, and engage in an intellectual slight-of-hand. This happens precisely when you say "there's really no difference [...]". Yes there is. There are several, important differences that render irrelevant their belonging to the same category. Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot both belong to the category of "heads of state", but it is laughably incorrect to claim that there are no differences between them. So too with your example.
xvector 5y ago
no one is comparing the historical treatment of short people to slaves; they are comparing how preference for some unchangeable attributes are somehow acceptable but preference for others are not. you are forcing additional context where there is none.
- omginternets 5y ago
  That's just untrue. The claim is that there is "really no difference" between discriminating against Blacks and short people. There are several important differences, and they relate directly to the historical treatment of Black people. You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP.
  - daenz 5y ago
    There is no difference in the comparison because they're both based on immutable physical characteristics. There's a difference in the historical context, which you highlight.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      This does not follow. There is a difference in historical context, which has a bearing on the real-world effects of height-vs-race discrimination, ergo there are differences between the two. In exactly the same way: Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot are both heads of state, but it is incorrect to say there are no differences between them.
      - yuuu 5y ago
      - daenz 5y ago
        You're describing a difference in the outcome, which is the action + the context. I'm not saying the outcomes are the same, I'm saying the action is the same, but the context is different. Subtle distinction, but it may not even have been what the person you originally commented to meant, so I am going to abandon further discussion on this :)

thaumasiotes 5y ago

omginternets 5y ago
I have, actually. That's the part where I agree with you. The point at which I disagree is when you imply that this is somehow comparable to institutionalized slavery and Jim Crow laws.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Me?
  - omginternets 5y ago
    You seem to be defending the thesis in the original comment, so yes.
    - PretzelPirate 5y ago
      I think you may have misunderstood the OP and didn’t align with the HN rules of assuming the best meaning. They didn’t equate racism and discrimination based on height, they said that there’s no difference in someone discriminating based on that - meaning discriminating based on something that wasn’t a choice and cannot reasonably be changed.
      - omginternets 5y ago
        Respectfully, your accusation does not hold. It doesn't hold because: 1. I pointed out this distinction in my initial comment, and the OP has not conceded the point that "x and y are members of set S" is different from "there are no differences beetween x and y". 2. This in turn negates the "best meaning" you seem to be assuming. And the first point bears repeating. Even if height discrimination and racism are both instances of prejudice based on immutable characteristics, there are very important differences between them. Your waiving of the rulebook in response to this is puzzling.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        >>> You seem to be defending the thesis in the original comment > Even if height discrimination and racism are both instances of prejudice based on immutable characteristics, there are very important differences between them. I meant what I said. You claimed that one of the differences between heightism and racism is that "The shortness of men (barring outright dwarfism) has never been the object of widespread theories about their fundamental inferiority". That claim is blatantly false. Why did you make it?
- bscheckerhere 5y ago
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Again, I recognize the injustice you are facing. But surely you can recognize that there are important, meaningful differences with respect to racial discrimination? To put it differently: I object to your sense of proportion.
    - bscheckerhere 5y ago
      - magicalist 5y ago
        > I don't know whats worse. Slavery and having a chance at contributing to the future gene pool with other slaves or plantation owner's wives. Or not having a chance at all at contributing to the gene pool not because of your skin color but because of your height or the amount in your bank account or not wearing clothes that fit or not deciphering the code she emits, etc... Actually when you are a slave you still have a voice. I don't even know how to respond to this post but I don't think it's worth having no one respond to it. I'm going with direct. Being a slave is worse. What in the actual fuck.
      - Emma_Goldman 5y ago
        Being a chattel slave is orders of magnitude worse than being short. That you are not able to see that suggests that, perhaps, your personal struggles and disappointments are warping your judgement. You are 'catastrophising'.
    - shortzportz 5y ago
      No omginternets, you are wrong here. Heightism and racism really is the same thing. If someone who is 160 cm doesn't get the manager job because however is recruiting don't believe his subordinates would respect him because of his lack of stature, then that is just as bad as a black person would't get the manager job because perhaps his subordinates don't respect black people. The point is how limiting the discrimination is, not whatever the historical background was. In many countries, some jobs are de facto unavailable to short men. Next time you visit a schoolyard. See who the bullied kids are. They might have something in common. It might not be their skin color. It's not talked about a lot because it is taboo. It may be your sense of proportion (haha) that is incorrect.

Gimpei 5y ago

Height does appear to be correlated with income[1]. So it’s entirely possible that discrimination has existed and continues to exist. People seem to think that because something is difficult to measure, it isn’t there, but that simply isn’t true. Lookism could also be a big problem, but the causal effects of being unattractive are hard to identify. Imagine trying to assemble a treatment and control group for that. Who is going to self identify as being ugly? I understand your objection to drawing an equivalence between racial discrimination, but even if it isn’t as “bad” can’t it still recognized as a lesser form of bigotry? https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf

omginternets 5y ago
>even if it isn’t as “bad” can’t it still recognized as a lesser form of bigotry? Yes. In fact, that's exactly what I said. It's also worth calling out the sheer madness of equating height discrimination to racism, and pretending not to see the problem.
- chrischen 5y ago
  They are equated under the principle of injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. You could make the argument that Black people have suffered more at the hands of society, but the injustice of both are in the same class: prejudice.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    >You could make the argument that Black people have suffered more at the hands of society, but the injustice of both are in the same class: prejudice. Again, this is exactly what I am saying. I am also saying that you go further, and engage in an intellectual slight-of-hand. This happens precisely when you say "there's really no difference [...]". Yes there is. There are several, important differences that render irrelevant their belonging to the same category. Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot both belong to the category of "heads of state", but it is laughably incorrect to claim that there are no differences between them. So too with your example.

xvector 5y ago

no one is comparing the historical treatment of short people to slaves; they are comparing how preference for some unchangeable attributes are somehow acceptable but preference for others are not. you are forcing additional context where there is none.

omginternets 5y ago
That's just untrue. The claim is that there is "really no difference" between discriminating against Blacks and short people. There are several important differences, and they relate directly to the historical treatment of Black people. You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP.
- daenz 5y ago
  There is no difference in the comparison because they're both based on immutable physical characteristics. There's a difference in the historical context, which you highlight.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    This does not follow. There is a difference in historical context, which has a bearing on the real-world effects of height-vs-race discrimination, ergo there are differences between the two. In exactly the same way: Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot are both heads of state, but it is incorrect to say there are no differences between them.
    - yuuu 5y ago
    - daenz 5y ago
      You're describing a difference in the outcome, which is the action + the context. I'm not saying the outcomes are the same, I'm saying the action is the same, but the context is different. Subtle distinction, but it may not even have been what the person you originally commented to meant, so I am going to abandon further discussion on this :)