4 ms·

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

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.

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.