6 ms·

no one is comparing the historical treatment of short people to slaves; they are comparing how preference for some unchangeable attributes are somehow acceptabl

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    - daenz 4y 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 :)
    - tsol 4y ago
      It's a comparison they are never totally the same. That's the point. If women complain they are treated like slaves, do you stop them to explain they aren't actually treated like slaves?
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      If Abraham Lincoln shoots someone in the head, and Pol Pot shoots someone in the head, in both cases someone's killed someone else.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    But for whatever reason we might say that racism has led to violent strife or wars, but has social tension between tall and short men led to war? Heavy conflict does not seem to organize along lines of tall vs short. And on a related question, what is the essence of sexiness, and is attraction to the sexy wrong?
- xvector 4y ago
  > You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP. Can we keep discussion civil? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Assume good faith." > There are several important differences, Historically. But if the historical context of slavery did not exist, it would still be just as unacceptable to treat Black individuals differently. In essence, historical context is largely irrelevant to whether an action is right or wrong. An action is right or wrong in itself (with respect to the contemporary common moral framework, (which may itself be influenced by history) etc.) As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    I believe I am being civil. I also think bad faith can be demonstrated, and that it has been. >As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently. Again, as I have mentioned repeatedly, we agree on this point. Where we disagree is in the assertion that there is "no difference" in effect, precisely because of the historical context.
    - xvector 4y ago
      Historical context does not influence whether an action is right or wrong in itself. You should not need atrocities to be recorded in history to tell you if you are doing the right thing.
      - eightails 4y ago
        Deja vu, I have been in this place before. It's amazing how circular the responses in this comment thread are getting. There appears to be disagreement on the surface, but in reality almost everyone is presenting a view which is at least compatible with each other's -- if not in direct agreement.
        gkop 4y ago
- chrischen 4y ago
  There is no difference in the sense that if you can root out the act of discrimination and prejudice here in this instance then you can root it out in other instances (racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination) because as others point out they all have the same cause: prejudicial biases based on immutable (and irrelevant to whatever is causing the bias) characteristics. This is in essence why MLK said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, because injustice is all the same. We don’t fight racism just because we owe black people. We fight it because it’s fundamentally wrong, and not because black people just happened to have suffered a lot.

omginternets 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  - daenz 4y 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 :)
  - tsol 4y ago
    It's a comparison they are never totally the same. That's the point. If women complain they are treated like slaves, do you stop them to explain they aren't actually treated like slaves?
  - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
    If Abraham Lincoln shoots someone in the head, and Pol Pot shoots someone in the head, in both cases someone's killed someone else.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  But for whatever reason we might say that racism has led to violent strife or wars, but has social tension between tall and short men led to war? Heavy conflict does not seem to organize along lines of tall vs short. And on a related question, what is the essence of sexiness, and is attraction to the sexy wrong?
xvector 4y ago
> You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP. Can we keep discussion civil? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Assume good faith." > There are several important differences, Historically. But if the historical context of slavery did not exist, it would still be just as unacceptable to treat Black individuals differently. In essence, historical context is largely irrelevant to whether an action is right or wrong. An action is right or wrong in itself (with respect to the contemporary common moral framework, (which may itself be influenced by history) etc.) As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently.
- omginternets 4y ago
  I believe I am being civil. I also think bad faith can be demonstrated, and that it has been. >As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently. Again, as I have mentioned repeatedly, we agree on this point. Where we disagree is in the assertion that there is "no difference" in effect, precisely because of the historical context.
  - xvector 4y ago
    Historical context does not influence whether an action is right or wrong in itself. You should not need atrocities to be recorded in history to tell you if you are doing the right thing.
    - eightails 4y ago
      Deja vu, I have been in this place before. It's amazing how circular the responses in this comment thread are getting. There appears to be disagreement on the surface, but in reality almost everyone is presenting a view which is at least compatible with each other's -- if not in direct agreement.
      - gkop 4y ago
chrischen 4y ago
There is no difference in the sense that if you can root out the act of discrimination and prejudice here in this instance then you can root it out in other instances (racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination) because as others point out they all have the same cause: prejudicial biases based on immutable (and irrelevant to whatever is causing the bias) characteristics. This is in essence why MLK said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, because injustice is all the same. We don’t fight racism just because we owe black people. We fight it because it’s fundamentally wrong, and not because black people just happened to have suffered a lot.