4 ms·

So, you'd be happy for it to be illegal for you to choose somebody to marry? Would need to be a lottery system.

hef19898 3y ago
Me selecting a spouse is not me discriminating again all the other women... Strange way to understand my comment. There is certain subset of HN users so, that seems to be very fine with discrimination.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  Then the person that chooses who to rent their apartment to is not discriminating against anybody either, right?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. But I assume you are not that ignorant to not see difference, are you? Edit: Come to think of it, aren't Indians totally fine with arranged marriages?
- semanticist 3y ago
  Discrimination just means "making a choice" and it's not a bad thing. The problem is "unfair discrimination", where you take factors into consideration that aren't relevant. If you were to ban all discrimination, then you couldn't choose who you hire for a job - after all, you couldn't discriminate against people without relevant experience, or skills, or abilities, could you? Relevant discrimination is not only okay, it's essential! So the problem then becomes trying to define laws in such a way as to disallow the unfair discrimination while also allowing reasonable discrimination. People who are determined to be, eg, racist or homophobic will try and use the very edges of the anti-unfair-discrimination laws to get away with unfair discrimination that is obviously unfair but _technically legal_. And that's how you end up with complex laws and lists of protected characteristics.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Your nickname checks out. How I hate people argueing on semantics...
    - semanticist 3y ago
      I was just trying to explain why "just ban all discrimination" isn't a viable strategy, but I guess it's easier to just ignore complexity and pretend that these complex social issues are left to exist because of... people are just dumber than you?

hef19898 3y ago

Me selecting a spouse is not me discriminating again all the other women... Strange way to understand my comment. There is certain subset of HN users so, that seems to be very fine with discrimination.

jtbayly 3y ago
Then the person that chooses who to rent their apartment to is not discriminating against anybody either, right?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. But I assume you are not that ignorant to not see difference, are you? Edit: Come to think of it, aren't Indians totally fine with arranged marriages?
semanticist 3y ago
Discrimination just means "making a choice" and it's not a bad thing. The problem is "unfair discrimination", where you take factors into consideration that aren't relevant. If you were to ban all discrimination, then you couldn't choose who you hire for a job - after all, you couldn't discriminate against people without relevant experience, or skills, or abilities, could you? Relevant discrimination is not only okay, it's essential! So the problem then becomes trying to define laws in such a way as to disallow the unfair discrimination while also allowing reasonable discrimination. People who are determined to be, eg, racist or homophobic will try and use the very edges of the anti-unfair-discrimination laws to get away with unfair discrimination that is obviously unfair but _technically legal_. And that's how you end up with complex laws and lists of protected characteristics.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Your nickname checks out. How I hate people argueing on semantics...
  - semanticist 3y ago
    I was just trying to explain why "just ban all discrimination" isn't a viable strategy, but I guess it's easier to just ignore complexity and pretend that these complex social issues are left to exist because of... people are just dumber than you?