3 ms·

How about we argue instead that discriminating is wrong, and we shouldn't actively promote it.

hackinthebochs 14y ago
Racism, sexism, etc are necessarily wrong. However, discrimination is not necessarily wrong. Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. I submit that this is a valid form of "discrimination".
- jimzvz 14y ago
  Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Please look up the definition of sexism. No, it does not depend on the motivation or context, everyone who discriminates believes that their motives justify it but they don't. Your sexism is no different from anyone else's.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Sure, under the most simplistic definition devoid of any cultural context or connotation. But if you have to prune all meaning from the word to prove your point then perhaps your point is rather weak to begin with. To put it another way: if your definition of sexism means that women-centric events designed to foster interest in an otherwise underrepresented field is considered sexist, then its your definition that is faulty. Here's a definition that doesn't strip the salient context from it (dictionary.com) 1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. 2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women. It's amazing how these discussions always devolve into cherry-picking definitions and parsing language like a machine to prove respective points. If you have to resort to that, then just bow out gracefully as you are missing the point of the discussion altogether.
- LockeWatts 14y ago
  First, nothing is necessarily wrong, as that would imply an absolute rather than relative morality. All morality is relativistic. Secondly, I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. Given that assumption, discrimination by race or sex for any reason would be wrong. With those premises, I stand by my original conclusion that discrimination on the whole is wrong.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    And I would have to reject those premises.
    - LockeWatts 14y ago
      On what basis?
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        >I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. My comment nextdoor describes my problem with these sorts of degenerate defintions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- MrScruff 14y ago
  Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. To put it another way, the ends justifies the means. And I think you'll find plenty who would disagree with that statement.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    "Ends justifies the means" is not analogous to this situation.
    - MrScruff 14y ago
      Could you elaborate?

Racism, sexism, etc are necessarily wrong. However, discrimination is not necessarily wrong. Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. I submit that this is a valid form of "discrimination".

jimzvz 14y ago
Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Please look up the definition of sexism. No, it does not depend on the motivation or context, everyone who discriminates believes that their motives justify it but they don't. Your sexism is no different from anyone else's.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Sure, under the most simplistic definition devoid of any cultural context or connotation. But if you have to prune all meaning from the word to prove your point then perhaps your point is rather weak to begin with. To put it another way: if your definition of sexism means that women-centric events designed to foster interest in an otherwise underrepresented field is considered sexist, then its your definition that is faulty. Here's a definition that doesn't strip the salient context from it (dictionary.com) 1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. 2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women. It's amazing how these discussions always devolve into cherry-picking definitions and parsing language like a machine to prove respective points. If you have to resort to that, then just bow out gracefully as you are missing the point of the discussion altogether.
LockeWatts 14y ago
First, nothing is necessarily wrong, as that would imply an absolute rather than relative morality. All morality is relativistic. Secondly, I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. Given that assumption, discrimination by race or sex for any reason would be wrong. With those premises, I stand by my original conclusion that discrimination on the whole is wrong.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  And I would have to reject those premises.
  - LockeWatts 14y ago
    On what basis?
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      >I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. My comment nextdoor describes my problem with these sorts of degenerate defintions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
MrScruff 14y ago
Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. To put it another way, the ends justifies the means. And I think you'll find plenty who would disagree with that statement.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  "Ends justifies the means" is not analogous to this situation.
  - MrScruff 14y ago
    Could you elaborate?