6 ms·

This is expressly racist and sexist.

by yetanother1980 8y ago

psergeant 8y ago
It is neither racist or sexist, as it makes no comment at all on relative superiority of race or gender.
- rich-and-poor 8y ago
  It is at the very least racial discrimination, as it discriminates on the basis of race who should receive funding. You could argue that it does make the claim that non-colored men have relative superiority, otherwise it would not be able to justify it's abject racism towards them.
  - psergeant 8y ago
    Yes, it’s literally racial discrimination. That’s what it says on the tin. “At the very least” implies this is a form of racism, which it’s not.
    - rich-and-poor 8y ago
      I am glad we agree that this VC fund is based on racial discrimination. I am upset that you find this acceptable, if not virtuous.
      - psergeant 8y ago
        Sure, nobody enjoys seeing their relative privilege diminish.
        rich-and-poor 8y ago
        You find racial discrimination acceptable? Or also virtuous? Is it a good goal to strive for in 21st century society? Do you find virtue in breaking people up into racial and gendered groups, and then applying pre-calculated policies to "even them out"?
        psergeant 8y ago
        > You find racial discrimination acceptable Clearly. > Is it a good goal etc It’s not a goal, it’s a tool to combat systemic racism. > Do you find virtue Here’s what I think: I think there’s no inherent genetic gender or race component that should impact outcomes in people’s relative success. If you believe there is, you are literally a racist or a sexist, by the very definitions of those terms. Given that, if you can predict a group of people’s outcomes based on their race or gender, there is an inequality of opportunity. I believe that the inequality of opportunity should be tackled. I believe that tackling this is an urgent issue. I believe that affirmative action — like setting up these funds — is a working solution.
        jamescostian 8y ago
        The idea is that they were already broken up and artifically made uneven, so the point here is to go in reverse and as you said "even them out" I'd be interested in alternative solutions - what would you suggest? Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things.
        rich-and-poor 8y ago
        > alternative solutions I'll give it a go. I first want to say something about the worldview required to do this sort of racial discrimination. There is no way of quantifying the relative advantages and disadvantages between identity groups. How much is one group oppressed over another? Suppose that a simple tax would suffice to even things out, exactly how much should that tax be? There is no way of knowing precisely what that tax should be. Our attempts to define oppression are never going to be rigorous. They'll always be vague, which I believe is dangerous, since it will be enforced by some large bureaucracy. We need definition, but there will never be definition accurate enough. Feel free to argue me on this, but I don't see how you can do it. Second, in separating people into these identity groups, you deny my individuality. Every time I speak, I speak as a member of my group, for my group. My actions are actions of and for my group, as well. With the world view taken here, I cannot speak or act without the presupposition that I'm doing it as a move in a power game between my identity group and other identity groups. Should we accept that a person's ethnicity and gender must always qualify their speech and actions? I agree that in conversation, one can observe the race and gender of the other person - but the merit of their words is still paramount. You may know that a book author is from Spain or Russia, but that does not affect how you read the book. However, in the worldview in which a racially discriminatory VC fund is socially acceptable, people are defined as members of groups among other groups, constantly vying for power and oppressing one another. Notice I'm not really going after the racially-discriminatory VC fund itself. I'm explaining the worldview in which the fund was conceived, and in which it is socially acceptable. It boils North America down from a melting pot of ambitious individuals trying to do great things with each other, into identity groups that are constantly holding power over, and suffering under the tyranny of, other identity groups. Obviously, the dominant narrative here is that white males are oppressing women of color founders. But you have no idea about the individual biases of the white males you're decrying. And you also have no idea whether or not they achieved funded status based on their competence. Yet you still assume the system is broken, and you still rob them of their individuality, still knowing nothing of their biases and nothing of their competence. > Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things. Why must we do something? Where is the evidence that people are not choosing to be founders of their free will? How can you be sure that the lack of founder diversity is evidence of a flaw in the system? I say that the system is operating in a very healthy manner. Efforts to move power to the disadvantaged that disregard individuality has had tragic, deadly results in history (China, Vietnam, USSR).
        rich-and-poor 8y ago
        It's interesting how shameless you are about your blatant racism.
        psergeant 8y ago
        Turns out if you fallaciously conflate terms, you can call anyone anything you like.
        yetanother1980 8y ago
        You are the one using a very strange and tortured definition. Neither racism nor sexism involve power structures they both involve discrimination on racial/ethnic/imagined or gender grounds. This is well established English language stop trying to redefine it.
    - slavak 8y ago
      It _is_ a form of racism and sexism, by definition. You can make an argument that some forms of racism/sexism are not harmful, or even beneficial, to society, but let's not re-define words based on your convenience. And before you reply, I suggest you look up the definitions in an English dictionary; personally I referenced Merriam-Webster, but most accepted English dictionaries will tell you more or less the same thing.
      - psergeant 8y ago
        They all include the proviso that it’s discrimination based on a belief of relative superiority, do they not?
        slavak 8y ago
        You tell me: > sexism | 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women > racism | 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
p49k 8y ago
Is it racist and sexist to use private funds in order to counterbalance what is clearly a long history of racism and sexism in preferring white males in VC capital? You might have a point if the gender/racial makeup of founders were anywhere close to that of the population.
- rich-and-poor 8y ago
  If you're a VC fund that discriminates by race and gender in the fight against "racism and sexism", then your definitions of those two terms do not rely on ethnicity or gender at all. The terms "racism and sexism" as used here describe power, first and foremost. Those holding power are necessarily prejudiced, and to discriminate against them cannot be a prejudiced act; by your definition, the minority cannot be prejudiced, and are but victims of prejudice. The truth is this: To have equality of outcome across race and gender in entrepreneurship is impossible. It's unclear why anyone at all is interested in taking extremely high risk positions as founders of start ups relying on fast growth and with a small amount of burn; to segment that group by racial and gender identity is to shame and belittle the ones deemed "to hold the power". And when they cry out that they are being discriminated against on the basis of race, you are one step ahead of them: Your convenient re-definition of racism to be an act only committed by those of power denies the shamed their rightful defense.
- zerostar07 8y ago
  While the goal is laudable, this is surely racist and sexist. The language-control group wants to avoid the label, because then those weaponized words will lose their impact. It remains racist and sexist for a good purpose.
- programmernews3 8y ago
  Yes, it is racist and sexist.
  - p49k 8y ago
    Only in a historical and societal vacuum is it racist and sexist.
EliRivers 8y ago
Stating what's obvious by simple definition is something of a waste of time. Or is there a more nuanced difference between racism/sexism and discrimination on grounds of race/sex? Do you have anything to add beyond a simple statement of fact according to your definition? Perhaps a view on whether or not that's axiomatically always a bad thing?
- yetanother1980 8y ago
  I think that racists and sexists like those behind this fund have gone too long without being told that their bigotry is unacceptable. I think that in the main they want to do the right thing. They need to be told explicitly that racism and sexism are never ok. I hope that if decent people keep saying this and acting on this all racism and sexism can one day be consigned to history.
iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
What is “unjust” about this? Descrimination in and of it’s self isn’t racist / sexist. Unjust descrimination is certainly racist / sexist.
dang 8y ago
All: this trainwreck of a flamewar is exactly what we don't want on HN. If you feed flames like the below repeatedly, we will eventually ban you. There's no thoughtful discussion in it, it's all repetitive, and smiting enemies is off topic here.

This is expressly racist and sexist.

psergeant 8y ago

It is neither racist or sexist, as it makes no comment at all on relative superiority of race or gender.

rich-and-poor 8y ago
It is at the very least racial discrimination, as it discriminates on the basis of race who should receive funding. You could argue that it does make the claim that non-colored men have relative superiority, otherwise it would not be able to justify it's abject racism towards them.
- psergeant 8y ago
  Yes, it’s literally racial discrimination. That’s what it says on the tin. “At the very least” implies this is a form of racism, which it’s not.
  - rich-and-poor 8y ago
    I am glad we agree that this VC fund is based on racial discrimination. I am upset that you find this acceptable, if not virtuous.
    - psergeant 8y ago
      Sure, nobody enjoys seeing their relative privilege diminish.
      - rich-and-poor 8y ago
        You find racial discrimination acceptable? Or also virtuous? Is it a good goal to strive for in 21st century society? Do you find virtue in breaking people up into racial and gendered groups, and then applying pre-calculated policies to "even them out"?
        psergeant 8y ago
        > You find racial discrimination acceptable Clearly. > Is it a good goal etc It’s not a goal, it’s a tool to combat systemic racism. > Do you find virtue Here’s what I think: I think there’s no inherent genetic gender or race component that should impact outcomes in people’s relative success. If you believe there is, you are literally a racist or a sexist, by the very definitions of those terms. Given that, if you can predict a group of people’s outcomes based on their race or gender, there is an inequality of opportunity. I believe that the inequality of opportunity should be tackled. I believe that tackling this is an urgent issue. I believe that affirmative action — like setting up these funds — is a working solution.
        jamescostian 8y ago
        The idea is that they were already broken up and artifically made uneven, so the point here is to go in reverse and as you said "even them out" I'd be interested in alternative solutions - what would you suggest? Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things.
        rich-and-poor 8y ago
        > alternative solutions I'll give it a go. I first want to say something about the worldview required to do this sort of racial discrimination. There is no way of quantifying the relative advantages and disadvantages between identity groups. How much is one group oppressed over another? Suppose that a simple tax would suffice to even things out, exactly how much should that tax be? There is no way of knowing precisely what that tax should be. Our attempts to define oppression are never going to be rigorous. They'll always be vague, which I believe is dangerous, since it will be enforced by some large bureaucracy. We need definition, but there will never be definition accurate enough. Feel free to argue me on this, but I don't see how you can do it. Second, in separating people into these identity groups, you deny my individuality. Every time I speak, I speak as a member of my group, for my group. My actions are actions of and for my group, as well. With the world view taken here, I cannot speak or act without the presupposition that I'm doing it as a move in a power game between my identity group and other identity groups. Should we accept that a person's ethnicity and gender must always qualify their speech and actions? I agree that in conversation, one can observe the race and gender of the other person - but the merit of their words is still paramount. You may know that a book author is from Spain or Russia, but that does not affect how you read the book. However, in the worldview in which a racially discriminatory VC fund is socially acceptable, people are defined as members of groups among other groups, constantly vying for power and oppressing one another. Notice I'm not really going after the racially-discriminatory VC fund itself. I'm explaining the worldview in which the fund was conceived, and in which it is socially acceptable. It boils North America down from a melting pot of ambitious individuals trying to do great things with each other, into identity groups that are constantly holding power over, and suffering under the tyranny of, other identity groups. Obviously, the dominant narrative here is that white males are oppressing women of color founders. But you have no idea about the individual biases of the white males you're decrying. And you also have no idea whether or not they achieved funded status based on their competence. Yet you still assume the system is broken, and you still rob them of their individuality, still knowing nothing of their biases and nothing of their competence. > Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things. Why must we do something? Where is the evidence that people are not choosing to be founders of their free will? How can you be sure that the lack of founder diversity is evidence of a flaw in the system? I say that the system is operating in a very healthy manner. Efforts to move power to the disadvantaged that disregard individuality has had tragic, deadly results in history (China, Vietnam, USSR).
      - rich-and-poor 8y ago
        It's interesting how shameless you are about your blatant racism.
        psergeant 8y ago
        Turns out if you fallaciously conflate terms, you can call anyone anything you like.
        yetanother1980 8y ago
        You are the one using a very strange and tortured definition. Neither racism nor sexism involve power structures they both involve discrimination on racial/ethnic/imagined or gender grounds. This is well established English language stop trying to redefine it.
  - slavak 8y ago
    It _is_ a form of racism and sexism, by definition. You can make an argument that some forms of racism/sexism are not harmful, or even beneficial, to society, but let's not re-define words based on your convenience. And before you reply, I suggest you look up the definitions in an English dictionary; personally I referenced Merriam-Webster, but most accepted English dictionaries will tell you more or less the same thing.
    - psergeant 8y ago
      They all include the proviso that it’s discrimination based on a belief of relative superiority, do they not?
      - slavak 8y ago
        You tell me: > sexism | 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women > racism | 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

p49k 8y ago

Is it racist and sexist to use private funds in order to counterbalance what is clearly a long history of racism and sexism in preferring white males in VC capital? You might have a point if the gender/racial makeup of founders were anywhere close to that of the population.

rich-and-poor 8y ago
If you're a VC fund that discriminates by race and gender in the fight against "racism and sexism", then your definitions of those two terms do not rely on ethnicity or gender at all. The terms "racism and sexism" as used here describe power, first and foremost. Those holding power are necessarily prejudiced, and to discriminate against them cannot be a prejudiced act; by your definition, the minority cannot be prejudiced, and are but victims of prejudice. The truth is this: To have equality of outcome across race and gender in entrepreneurship is impossible. It's unclear why anyone at all is interested in taking extremely high risk positions as founders of start ups relying on fast growth and with a small amount of burn; to segment that group by racial and gender identity is to shame and belittle the ones deemed "to hold the power". And when they cry out that they are being discriminated against on the basis of race, you are one step ahead of them: Your convenient re-definition of racism to be an act only committed by those of power denies the shamed their rightful defense.
zerostar07 8y ago
While the goal is laudable, this is surely racist and sexist. The language-control group wants to avoid the label, because then those weaponized words will lose their impact. It remains racist and sexist for a good purpose.
programmernews3 8y ago
Yes, it is racist and sexist.
- p49k 8y ago
  Only in a historical and societal vacuum is it racist and sexist.

EliRivers 8y ago

Stating what's obvious by simple definition is something of a waste of time. Or is there a more nuanced difference between racism/sexism and discrimination on grounds of race/sex? Do you have anything to add beyond a simple statement of fact according to your definition? Perhaps a view on whether or not that's axiomatically always a bad thing?

yetanother1980 8y ago
I think that racists and sexists like those behind this fund have gone too long without being told that their bigotry is unacceptable. I think that in the main they want to do the right thing. They need to be told explicitly that racism and sexism are never ok. I hope that if decent people keep saying this and acting on this all racism and sexism can one day be consigned to history.

iovrthoughtthis 8y ago

What is “unjust” about this? Descrimination in and of it’s self isn’t racist / sexist. Unjust descrimination is certainly racist / sexist.

dang 8y ago

All: this trainwreck of a flamewar is exactly what we don't want on HN. If you feed flames like the below repeatedly, we will eventually ban you. There's no thoughtful discussion in it, it's all repetitive, and smiting enemies is off topic here.