Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>Forgive me, I believed it was obvious that 'racism' in this context stood for 'differences in treatment by race'.

The problem it is that it prejudges no such situations could exist. For example, one that would be easy enough to defend is that communities are better served by a doctor who shares the same race as the community because the members are more willing to follow the doctor's advice. This is why having enough black doctors to serve black communities can be argued to be a good thing, despite it being discrimination based on race. But past personal experience has taught me that the agreeableness of such judgment can changes when swapping to a so called majority group.

>You appear to have misread my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Let me reproduce the essential parts:

Let me rephrase my point because I think I may have compacted it too much.

Your judgment depends upon your friends judgment being based on the material and not the person. That is to say, if you have reason to believe you friend is judging based on the person (the server being non-Muslim), you will view them negatively, but if you believe that their judgment is based on the material (thinking the drink has alcohol) you won't judge them negatively. Thus, you judgment of the friend's discrimination against the drink depends upon why they discriminate against the drink. If they did so because of a property of the drink it is fine. Does this correctly match your view?




> For example, one that would be easy enough to defend ...

I'm sorry, but at this point, I think you're being pedantic. I have no interest in that here, and while I could have been exhaustively thorough in my original statement, I just didn't think I needed to and thus chose to be terse. I continue to believe I was clear then, and also believe that in the example you cite here a scientific basis (either for or against) can be clearly tested and observed.

> Thus, you judgment of the friend's discrimination against the drink ...

No. My point is I do not judge my friend on their discrimination against the drink. I judge my friend on their discrimination against the person. The drink is just an object, it's only purpose is in being 'not a person'. Replace it with anything else (say, something edible, or, a greeting) and my point still stands.

> If they did so because of a property of the drink it is fine.

No, that doesn't matter. If they did so because of the time of day, or their mood, or the colour of their shirt that day, would be the same. The difference lies in whether they did so because of the person offering.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: