News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit. Parent comment

Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by cjhopman on Thursday January 05, 2017 @04:17AM (#13325838)
Why would you want to eat at a restaurant that discriminates against you anyway? Why would you want to go to a school that discriminates against you anyway? Why would you want to ride a bus that discriminates against you anyway?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by ensignavenger on Thursday January 05, 2017 @10:44AM (#13327987)
"ride a bus" and "go to school" are not usually the equivalent of "eating at a restaurant" or "working for a company"- in many countries, bus systems and schools are often provided by the government, with tax payer subsidies- and bus systems are often officially monopolies. A Libertarian/Classical Liberal could easily argue that discrimination in such services should be illegal, and that while unethical and deplorable, discrimination by a private individual or business should not be illegal.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by vemv on Thursday January 05, 2017 @05:14AM (#13326032)
I'd be happy to not use those services.

Generally, commerce/work is a voluntary exchange between two willing parts, not a right.

Most forms of real discrimination have become extinct; now a significant % of cases (at least in the IT world) it just a bunch of complainers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by Beltiras on Thursday January 05, 2017 @06:00AM (#13326200)
Sounds like privilege talking. I'm a middle-aged white male. I try to stay mindful of my privilege when others explain perceived wrongs.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by golemotron on Thursday January 05, 2017 @08:52AM (#13327065)
It takes extraordinary privilege to even conceive of the idea of privilege. Everyone else just lives their lives.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by grzm on Thursday January 05, 2017 @09:02AM (#13327121)
A similar comparison can be made with respect to a lot of specialist fields or esoterica. For people using the internet as consumers, concepts like the CAP theorem aren't going to be something they would just stumble across: it would take interest in the field and concentrated study. It doesn't say anything about the validity of the concept, either for or against.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by golemotron on Thursday January 05, 2017 @09:50AM (#13327473)
Wouldn't it be useful to for people to acknowledge the privilege of being able to conceive of privilege, and step back so that other voices can be heard?

I am serious. There are many other ways to see humanity and the relationship between groups of people. Some may be more beneficial.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by grzm on Thursday January 05, 2017 @10:13AM (#13327665)
If your aim is to encourage people to "step back so that other voices can be heard", please elaborate how your initial comment supports this in a meaningful and constructive way.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by golemotron on Thursday January 05, 2017 @10:27AM (#13327816)
Hopefully, it encourages reflection. The privilege narrative seems to be accepted as truth rather than one of many ways of looking at things. Why don't we examine it? Isn't it notable that it originated with the thoughts of two very educated people Du Boise and Peggy McIntosh, and that there isn't an evidentiary basis? How do we know that it is better than other narratives? We seem to just accept it to be true.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by grzm on Thursday January 05, 2017 @10:45AM (#13327993)
It takes extraordinary privilege to even conceive of the idea of privilege. Everyone else just lives their lives.

These words do nothing to encourage reflection or elicit any of the questions you're now asking; they just trivially dismiss the parent.

Edit to add:

I'm not discussing privilege. I'm arguing that your comment says nothing about whether or not a concept is valid because some people aren't aware of it or concerned about it.

Anyway, I recognize this is now well off-topic and likely fruitless. I apologize for the noise.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by golemotron on Thursday January 05, 2017 @10:49AM (#13328042)
Citing privilege is passive dismissal. It says this person because of X should be heard less.
[ Parent | on HN ]