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.
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.
I don't think that's an argument that it is not sexist and racist. It is expressly so. The argument you are making is that it is justified to be expressly sexist and racist to counterbalance past sexism and racism.
It is really not “racist” and “sexist” in the way that GP is claiming. But you’re either someone who thinks all instances of discrimination are morally equivalent or not.
I disagree. To say something is sexist or racist would imply that the intent is to favor these groups due to a belief that they are superior, or due to a hatred toward the other groups rather than as a strategy to counter the effects of historical racism/sexism. You could argue they are discriminatory, though.
I guess we must fundamentally disagree. The decision is based on the sex and race of the founder. That speaks for itself. Justification for it is based on history. All the other dressing up is just an attempt to avoid being labeled a racist/sexist.
> The decision is based on the sex and race of the founder.
What you just described is the definition of discrimination, not racism or sexism. These words have meanings and you can look them up. Saying it's racist and sexist is just a disingenuous way to shore up drama when a more accurate (but less provocative) term is available.
Yes, it is discrimination based on sex and race. I think you are arguing that what matters is the feelings of the person when they discriminate. The intent is the same - choose one over the other because of their sex and race. But if they feel they are righting a past wrong then it is not sexism/racism, whereas if they are doing it because they dislike one group then it is sexism/racism. And that is where the fundamental disagreement lies. I don't subscribe to the feelings argument.
Racism is defined as discrimination based on race or ethnicity.
Sexism is defined as discrimination based on gender or biological sex.
Both are well defined terms in English both in dictionaries and general usage. Stop trying to play games with words and start explaining why you think racism and sexism are ok.
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.
Yes, this is absolutely racist and sexist. This is explicitly segregating people by gender+race and disallowing people from participating because of their gender or race. Instead of doing this, we should work to ensure that gender and race plays no role in earning VC funding.
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.
Racism does not depend on history or society, it depends on whether or not there is active racial discrimination. You imply that only the powerful may be racist, and that discrimination towards the racial or gender group "of power" is not only not racist, but a virtuous act.
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.
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.
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"?
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?
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.