|
|
|
|
|
by will4274
2188 days ago
|
|
I was thrown by the same thing. Both the article and the parent comment have the same premise - the author presumes that Rachel, as a woman, is more qualified than the average person to judge whether Apple's rejection of an astrology dating app is an act of discrimination. And then parent comment says that "as a gay man of color," he's more qualified than the average person to judge whether Rachel / the author's complaint about discrimination is well founded. It's a subtle form of the argument to authority fallacy. |
|
The article indicates that hating astrology is characteristic of white cis men. The parent comment says "FWIW, I'm not those things, and I hate astrology." They aren't asserting their authority to make a logical argument. They are offering their perspective as a sample.
Respectfully, I think you are letting your intellect get in the way of your ability to think by dismissing these perspectives, misidentifying a report of someone's subjective experience as a logical argument, and therefore a fallacy.
Personally, I hate astrology, but I wouldn't have this app flagged as spam and banned from the app store because of it. I think the argument that this is a form of (probably unintentional) racial/gender/sexual discrimination holds water. If nothing else, I find the idea that Apple happily exerts this kind of force on their customer's personal interests super frustrating and distasteful, and bad for business. Money talks, and bullshit walks. If there is no market for it, let it die on its own merit. I don't need Apple's protection from astrology.
We don't all have to embrace each other, but we do have to suffer each other. And traditionally, some of us have been suffering a lot more than others.
That's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.