I’m not an expert debater, but if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. Since the commenter didn’t, I sort of zeroed in on that.
The comment you were responding to only mentioned race by quoting someone else, and I’m pretty confident that was beside the point they were making. I thought it was silly to bring race into it initially too, but I didn’t have anything substantial to say in response to the other commenter so I didn’t mention it.
"So which report makes an organization less racist"
So that implies that org B is more racist(because it hired zero brown people) - is that not the conclusion the author of the comment wants us to reach?
The link specifically describes a (potential) move away from using the word, showing examples where they did and describing some of the history of when it was used. The comment you replied to even told you which specific image in the article to look at for an example...
To clarify, I'm skeptical of the article's attempt to point at racism, not of the existence of racism in general, neither even in the context that the article places it in. I'm criticising the article.
I must say I don't appreciate your attempt to connect my comment with racist views you may have encountered in the past. I invite you to consider your comment in the context of the HN guidelines about responding to the strongest interpretation of others' comments, which I believe you ommitted to do in this case.
(And I edited this and deleted other comments to make the whole exchange less combative, also in the spirit of HN guidelines).
Race baiting comment. Context is key. The article advocates equality and you cherry picked a wikipedia section of a historical and clearly wrong assumption. Look over the wiki and try to find something where Benjamin Rush does not advocate equality, then you can shoot your shot.
The parent comment I responded to referenced this, but inaccurately portrayed it as an issue of amateurism rather than that being the cover story for blatant racism
Yeah, and I do see that my comment ends up being yet another comment that's not about the article. I guess I could've focused less on the "using 'racism' incorrectly" and more on the "come on, what are the actual disadvantages to this fund".
They're just bringing attention to the fact that whether or not the parent comment had any affiliation with a person of african decent shouldn't matter in the case of being concerned with, and interested in, data regarding this bias.
Apologies, I didn't mean to target any race, I was simply sharing an observation of mine. I have past the HN editing time limit or I would have removed the offending remark, no offense was meant.
Bloody hell, mate - It's perfectly valid to highlight the fact that somebody's PoV may be biased based on their past contributions, there's no need to bring race into it.
I disagree, and it's okay we disagree. I believe you using high-activation language saying nothing but "race troll" doesn't even try to engage the point OP and I were making.
Please just delete my comment above. It obviously didn't serve its purpose well so there's no point it being there.
> If you exchanged the races, this articles seems like it could have been written by a Klansman.
This counts as flamebait because it doesn't teach us anything substantive and there's no question as to its flaminess. Could you please leave out this sort of thing?
reply