Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You need to justify how "for <group>" is exclusionary, as opposed to it's normal meaning of "focusing on <group>".


[flagged]


No, it doesn't. It just needs to for this thread to have any oxygen, and so it will here until this tiny micro-current of the discourse dies out.


> Saying it is For <group> implies it is not for other groups.

Umm, no? Like I tried to convey in my original comment, "for <group>" means a focus on that group, as opposed to just general content. Nothing I've ever come across that was marketed as "for <>" has ever been intended to exclude me as a non-member, nor have I ever interpreted it that way.

I suspect you have a bias to hear it as exclusionary more than is typical.

Anecdotally, I watch BET fairly regularly, if not often. I'm aware that it's business model is generally content by black creators, for black consumers, but again, I don't remember any hints anywhere of implications of "if you're not black, you can go". If anything, wider viewing would be more informative and promote sharing across groups.


Ah yes, the classic tripe "You disagree with me, so therefore you must be biased".




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

Search: