Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

dexerto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 277 posts

Re: Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

#221

Post by kelseyfrog »

scoofy wrote: post #203
kelseyfrog wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I'm hearing is carve-outs and exceptions. "But when I do it, it's ok." If you're excluding people based on sex/gender it's discrimination. We either care about sex discrimination everywhere, or we don't care about it anywhere. Everywhere includes public and private life.

All I’m hearing is bad-faith nonsense built on intentionally ignoring the concept of civil rights. Why go on the internet and do this? Honestly. You know that your line of argumentation doesn’t even remotely care about being serious, yet you make it anyway. Why? To waste my time?

Bro, your argument is a joke.

What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"?

Put yourself in her shoes. I don't mean this metaphorically. Put on women's clothes, makeup, and order an uber. In the time it takes for it to arrive, notice the thoughts that appear in your mind and get back to me.

Re: Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

#222

Post by bulbar »

RajT88 wrote: post #157
foxyv wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, your chance of being falsely accused is low. Your chance of being prosecuted if you are falsely accused is low. Your chance of being convicted, if you are falsely accused AND prosecuted is low. Also, the accuser's chance of being prosecuted for making the false allegation isn't that low. We're talking about less than 100 cases per year. The real thing to be worried about is a false conviction for drugs o…

Nailed it. The amount of bandwidth men should dedicate to this is far lower than what women should be dedicating to it in terms of absolute risk. That isn't to say you should not be thinking about making sure you don't put yourself in a situation where you could be falsely accused of something. I would say, if you are thinking in that way - spending some time making sure you don't do anything to make women uncomforta…

That's pretty much whataboutism. Also, people who fear false accusations are usually not the same that make women uncomfortable. The majority of men has totally fine behavior when it comes to women.

Re: Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

#223

Post by Dylan16807 »

RajT88 wrote: post #211
Dylan16807 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looked to me like RajT88 was participating in a rebuttal of SoftTalker's comment. I don't think that interpretation is "reading what you wanted to read". The place you put a comment has implications for what you're arguing.

The suggestion I was "forcing" someone to accept a risk is reading what they want to read into my comment. I cannot force anyone to do anything, I am mere lines of text on a screen. Whether I was rebutting their comment depends on the subtext you think their comment had. There could very well be a subtext for such a well worn talking point.

> The suggestion I was "forcing" someone to accept a risk is reading what they want to read into my comment. I cannot force anyone to do anything, I am mere lines of text on a screen.

That meaning of "forced" is very unreasonably literal. The meaning of "forced" here is that it's the only socially acceptable option, not that there's a gun pointed at them.

> Whether I was rebutting their comment depends on the subtext you think their comment had. There could very well be a subtext for such a well worn talking point.

They were saying it's reasonable to refuse the trip because of their false accusation worry. I don't know if I would even call it subtext, it seemed to be pretty upfront.

The subtext of your comment, if any, seemed to be that it's not reasonable to refuse for that reason.

I'm not 100% sure if that's what you meant, but whether it means that is entirely based on you. It's not based on their subtext. You should just tell us if that's what you meant.

Edit: In another comment you put> Nailed it. The amount of bandwidth men should dedicate to this is far lower than what women should be dedicating to it in terms of absolute risk.

I bet SoftTalker already does dedicate negligible bandwidth to that issue. A stranger coming up to you and asking for a ride is a very rare occurrence.

Re: Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

#224

Post by scoofy »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #221
scoofy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I’m hearing is bad-faith nonsense built on intentionally ignoring the concept of civil rights. Why go on the internet and do this? Honestly. You know that your line of argumentation doesn’t even remotely care about being serious, yet you make it anyway. Why? To waste my time?

Bro, your argument is a joke. What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"? Put yourself in her shoes. I don't mean this metaphorically. Put on women's clothes, makeup, and order an uber. In the time it takes for it to arrive, notice the thoughts that appear in your min…

My argument is an active lawsuit:

https://employmentlawweekly.com/uncategorized/uber-lyft-sued...

Yes, I realize women face real dangers in car share hiring. The solution isn't just to then just blindly discriminate against random, perfectly nice men.

Re: Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

#227

Post by kelseyfrog »

scoofy wrote: post #224
kelseyfrog wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro, your argument is a joke. What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"? Put yourself in her shoes. I don't mean this metaphorically. Put on women's clothes, makeup, and order an uber. In the time it takes for it to arrive, notice the thoughts that appear in your min…

My argument is an active lawsuit: https://employmentlawweekly.com/uncategorized/uber-lyft-sued... Yes, I realize women face real dangers in car share hiring. The solution isn't just to then just blindly discriminate against random, perfectly nice men.

Feel free to share a better solution so we can replace this one.

Then we can argue the merits of solution A vs solution B. I'd much rather be having that conversation instead of the solution A vs no solution.

Arguing against filtering cannot be separated from the moral hazard of asking someone else to take on risk without themselves having skin in the game.

Re: Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

#228

Post by scoofy »

avidiax wrote: post #197
bluedays wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthy Quaker drivers thing threw me. I know it's an exaggeration but is there a large enough wealthy Quaker driver population drivers ubers for this to be a concern?

I highly doubt that there is. I'm just saying that if you can discriminate on drivers based on protected characteristic Y and data suggesting that characteristic Y is more/less dangerous, then you should be able to discriminate on protected characteristic X based on similar data, or both characteristics X and Y, or characteristics X, Y, Z, U and W. If characteristic X was race, religion or sexuality, I think people w…

You don't have to dance around it. That's exactly what's happening. The people here who are saying it's okay to discriminate against men because "they" commit sexual assaults at a higher rate, those same people would (rightly) lose their minds if anyone suggest that we should discriminate against African Americans if they were to commit some violent crime at a higher rate.

We need to call a spade a spade here. This is blindly terrible logic. It's crass sex discrimination, and it's affect people's ability to find employment, and it's almost certainly against the law.

Deciding we can just start discriminating against an entire class of people in employment or housing, just because their is a subset of that class committing crimes is a civil rights violation.

People need to stop treating this like it's somehow okay because it's men.

Re: Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US

#230

Post by leptons »

mmooss wrote: post #218
leptons wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You seem afraid of non-hetero sexuality at every turn. Even if lesbians are just as likely to be dangerous creeps - which I doubt because it seems like relative physical strength is a major factor - the number of lesbians relative to the number of hetero males makes the risk far lower. The number of trans people is an order of magnitude less. > you don't even really know if the person driving was born as a man or a w…

>You seem afraid of non-hetero sexuality at every turn.

You don't know me well enough to form that opinion, and you're completely, absolutely wrong.

All I did was state that this "solution" isn't quite as clear-cut as it seems, and that it will likely backfire. I'm not sure what kind of dysfunction happened in your head for you to arrive at "afraid of non-hetero sexuality"??? Maybe don't imagine things that simply are not there.

Post reply on HN