[_obviously]

Sure, for various values of unethical. Why not use more precise language? Is conflating ethical issues a good use of time? The author's opinion is obvious but poorly stated.

[drewcoo]

Or maybe we have to read the article to find his opinion:

> Debating whether Moses’ bridges discriminate is an unhelpful distraction. But can a bridge be discriminatory? Absolutely.

Personally, I thought the author was a bit offensive in that he kept suggesting his own values should be reflected in good design and he couldn't seem to accept that there are other opinions as valuable as his own.

[kragen]

what it means to have values is that you don't accept that the negation of those values is as valuable as they are

i don't like the taste of liver. but i accept that other people do like liver, and that their enjoyment is just as worthy of respect as my distaste for it. so it's not a value, just a preference

i don't like racism, either. i am aware that other people do like it, but i believe that their feelings on this matter are worthy of disrespect. that is precisely because my rejection of racism is a question of values

[relaxing]

> I thought the author was a bit offensive in that he kept suggesting his own values should be reflected in good design

I didn’t notice that? What are the values the author is pushing?

Other than the central thesis that ethics should be considered as part of the design process.