undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalistairSH5y ago0 comments

this needn't be attributed to racism.

I'd clarify this as "needed be attributed to intentional, malicious racism."

A system can be racist in terms of outcome without having been intentionally designed to be racist. That still might be a problem. A sibling comment posited low-income areas are both more likely to have monitory residents and older infrastructure. That seems possible. But doesn't make it a non-issue.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ARandomerDude5y ago· 2 in thread

> A system can be racist in terms of outcome without having been intentionally designed to be racist.

The problem with this line of thinking is it is so broad in its scope that it could literally be applied to anything where there isn't perfect uniformity of outcome. Just take out race:

> A system can be ___ist in terms of outcome without having been intentionally designed to be ___ist.

Consider these dubious outcome-based claims:

Classist: poor people don't own cargo ships, therefore the shipping industry is classist.

Sexist: spas attract more women than men, therefore the spa industry is sexist.

Racist: most Ethiopian universities have majority black student populations, therefore most Ethiopian universities are racist.

You get the idea. The question when assigning blame for ___ism shouldn't be What is the apparent outcome?, but What is the apparent intent? – and it's only fair to assume good intentions in others until proven otherwise.

munificent5y ago

I think you are talking past each other. Sure, yes, any system may evince disproportionate outcomes for various demographic groups. I think your point is that that variation doesn't matter. In your examples, that is likely the case.

But I think implicit in the parent comment is that there are some systems that have demographic variation and where that variation significantly impacts the power, agency, or well-being of one of the groups.

And for cases like that, real people are being harmed. They are unfairly not getting the same opportunity for success and liberty that other groups receive. That is a problem that anyone who cares about fairness should care to solve regardless of whether that's the intent of the system. It's not about blaming and shaming the architects of the system. It's simply a matter of something akin to good engineering to want systems that work well for all users.

The fact that men don't go to spas as much ultimately doesn't matter. But if black people in Houston disportionately lost power and froze to death that is an entirely different category of problem. We should not equate them.

ARandomerDude5y ago

I actually agree with most of your point here. The reason I objected is not because I think freezing to death is equally serious as a spa day. We have many serious problems that need to be solved quickly, including utility infrastructure. The very specific point I addressed, however, was that the claim that equal outcome itself is the singular measure of intent (and therefore some greater ___ism) is demonstrably false because it doesn't comport with the real world.

Orthogonal to that issue is the one you raised, and that is whether some people (regardless of race, income level, etc.) need improved utility infrastructure. Manifestly, they do. But I care about that issue because they're human beings. I care because the government has a moral duty to provide the life-critical services it promised its citizens. Freezing in the winter is a serious problem regardless of how we draw the demographic boundaries around those freezing.

Edit: It's for this reason I was frustrated in previous decades when politicians constantly used to say "do it for the children." No matter the issue, it was always "for the children." They still say it, but it's largely been replaced with "do it for the minorities." Why not just do it for people if it's a good idea? If it's a bad idea, let's skip it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse