undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyummyfajitas11y ago0 comments

Again: I didn't claim that whites are on average as disadvantaged as anyone. I claimed that the group { x : disadvantaged(x) == true } is more disadvantaged than { x : black(x) == true }.

To prove this fact all I need to do is find a single black person who isn't. This proves that P(disadvantage|black) < 1, whereas P(disadvantage|disadvantage)=1.

So now we have the following groups, ordered by disadvantage:

white < black < disadvantaged

Why do you attempt to remedy the disadvantage of the second most disadvantaged group, but not the most disadvantaged group?

Telling me stats about blacks and whites does not address this question. The disadvantage stats are, by definition, higher for the group I've explicitly constructed to be 100% disadvantaged.

0 comments

7 comments · 3 top-level

antics11y ago· 2 in thread

If you don't reach out specifically to minorities (women, for example), then the outreach doesn't work. So the groups that are systematically marginalized will never apply to begin with, meaning that your set that you've "constructed" doesn't actually contain the really negative cases.

Look, we're not writing a philosophy paper or doing set theory here. We don't have room for any of this "theoretical best" philosophical stuff you're working on here. There are reasons why this shit is set up like it is.

yummyfajitasOP11y ago

By definition, the set D={ x : disadvantaged(x) == true } contains anyone who is "systematically marginalized" (assuming that being "systematically marginalized" is actually a disadvantage).

Concretely, are you saying my set D does not contain Sasha Obama, but it should?

Or another example - my girlfriend is an upper middle class black woman from a majority black country. The minute she steps off a plane in the US, will she suddenly become more deserving of assistance than the white son of a single mother who earned $11,000/year household income?

If you are determined to slice by race, the answer is yes. Let M represent either Sasha Obama or my girlfriend.

Your assertions about racial averages takes the following form:

1. mean(M,N,O) < mean(U,V,W) 2. M > U 3. ??? 4. Therefore, we should preferentially support M over U, N over V, etc.

Step 3 is where I'm confused. Step 3 is a normative principle - you cannot derive a "should" conclusion from a fact without one. What is that principle?

Look, we're not writing a philosophy paper or doing set theory here...There are reasons why this shit is set up like it is.

How is this not a philosophical question? I'm sure there are reasons why "shit is set up like it is" - "tribal politics" fits the facts well. But I'm hoping for a more interesting explanation than that.

And I'm asking because I'm honestly interested. A lot of smart people seem to buy into stuff like this, and I try to understand it due to Chesterton's Fence.

antics11y ago

I take it from your response that you entirely ignored my response about targeting outreach at demographics that have high attrition and low entrance rates. Specifically those groups. That's what we do when we do outreach.

I don't know what else to say. It's extremely simple. Targeted outreach works. You pick groups you want to include, and you target them for outreach.

Why are you making this so hard? Honestly, I question whether you're really interested. You do this on literally every thread where sexism comes up. It sounds to me like you really just want an argument.

EDIT: And, your insinuation that it's all tribal politics, instead of a very careful investigation of what outreach methods work for getting disadvantaged people into programs they wouldn't normally have access to is in such bad faith it's hard to even muster up the will to reply.

1 more reply

achompas11y ago· 2 in thread

Your point does not distinguish between flavors of disadvantage. Minorities and women have to deal with systemic racism and/or sexism

Here's how I suggest HS reach out to women/minorities: provide them with grants if they apply to Hacker School.

Done! Effective outreach so that traditionally-marginalized groups might participate enough to overcome institutionalized racism/sexism.

yummyfajitasOP11y ago

We might be getting somewhere. What is "systemic"? I.e., how do I determine if a disadvantage is systemic or not?

If I'm understanding right, your reasoning is:

1) Positive claim: women and minorities (including asians?) suffer systemic racism.

2) Normative claim: Victims of systemic disadvantage deserve special privileges, victims of non-systemic disadvantage do not. (I'm a bit shaky on this one - let me know if it's wrong.)

3) Normative conclusion: special privileges for women/minorities.

If that's correct, I can fully reproduce your reasoning once I know the definition of "systemic".

achompas11y ago

"Systemic" here is defined as "integrated deeply into a system." In this case, "systemic racism/sexism" refers to "the deep integration of racism/sexism in a particular institution or industry."

Also, I would amend #2 to say: "victims of systemic racism/sexism may be able to overcome those via targeted outreach."

1 more reply

tomp11y ago

I read the whole thread from here down, and I must say that I completely agree with you. I also think that positive discrimination is discrimination and is bad/immoral, and that we should focus on affirmative action only towards people who are actually disadvantaged. I also often get down-voted for saying so.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse