4 ms·

I'm trying to stop reading news from US/UK sources. The depth of political discourse only goes as far as your self-appointed identity. Actions don't matter anym

I'm trying to stop reading news from US/UK sources. The depth of political discourse only goes as far as your self-appointed identity. Actions don't matter anymore. White people are guilty of colonialism much like Catholic children inherit the Original Sin, that is, it's a means of control by anti-intellectuals. I wouldn't support Trump, but the American Left is especially dangerous because it relies on gender / racial divide to get the most votes. In some twisted sense, the problem is not supposed to be solved. Skin color does not make Obama an expert in race relations. If he had said "...but one of my concerns is that it’s been a predominately male gang of kids, mostly black, who are building the core computer science around AI..." there would have been riots in the streets. Tim Hunt's joke was taken out of context and almost ruined his career. EDIT: To be clear, his white remark was fully intentional.

bcook 10y ago
Can you share a link to the Dawkins' out-of-context joke?
- Red_Tarsius 10y ago
  I wrote the comment in a hurry, I meant Tim Hunt. Sorry, I'm going to fix the original post. On 8 June 2015, during the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, Hunt was asked on short notice to give a toast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt). He made a self-deprecating comment and media vultures run with it. He was shamed out of the Royal Society and UCL.
cheriot 10y ago
> Skin color does not make Obama an expert in race relations. Nor does your observation mean he's NOT an expert in race relations. You're making the same mistake as the people you criticize in applying generalities to specific cases.
- Red_Tarsius 10y ago
  We are biased to believe that minority groups are more fit to solve racial issues. But skin color is a not a sufficient condition for race relations expertise. Obama is not strictly right/wrong due to his identity. There is no other meaning to my previous post.
  - flopto 10y ago
    I would argue that it is not just bias. Indeed, not all people of color in the U.S. are experts on racism, but the vast majority of people with a good understanding of racism are people of color.
    - aljones 10y ago
      Yeah, people are generally able to solve a problem only when they understand the problem. Direct experience is a valuable form of learning. Of course it isn't sufficient, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't matter either. Obviously almost any statement concerning race is a generalization.
      - V-2 10y ago
        > Yeah, people are generally able to solve a problem only when they understand the problem. Direct experience is a valuable form of learning. I'm sorry, but this is pseudo-reasoning to me. These are logically linked on the surface, yet extremely vague truisms that can only pass for some form of a coherent argument because they're so full of weasel words. Based on the same principle you could argue that in order to improve car safety, to have a better chance at it, one needs to have had a life-threatening accident. Why not? After all, people generally are able to solve a problem when they understand it... and direct experience is a valuable form of learning... etc. It really depends on the nature of the problem though, and the nature of this direct experience, and so forth. Painting the situation with such an overly broad brush doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusions. For starters, first-hand experience is typically caused by symptoms of a problem, the underlying nature of a complex problem isn't readily apparent, or else it wouldn't be complex. For instance getting sick from air pollution doesn't do anything to help you understand the nature of these pollutants, how they're emitted, what is the economical context and therefore possible countermeasures etc. It just reassures you that the symptoms of such pollution are a bad thing, which isn't that much of a discovery by itself. Not everything is as simple as an itchy-scratchy situation, and we shouldn't pretend that it is, especially when it leads to racially biased claims.

bcook 10y ago

Can you share a link to the Dawkins' out-of-context joke?

Red_Tarsius 10y ago
I wrote the comment in a hurry, I meant Tim Hunt. Sorry, I'm going to fix the original post. On 8 June 2015, during the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, Hunt was asked on short notice to give a toast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt). He made a self-deprecating comment and media vultures run with it. He was shamed out of the Royal Society and UCL.

cheriot 10y ago

> Skin color does not make Obama an expert in race relations. Nor does your observation mean he's NOT an expert in race relations. You're making the same mistake as the people you criticize in applying generalities to specific cases.

Red_Tarsius 10y ago
We are biased to believe that minority groups are more fit to solve racial issues. But skin color is a not a sufficient condition for race relations expertise. Obama is not strictly right/wrong due to his identity. There is no other meaning to my previous post.
- flopto 10y ago
  I would argue that it is not just bias. Indeed, not all people of color in the U.S. are experts on racism, but the vast majority of people with a good understanding of racism are people of color.
  - aljones 10y ago
    Yeah, people are generally able to solve a problem only when they understand the problem. Direct experience is a valuable form of learning. Of course it isn't sufficient, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't matter either. Obviously almost any statement concerning race is a generalization.
    - V-2 10y ago
      > Yeah, people are generally able to solve a problem only when they understand the problem. Direct experience is a valuable form of learning. I'm sorry, but this is pseudo-reasoning to me. These are logically linked on the surface, yet extremely vague truisms that can only pass for some form of a coherent argument because they're so full of weasel words. Based on the same principle you could argue that in order to improve car safety, to have a better chance at it, one needs to have had a life-threatening accident. Why not? After all, people generally are able to solve a problem when they understand it... and direct experience is a valuable form of learning... etc. It really depends on the nature of the problem though, and the nature of this direct experience, and so forth. Painting the situation with such an overly broad brush doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusions. For starters, first-hand experience is typically caused by symptoms of a problem, the underlying nature of a complex problem isn't readily apparent, or else it wouldn't be complex. For instance getting sick from air pollution doesn't do anything to help you understand the nature of these pollutants, how they're emitted, what is the economical context and therefore possible countermeasures etc. It just reassures you that the symptoms of such pollution are a bad thing, which isn't that much of a discovery by itself. Not everything is as simple as an itchy-scratchy situation, and we shouldn't pretend that it is, especially when it leads to racially biased claims.