4 ms·

Please find someone who advocated for this and reply to their comment instead of cluttering mine up.

gaius 10y ago
Your link says that if a person feels more aggrieved (shorter) they should be allowed to be more racist (get a bigger box). That's not OK.
- RileyKyeden 10y ago
  It's odd that you focus on race when it's not even remotely the focus of the article.
  - gaius 10y ago
    It's odd that you didn't read the comment I replied to, which does.
- pron 10y ago
  It actually says that if a person really is more harmed then they should get a bigger box. The ethical discussion behind that logic is rich and nuanced. As to "being allowed to be more racist", then that's not about that at all. It's about the racial discrimination on their part causing less actual harm. The two views here are 1. the conservative one, in which ethics is best decided from a personal perspective, which depends on the person's feelings and intent, and 2. the liberal one, in which ethics is decided on the amount of harm or good actually done, regardless of the person's personal intentions or feelings (of course, it's always a spectrum rather than two extremes). What I always find amusing is how conservatives get mad that liberals are so sensitive to "taking offense", when the exact opposite is true. It's just that conservatives apply their own ethical perspective (where intent and feeling matter a lot) on the liberal view, and then think that the conclusion does not follow or is unfair. But the conclusions are a consequence of a completely different ethical framework, where they do make sense precisely because to liberals, the intent to harm and the feeling of being hurt don't matter as much as they do to conservatives, and what matters is the global effect actions have. To a conservative, being racist means feeling negatively about other races or intending to harm them. To a liberal, being racist means taking any action that increases or perpetuates the actual harm done to certain races regardless of feelings or intentions. Social scientists use the definition I attributed to liberals, because those of them who study racism are not ethicists and don't attempt to determine which ethical perspective is more "correct"; instead, they care about actual changes in society, and the truth is that the social effect of white people (we're always talking statistics -- again this is social science, not ethics -- so it's white people one average or as a group) discriminating against blacks is far more detrimental than the other way around (because whites possess more power), and therefore more racist. It is more "wrong" if your ethical perspective is not subjective but objective, and judges not intent but outcome.

gaius 10y ago

Your link says that if a person feels more aggrieved (shorter) they should be allowed to be more racist (get a bigger box). That's not OK.

RileyKyeden 10y ago
It's odd that you focus on race when it's not even remotely the focus of the article.
- gaius 10y ago
  It's odd that you didn't read the comment I replied to, which does.
pron 10y ago
It actually says that if a person really is more harmed then they should get a bigger box. The ethical discussion behind that logic is rich and nuanced. As to "being allowed to be more racist", then that's not about that at all. It's about the racial discrimination on their part causing less actual harm. The two views here are 1. the conservative one, in which ethics is best decided from a personal perspective, which depends on the person's feelings and intent, and 2. the liberal one, in which ethics is decided on the amount of harm or good actually done, regardless of the person's personal intentions or feelings (of course, it's always a spectrum rather than two extremes). What I always find amusing is how conservatives get mad that liberals are so sensitive to "taking offense", when the exact opposite is true. It's just that conservatives apply their own ethical perspective (where intent and feeling matter a lot) on the liberal view, and then think that the conclusion does not follow or is unfair. But the conclusions are a consequence of a completely different ethical framework, where they do make sense precisely because to liberals, the intent to harm and the feeling of being hurt don't matter as much as they do to conservatives, and what matters is the global effect actions have. To a conservative, being racist means feeling negatively about other races or intending to harm them. To a liberal, being racist means taking any action that increases or perpetuates the actual harm done to certain races regardless of feelings or intentions. Social scientists use the definition I attributed to liberals, because those of them who study racism are not ethicists and don't attempt to determine which ethical perspective is more "correct"; instead, they care about actual changes in society, and the truth is that the social effect of white people (we're always talking statistics -- again this is social science, not ethics -- so it's white people one average or as a group) discriminating against blacks is far more detrimental than the other way around (because whites possess more power), and therefore more racist. It is more "wrong" if your ethical perspective is not subjective but objective, and judges not intent but outcome.