5 ms·

By introducing new bias and discrimination? Well, what can go wrong?

by mbel 9y ago

jachee 9y ago
To break endemic, systemic bias and discrimination, the majority group must choose to be biased and discriminatory against itself. I can almost guarantee you it was a white male that had ultimate responsibility to make the decision to take action with regard to that demographic.
- kss238 9y ago
  > His manager, Allison Alogna, informed Wilberg and his colleagues that they were to “only accept” a certain rank of engineers (“Level 3”) if they were diverse.
  - jachee 9y ago
    That's an interesting definition of "ultimate" you have there. Who's up the org chart from her?
- mbel 9y ago
  So bias and discrimination aren't inherently wrong? If the newly introduced discrimination is alright what actually made the old one wrong in the first place?
  - jachee 9y ago
    It's a paradox. And white dudes (like me) aren't ever going to fix it without actively trying to fix it, which is going to make other white dudes (like the ones in the lawsuit) discriminated against.
zimpenfish 9y ago
If your car consistently steered left, would you bias your steering right to compensate? Or sit there in a field going "This is fine, I don't want to introduce a new bias to my steering."
- mbel 9y ago
  Do you really think that steering (a pretty neutral action) is a right analogy to an action that is inherently hurting people? The problem here is that you try to compensate injustice done to some people by doing injustice to others.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    It's a simplistic analogy, sure. > to an action that is inherently hurting people? Which action is that? The original biases which has been hurting people for hundreds of years or the current attempt at bias correction which has been around for, let's say, 5 years? > The problem here is that you try to compensate injustice done to some people by doing injustice to others. No. What's happening here is that people are trying to balance the scales by helping up the lower pan and the people on the higher pan are bleating about this "injustice".
    - mbel 9y ago
      Putting aside the fact that I believe that any race-based discrimination is inherently wrong. I don't believe those actions can balance scales. They only increase the scale of conflict between "diverse" and "non-diverse people". Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. To introduce yet another simplistic analogy: it's putting out fire with gasoline.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. But only one of those camps is actually correct. > it's putting out fire with gasoline Not even slightly.
        mbel 9y ago
        > But only one of those camps is actually correct. Yes, currently. I spoke about long term effects of using discrimination to fight discrimination.

By introducing new bias and discrimination? Well, what can go wrong?

by mbel 9y ago

By introducing new bias and discrimination? Well, what can go wrong?

To break endemic, systemic bias and discrimination, the majority group must choose to be biased and discriminatory against itself. I can almost guarantee you it was a white male that had ultimate responsibility to make the decision to take action with regard to that demographic.

kss238 9y ago
> His manager, Allison Alogna, informed Wilberg and his colleagues that they were to “only accept” a certain rank of engineers (“Level 3”) if they were diverse.
- jachee 9y ago
  That's an interesting definition of "ultimate" you have there. Who's up the org chart from her?
mbel 9y ago
So bias and discrimination aren't inherently wrong? If the newly introduced discrimination is alright what actually made the old one wrong in the first place?
- jachee 9y ago
  It's a paradox. And white dudes (like me) aren't ever going to fix it without actively trying to fix it, which is going to make other white dudes (like the ones in the lawsuit) discriminated against.

zimpenfish 9y ago

If your car consistently steered left, would you bias your steering right to compensate? Or sit there in a field going "This is fine, I don't want to introduce a new bias to my steering."

mbel 9y ago
Do you really think that steering (a pretty neutral action) is a right analogy to an action that is inherently hurting people? The problem here is that you try to compensate injustice done to some people by doing injustice to others.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  It's a simplistic analogy, sure. > to an action that is inherently hurting people? Which action is that? The original biases which has been hurting people for hundreds of years or the current attempt at bias correction which has been around for, let's say, 5 years? > The problem here is that you try to compensate injustice done to some people by doing injustice to others. No. What's happening here is that people are trying to balance the scales by helping up the lower pan and the people on the higher pan are bleating about this "injustice".
  - mbel 9y ago
    Putting aside the fact that I believe that any race-based discrimination is inherently wrong. I don't believe those actions can balance scales. They only increase the scale of conflict between "diverse" and "non-diverse people". Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. To introduce yet another simplistic analogy: it's putting out fire with gasoline.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Right now both of the camps will be able to say that they are discriminated by the other one. But only one of those camps is actually correct. > it's putting out fire with gasoline Not even slightly.
      - mbel 9y ago
        > But only one of those camps is actually correct. Yes, currently. I spoke about long term effects of using discrimination to fight discrimination.