3 ms·

Those words are "systemic" or "implicit" or "institutional", etc. All you really need is a proof or example that racist/sexist outcomes are possible even when t

Those words are "systemic" or "implicit" or "institutional", etc. All you really need is a proof or example that racist/sexist outcomes are possible even when there is no overt intent. And there are plenty of examples like that out there. Failure to accept that those examples exist, however, is something beyond just looking at intent instead of outcome.

zozbot123 8y ago
There's plenty of "systemic" racism/sexism/etc. coming from the left, though. Social engineering in general is a recipe for every kind of unintended consequences at the "systemic/institutional" level, and the left is huge on social engineering.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tunesmith 8y ago
  "Systemic" doesn't even have to be left/right though, that's the point. It can simply be well-meaning people that keep ignorantly doing things they way they did before, unaware that their system has racist/sexist impact. I don't know what you mean by social engineering, by the way. I've only heard it in the context of hacking, like calling customer support and pretending to be someone else to try to get their mother's maiden name or whatever.
  - ad_hominem 8y ago
    Not the person you're responding to but I took their meaning to be social engineering in the sense of someone's purposeful planning and intercession in areas where there is a social output, fiddling with whatever knobs are available to shape the desired output. For example, Harvard admitting less Asians because they are over-represented compared to other races. If you take your view that racism is an emergent phenomenon that you can spot based purely on the outcome, then Harvard was exactly correct to deny more Asians admission than other races, yes? If Harvard didn't do that, then the outcome of their admission process would've been "racist." Many would disagree with that interpretation of racism.
    - tunesmith 8y ago
      That's not my view, so that seems a straw man.
saalweachter 8y ago
I'd also like to bring up the International Obfuscated C Code Contest. Just because a policy seems reasonable and has straightforward justifications for all of its pieces doesn't mean it wasn't maliciously designed to another purpose. The stated intent is not always the only intent and if the results...
- duskwuff 8y ago
  Perhaps even more apropos to your point is the Underhanded C Contest: http://www.underhanded-c.org/ http://www.underhanded-c.org/
- tunesmith 8y ago
  That's true too, yes. I just think it's interesting that malicious intent isn't required. I think it helps to talk about it too - if you can approach the participants and assume good faith, allow them to believe that you believe the output is completely unintentional, then maybe it will be easier for them to agree to change their system.
ad_hominem 8y ago
I don't see how those adjectives add any clarity to the situation, since you can swap them out interchangeably and you're still describing the same vague, handwavy sense of racism somewhere being a cause for an unequal outcome. Larry Elder had an interesting take on "systemic racism" IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phPXTWJhnYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phPXTWJhnYM
- tunesmith 8y ago
  This isn't about unequal outcomes, it's about racist/sexist outcomes. It's very possible to have unequal outcomes without them being racist/sexist. And despite what seems to be commonly believed, liberals/left/progressives/democrats/etc don't tend to have a problem with that. It's also not vague and handwavy. If you'd like to explore an example of institutional racism, check out the Parable of the Polygons. It's a clear, simple model with repeatable results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Polygons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Polygons https://ncase.me/polygons/ https://ncase.me/polygons/

zozbot123 8y ago

There's plenty of "systemic" racism/sexism/etc. coming from the left, though. Social engineering in general is a recipe for every kind of unintended consequences at the "systemic/institutional" level, and the left is huge on social engineering.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tunesmith 8y ago
"Systemic" doesn't even have to be left/right though, that's the point. It can simply be well-meaning people that keep ignorantly doing things they way they did before, unaware that their system has racist/sexist impact. I don't know what you mean by social engineering, by the way. I've only heard it in the context of hacking, like calling customer support and pretending to be someone else to try to get their mother's maiden name or whatever.
- ad_hominem 8y ago
  Not the person you're responding to but I took their meaning to be social engineering in the sense of someone's purposeful planning and intercession in areas where there is a social output, fiddling with whatever knobs are available to shape the desired output. For example, Harvard admitting less Asians because they are over-represented compared to other races. If you take your view that racism is an emergent phenomenon that you can spot based purely on the outcome, then Harvard was exactly correct to deny more Asians admission than other races, yes? If Harvard didn't do that, then the outcome of their admission process would've been "racist." Many would disagree with that interpretation of racism.
  - tunesmith 8y ago
    That's not my view, so that seems a straw man.

saalweachter 8y ago

I'd also like to bring up the International Obfuscated C Code Contest. Just because a policy seems reasonable and has straightforward justifications for all of its pieces doesn't mean it wasn't maliciously designed to another purpose. The stated intent is not always the only intent and if the results...

duskwuff 8y ago
Perhaps even more apropos to your point is the Underhanded C Contest: http://www.underhanded-c.org/ http://www.underhanded-c.org/
tunesmith 8y ago
That's true too, yes. I just think it's interesting that malicious intent isn't required. I think it helps to talk about it too - if you can approach the participants and assume good faith, allow them to believe that you believe the output is completely unintentional, then maybe it will be easier for them to agree to change their system.

ad_hominem 8y ago

I don't see how those adjectives add any clarity to the situation, since you can swap them out interchangeably and you're still describing the same vague, handwavy sense of racism somewhere being a cause for an unequal outcome. Larry Elder had an interesting take on "systemic racism" IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phPXTWJhnYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phPXTWJhnYM

tunesmith 8y ago
This isn't about unequal outcomes, it's about racist/sexist outcomes. It's very possible to have unequal outcomes without them being racist/sexist. And despite what seems to be commonly believed, liberals/left/progressives/democrats/etc don't tend to have a problem with that. It's also not vague and handwavy. If you'd like to explore an example of institutional racism, check out the Parable of the Polygons. It's a clear, simple model with repeatable results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Polygons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Polygons https://ncase.me/polygons/ https://ncase.me/polygons/