9 ms·

>that doesn't change the fact that the thing discriminated PoC. Intent matters. Every policy you can ever create will always have differential impact on any gr

>that doesn't change the fact that the thing discriminated PoC. Intent matters. Every policy you can ever create will always have differential impact on any group you create. That's just a fact of reality. If you set a policy that you can only get a mortgage if you have 20% down, that could impact some ethnic group more than another - but that differential impact does NOT mean it is a racist policy. > in the case of the soap dispenser a lack of testing staff with non-white skin leading to misadjusted sensitivity for the photosensor - not being adequately filtered out. On a side note ... the criminally under-appreciated show, Better off Ted, did a bit about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyXNmiTIupg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyXNmiTIupg

mschuster91 6y ago
> but that differential impact does NOT mean it is a racist policy Oh it does. This unintentional racism is still racism, structural racism in this case as a decently diverse QA could have prevented this outcome. A PoC unable to get soap doesn't care why the soap dispenser refuses to disperse soap, all he cares about is that he's getting racially discriminated based on his skin color.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Oh it does. I absolutely disagree with that statement. A uniform standard for all is the opposite of racist. It is literally what was fought for by every civil rights movement. We used to live in a world where certain groups had racist barriers placed with intent to bar them from those institutions. A Jewish teenager had to get through harder entrance exams and/or a quota to get into a university. The way to fix that was to provide a universal standard. If you meet these criteria, then you're in. A policy that requires 20% down payment for a mortgage is NOT a racist policy, even if it has differential impact. It just sets a bar for every individual because math doesn't care about race. People intrinsically understand fairness like this. It is why Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus as a protest was so powerful - because everyone understood, even the racists, that it is unfair for the color of your skin to dictate your bus seat. And it was clearly a malevolent policy. And this is where the modern approaches to solve 'systemic' racism really worry me. A modern (satirical but not far from reality) spin on that racist bus policy would have white people sitting at the back of the bus in order to make up for past racism ... but in that case, you still cannot get away from intuitive notions of fairness. The fact remains, the idea that skin color dictates bus seat is unfair, even if you try to claim that you need to do it to make up for systemic racism and the races are reversed. Sorry for the rant. You and I have fundamental disagreement on this point. >A PoC unable to get soap doesn't care why the soap dispenser refuses to disperse soap This has nothing to do with anything. It is a silly example. Yes, the soap dispenser company effed up (not maliciously, just ignorantly) and should be embarrassed about it, and it will cost them to replace those dispensers, and I can guarantee you they will learn their lesson. It isn't the end of the world, and we're all on the side here, even the good people at the soap dispenser company.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Does the gender gap in arrests, convictions, and prison population (which is several times larger than the racial gap) prove that our justice system is systematically/structurally biased against men?

mschuster91 6y ago

> but that differential impact does NOT mean it is a racist policy Oh it does. This unintentional racism is still racism, structural racism in this case as a decently diverse QA could have prevented this outcome. A PoC unable to get soap doesn't care why the soap dispenser refuses to disperse soap, all he cares about is that he's getting racially discriminated based on his skin color.

macspoofing 6y ago
>Oh it does. I absolutely disagree with that statement. A uniform standard for all is the opposite of racist. It is literally what was fought for by every civil rights movement. We used to live in a world where certain groups had racist barriers placed with intent to bar them from those institutions. A Jewish teenager had to get through harder entrance exams and/or a quota to get into a university. The way to fix that was to provide a universal standard. If you meet these criteria, then you're in. A policy that requires 20% down payment for a mortgage is NOT a racist policy, even if it has differential impact. It just sets a bar for every individual because math doesn't care about race. People intrinsically understand fairness like this. It is why Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus as a protest was so powerful - because everyone understood, even the racists, that it is unfair for the color of your skin to dictate your bus seat. And it was clearly a malevolent policy. And this is where the modern approaches to solve 'systemic' racism really worry me. A modern (satirical but not far from reality) spin on that racist bus policy would have white people sitting at the back of the bus in order to make up for past racism ... but in that case, you still cannot get away from intuitive notions of fairness. The fact remains, the idea that skin color dictates bus seat is unfair, even if you try to claim that you need to do it to make up for systemic racism and the races are reversed. Sorry for the rant. You and I have fundamental disagreement on this point. >A PoC unable to get soap doesn't care why the soap dispenser refuses to disperse soap This has nothing to do with anything. It is a silly example. Yes, the soap dispenser company effed up (not maliciously, just ignorantly) and should be embarrassed about it, and it will cost them to replace those dispensers, and I can guarantee you they will learn their lesson. It isn't the end of the world, and we're all on the side here, even the good people at the soap dispenser company.
HideousKojima 6y ago
Does the gender gap in arrests, convictions, and prison population (which is several times larger than the racial gap) prove that our justice system is systematically/structurally biased against men?