4 ms·

Just because a problem is at the systematic level, and not at the individual level, does not mean it ceases to be a problem, or that it is not possible to addre

by throwaway2048 6y ago

Just because a problem is at the systematic level, and not at the individual level, does not mean it ceases to be a problem, or that it is not possible to address.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
No offense, but this argument could be used to hand-wave away basically anything you don't like. It's rather baseless.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  GP's argument is not for diversity (of race/gender/class/whatever else), but against the idea that such a project would necessarily be utopian, or that only individual action can fix a systemic issue. It doesn't even argue that there is a systemic issue, it is only a comment on the nature of systemic and individual issues. GP's comment, far from hand-waving away 'anything they don't like' actually seems to be an argument against hand-waving based on a narrow, constricted view of societal problems (i.e. on the level of individuals and particular firms). The theoretical model propounded in the top-level comment should be questioned. If we still end up at the same answer even after questioning, that's fine - but it still needs questioning. I don't think anyone actually argues that SV hiring practises are 'evil' or deliberately a particular way. GP seems to agree - evil is very much an element of conspiracy or deliberate action. We need to look wider than that, and not assign blame to people working within a system. When one says "that's just the way it is" - the correct answer is not "because of evil people", but rather to answer with a question in return - "why is that the way it is?". That way, you can start investigating the system rather than the individuals within it, who work to their own ends (as libertarian economists are fond of pointing out). The constant dichotomy in these discussions set up between 'equality of outcome' and 'equality of opportunity' can only perceive individuals and individual firms. That dichotomy is worth questioning if we want to even consider the systemic view. The systemic view, as every philosopher I can name (on the right or the left) propounds, considers equality of opportunity. Marx himself famously rallied against these abstract notions of 'equality'. There is only one philosopher in the whole of Western political and philosophical thought who propounds some kind of exactly equal distribution: Barbeuf, and he lived in the 18th century, and his ideas are not currently popular.
  - blahbhthrow3748 6y ago
    My reading of OP is that it's bad to have a goal of "more Black founders", etc. because it's "unnatural" and "goes against meritocracy". We should simply continue the status quo because OP believes the system that rewards them must be the best and most just, equal possible system.
    - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
      Nowhere did they say its unnatural. Other than that, I'd agree with your interpretation.
cerebrum 6y ago
You are assuming it is a problem, there is your political judgement. Why should all genders and races be represented equally in all occupations? Pertinent dictum: Strive for equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.

Just because a problem is at the systematic level, and not at the individual level, does not mean it ceases to be a problem, or that it is not possible to address.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

No offense, but this argument could be used to hand-wave away basically anything you don't like. It's rather baseless.

claudiawerner 6y ago
GP's argument is not for diversity (of race/gender/class/whatever else), but against the idea that such a project would necessarily be utopian, or that only individual action can fix a systemic issue. It doesn't even argue that there is a systemic issue, it is only a comment on the nature of systemic and individual issues. GP's comment, far from hand-waving away 'anything they don't like' actually seems to be an argument against hand-waving based on a narrow, constricted view of societal problems (i.e. on the level of individuals and particular firms). The theoretical model propounded in the top-level comment should be questioned. If we still end up at the same answer even after questioning, that's fine - but it still needs questioning. I don't think anyone actually argues that SV hiring practises are 'evil' or deliberately a particular way. GP seems to agree - evil is very much an element of conspiracy or deliberate action. We need to look wider than that, and not assign blame to people working within a system. When one says "that's just the way it is" - the correct answer is not "because of evil people", but rather to answer with a question in return - "why is that the way it is?". That way, you can start investigating the system rather than the individuals within it, who work to their own ends (as libertarian economists are fond of pointing out). The constant dichotomy in these discussions set up between 'equality of outcome' and 'equality of opportunity' can only perceive individuals and individual firms. That dichotomy is worth questioning if we want to even consider the systemic view. The systemic view, as every philosopher I can name (on the right or the left) propounds, considers equality of opportunity. Marx himself famously rallied against these abstract notions of 'equality'. There is only one philosopher in the whole of Western political and philosophical thought who propounds some kind of exactly equal distribution: Barbeuf, and he lived in the 18th century, and his ideas are not currently popular.
- blahbhthrow3748 6y ago
  My reading of OP is that it's bad to have a goal of "more Black founders", etc. because it's "unnatural" and "goes against meritocracy". We should simply continue the status quo because OP believes the system that rewards them must be the best and most just, equal possible system.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Nowhere did they say its unnatural. Other than that, I'd agree with your interpretation.

cerebrum 6y ago

You are assuming it is a problem, there is your political judgement. Why should all genders and races be represented equally in all occupations? Pertinent dictum: Strive for equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.