5 ms·

I think your “social justice” cause(s) would be much better served if you didn’t make up problems where there are none (what’s the issue with “globalist”??) and

by tomp 6y ago

I think your “social justice” cause(s) would be much better served if you didn’t make up problems where there are none (what’s the issue with “globalist”??) and didn’t project ill intent where there is none (the soap dispenser wasn’t “racist”, it was just “bad”). It’s just basic intellectual honesty, sorely missing in the SJW circles.

mschuster91 6y ago
> what’s the issue with “globalist” It's a white-supremacist dog whistle for "jew": https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-globalist-became-an-anti-semitic-slur-blame-bannon-1.5895925 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-gl... > the soap dispenser wasn’t “racist”, it was just “bad” For a person of color who wants to wash their hand and sees that it dispenses soap for white people but not for them it is yet another piece of everyday racism.
- dash2 6y ago
  Globalist probably can be used as a dog-whistle, but we do need a word for people who support free trade, free migration, borderless finance etc. That’s a quite common position. Indeed, the Haaretz article you link to is considerably more ambiguous than just saying “globalism is a bad word and must be banned “.
- tomp 6y ago
  I think that “dog-whistle” is a dog-whistle for wokeist people who prefer to insult others as racists instead of making actual rational arguments. As for “globalist”, I don’t see an issue with criticising globalism and those who promote it, be they Jews or others. Clearly a lot of Jews (in Israel) are very “localist”, and I suppose there are some that are “globalist” as well. So? Just because a view is also supported by some or other “vile” people (that are almost always a tiny minority, if disproportionately loud and/or salient), doesn’t make that view invalid or immoral.
dash2 6y ago
The soap dispenser clearly didn’t have racist thoughts. But it effectively worked worse for black people, so it has racially discriminatory effects. I don’t think there’s much to argue about here. Also, I believe it’s best not to accuse your interlocutor of lacking intellectual honesty unless the evidence is very clear. Perhaps they just see the world differently to you.
- tomp 6y ago
  algorithm is biased => we should fix it is reasonable, but also a misrepresentation of the argument that this whole thread is about, which is more along the lines of algorithm is biased => researchers are racist => the company that employs them is racist => the whole country is racist which definitely is driven more by ideology than reason. I’m happy about people viewing the world differently and having an honest, good-faith discussion about the issues. But I’ll criticise intellectually dishonest arguments, like the moat-and-bailey you just pulled here.
  - dash2 6y ago
    OK, dude - if you really think I'm arguing in bad faith, I will just leave you to it!
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > researchers are racist I never argued for that. My point is that researchers (as well as everyone!) have biases, which may manifest in the end as racism or other forms of discriminations. To prevent these biases from manifesting, (AI) ethics experts are needed as oversight. > the company that employs them is racist To take the example of the "racist soap dispenser" again: while the individual people who have developed it may not have been racist, they have failed to think outside their biases and ask themselves "can people with non-white skin use the product?". Also, management has failed here, because more diverse staff would have resulted in at least one internal test candidate of color noticing "hey, I can't get soap!". The result of this lack of diversity and out-of-the-ordinary thinking was that a person of color was rightfully offended at not being dispensed soap. Therefore, the company acted racist even if it never intended to do so. > the whole country is racist Just short of half of the country recently elected a President who openly spouted white-supremacist conspiracy theories. For half the people in the US racism is not a dealbreaker for the highest office it has to offer!
htfu 6y ago
> what’s the issue with “globalist”?? In a certain context it just means jews. And they didn't write racist soap dispenser, they wrote "racist soap dispenser". Do look inwards.

by tomp 6y ago

mschuster91 6y ago

> what’s the issue with “globalist” It's a white-supremacist dog whistle for "jew": https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-globalist-became-an-anti-semitic-slur-blame-bannon-1.5895925 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-gl... > the soap dispenser wasn’t “racist”, it was just “bad” For a person of color who wants to wash their hand and sees that it dispenses soap for white people but not for them it is yet another piece of everyday racism.

dash2 6y ago
Globalist probably can be used as a dog-whistle, but we do need a word for people who support free trade, free migration, borderless finance etc. That’s a quite common position. Indeed, the Haaretz article you link to is considerably more ambiguous than just saying “globalism is a bad word and must be banned “.
tomp 6y ago
I think that “dog-whistle” is a dog-whistle for wokeist people who prefer to insult others as racists instead of making actual rational arguments. As for “globalist”, I don’t see an issue with criticising globalism and those who promote it, be they Jews or others. Clearly a lot of Jews (in Israel) are very “localist”, and I suppose there are some that are “globalist” as well. So? Just because a view is also supported by some or other “vile” people (that are almost always a tiny minority, if disproportionately loud and/or salient), doesn’t make that view invalid or immoral.

dash2 6y ago

The soap dispenser clearly didn’t have racist thoughts. But it effectively worked worse for black people, so it has racially discriminatory effects. I don’t think there’s much to argue about here. Also, I believe it’s best not to accuse your interlocutor of lacking intellectual honesty unless the evidence is very clear. Perhaps they just see the world differently to you.

tomp 6y ago
algorithm is biased => we should fix it is reasonable, but also a misrepresentation of the argument that this whole thread is about, which is more along the lines of algorithm is biased => researchers are racist => the company that employs them is racist => the whole country is racist which definitely is driven more by ideology than reason. I’m happy about people viewing the world differently and having an honest, good-faith discussion about the issues. But I’ll criticise intellectually dishonest arguments, like the moat-and-bailey you just pulled here.
- dash2 6y ago
  OK, dude - if you really think I'm arguing in bad faith, I will just leave you to it!
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > researchers are racist I never argued for that. My point is that researchers (as well as everyone!) have biases, which may manifest in the end as racism or other forms of discriminations. To prevent these biases from manifesting, (AI) ethics experts are needed as oversight. > the company that employs them is racist To take the example of the "racist soap dispenser" again: while the individual people who have developed it may not have been racist, they have failed to think outside their biases and ask themselves "can people with non-white skin use the product?". Also, management has failed here, because more diverse staff would have resulted in at least one internal test candidate of color noticing "hey, I can't get soap!". The result of this lack of diversity and out-of-the-ordinary thinking was that a person of color was rightfully offended at not being dispensed soap. Therefore, the company acted racist even if it never intended to do so. > the whole country is racist Just short of half of the country recently elected a President who openly spouted white-supremacist conspiracy theories. For half the people in the US racism is not a dealbreaker for the highest office it has to offer!

htfu 6y ago

> what’s the issue with “globalist”?? In a certain context it just means jews. And they didn't write racist soap dispenser, they wrote "racist soap dispenser". Do look inwards.