3 ms·

You must use the pareto principle when you program, right? So if you get reports that your program is crashing, and 80% of the crash reports point to a specific

You must use the pareto principle when you program, right? So if you get reports that your program is crashing, and 80% of the crash reports point to a specific module, that's the one you naturally fix first? Racism is like that. White-on-black racism is the absolute leader in terms of causing real human misery in America. When your boss tells you to fix the code that's causing 80% of your program crashes, do you complain that there's other code crashing, too? Or do you act like a real engineer, and fix the big issues first?

coldtea 6y ago
>When your boss tells you to fix the code that's causing 80% of your program crashes, do you complain that there's other code crashing, too? Or do you act like a real engineer, and fix the big issues first? Sure, why don't we act as "real engineers"? If we did, we'd see that inequality and class issues are the "absolute leaders in terms of causing real human misery in America". Those pareto-results however are swept under the carpet for more fashionable and inconsequential causes (because changing those would entail changing it for everybody, black, latino, white, asian, muslim, etc.), and it would also mean many changes to capitalism and how it operates (in the corporate space, education, health, legal, etc). Whereas now it's just enough that e.g. a big business creates some diversity initiative, sponsors some apps with token multiracial people posing, and continue business as usual. Not to mention that even if one wanted to tackle racism, telling people to "be less white" would be the very last thing they should do. If anything, the "pareto pricinple" that some racism is OK, since "our 20% shit doesn't stink, only the 80% of shit does" would only help increase actual bad blood against blacks.
- bingbong70 6y ago
  "Coca cola confirms training employees to be less white supremacist" fixed it. I notice msm and journalists like leaving off the last word (supremacist) for the sake of outrage. This is a 500+ year problem that negatively affected most of the planet, we can't decontextualize.
jimmygrapes 6y ago
Sure, if we look only at select historical data regarding overall suffering, this almost makes sense. Should we also use this method to address modern times? Should we apply it to, say, crime rates, (irrespective of the theories behind underlying causes)? You and I both know that this only leads to accusations of "white supremacist" talking points.
spirolateral 6y ago
Wow. This analogy makes zero sense.
ginstain 6y ago
This reasoning is flawed. The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination. And the biggest issue that the federal government/ American citizens face is not systemic racism. You cannot absolve groups of individuals of their poor decision making. You can try to manipulate outcomes, but it doesn't end well if individuals continue to make poor decisions. The analogy is flawed because race doesn't account for 80% of the problems in the US, and I don't think it breaks 5%.

coldtea 6y ago

>When your boss tells you to fix the code that's causing 80% of your program crashes, do you complain that there's other code crashing, too? Or do you act like a real engineer, and fix the big issues first? Sure, why don't we act as "real engineers"? If we did, we'd see that inequality and class issues are the "absolute leaders in terms of causing real human misery in America". Those pareto-results however are swept under the carpet for more fashionable and inconsequential causes (because changing those would entail changing it for everybody, black, latino, white, asian, muslim, etc.), and it would also mean many changes to capitalism and how it operates (in the corporate space, education, health, legal, etc). Whereas now it's just enough that e.g. a big business creates some diversity initiative, sponsors some apps with token multiracial people posing, and continue business as usual. Not to mention that even if one wanted to tackle racism, telling people to "be less white" would be the very last thing they should do. If anything, the "pareto pricinple" that some racism is OK, since "our 20% shit doesn't stink, only the 80% of shit does" would only help increase actual bad blood against blacks.

bingbong70 6y ago
"Coca cola confirms training employees to be less white supremacist" fixed it. I notice msm and journalists like leaving off the last word (supremacist) for the sake of outrage. This is a 500+ year problem that negatively affected most of the planet, we can't decontextualize.

jimmygrapes 6y ago

Sure, if we look only at select historical data regarding overall suffering, this almost makes sense. Should we also use this method to address modern times? Should we apply it to, say, crime rates, (irrespective of the theories behind underlying causes)? You and I both know that this only leads to accusations of "white supremacist" talking points.

spirolateral 6y ago

Wow. This analogy makes zero sense.

ginstain 6y ago

This reasoning is flawed. The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination. And the biggest issue that the federal government/ American citizens face is not systemic racism. You cannot absolve groups of individuals of their poor decision making. You can try to manipulate outcomes, but it doesn't end well if individuals continue to make poor decisions. The analogy is flawed because race doesn't account for 80% of the problems in the US, and I don't think it breaks 5%.