5 ms·

> Still, I don’t understand how policies like this can be seen as anything other than racism, by definition. And I don’t understand how racism can be defended a

> Still, I don’t understand how policies like this can be seen as anything other than racism, by definition. And I don’t understand how racism can be defended as a good thing A good example I can give is if someone said “men rule the world” that is an objective truth and a problem we need to solve. Men have and continue to be extremely overrepresented in positions of power. Now if another person were to say “Jews rule the world” that is an ignorant and hurtful statement with a terrible history. Race/sex/religious/etc blind moderation would say either both statements are ok or neither are. But one statement is far more hurtful because of the historical connotation of it and what it implies. Two statements can have the same wording, but mean two fundamentally different things because of the history and struggle of that group. It’s not necessarily racist to allow certain statements about some groups and not others because it might mean something different depending on what group it’s directed towards.

mercy_dude 5y ago
> A good example I can give is if someone said “men rule the world” that is an objective truth and a problem we need to solve. And what would the solution look like? 50% men and 50% women in all professions? Including nursing, plumbing, construction etc.? And how would you achieve that? Using a quota? Forcing certain men/women taking more/less qualified positions than they are? And who and what defines power? CEOs? Highly paid jobs? > It’s not necessarily racist to allow certain statements about some groups and not others because it might mean something different depending on what group it’s directed towards. How many such groups are you going to cater to? And who gets to be the judge of what is ok to say in one group vs another and between ranking those groups? There are so many technical problems with these kind of thinking I can’t imagine how this ends well for anyone.
- chickenpotpie 5y ago
  your argument is equality is hard so we should give up. > There are so many TECHNICAL problems I think this is the very problematic root of everything you said. There is no algorithm or equation to solve these problems. Equality is not a solved problem. We’re never gonna sit down one day and say “as of this morning we hit our equality metric, we did it everyone.” This is a soft science. It’s about debate and humanity. There are no easy answers, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem worth solving.
  - mercy_dude 5y ago
    To solve a problem first you have to at least vaguely define what the problem is and the end result of the problem so you can work towards solution. Just stating the objective isn’t good enough. I didn’t say it is hard. My opinion was the problem is not even defined well. For example are we going to aim for 50% men and 50% women (or an equal spilt among all possible subdivisions of groups e.g LGBTQI/black/latinos/asians/212 nationalities etc) in every field no matter what the outcome is and how would we go about achieving this? It’s not an easy/hard problem it’s a definition problem. Also are we just going to act as if such equality only matters in tech industry and a few other places of power? And if so why? I am not saying we should give up but we have NO idea how to define equality and what the outcome is going to look like let alone how to achieve it. For example is the outcome equal subdivision among all genders, classes, races, nationalities and their cross products? Or just in race dimension? And who chooses the appropriate dimensions? For example if it is in just one dimensional problem then what about people who are mixed? Not to say it has been tried in different forms in Soviet Russia and other places which didn’t go so well. If we are going to try this again we better at least know how and what the end result will look like.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    >your argument is equality is hard so we should give up. The argument you are responding to is that equality is hard, and explicitly racist policies make it harder, not easier. >We’re never gonna sit down one day and say “as of this morning we hit our equality metric, we did it everyone.” Which is to say, Facebook will have this policy of "low priority" for addressing "hateful" content directed at whites, men, and Americans in perpetuity? I genuinely don't understand your argument because on the one hand you admit this is a "soft", and largely arbitrary, metric but on the other you still claim that it's something that can even be "solved" at all (for some sufficient-yet-undefined definition of "solved").
no_time 5y ago
How is allowing "i hate crackers" helping anything though? Okay, It's less hurtful, I don't care either but this is like legalizing slapping people on the street because "well, it doesn't leave a mark"
native_samples 5y ago
There's no difference. The origins of the "Jews rule the world" meme was a massive over-representation in powerful jobs like finance. How is it hurtful and terrible to say it about Jews but when it's about men it's just objective and a problem. A problem! Incredibly tone deaf - you're implying that there should be some sort of ... solution. The point of studying history is to learn generalizable lessons from it. That sort of hyper-specific take is simply failing to learn from it.

mercy_dude 5y ago

> A good example I can give is if someone said “men rule the world” that is an objective truth and a problem we need to solve. And what would the solution look like? 50% men and 50% women in all professions? Including nursing, plumbing, construction etc.? And how would you achieve that? Using a quota? Forcing certain men/women taking more/less qualified positions than they are? And who and what defines power? CEOs? Highly paid jobs? > It’s not necessarily racist to allow certain statements about some groups and not others because it might mean something different depending on what group it’s directed towards. How many such groups are you going to cater to? And who gets to be the judge of what is ok to say in one group vs another and between ranking those groups? There are so many technical problems with these kind of thinking I can’t imagine how this ends well for anyone.

chickenpotpie 5y ago
your argument is equality is hard so we should give up. > There are so many TECHNICAL problems I think this is the very problematic root of everything you said. There is no algorithm or equation to solve these problems. Equality is not a solved problem. We’re never gonna sit down one day and say “as of this morning we hit our equality metric, we did it everyone.” This is a soft science. It’s about debate and humanity. There are no easy answers, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem worth solving.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  To solve a problem first you have to at least vaguely define what the problem is and the end result of the problem so you can work towards solution. Just stating the objective isn’t good enough. I didn’t say it is hard. My opinion was the problem is not even defined well. For example are we going to aim for 50% men and 50% women (or an equal spilt among all possible subdivisions of groups e.g LGBTQI/black/latinos/asians/212 nationalities etc) in every field no matter what the outcome is and how would we go about achieving this? It’s not an easy/hard problem it’s a definition problem. Also are we just going to act as if such equality only matters in tech industry and a few other places of power? And if so why? I am not saying we should give up but we have NO idea how to define equality and what the outcome is going to look like let alone how to achieve it. For example is the outcome equal subdivision among all genders, classes, races, nationalities and their cross products? Or just in race dimension? And who chooses the appropriate dimensions? For example if it is in just one dimensional problem then what about people who are mixed? Not to say it has been tried in different forms in Soviet Russia and other places which didn’t go so well. If we are going to try this again we better at least know how and what the end result will look like.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >your argument is equality is hard so we should give up. The argument you are responding to is that equality is hard, and explicitly racist policies make it harder, not easier. >We’re never gonna sit down one day and say “as of this morning we hit our equality metric, we did it everyone.” Which is to say, Facebook will have this policy of "low priority" for addressing "hateful" content directed at whites, men, and Americans in perpetuity? I genuinely don't understand your argument because on the one hand you admit this is a "soft", and largely arbitrary, metric but on the other you still claim that it's something that can even be "solved" at all (for some sufficient-yet-undefined definition of "solved").

no_time 5y ago

How is allowing "i hate crackers" helping anything though? Okay, It's less hurtful, I don't care either but this is like legalizing slapping people on the street because "well, it doesn't leave a mark"

native_samples 5y ago

There's no difference. The origins of the "Jews rule the world" meme was a massive over-representation in powerful jobs like finance. How is it hurtful and terrible to say it about Jews but when it's about men it's just objective and a problem. A problem! Incredibly tone deaf - you're implying that there should be some sort of ... solution. The point of studying history is to learn generalizable lessons from it. That sort of hyper-specific take is simply failing to learn from it.