4 ms·

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 sai

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").

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").