3 ms·

That page seems totally reasonable and admirable to me. It’s literally just advocating for including the wide and varied history of algorithm development, in or

That page seems totally reasonable and admirable to me. It’s literally just advocating for including the wide and varied history of algorithm development, in order to encourage readers from many different backgrounds to find ways to connect with the important topic.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago
[flagged]
- cypherpunks01 3y ago
  > I don’t think an encyclopaedia should cater to racist views of its readers over factual information Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man argument fast incoming.. > So it seems unreasonable to stretch the truth to diversify or narrow down the number of people you mention It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions by people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you mention". It's literally mentioning more people who contributed to a certain effort or field of study.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    > Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man argument fast incoming.. Of course they do. That's what they say: > The way I understand the program of decolonizing mathematics is to follow two principles: > first, to recognize the contributions of people with diverse backgrounds, in order to offer more protagonists who can inspire and with whom more people can identify > second, to provide examples and motivations that are relatable to under-represented backgrounds and identities, in order to reach and be more immediately helpful to more people They imply that people will more readily identify and congregate with people of their own racial and ethnic background. That may be true, that doesn't make it any less racist. > It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions by people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you mention". If you factually recognize important contributions, you don't have to make any efforts or care about the raised issue. > It's literally mentioning more people who contributed to a certain effort or field of study. Mentioning more than what?
- atoav 3y ago
  If you want to write who invented the algorithm and there is one asian invention in 1303 and one by some eueopean in 1803 then leaving out the asian inventor is actively harmful to the encyclopedia as it distorts truth. This article to me just tries to raise awareness for the fact that our western history of who invented what is often incomplete and sometimes simply wrong. Historians right now have the unenviable task of considering how the history they work with has been distorted by racism (e.g. by playing down the role of certain people with the "wrong" race and instead attributing things to people with the "right" race). I'd like an encyclopedia to list all inventors of something even if they are not known in my culture — preferably in my own language as well, but that is a different topic.
userbinator 3y ago
What exactly do you mean by "to find ways to connect with the important topic"? That sort of obfuscated language doesn't help explain anything.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Hes saying non-whites feel like functions are foreign to them
Levitz 3y ago
>It’s literally just advocating for including the wide and varied history of algorithm development, in order to encourage readers from many different backgrounds to find ways to connect with the important topic. I'm at a loss of words for what I feel towards respecting (even promoting!) the idea that a piece of knowledge ought to become interesting or valuable if there is ethnic relationship to it. It reeks of supremacist talk to me. If someone came up to me saying that he got into mathematics because Charles Babbage was a white guy, just like him, I'd think that person doesn't belong in current society. This doesn't change if the person belongs to any minority.
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Levitz 3y ago
    Feigning ignorance? I am explicit in pointing how minorities tend to get a special deal when it comes to supremacist talk. I just don't condone it. I don't believe that glorification based on race is something you can keep to certain races. I am simply not racist about racism.
    - beepbooptheory 3y ago
      Gotcha, well good luck with that I guess.
- ckoerner 3y ago
  Representation matters. Many people are not represented in the worlds knowledge, much less the creation of it.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

[flagged]

cypherpunks01 3y ago
> I don’t think an encyclopaedia should cater to racist views of its readers over factual information Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man argument fast incoming.. > So it seems unreasonable to stretch the truth to diversify or narrow down the number of people you mention It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions by people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you mention". It's literally mentioning more people who contributed to a certain effort or field of study.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  > Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man argument fast incoming.. Of course they do. That's what they say: > The way I understand the program of decolonizing mathematics is to follow two principles: > first, to recognize the contributions of people with diverse backgrounds, in order to offer more protagonists who can inspire and with whom more people can identify > second, to provide examples and motivations that are relatable to under-represented backgrounds and identities, in order to reach and be more immediately helpful to more people They imply that people will more readily identify and congregate with people of their own racial and ethnic background. That may be true, that doesn't make it any less racist. > It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions by people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you mention". If you factually recognize important contributions, you don't have to make any efforts or care about the raised issue. > It's literally mentioning more people who contributed to a certain effort or field of study. Mentioning more than what?
atoav 3y ago
If you want to write who invented the algorithm and there is one asian invention in 1303 and one by some eueopean in 1803 then leaving out the asian inventor is actively harmful to the encyclopedia as it distorts truth. This article to me just tries to raise awareness for the fact that our western history of who invented what is often incomplete and sometimes simply wrong. Historians right now have the unenviable task of considering how the history they work with has been distorted by racism (e.g. by playing down the role of certain people with the "wrong" race and instead attributing things to people with the "right" race). I'd like an encyclopedia to list all inventors of something even if they are not known in my culture — preferably in my own language as well, but that is a different topic.

userbinator 3y ago

What exactly do you mean by "to find ways to connect with the important topic"? That sort of obfuscated language doesn't help explain anything.

nonethewiser 3y ago
Hes saying non-whites feel like functions are foreign to them

Levitz 3y ago

>It’s literally just advocating for including the wide and varied history of algorithm development, in order to encourage readers from many different backgrounds to find ways to connect with the important topic. I'm at a loss of words for what I feel towards respecting (even promoting!) the idea that a piece of knowledge ought to become interesting or valuable if there is ethnic relationship to it. It reeks of supremacist talk to me. If someone came up to me saying that he got into mathematics because Charles Babbage was a white guy, just like him, I'd think that person doesn't belong in current society. This doesn't change if the person belongs to any minority.

beepbooptheory 3y ago
[flagged]
- Levitz 3y ago
  Feigning ignorance? I am explicit in pointing how minorities tend to get a special deal when it comes to supremacist talk. I just don't condone it. I don't believe that glorification based on race is something you can keep to certain races. I am simply not racist about racism.
  - beepbooptheory 3y ago
    Gotcha, well good luck with that I guess.
ckoerner 3y ago
Representation matters. Many people are not represented in the worlds knowledge, much less the creation of it.