3 ms·

It was never said that all humans where alike and to be handled the same way. You won't give the same birth control methods to male and female individual for in

by yoha 13y ago

It was never said that all humans where alike and to be handled the same way. You won't give the same birth control methods to male and female individual for instance. When speaking of equality, I think it is implied equality before society: equal rights, same laws, no irrelevant discrimination (I don't know how it works but I guess sellers are partially chosen depending on how they look and how attractive they are). It would not mean that you mean to be blind to factual and neutral evidence which leads to technical efficiency. From the original article: > Published research has shown that blacks are more likely than whites to have a blood type that causes sickle cell disease and can protect against malaria, and are more likely to have a certain gene called APOL1, which protects against a parasite that causes sleeping sickness. It is quite a good example of information that could help put a diagnosis on a person taking into account racial aspects. And I doubt it would count as racist in any way. Because not everything is black or white, they is a grey area: > She cited new research urging that children be identified based on their genetically predetermined educational abilities and then put in separate schools that could be used to foster different kinds of learning. This is a border line case: technically, it might mean more proficient teaching using adapted methods for both groups. However, this is also segregation. A way to draw some line would be to avoid discriminating social interactions: in this case, X kids are only interacting with X kids, which make a bias on the population distribution. tl;dr: calling "racism" on non-biased factual evidence is quite harsh, but we need to be cautious when using such facts Note: "non-biased" because Nazis did pretend to have factual evidence against Jews, but it was only pseudo-science propaganda (and, well, they only used it to justify arbitrary discrimination)

yk 13y ago
The problem with > She cited new research urging that children be identified based on their genetically predetermined educational abilities and then put in separate schools that could be used to foster different kinds of learning. is, we already know that constructing social categories based on biological traits is bullshit, simply because the relevant criteria are not given by science. Science can only give a classification of some measure, but it can not reasonably define if the measure is relevant. For an extreme example, even if you get a "obviously relevant" distribution, you have to choose at which values you draw the line. But lets assume for the sake of the argument, that there is initially no difference in the outcome of the education ( defining this is left as an exercise to the reader), one of the school types will be perceived as better. So it will get more applications, can afford harsher selection criteria and actually become better. At which point the better school will probably get more resources, and the cycle continues. So calling "racism" on non-biased factual evidence is harsh. Assuming that non-biased factual evidence includes citations to the roughly 100 years of research how oppressive structures develop. (These 100 years of research are usually called feminism.) But we know that precisely these footnotes are the first to be dropped.

by yoha 13y ago

yk 13y ago

The problem with > She cited new research urging that children be identified based on their genetically predetermined educational abilities and then put in separate schools that could be used to foster different kinds of learning. is, we already know that constructing social categories based on biological traits is bullshit, simply because the relevant criteria are not given by science. Science can only give a classification of some measure, but it can not reasonably define if the measure is relevant. For an extreme example, even if you get a "obviously relevant" distribution, you have to choose at which values you draw the line. But lets assume for the sake of the argument, that there is initially no difference in the outcome of the education ( defining this is left as an exercise to the reader), one of the school types will be perceived as better. So it will get more applications, can afford harsher selection criteria and actually become better. At which point the better school will probably get more resources, and the cycle continues. So calling "racism" on non-biased factual evidence is harsh. Assuming that non-biased factual evidence includes citations to the roughly 100 years of research how oppressive structures develop. (These 100 years of research are usually called feminism.) But we know that precisely these footnotes are the first to be dropped.