3 ms·

Your point does not distinguish between flavors of disadvantage. Minorities and women have to deal with systemic racism and/or sexism Here's how I suggest HS r

Your point does not distinguish between flavors of disadvantage. Minorities and women have to deal with systemic racism and/or sexism Here's how I suggest HS reach out to women/minorities: provide them with grants if they apply to Hacker School. Done! Effective outreach so that traditionally-marginalized groups might participate enough to overcome institutionalized racism/sexism.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
We might be getting somewhere. What is "systemic"? I.e., how do I determine if a disadvantage is systemic or not? If I'm understanding right, your reasoning is: 1) Positive claim: women and minorities (including asians?) suffer systemic racism. 2) Normative claim: Victims of systemic disadvantage deserve special privileges, victims of non-systemic disadvantage do not. (I'm a bit shaky on this one - let me know if it's wrong.) 3) Normative conclusion: special privileges for women/minorities. If that's correct, I can fully reproduce your reasoning once I know the definition of "systemic".
- achompas 12y ago
  "Systemic" here is defined as "integrated deeply into a system." In this case, "systemic racism/sexism" refers to "the deep integration of racism/sexism in a particular institution or industry." Also, I would amend #2 to say: "victims of systemic racism/sexism may be able to overcome those via targeted outreach."
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Can you give me a concrete test I can use to determine whether something is systemic or not? And will any old system do? Your amended (2) is a positive claim. It tells us "if X happens then Y will happen". You cannot draw a normative conclusion from a sequence of positive claims. You need a "should" or "aught" or "morally good" or "ethical" in there somewhere. Discussions like this online are pushing me in the direction of favoring mandatory philosophical education.
    - achompas 12y ago
      Listen, it's not my responsibility to educate you on these issues. They've been covered extensively by sociological experts. Before participating in these discussions, I suggest you look around for some of the resources that cover these topics.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        The uncited experts who's authority I'm fallaciously appealing to say your experts are wrong and a bunch of jerks. It's also a bit silly to participate in a discussion and suddenly declare that it's not your responsibility to participate after logic fails you. One conclusion I have drawn from this - none of the pro-racist decisions people have a clue what the moral underpinnings of their views are beyond "liberal authorities tell me to believe this, so I do".
        achompas 12y ago
        I honestly don't want to sit on HN and debate whether my claims about systemic racism are positive or normative with someone who believes I need a philosophical education. That's why I'm bowing out. Good luck.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

We might be getting somewhere. What is "systemic"? I.e., how do I determine if a disadvantage is systemic or not? If I'm understanding right, your reasoning is: 1) Positive claim: women and minorities (including asians?) suffer systemic racism. 2) Normative claim: Victims of systemic disadvantage deserve special privileges, victims of non-systemic disadvantage do not. (I'm a bit shaky on this one - let me know if it's wrong.) 3) Normative conclusion: special privileges for women/minorities. If that's correct, I can fully reproduce your reasoning once I know the definition of "systemic".

achompas 12y ago
"Systemic" here is defined as "integrated deeply into a system." In this case, "systemic racism/sexism" refers to "the deep integration of racism/sexism in a particular institution or industry." Also, I would amend #2 to say: "victims of systemic racism/sexism may be able to overcome those via targeted outreach."
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Can you give me a concrete test I can use to determine whether something is systemic or not? And will any old system do? Your amended (2) is a positive claim. It tells us "if X happens then Y will happen". You cannot draw a normative conclusion from a sequence of positive claims. You need a "should" or "aught" or "morally good" or "ethical" in there somewhere. Discussions like this online are pushing me in the direction of favoring mandatory philosophical education.
  - achompas 12y ago
    Listen, it's not my responsibility to educate you on these issues. They've been covered extensively by sociological experts. Before participating in these discussions, I suggest you look around for some of the resources that cover these topics.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      The uncited experts who's authority I'm fallaciously appealing to say your experts are wrong and a bunch of jerks. It's also a bit silly to participate in a discussion and suddenly declare that it's not your responsibility to participate after logic fails you. One conclusion I have drawn from this - none of the pro-racist decisions people have a clue what the moral underpinnings of their views are beyond "liberal authorities tell me to believe this, so I do".
      - achompas 12y ago
        I honestly don't want to sit on HN and debate whether my claims about systemic racism are positive or normative with someone who believes I need a philosophical education. That's why I'm bowing out. Good luck.