2) society has negative beliefs/attitudes towards y, but
3) Y turns out to actually benefit from x
then (2) is nevertheless a serious social problem to be solved. It may be fortunately harmless in a given case because of (3), but across all policies, society will succeed in harming groups it doesn't like more often than it accidentally benefits them.
"Our goal should be to seek what is optimal, not what is equal."
Your last sentence is either tautological or wrong, but I can't tell which one. If you think we should factor equality into what we consider "optimal", then it's tautologous. If you think we shouldn't factor in equality, I think you're wrong (I could go on more, but I wanna know which you are claiming).
I think typo here, "are" is suppose to be "are not" / "aren't" "On the contrary, it can indicate just as well that whites are sentenced to prison enough"
“Consider the Anwar, Bayer, and Hjalmarsson papers. Their results need not indicate that whites discriminate against Blacks – rather, it could indicate that Blacks are, on average, more violent than their peers, and that their co-racialists then discriminate in their favor”
Like I don’t think you’re that kind of idiotic asshole, but how is this assumption not wildly racist? That a right wing influencer tier take
Reaffirming that I think you are morally decent enough in this subject
I am not sure what you mean by “the model is not identified” unless you are trying to imply that there is absolutely nothing conceptually wrong with thinking that black people are not only innately more violent but will always try to protect each other from consequences of that violence. That’s the kind of cartoonish belief that a KKK member would hold to justify their violence tendencies. It is wrong not just from a perspective of human equality and anti racism, but also from just how reality would work. It’s why I call it a “right wing influencer tier take”, it’s comes off as someone quite badly hiding there absurd racism by pretending to be open minded. I don’t know why I have to explain this in such detail why this alternative should immediately be dismissed
I don't see why we should dismiss out of the hand the possibility that violence and racial solidarity are positively correlated. That would simply be an empirical question, not one answerable a priori.
The issue is that you are giving consideration to the belief that black people as a whole are innately more violent. That is the corrupting root here due to its inarguable racism. Any further argument about racial solidarity or anything else are distractions that are defiled by the rotten pretense. Argument trees can be treated as functional endless. Anyone could argue further about racial solidarity or anything else basically endlessly but if they are dead set to see black people as evil the conversation is worthless. It’s the banal filling out of argument trees at best, and ethnonationalism propaganda at worst. I could say if what we call racial solidarity is just having a perspective that white people don’t understand (like a functional jury system should encourage), or that the racial solidarity born from legitimate oppression is profoundly different from the racial solidarity born from personal contempt to those they hate but it really doesn’t matter. Sincerely, please don’t put more red herrings I feel compelled to answer. Sorry if I am not being clear or coming off as rude
Do you reject a priori that there might exist any differences in violence by groups? I believe men are more violent than women. That does not mean that men are evil. I cannot, therefore, reject a priori such things as false. If I did so, I would be led into believing false things.
Is this (purported) discrimination creating inefficiencies? I'm unsure if these papers imply they do. What do you think? (You seem to implicitly say this.)
Interesting. I think even if it turns out that:
1) society does x to y because
2) society has negative beliefs/attitudes towards y, but
3) Y turns out to actually benefit from x
then (2) is nevertheless a serious social problem to be solved. It may be fortunately harmless in a given case because of (3), but across all policies, society will succeed in harming groups it doesn't like more often than it accidentally benefits them.
"Our goal should be to seek what is optimal, not what is equal."
Your last sentence is either tautological or wrong, but I can't tell which one. If you think we should factor equality into what we consider "optimal", then it's tautologous. If you think we shouldn't factor in equality, I think you're wrong (I could go on more, but I wanna know which you are claiming).
he is saying that there are multiple outcomes that are equal, but only one of those is optimal
I think typo here, "are" is suppose to be "are not" / "aren't" "On the contrary, it can indicate just as well that whites are sentenced to prison enough"
“Consider the Anwar, Bayer, and Hjalmarsson papers. Their results need not indicate that whites discriminate against Blacks – rather, it could indicate that Blacks are, on average, more violent than their peers, and that their co-racialists then discriminate in their favor”
Like I don’t think you’re that kind of idiotic asshole, but how is this assumption not wildly racist? That a right wing influencer tier take
I am not necessarily saying that that is the case. I am saying the model is not identified.
Reaffirming that I think you are morally decent enough in this subject
I am not sure what you mean by “the model is not identified” unless you are trying to imply that there is absolutely nothing conceptually wrong with thinking that black people are not only innately more violent but will always try to protect each other from consequences of that violence. That’s the kind of cartoonish belief that a KKK member would hold to justify their violence tendencies. It is wrong not just from a perspective of human equality and anti racism, but also from just how reality would work. It’s why I call it a “right wing influencer tier take”, it’s comes off as someone quite badly hiding there absurd racism by pretending to be open minded. I don’t know why I have to explain this in such detail why this alternative should immediately be dismissed
I don't see why we should dismiss out of the hand the possibility that violence and racial solidarity are positively correlated. That would simply be an empirical question, not one answerable a priori.
The issue is that you are giving consideration to the belief that black people as a whole are innately more violent. That is the corrupting root here due to its inarguable racism. Any further argument about racial solidarity or anything else are distractions that are defiled by the rotten pretense. Argument trees can be treated as functional endless. Anyone could argue further about racial solidarity or anything else basically endlessly but if they are dead set to see black people as evil the conversation is worthless. It’s the banal filling out of argument trees at best, and ethnonationalism propaganda at worst. I could say if what we call racial solidarity is just having a perspective that white people don’t understand (like a functional jury system should encourage), or that the racial solidarity born from legitimate oppression is profoundly different from the racial solidarity born from personal contempt to those they hate but it really doesn’t matter. Sincerely, please don’t put more red herrings I feel compelled to answer. Sorry if I am not being clear or coming off as rude
Do you reject a priori that there might exist any differences in violence by groups? I believe men are more violent than women. That does not mean that men are evil. I cannot, therefore, reject a priori such things as false. If I did so, I would be led into believing false things.
Is this (purported) discrimination creating inefficiencies? I'm unsure if these papers imply they do. What do you think? (You seem to implicitly say this.)
> "On the contrary, it can indicate just as well that whites are sentenced to prison enough!"
I believe this should be "aren't", correct?
Also, I am honestly wondering, why do we capitalize "Black" and not "white"?