OK, I need to have a thread about centrism coz I am being accused of it again in terms of doing 'both sides' stuff. I've said before why I don't think centrism (in the sense of taking a middle position on everything rather than finding your views somewhere near the middle) works.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
How can you argue for an evidence based epistemology and at the same time argue for non-discrimination?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DNshur
By arguing for not discriminating by gender, race and sexuality specifically. It's fine to discriminate against people based on evidence that they are, eg not qualified for a certain job. Their gender, race or sexuality won't tell you that.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
It will under certain circumstances, if the evidence is there- you can't prejudge it. I am not arguing for discrimination, only that your starting point is false and could be used against you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DNshur
How is it false? I'm clearly not asking for people never to discriminate on the grounds of evidence.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
But you don't know what that evidence is. And to what it might relate to. You cannot start from a position of waiting for the evidence and at the same time denying any possible relationship that evidence might suggest to people with shared characteristics. It's disingenuous.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @DNshur
I don't know what you mean. Obviously, we can't evaluate on evidence if we don't know what it is. But I am talking about not discriminating on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality but on evidence of unsuitability.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
What's the difference between unsuitability and discrimination? You decided on what counts as evidence and what it is. The example you give adds in dimension of time and what then might count as evidence at later point.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DNshur
Do you mean something like that that the evidence that men commit most violent crime could lead someone to be more anxious if in a vulnerable position with an unknown man than with a woman? These kinds of pattern recognitions are unavoidable & potentially helpful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They don't justify discrimination more broadly than this tho. One can still recognise this and stand against any attempt to discriminate men as a group because they are overrepresented among violent criminals and insist that only violent criminals are punished.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.