According to the progressive definition of racism ('structural oppression'), minorities cannot be racist. That makes it likely that norms against ['dictionary definition'] racism are less enforced among minorities, and we might see more racist attitudes among them? Is there data?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Plinz
just to clarify, you seem to mean "we might see more *dictionary definition* racist attitudes..." is that right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattsiegel
'Dictionary definition' racism (which is also congruent with the legal view of racist discrimination in the US) means here: assigning different intrinsic value to people based on their ethnicity, cultural ancestry or skin color.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
that helps a lot, as the meaning in common use seems to be something like "calls one group names or says bad things about them"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattsiegel
It is a fascinating feature of humanity that every group has a set of available bad names for every other group. If we understand that humans evolved as a competitive group species, that is of course not surprising.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Matt Siegel Retweeted Prof Hugo Spiers
possibly related, an interesting recent hypothesis:https://twitter.com/hugospiers/status/1042475790963748867 …
Matt Siegel added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattsiegel @Plinz
though i am not fond of the idea hostility between groups originates in "natural" competition
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattsiegel
that is genuinely surprising, if by "not fond" you mean "scientifically improbable hypothesis" and not "I prefer if groups are not hostile"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
I prefer if groups are not hostile and I'm *intentionally* not going to promote that hypothesis in absence of evidence from evolutionary simulations etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
From a cybernetic perspective, your regulation is going to be off if your model is suboptimal. If you intentionally distort your null hypothesis, you may end up with bad policy. For instance, if you underestimate hostility, your policies may lead to more violent conflict.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
a completely erroneous model is also suboptimal. it's possible to construct and apply a plausible but incorrect model in order to intentionally inflict a great deal of harm. so we have to be careful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattsiegel
Is "completely erroneous" categorically different from "less likely to be true"? I expect that any deviation from truth will lead to needless harm, so intentional bias may be unethical. Or do you think it is better to intentionally distort your model of reality?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.