Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

What strikes me the wrong way is the term "privilege" implies a special right or benefit. As far as I can tell, it involves not being harassed by cops, not having people assume you are a criminal, generally assuming you are a decent human being rather than the worst, etc.

None of those should be a special right or benefit in a sane society - I think the Trevor Noah comment about "black tax" seems more accurate as it isn't a special benefit being given to whites but a penalty being applied to minorities.

I know. The term sucks but the concept is true.

[Tamas]

Dorsey is right, the issue isn't that whites are allowed too much, it's that non-whites are not allowed enough.

[Valmy]

Dorsey is right, the issue isn't that whites are allowed too much, it's that non-whites are not allowed enough.

Yes. I think we have been saying all along that the problem is that too many unarmed black people get shot by the police, not that more unarmed white people should be shot by police.

[DGuller]

In effect, people who use this definition of bigot require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.

That's what you have to do sometimes, or more precisely sometimes you just have to not act on true facts, even if it would be beneficial to you.  Anti-discrimination laws don't always protect people against other people being dumb; often they protect people against other people being smart in a way we decided is unacceptable.

[garbon]

In effect, people who use this definition of bigot require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.

That's what you have to do sometimes, or more precisely sometimes you just have to not act on true facts, even if it would be beneficial to you.  Anti-discrimination laws don't always protect people against other people being dumb; often they protect people against other people being smart in a way we decided is unacceptable.

Can we get some examples?

[DGuller]

In effect, people who use this definition of bigot require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.

That's what you have to do sometimes, or more precisely sometimes you just have to not act on true facts, even if it would be beneficial to you.  Anti-discrimination laws don't always protect people against other people being dumb; often they protect people against other people being smart in a way we decided is unacceptable.

Can we get some examples?

Employers can't discriminate based on someone's health or disability.

[grumbler]

I have a problem with calling this pattern "bigotry" because to my mind it is a perfectly natural response to differing probabilities of wrongdoing. Take the example of shoplifting.  If we assume for the sake of argument that blacks are X% more likely to shoplift than whites, it is perfectly rational for store security to pay more attention to black shoppers than white.  In effect, people who use this definition of bigot require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.

The problem with your example is that it shows precisely the kind of bigotry we are talking about.  "If we assume for the sake of argument that blacks are X% more likely to shoplift than whites" is a bigoted assumption because it assumes that the reason that a given person might shoplift is because of the color of their skin.  The "rational" store security that carefully watches the prosperous black couple is far more likely to completely miss the seedy white trash ripping off their store, and it will be because they are buying into a bigoted stereotype.

It is probably true that poor people steal more often than well-off people, and that a random black person is more likely to be poor than a random white person, but that does not make skin color a reliable indicator of propensity to steal.  Dress and manner, irrespective of skin color, would be the reasonable trigger for a rational store security system.  It depends, unlike your example, on true facts are actually true facts.

[DGuller]

The problem with your example is that it shows precisely the kind of bigotry we are talking about.  "If we assume for the sake of argument that blacks are X% more likely to shoplift than whites" is a bigoted assumption because it assumes that the reason that a given person might shoplift is because of the color of their skin.

It actually doesn't assume that.  Profiling does not require causation to have non-zero effectiveness, it only requires correlation.  That "correlation is not causation" thing is not always relevant.

[grumbler]

The problem with your example is that it shows precisely the kind of bigotry we are talking about.  "If we assume for the sake of argument that blacks are X% more likely to shoplift than whites" is a bigoted assumption because it assumes that the reason that a given person might shoplift is because of the color of their skin.

It actually doesn't assume that.  Profiling does not require causation to have non-zero effectiveness, it only requires correlation.  That "correlation is not causation" thing is not always relevant.

It actually does.  It assumes that the color of a person's skin correlates with a propensity to steal, and, conversely, that a person's propensity to steal is determined by their skin color.  Neither of these is true.  Propensity to steal is associated with SES, and blacks are disproportionately low SES, but that says not a thing about a random black person who is not low SES.  If stores look for the bums, rather than looking for the blacks, they will avoid racial profiling and crime both.

[Syt]

Would that turn race discrimination into class discrimination? I.e. going from "all blacks are probable thieves" to "all poors are probable thieves"?

[Admiral Yi]

People appear confused by the concept of assume for the sake of argument.

[The Brain]

Correlation and causation appear to be tricky concepts.

[garbon]

In effect, people who use this definition of bigot require others to pretend that true facts are not true facts.

That's what you have to do sometimes, or more precisely sometimes you just have to not act on true facts, even if it would be beneficial to you.  Anti-discrimination laws don't always protect people against other people being dumb; often they protect people against other people being smart in a way we decided is unacceptable.

Can we get some examples?

Employers can't discriminate based on someone's health or disability.

Is it smart to not want to hire someone on this grounds?

[garbon]

People appear confused by the concept of assume for the sake of argument.

Perhaps have another go with a premise that involves an actual fact.

[Admiral Yi]

Perhaps have another go with a premise that involves an actual fact.

Do you think that would make clear what "assume for the sake of argument" means?