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".
"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."
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.
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.
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".
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.
Comments
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.
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".
"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."
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.
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.
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".
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.