161–170 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except..she's right...
About what? She is a far left progressive with a very shallow understanding of issues (she literally just learned what a marginal tax rate is). I understand you may share her political beliefs, shallow that they may be, but that doesn't make her 'right'.
It’s more clear to me than ever now that the left and the right do not use the word “racist” the same way. The left thinks of racism in terms of outcome and the right thinks of racism in terms of intent. We could benefit from better language around these concepts, and honest dialogue about them too.
What I get from people on the left is that an unequal outcome is indicative of racism, however subtle that racism is. The only other explanations for an unequal outcome are biological differences between races (do not want to get into that) and races haves advantages over others from past history.
It’s more clear to me than ever now that the left and the right do not use the word “racist” the same way. The left thinks of racism in terms of outcome and the right thinks of racism in terms of intent. We could benefit from better language around these concepts, and honest dialogue about them too.
What I get from people on the left is that an unequal outcome is indicative of racism, however subtle that racism is. The only other explanations for an unequal outcome are biological differences between races (do not want to get into that) and races haves advantages over others from past history.
And the article is a mess, confusing and mixing up several things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe don't split groups on genetics/biology/birth. Also make sure the data you use is not a proxy for the above criteria
Easier said than done.
The second half of the article that talks about Yudkowsky, rationalists, and Roko's Basilisk is absolute trash and a gross mischaracterization of the actual positions taken. >Yudkowski has for more than a decade pursued the possibility of perfect human reasoning His website is literally called "Less Wrong". It's fundamentally a quest for improvement , not perfection. >His system of coldly logical reason, it turned ou…
Also the neoreactionary bit. I literally paused on that in total surprise. As a long-time LW lurker - yes, the rationalist community plays with plenty of non-mainstream ideas and try to work them in both directions (up from first principles, and towards extreme conclusions). But characterizing rationalists as equal to neoreactionaries? That's a complete mischaracterization of the community.
Ultimately I agree that they're not equal; I think many people involved in LW or SSC are good-faith rationalists. But there's also a strong segment that has adopted - post hoc - a crazy set of priors to support NR views.
What strikes me is how antithetical this post-hoc "pick your priors, any priors!" is to the rationalist ideal, but it doesn't get called out. It's given equal treatment, and it means that the community is categorically incapable of discussing culture-war issues.
It just dawned on me that the left and right absolutely do not think of “racist” exactly the same. The left looks at outcome and the right looks at intent. We need better words.
Haidt's book The Righteous Mind does touch on this - he'll likely have references to the studies in his book. What he says the studies show: Conservative ideology: Fairness is about guaranteeing everyone equal rights. If different people have different outcomes, the question is: Did one person have more rights than the other? If so, let's correct for it. If not, it is because the person did not fully utilize his/her…
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56d9cbd420c647c7373d4...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of tech literacy, which was my point, give this example I think she seems like she's doing quite well, regardless of her personal politics.
What tech literacy? If by 'tech literacy' you mean 'social-media literacy', or 'millennial-culture literacy', then I agree. Otherwise, I've never heard anything from AOC that demonstrates any kind of tech literacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem here is, we don't even know what "fair" means. What do we mean by fair? Say we want to base fair on group outcomes, in which ways should we divide people into groups in order to perform some sort of balancing? Is hair color or texture a relevant way of subdividing people for instance? Are we being "fair" to red haired people? What if red haired people for some reason seem to be less likely to pay back loa…
> Is hair color or texture a relevant way of subdividing people for instance? Are we being "fair" to red haired people? What if red haired people for some reason seem to be less likely to pay back loans? Machine learning is going to be very good at identifying proxies for features we don't like, even if we don't directly provide those features. Weighting red hair color could be a proxy for the Irish, targeting hair t…
Off-topic-ish, but only about 10% of Irish people have red hair.
It’s more clear to me than ever now that the left and the right do not use the word “racist” the same way. The left thinks of racism in terms of outcome and the right thinks of racism in terms of intent. We could benefit from better language around these concepts, and honest dialogue about them too.
