Here are some problems with factoring historical injustices into decision making processes. Also known as “equity.”
1) Groups will compete for the distinction of having been the most historically oppressed so that they will receive the largest share of resources.
2) Individuals and groups will undervalue the traits necessary for success to the extent that they’ll receive an unequal distribution in their favor. This cycle cannot be broken because merit is inherently disincentivized.
3) The system will incentivize frequent airing of past injustices. This is because doing so will increase the likelihood of receiving a greater share of whatever is being distributed.
4) Proponents of equity-based systems must increase their confidence in the claim that “past oppression was responsible for current disparities” beyond the warrant of the evidence. If they did not, they would not be eligible for as many resources.
We cannot create fair systems by treating people differently on the basis of identity markers or past injustices. We can create fair systems by placing equality front and center. This begins with granting everyone a public education of the first rate and exceptional health care.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Harris, @tegmark and others are incorrect in their assumptions about math. Here’s my heretical take: Math, at its core, is empirical. All numbers derive from counting. It’s observable. 🧵
Consider these two propositions which I’ll reference below:
Math starts with numbers.
Counting is a form of measuring.
We define a measurement, like an inch, and count. 1, 2, 3, etc.
Take the coaster on my table. We agree to call a thing on my table a coaster. There are one and one and one coasters; there are three coasters on the table.
Here’s a quick tip for helping you think through an issue in six easy steps. A thread:
1. State your belief in a single sentence.
2. In a single sentence, state at least one position opposed to your belief.
3. Ask yourself what you would need to know—definitively—for the belief that opposes yours to be true.
4.Ask yourself if every reasonable person would agree to what you stated in #3.
5. Ask yourself how you could go about figuring out #3.
6. If there’s no way for you to figure out #3, perhaps you’re not being reasonable or you may need more information or you may want to reconsider your response. (It could also be that the opposing believe is just patently false or silly.)
This thread will explain, in plain language, what disbelieving “not all cultures are equally valid” entails.
If you disbelieve the claim that “all cultures are as valid as each other,” then you believe, “All cultures are as valid as each other”. If you believe all cultures are as valid as each other, then you must believe…
…that there is no objective, independent, non-perspectival way to make a judgment about a culture or cultural practice. If you believe this—and you must believe it if you disbelieve that all cultures are as valid as each other—then…
It is important to understand that DEI is not simply an admin arm of higher ed but an ideological apparatus that grew from a body of academic literature. In 2018, @HPluckrose, @ConceptualJames, @MikeNayna, & I exposed the DEI-related fields as totally fraudulent. THREAD
2. We engaged in a one-year immersive exploration of DEI-related fields. We attempted to understand DEI disciplines as “outsiders within” and test their scholarship at its highest levels. (We using fake identities.)
3. Our success metric was three papers in leading DEI-related journals. We thought if we could get three absurd papers published at the highest level it would be the academic scandal of the century & higher ed would be forced to address the problem.
Currently at the @MrAndyNgo court case in Portland. He’s the plaintiff. I’ll be live tweeting the trial. The defendant waived his right to a jury.
The judge is meticulous in establishing rules of conduct for the media and all those present. I am genuinely impressed with his thoroughness, clarity, and professionalism.
At 37 minutes in he’s still establishing and clarifying rules for the media.
Opening statement by the prosecution is quite strong. Mention of witnesses and video evidence (not yet seen). Robbery in the third degree is the charge.