Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's not my contention that the 600 number would substantively change your point. It's my contention that you went through extra effort to find a data point that put black people in a worse light. I was curious why you would have spent the effort to do that.

Meanwhile, you were ostensibly making a level-headed argument about how there may be tradeoffs between discrimination and fairness; that to entirely eliminate discrimination we mathematically might be required to force some (say) ethnicities subsidize others. You could have made that point in any number of ways without using the words "deadbeat blacks" --- as I pointed out, the same point was available to you in a comparison between whites and Asians.

As you can see from the thread, the objection wasn't to the underlying point you were trying to make, but to the way you chose to make it. Simply put: a reasonable reader could come to the conclusion that you were not only trying to make a point about a tension between non-discrimination and fairness/accuracy, but also trying to use that argument as a device to smuggle in an ethnic slur.

I don't think you're a racist, by the way. I think something else is going on with you. Maybe I'm wrong. But as you are to statistics, I am to the oeuvre of 'yummyfajitas comments on Hacker News: they are an area of my expertise.

My contention is that you are confusing yourself, and they don't really provide P(default|black, 620) and P(default|white,620) in the paper. The only number I could find is P(default|620)=82% which is not enough for my calculation.

I choose not to couch my facts in language meant to obscure the point, or avoid choosing factually correct examples that again hide the unpleasant bits of reality. We won't figure out the right way to deal with reality if we pretend the ugly bits aren't really there.

I don't think you're a racist, by the way. I think something else is going on with you.

It's very simple. On values I'm mainly an old school left wing individualist - I view ethnicity as holding no moral weight and groups as having no inherent rights that they don't inherit from their individual members.

Unfortunately, on racial issues, the white supremacists seem to be factually correct (mostly). The current left wing approach to this is to shame and ostracize anyone who dares to point out the emperor has no clothes. I originally interpreted your comments to be an attempt in that direction.

Meanwhile, UKIP/scary Hungarians/etc are pointing out the lies and people are following them.

I.e. I favor intellectualism and analytical philosophy over dogma and (secularized) religion.

Well, I guess I was wrong.

You are either missing, or deliberately ignoring the part where the word choice for your arguments matter.

Surely you know that, in current discourse, individually the word "deadbeat" means something, and the word "blacks" means something, but the combined "deadbeat blacks" means something much greater than the sum of its parts, because of the societal context in which it is uttered.

To claim that you are just using that combination as just the exact sum of its parts is disingenuous, especially from someone who claims to favor analytical philosophy. Go read Paul Grice.

I realize that people often choose to read more into their words than should be read. I'm explicitly arguing against this. The "social context" means that there are ideas we can't discuss without being socially lumped in with deplorable people - for instance the fact that blacks don't pay back their loans as much as whites, that they are more likely to be deadbeats/defaulters/etc. (As tptacek noted, there is no similar stigma about observing that whites are deadbeats relative to Asians.)

This creates a significant level of friction on one side of a discussion, and makes it harder for us to come to truth.

This also means that the only people who do discuss these issues are the deplorable folks. I explicitly want to reclaim the unpleasant facts so that the deplorable folks don't have a monopoly on truth.

I want to say "we should import hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, a few hundred white girls will be raped as a result, and tens of thousands of lives will be saved. Good tradeoff." I want to say "black on white crime is the most common form of interracial violence, but we should still treat black people as equal citizens with civil rights. However our expectations of equal levels of police violence against blacks and whites might be unreasonable."

Lying/shaming/attacking the people speaking the truth isn't sustainable. When you lie to people and they notice the truth, they start to turn to turn to UKIP/Jobbik/other such folks. As a globalist and a universalist I don't want to live in that world.

I know you realize that every street corner preacher, PizzaGate activist, and Zero Hedge writer uses the same line about how they're being punished for speaking the truth. Why is your special pleading so much more interesting than theirs?

I see. Sorry, you don't get a pass here.

Getting to truth is important. However, the way you want to go about it makes it very expensive for your audience.

You want to say things that are true in a socially unacceptable way, and then leave it to us to do the work of questioning you extensively to figure out whether you are someone who is well versed in statistics and meant "deadbeat" "blacks", or if you are a Stormfront-style white supremacist and meant "deadbeat blacks".

This thread is an example of that. If you want to be an effective persuader, you have to talk at your audience's level. If you want a giant thread on HN where your audience walks away believing exactly what they believed before they encountered you, keep doing what you are doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com