= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Rationality Quotes November 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (388)
By that reasoning, refusing to hire someone who doesn't have good recommendations, is discrimination, because you're giving him distinguishing treatment (refusing to hire him) based on membership in a category (people who lack good recommendations).
I think you have some assumptions that you need to make explicit, after thinking them through first. (For instance, one obvious change is to replace "category" with "irrelevant category", but that won't work.)
Oh dear. Whoever wrote the WP article I was quoting didn't steelman their definition.
Wikipedia is supposed to use what's in the sources. They're not allowed to steelman.
It may just mean "group or category which I like", but I wouldn't count that as steelmanning.
The best I can come up with is "group or category which has, in the past, often been subject to inaccurately negative judgment based on inaccurate priors". In fact, let's try that one.
Well, the recommendations you have are to some extent the result of your choices and actions, but whether your name sounds black hardly is. So, regret-of-rationality considerations apply more to the former than to the latter.
So you are saying that I should modify the definition of "discrimination" supplied by TAG, to include a qualifier "only as a result of your choices and actions"?
That seems to say that some forms of religious discrimination don't count (choosing not to convert to Christianity is a result of your own choices and actions). It also ignores the fact that it is possible for someone to fall into a group where some of the group's members got there by their own choices and actions but some don't--not every person who can't get good recommendations is in that situation because of his own choices and actions. In fact, there's a continuum; what if, say, 10% of the people in a category got there by their own choices and actions but the other 90% had no choice?
Yes, it's a continuum. That's why I said “to some extent”, “hardly”, and “more ... than”.
That would still mean that if I say "convert to Christianity or I won't hire you" and you refuse, that wouldn't count as discrimination. It would also mean that refusing to hire gay people would not be discrimination, as long as you only refused to hire people who participated in some activity, whether having gay sex, wearing rainbow flags, having a gay wedding, etc.
So what? I'm not particularly outraged that atheists aren't allowed into the Swiss Guards.
For some reason, this sounds more problematic to me; not sure why.
So would you oppose discrimination against wheelchair bound construction workers?