|A bad guy gets their hand on a single empty ballot and writes the...
I am sure there are many reasons to prefer electronic voting, but that just seem logistically impossible when you are talking about millions of people. No way that wouldn't go unreported or undetected.
Whereas, with voting machines, if compromised has much more reach and would be difficult to detect.
Isn't it wrong-headed to attempt to derive fairness out of non-fairness? If the level of access to primary and secondary education is highly unequal then why not fix that first?
> Isn't it wrong-headed to attempt to derive fairness out of non-fairness?
While the wording of that sounds very logical, (Isn't is stupid to try to get gold out of not-gold?), it's a pseudologic that has historically been used by the likes of Ayn Rand and other right-wing types to justify inaction. Fairness is always "derived from" unfairness. The pie wasn't divided equally? Then the fair thing to do is to unfairly take pie from the people who were rightly given their larger share. It's theirs, right? They were given it. They played by the rules, and now we want to take pie from some and give it to others? Fairness is only possible when one transcends exactly that line of reasoning.
> If the level of access to primary and secondary education is highly unequal then why not fix that first?
The most naive thing about that remark is that it's precluded by your first remark. The second most naive thing about it is that the way in which this inequality of access works, and the ways in which it can be remedied, should embarrass any speaker who asks "...why not fix that...?" Civil liberties? Just fix it. Traumatic and total devastation of an extant cultural support system by colonization? Just fix it. Centuries of ensuing racism, ethnocentrism, and bigotry reinforcing an association--in both the dominant cultural and economic systems and in the minds of the members of an outgroup--between a race or ethnicity and social unfitness and undesirability? Just fix it first.
That should be fixed first, but it's much more complicated. Even if you could fix all systematic issues the poor would still have less access because of poverty, discrimination, and many other forces.
In South Australia, at least, there are a measure of bonus points provided to students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and rural regions.
this can be corrected for to some extent by weighting exam scores based on school/region/socioeconomic status. that would be fairer and more transparent than the current system used by elite universities in america.
the ability to develop an "interesting" application is of course strongly influenced by family background and finances...
Bias goes both ways and biases effecting social status for Asians are typically positive. For example, if hiring for a Mathematician from three resumes, 1 White, 1 Black, and 1 Asian and being unaware of actual skill, the Asian would likely be considered first. In this case bias helped the Asian get a job that will raise their social status.
There are negative biases towards Asians as well, but they don't have much effect on social status, such as being bad drivers.
There are also positive biases towards Blacks, but the those positive biases don't have much effect on social status. An example would be if basketball team had to be constructed from a pool of available players, again unaware of actual skill, the Black players would likely be picked first.
I think the real point is that bias does have an effect on social status. Depending on what those biases are it could be a positive or negative effect.
I'm not sure that "positive" is the right word here. Biases seem to be frequently double-edged at a minimum.
The negative consequence is more obvious in your basketball example. Picking blacks for a basketball team simply because they are black is not positive. It is part of a system of thinking, which says that "blacks are good at these things". The corollary is that "blacks are not good at these other things". So, even what you might consider a "positive" bias has a reinforcing effect on the way we classify people and form other biases that are objectively and obviously negative in socially significant ways.
Likewise, classifying Asians as good mathemeticians is part of a system of thinking that says they are less good at other things. All of these preconceived notions have some value attached to them which, collectively, have a direct bearing on social status.
In short, biases tend to have a profound negative side even, or especially, when we are unaware of as much and/or believe they are OK.
> I'm not sure that "positive" is the right word here. Biases seem to be frequently double-edged at a minimum.
I've seen the term "benovolent sexism" used for gender roles that are, in theory, complimentary, but in reality are bad for society. e.g. "women are good with children" is in theory a compliment. But in reality it means men who try to work in child care are viewed suspiciously, and women are expected to give up their careers to look after children (because they are better at it!). Benovolent sexism (and hostile sexism (like "women are too emotional to wield power")) are bad.
>positive may not be the best term, but I think we are in agreement otherwise
I didn't think we were in agreement, which was why I commented.
My point was that bias generally has an overall negative effect, even when some biases appear to be positive (as you asserted). If you agree, but simply think that "positive" is not the best term, then I don't understand your original comment:
>Depending on what those biases are it could be a positive or negative effect.
That seemed to be your point, in summary, and I don't know what term you'd substitute for "positive" that would be qualitatively different, while not completely dismantling your premise.
In context of the comment I was initially replying, regarding how Asians are considered a counter example, I think positive is the correct term.
My initial post was strictly to point out the original posters bias towards Asians.
So my point, in context of the original post, is that bias towards Asians give then a higher social standing. Which I do consider a positive when compared to other groups.
Your initial post seemed to be more in general, and I agree that all bias has some negativity to it.
While it's true that there were laws allowing minorities to vote in the late 1800's at the federal level, up until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 there was still institutionalized discrimination that made it difficult to actually do so.
More on topic, I think there does need to be more inclusion for women, and there are programs springing up now that are targeting women of all backgrounds which is good. However, there is very little, if anything, being done to target minority men.
I can only speak for myself as a minority male working in tech, but I feel that some of the same unfairness/injustices that affect women apply to minority males as well.
>Hospitals are not required to treat, but most do. It is general knowledge in the industry that if you can't afford treatment for your cancer you go to a local hospital where you will be treated regardless of ability to pay.
Do you have a source for this? I can only speak from personal experience, but when I was sick and didn't have insurance I had to come up with a pretty significant upfront payment to see a specialist.
You may get to see a doctor, but try seeing a true specialist with insurance. So yeah, I agree with yequalsx, you will be stabilized, and that's pretty much it.
This can already be seen, housing is going to be a huge problem without some major investment in that area as well.
Nowhere beside Downtown, and maybe one other neighborhood, is worth living in right now, and the rent in those areas are starting to sky rocket.
Living in Cleveland I sometimes get contact by companies in Detroit looking for developers. I recently considered taking a position, but the housing situation made me reconsider.
It was either pay 3X the rent for an apartment Downtown, compared to my apartment in Cleveland, or have a 45-60 commute every day. Even with the increase in salary it wasn't worth the move.
A little late, but my post is in comparison to Cleveland, OH where for the same prices you could get something much nicer. I would also have many more living options available in Cleveland proper compared to the few areas in Detroit proper worth living.
I will say that if you are moving away from a coastal area then Detroit is pretty cheap and has some interesting things to offer. However, being from Cleveland I can enjoy the positives of Detroit with a 2 hour drive without having to live there.
I am sure there are many reasons to prefer electronic voting, but that just seem logistically impossible when you are talking about millions of people. No way that wouldn't go unreported or undetected.
Whereas, with voting machines, if compromised has much more reach and would be difficult to detect.