Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

So does racial diversity. Is that a problem as well?

Or is this just a post-hoc justification that you don't really believe?

Social tension due to racial diversity is lower if income/wealth is more equally distributed (just look at other countries or economically successful groups, this goes into both directions).

Normally I like you posts but this is really a bad argument and I did not see a valid counterpoint in your different answers. Same as with your recent, flawed and disturbing blog post [1]. Everyone should have his political opinion, but if you look at the data (and that is, what you normally are really good at!) regarding income/wealth inequality (without any bias) I don't think you can honestly say that everything is fine.

[1] https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_mor...

Social tension due to racial diversity is lower if income/wealth is more equally distributed (just look at other countries or economically successful groups, this goes into both directions).

This might be true, but so what? This doesn't mean that racial diversity doesn't also increase social tension. If social tension = (racial diversity) x (income inequality) - treat that as a stylized equation indicating my line of thinking - we can reduce either one to reduce social tension.

(I'm unconvinced it's true, in any case. The US is more unequal than either India or Europe, yet seems to have far fewer racial/ethnic problems. Do you have evidence?)

My claim is simply the following. If "x causes social tension, therefore it's bad" is a valid argument, then it's valid for both income inequality and racial diversity. Note that I have no problem with either racial diversity or income inequality - to me both are intrinsically irrelevant, and I'm unconvinced they are extrinsically relevant.

I'm curious to know what the flaw is with my blog post. Did I make an arithmetic error? If so, please let me know - I'd love to fix it.

I'm also confused why you bring up politics or call that post "disturbing." There is a 2-line "P.S." in that blog post which explicitly disavows the idea that I'm pushing any politics. My comments here have advocated no policy position whatsoever.

You really enjoy race baiting don't you?

I'm making an argument by contradiction.

Premise 1: X causes social tension is a reason for us to oppose X.

Fact: Racial diversity causes social tension.

Premise 2: The person I'm arguing against doesn't believe racial diversity should be opposed.

Conclusion: Maybe Premise 1 is wrong. But then using premise 1 as an argument against inequality is also wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Although I'd prefer to call it "argumentum ad assume racism"

No. Association fallacy is a in b, a in c therefore b = c.

My argument is a -> b, a -> c, c is false therefore a must be false, and the argument for b is also flawed.

You seem to be assuming that social tension has only one cause, so if racial division causes social tension, then income inequality doesn't.

You also seem to be assuming it is not possible that income inequality might be one important cause of racial division.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.

According to Robert Putnam, all else held equal, racial diversity causes social tension. If causing social tension is a valid argument against something, this should be an argument against racial diversity.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.... (sadly it's paywalled)

So we are faced with the following choices: a) you can oppose racial diversity AND inequality because both cause social tension, b) you can oppose neither (for this reason, at least), or c) you can be logically inconsistent and therefore incorrect about something.

I choose (b). What do you choose?

Rather than just react to the parent, as I nearly did ("clearly that's a troll") give the statement some thought, in this context I think there's some merit to considering the opinion.

The grandparent stated the rather direct correlation: Causes social unrest? Bad. Fajitas made the (I believe accurate, if incendiary) statement of "Is this really true?"

I find it especially entertaining that HN would react negatively to this angle of query, given that we embrace the potential conflict when it comes to many aspects speech and other liberties as an _asset_ to those capabilities (many statements of the sort: "someone's civil discord is someone else's civil rights movement")

While I can't use this argument to state the opposite, "discord -> good thing", I certainly think there's something to be said that of many of the arguments in this thread, the fact that it causes social unrest is one of the _weaker_ justifications for income rectification in my eyes.

(I feel somewhat "copping out" in that I have qualify myself like this, but to be perfectly clear; I absolutely support inspecting this problem and really believe in the concerns regarding cyclical wealth/power building. As such, a weak argument does more harm than good since someone can easily point out contradictions like the ones in my post)

As a final postscript, let me take this mental exercise to one extreme, in the attempt to provoke further thought: perhaps unrest is the saving grace of very unequal situations, the final avenue to take when all peaceful ones have been exhausted, and in that sense both a "emergency-pressure-release-valve" on society and a barometer that should be watched with attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com