LawTalkers
Page 57 of 126 « First 7475556 57 585967107 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We are all Slave now. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=882)

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-09-2018 08:23 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 516756)
So GGG hides in a very literal definition of "the last half century?"

But he still has to deal with southern Democrats, post 1968. And currsnt Democrats on the wrong side of namby-stateism.
My claim was that Dems had been on the right side of the good things that had happened.

Yes, Dems were on the wrong side of a lot of bad things that happened. Crim Justice "Reform" of the 90s is a good example. Again, it's a party, not something to be worshipped. Plenty of mistakes. But not much that is good in politics happens without us.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-09-2018 08:26 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516741)
Here's where I perhaps step on a huge third rail. I think one can assess cultural behaviors and conclude that, controlling for oppression, a group is shooting itself in the foot a bit.

My analogue there would be the Catholic Church. Catholics as a whole are held back by a very regressive religion. It teaches loathsome things, like one must reproduce regardless of economic concerns, one should not worry about this life as the next is more important. These insidious teachings are geared to control people. I'd never draw a 1:1 between this and what blacks have suffered, but I'd say a study of Catholics might show how one studies a cultural group and teases out where the oppressive control mechanisms (the institutional predation) ends, and the cultural behaviors reactive to it become superseding causes.

Catholicism's diabolical control mechanisms can be blamed to a point. But at a later point, many Catholics started to "game the system" and find a way around it, or just left. (Yours truly never joined. I wouldn't even pay fealty to it as a child, finding it abhorrent in second grade.)

If certain negative cultural behaviors persist despite clear evidence they are doing no one any favors, and actually holding people back (and I would say this applies too frequently to Catholic culture, where many people are content to remain of modest class and part of an often middling community), at a certain point, some responsibility falls on those of the community. That could be teased out in data. Fluffy data, subject to debate, but necessarily assessed to address the issue in whole.

And if such an approach were used, accepting entirely, as should be, that race is a cultural construct, it would end the genetics debate, which is truly evil and never offered for any legitimate point.

(I'll apologize if this offends a Catholic. But only for offending you. Not for what I've said. It's entirely factual.)
What a joke.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-09-2018 08:45 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 516755)
Yup. The Democratic Party had completed its flip on Vietnam in 1968 (see e.g. the primary results for Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and Bobby Kennedy in California, not to mention LBJ’s October Surprise peace deal which was scuttled by Nixon’s friends Anna Chennault and Madame Ky). Hard as it is to believe, that was 50 years ago.
Actually, I'll go back with what I said another 40 years, that the Dems been on the right side of all the positive stuff (I'm sure someone will think of an exception, but the fact no one has yet already says something), but add this, Japanese Internment, and a whole lot of Southern Democratic BS to the list of stuff where we've also been on the wrong side of bad stuff.

Note also in that period the Republicans or at least a sizable number of Republicans have been on the right some of some of the good stuff, too.

When you get back to pre-depression, the comparison doesn't make much sense any more, as you are really into a different iteration of the party system at that point.

Adder 08-09-2018 10:46 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516742)
i fucked with you too much over the years, and I promised Jesus and T I would stop, but I have to say, no white person should think “what other white person is this book referring to.”
Sure they should. Right after asking "is she talking about me?" Because of course she was.

Adder 08-09-2018 10:48 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516744)
A cultural chasm has occurred over melanin? Or culture? Or religion?
I don't know what a "cultural chasm" is, but no, the dispute is over power and wealth.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-09-2018 11:06 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516768)
I don't know what a "cultural chasm" is, but no, the dispute is over power and wealth.
The rift at the heart of all discrimination is one side's perception that people who who look or act differently are alien. By alien I mean somehow fundamentally different.

In regard to racism (a cultural chasm between people of different "races") here, that involves primarily skin color, hair, and facial features indicative of people being from certain non-European parts of the world.

Those features are of course surface, superficial, and not ones on which to base any conclusion about a person. We all agree on that. Hundreds of years ago, when we were less knowledgeable, people enslaved other people and justified it on the basis that those people were alien and lesser because certain of their features differed from the features of Europeans. Okay. So we all agree that was a mix of idiocy and evil. Science has proven the differences between alleged "races" are so thin they're not worth discussing.

And yet, hundreds of years later, this moronic thinking - still rooted in the notion somebody looks different than somebody else - persists. I agree with you that the powerful and wealthy wanting to protect their positions is part of it. But the powerful and wealthy do that in regard to everyone who challenges them, of any "race." And the racists in this country are not all powerful and wealthy. Not by a long shot. The racism that persists still has a lot to do with something as stupid as amount of melanin in one's skin. That that has persisted is simply mind-boggling.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-09-2018 11:22 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516761)
My claim was that Dems had been on the right side of the good things that had happened.

Yes, Dems were on the wrong side of a lot of bad things that happened. Crim Justice "Reform" of the 90s is a good example. Again, it's a party, not something to be worshipped. Plenty of mistakes. But not much that is good in politics happens without us.
Not much good happens with you. You're co-opted by corporatists as much as the other party and cry that you deserve a pass because you do some good works while the other party is flat out evil and stupid.

Okay, you get some credit for that. You're better than the GOP -- a bar about one foot above the floor. You're bought and paid for, but you're not ogres... You're happy to redistribute in the limousine liberal fashion (so long as it doesn't offend the interests that own your legislators). But as to solutions? As to methods by which you might create jobs for the middle and lower classes? Well, you can't do any of that. Sure, you'll do it for the unions that support you. And you'll talk about fantasies like retraining. But you toe the corporate line just like everybody else. When the people who line your pockets tell you to squash Bernie Sanders, you follow orders. When the hedge fund army that supports your party tells you its preferred policies, you react exactly the same way as the GOP does when the fossil fuel oligarchs tell it what to do.

Sure, Democrats are better. They aren't as stupid as the GOP. They aren't riddled with racists and xenophobes. They're smart enough to get behind clean energy, and they're good on social policy. But do they actually plan to help the disadvantaged find any economic dignity? No. They want to redistribute, placate, and continue a country where 20% get great lives, and the other 80% increasingly need the help of govt to survive. That's hardly a noble charge. One could argue its cynicism borders on the sociopathic.

Voted for Clinton and John Kerry, and various other Ds in local, state, and congressional races. (Because you'll go there.)

________
*Cynically and smartly by the way, as status quo protection, because they know it's better to placate the angry population than let them starve as the GOP would.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-09-2018 12:21 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516759)
It’s not Murray’s game at all. Murray’s game is genetics. He doesn’t concede the social or cultural construction of “race.” He ultimately hangs his hat on statistical differences in tests, income, etc. This is why he’s so problematic and controversial. It isn’t really science.

And he knows better, which exposes his bias. In a recent book called Coming Apart, he assessed the increasing spread between bifurcating lower and upper class whites. White is a cultural thing that can be assessed using anthropological data for him, but assessment of minorities must always involve data building a genetics argument. He’s lazy and biased on minorities.
Murray covers ugliness with a veneer of science. My point was that your language suggesting as much.

Quote:
Scientific analysis of all cultures, oppressed and oppressive, can be done. There are endless examples of it. But it always involves “fuzzy” data, as anthropology is a soft science.
Seriously, wtf are you talking about? What is a good example? If you build a stone house on a muddy foundation, it will fall down. If you pretend to do "science" with material that is the product of a biased culture, you will replicate those biases, even if you use the word "science" to try to imply that what you are doing is free of bias.

That, by the way, is part of what Klein was saying and Harris did not want to hear. It is an example of the way that the dominant culture (or "white people") want to pretend that they themselves are objective, free thinkers, unbiased and pure as the driven snow, rather than inevitably sharing and spreading the culture around them.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-09-2018 12:45 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Murray covers ugliness with a veneer of science. My point was that your language suggesting as much.
And my point is, Murray does no credible science on race. So citing Murray as an example of science on the issue is saying nothing of any value.

Quote:
Seriously, wtf are you talking about? What is a good example? If you build a stone house on a muddy foundation, it will fall down. If you pretend to do "science" with material that is the product of a biased culture, you will replicate those biases, even if you use the word "science" to try to imply that what you are doing is free of bias.
You're putting the rabbit in the hat, and you know it. By saying there is no credible data, you preclude anyone from scientific inquiry. Except that statement is false. There is credible data.

If one dominant culture discriminates against another, we have among many others two sets of significant data: (1) the discrimination; and, (2) the reaction to the discrimination. Necessarily, to the extent any reaction is self-defeating, a portion of it is the responsibility of the actor. The only way one can carve around this is to say that once discrimination has been set in motion against a group, the group can never bear any responsibility for anything going forward. No one is saying that, and no one can say that.

Quote:
That, by the way, is part of what Klein was saying and Harris did not want to hear. It is an example of the way that the dominant culture (or "white people") want to pretend that they themselves are objective, free thinkers, unbiased and pure as the driven snow, rather than inevitably sharing and spreading the culture around them.
Are you saying a group once and persistently discriminated against can never be responsible to any extent for anything it does afterward? Because you have to say that to get where you're logically trying to get.

And let's not get into personal shots here. I'm asking you to play out the chess game on the logic here. This could be about any subject. But if you say yes, you've said oppressed groups' responsibility can never be assessed. Or you're saying it should never be assessed. The first is, I think, logically impossible. The second puts you with Klein, which is fine. But understand, when you do that, you take the position, "There is some knowledge we should not look into," which was exactly Harris' critique of Klein.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-09-2018 01:26 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516774)
And my point is, Murray does no credible science on race. So citing Murray as an example of science on the issue is saying nothing of any value.
You're not wrong, but you're also not hearing what I'm saying. Murray presents his work as scientific, though it is riddled with bias. When you pretend it's possible to engage in "a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppressed acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed," you are doing the same thing as Murray -- using "science" as a pretense for engaging in something that inevitably will reflect the bias and oppression of the culture.

Quote:
You're putting the rabbit in the hat, and you know it. By saying there is no credible data, you preclude anyone from scientific inquiry. Except that statement is false. There is credible data.

If one dominant culture discriminates against another, we have among many others two sets of significant data: (1) the discrimination; and, (2) the reaction to the discrimination. Necessarily, to the extent any reaction is self-defeating, a portion of it is the responsibility of the actor. The only way one can carve around this is to say that once discrimination has been set in motion against a group, the group can never bear any responsibility for anything going forward. No one is saying that, and no one can say that.

Are you saying a group once and persistently discriminated against can never be responsible to any extent for anything it does afterward? Because you have to say that to get where you're logically trying to get.

And let's not get into personal shots here. I'm asking you to play out the chess game on the logic here. This could be about any subject. But if you say yes, you've said oppressed groups' responsibility can never be assessed. Or you're saying it should never be assessed. The first is, I think, logically impossible. The second puts you with Klein, which is fine. But understand, when you do that, you take the position, "There is some knowledge we should not look into," which was exactly Harris' critique of Klein.
I think the notion that you can somehow measure and "assess" the "responsibility" of a discriminated group for its condition, let alone with "science," is total nonsense. I tried to make that clear when you first referred to the idea, and I asked you for a published example where someone had done that. If someone tells me they are going to write a book assessing the Gypsies' responsibility for their genocide by German Nazis, and that they are going to do it with science, I would expect that person to be wearing a tin-foil hat and driving a cab, at best.

I understand that you have put words together in a way that makes sense in your own mind. Is there some accepted and respected model in the world for what you think you are talking about? Honestly, the thing that comes closest to me is Murray's projected of blaming blacks' genes for their treatment by the culture, and using that as a justification to cut social spending and taxes for the rich. Murray at least blames genetics rather than choices by blacks. And you have dumped on Murray, so he is not your pole star. So what's your model here?

eta: Maybe you are thinking about comparative negligence and contributory negligence, and following the lead of the great Justice Traynor in Li v. Yellow Cab in thinking that it's rational for even a victim to be deemed to bear some responsibility?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-09-2018 02:22 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
You're not wrong, but you're also not hearing what I'm saying. Murray presents his work as scientific, though it is riddled with bias. When you pretend it's possible to engage in "a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppressed acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed," you are doing the same thing as Murray -- using "science" as a pretense for engaging in something that inevitably will reflect the bias and oppression of the culture.
I get what you're saying. It's a mischaracterization of what I'm saying. I'm saying a scientific study assessing in what ways an oppressed group's actions contribute to that group's disadvantaged circumstances can be performed. Murray is saying he can and has performed it. (From what I read, he has not. Not even close. He's made all kinds of reckless leaps.) Those are two different statements.

Quote:
I think the notion that you can somehow measure and "assess" the "responsibility" of a discriminated group for its condition, let alone with "science," is total nonsense.
Why? We do it in courts all day every day. A person claims discrimination caused career earning losses. The defense counters that not all of the claimed losses were caused by the discrimination -- that some were caused by the plainitff's own decisions. How is this controversial? The concept of a superseding cause is Torts 101.

Quote:
I tried to make that clear when you first referred to the idea, and I asked you for a published example where someone had done that. If someone tells me they are going to write a book assessing the Gypsies' responsibility for their genocide by German Nazis, and that they are going to do it with science, I would expect that person to be wearing a tin-foil hat and driving a cab, at best.
This is where you're engaging in sleight of hand. No one has asserted that any oppressed group is responsible for its own oppression (Gypsies being responsible for the Nazis killing them). That would be absurd. But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages. To use your example, if Gypsies in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not. There would be myriad causes.

Quote:
Is there some accepted and respected model in the world for what you think you are talking about?
I don't know and I don't care. What's at issue is whether it's conceptually possible. And you've made no compelling rebuttal that it isn't.

Quote:
Honestly, the thing that comes closest to me is Murray's projected of blaming blacks' genes for their treatment by the culture, and using that as a justification to cut social spending and taxes for the rich.
Again, that he fails to credibly apply science does not mean that conceptually, if one wanted to apply scientific rigor in an unbiased fashion, it could not be done. I'm sure it has been done somewhere, but I'm not interested in that, as that's not necessary to answer the abstract question of whether it could be done.*

Quote:
Murray at least blames genetics rather than choices by blacks. And you have dumped on Murray, so he is not your pole star. So what's your model here?
See immediately preceding point.

Quote:
eta: Maybe you are thinking about comparative negligence and contributory negligence, and following the lead of the great Justice Traynor in Li v. Yellow Cab in thinking that it's rational for even a victim to be deemed to bear some responsibility?
You still haven't answered my question. Is it your position that a group once and persistently discriminated against can not be responsible to any extent for anything it does afterward?

_______
* I also don't really want to see the study done, or read the results of any that were done. It'd involve too much identity politics-style generalization. I do not believe one can assess people based on their background "groups" at all, and that one can only credibly assess people individually. I'm only accepting the notion that assessing people based on their groups is valid for purposes of this discussion.

Adder 08-09-2018 02:38 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516781)
I'm saying a scientific study assessing in what ways an oppressed group's actions contribute to that group's disadvantaged circumstances can be performed.
I'm with Ty in thinking that this isn't even hypothetically possible, but more importantly, why? What are we going to learn? "Oh, it turns out you're responsible for your own oppression, so gtfo?"

Quote:
But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages.
I should be directing you to go read TM again, but to restate, how do you divorce a "group's own actions" (whatever that means) from the context in which they acted?

And even if it was possible, how is "black people smoke 17% more weed than would be expected as a reaction to systemic oppression" useful information? Would it allow us to stop caring about the systemic oppression? No. (Although that's Murray's goal)

Quote:
Gypsies
Just to keep up my role as PC Police, Roma and Sinti, people.

Quote:
in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not.
As with most (all?) ethnic prejudice in Europe, the Nazis were/are not alone in discriminating against Roma and Sinti people, they just took it a lot farther.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-09-2018 03:03 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
I'm with Ty in thinking that this isn't even hypothetically possible, but more importantly, why? What are we going to learn? "Oh, it turns out you're responsible for your own oppression, so gtfo?"
I agree. The area of inquiry has little upside in my estimation.

But that doesn't mean one gets to say things that aren't true to avoid it. The true answer here is, "We could make such assessments, but it's not going to aid society."

Quote:
I should be directing you to go read TM again, but to restate, how do you divorce a "group's own actions" (whatever that means) from the context in which they acted?
The way courts have been doing it for years. Unless you don't believe people have free will (which, oddly, Harris does not, and has written about at length, enough to be considered an expert on the subject).

Quote:
And even if it was possible, how is "black people smoke 17% more weed than would be expected as a reaction to systemic oppression" useful information? Would it allow us to stop caring about the systemic oppression? No. (Although that's Murray's goal)
Nor should it. If the study were done here, all but a small fraction of the disadvantages would be traceable directly back to systemic oppression. But again, people do not get to say an assessment is impossible, or that no such assessment is credible just because its value would be dubious. They get to say, "We could do that... But we shouldn't." Which is what I think Klein wanted to say but couldn't because I think he thought it would be a capitulation to Harris.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-09-2018 03:17 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516781)
I get what you're saying. It's a mischaracterization of what I'm saying. I'm saying a scientific study assessing in what ways an oppressed group's actions contribute to that group's disadvantaged circumstances can be performed. Murray is saying he can and has performed it. (From what I read, he has not. Not even close. He's made all kinds of reckless leaps.) Those are two different statements.



Why? We do it in courts all day every day. A person claims discrimination caused career earning losses. The defense counters that not all of the claimed losses were caused by the discrimination -- that some were caused by the plainitff's own decisions. How is this controversial? The concept of a superseding cause is Torts 101.



This is where you're engaging in sleight of hand. No one has asserted that any oppressed group is responsible for its own oppression (Gypsies being responsible for the Nazis killing them). That would be absurd. But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages. To use your example, if Gypsies in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not. There would be myriad causes.



I don't know and I don't care. What's at issue is whether it's conceptually possible. And you've made no compelling rebuttal that it isn't.



Again, that he fails to credibly apply science does not mean that conceptually, if one wanted to apply scientific rigor in an unbiased fashion, it could not be done. I'm sure it has been done somewhere, but I'm not interested in that, as that's not necessary to answer the abstract question of whether it could be done.*



See immediately preceding point.



You still haven't answered my question. Is it your position that a group once and persistently discriminated against can not be responsible to any extent for anything it does afterward?

_______
* I also don't really want to see the study done, or read the results of any that were done. It'd involve too much identity politics-style generalization. I do not believe one can assess people based on their background "groups" at all, and that one can only credibly assess people individually. I'm only accepting the notion that assessing people based on their groups is valid for purposes of this discussion.
An example: European Jews were persistently discriminated against. Some Zionists relocated to Israel and then did some things for which they might be held responsible. Are Zionists a "group"? Is Zionism to blame for anything that followed? Not sure, but perhaps. So my answer to your last question there shouldn't be "no."

But your idea of a "study," somehow "scientific," is total nonsense.

You said,

Quote:
No one has asserted that any oppressed group is responsible for its own oppression (Gypsies being responsible for the Nazis killing them). That would be absurd. But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages. To use your example, if Gypsies in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not. There would be myriad causes.
You do something tricky with an unclear distinction between "oppression" and "disadvantages" here. What's the difference? If what you say is right, why couldn't a Nazi in 1945 have said, hey, Gypsies in Europe suffer, sure, but one can test over time the extent to which their own actions have contributed to their current situation? And the Nazi might say that this could be done with a study, scientifically. Why would that have been wrong?

Adder 08-09-2018 03:43 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516786)
The true answer here is, "We could make such assessments, but it's not going to aid society."
I honestly have no idea how it could be done.

Quote:
The way courts have been doing it for years.
The courts have been making determinations about individual cases. (1) Do you honestly think they've been doing it well? (2) How do you do it for entire groups of people in the aggregate?

Btw, the answer to 1 is definitely not.

Quote:
Unless you don't believe people have free will (which, oddly, Harris does not, and has written about at length, enough to be considered an expert on the subject).
I don't know what Harris has written, but I do know there's a scientific case that we do not have free will.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-09-2018 03:46 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516790)
The courts have been making determinations about individual cases.
Courts are applying laws, which establish standards by which one can decide who is responsible. Responsibility is human construct, not a brute fact of nature.

When a group is systematically oppressed (or "disadvantaged"), the law is a tool of oppression (or disadvantage), not an impartial standard. That's the whole point. So how would one "assess" that in a "scientific" way?

Hank Chinaski 08-09-2018 05:34 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516781)
This is where you're

You still haven't answered my question. Is it your position that a group once and persistently discriminated against can not be responsible to any extent for anything it does afterward?
To what end is that important? A “group” doesn’t feel the pain, individuals do. And this sort of analysis can be used to say “look this one black guy got to be a VP at a bank, so why is this other black guy sitting on a stoop at 3 in the afternoon?” And that’s bullshit because they both had a million facts hit them and lead to where they’re at.

I was talking with a white man about affirmative action in colleges. His kids had just been born and he felt it was very wrong and unfair to white kids. I told him about 3 young black men I knew who were applying to college at that point and who didn’t have fathers in their lives (and this is one example I know the no dad thing could be an overblown stereotype, but it was true for these 3). And I said you cannot say these kids are on equal footing with say, my son. And white guy asked “whose fault is that?”

And the question gave me pause- maybe it’s society’s as the legacy of racism carries over? Or maybe it’s the fathers for not being there? Or maybe it’s the mothers for having a kid with a guy who bails? But who gives a fuck- the kid isn’t at fault and that’s who is living with the harm. So point is why dream up stats, when the potential harm from the stat is bad, and the stat misses any legit point?

Hank Chinaski 08-09-2018 08:15 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Spoiler for oitnb and in bad taste,







But should we have a trump team fantasy draft with points for accusations indictments please and convictions?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-09-2018 08:41 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516793)
Spoiler for oitnb and in bad taste,







But should we have a trump team fantasy draft with points for accusations indictments please and convictions?
I'm in.

Put lots of Dems in the pool for our bothersiderbro to choose.

Hank Chinaski 08-09-2018 08:54 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516794)
I'm in.

Put lots of Dems in the pool for our bothersiderbro to choose.
Pleas not please

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-09-2018 08:58 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516795)
Pleas not please
You're guilty not you're welcome

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2018 10:33 AM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
An example: European Jews were persistently discriminated against. Some Zionists relocated to Israel and then did some things for which they might be held responsible. Are Zionists a "group"? Is Zionism to blame for anything that followed? Not sure, but perhaps. So my answer to your last question there shouldn't be "no."
I hate the whole concept of "groups." Recall, I'm the one coming to this critical of identity politics.

But that's an aside. We agree that a "group" (since we must lump individuals together for reasons I'm still not certain of) can be responsible for certain of its disadvantages.

Quote:
But your idea of a "study," somehow "scientific," is total nonsense.
I agree it'd be difficult as all hell. But the framework for such an analysis (determining when certain disadvantages are more or entirely attributable to behaviors of the group rather than outside oppressive forces) exists. The notions of superseding cause, and comparative negligence, are not that complicated.

Quote:
You do something tricky with an unclear distinction between "oppression" and "disadvantages" here. What's the difference? If what you say is right, why couldn't a Nazi in 1945 have said, hey, Gypsies in Europe suffer, sure, but one can test over time the extent to which their own actions have contributed to their current situation? And the Nazi might say that this could be done with a study, scientifically. Why would that have been wrong?
The difference is oppression either ends, as in the case of Nazi persecution, or it decreases over time, as in the case of bigotry and racism. (Please don't argue "It has not!" I'm measuring relative to the past.) At a certain point following the end of the oppression or the decrease of the oppression to a certain level, the victims begin to bear some personal responsibility for circumstances. (Again, I hate this analysis, as personal responsibility is an concept focused on individuals, not groups [another of many reasons the concept of identity politics is built on sand]). If you disagree with that point, necessarily, you support the following: "The victims of oppression, even when that oppression ends or decreases, never again share responsibility for their circumstances." That cannot be true, of course.

I don't think your Nazi study analogy works because you cannot say that Roma people were at all responsible for Nazis murdering them. If fifty years following those murders, Roma people remained uniquely disadvantaged relative to others murdered by Nazis, you can credibly assess how much of that remains attributable to Nazis and how much of it is attributable to Roma culture. (I think you have to drill down to each person in Roma culture to determine if outliers aren't causing an unreliable assessment [80% of Roma doing fine, and 20% dragging them down], but if I do that, I'm abandoning the conceit that assessing people based on their "group" holds validity.)

I'll end this with the repeated caveat that all of these analyses assume a "group" is either responsible or not responsible for the circumstances of its members. People within these groups, however, are impossibly complex. To use these labels to assert who's at fault for or deserves credit for their circumstances is dangerous. But if one is to concede that "groups" are useful categories for purposes of determining responsibility or non-responsibility of individuals, as Harris and Klein did, and people here seem to agree, then a clinical/scientific/anthropological assessment of "group responsibility" can be performed.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2018 11:10 AM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
To what end is that important? A “group” doesn’t feel the pain, individuals do.
Exactly. This is why I refuse to list my background on any form unless forced to do so. People must ultimately be assessed individually.

Of course a history of oppression should be discussed and racists and bigots who discriminate based on group identity should be vigilantly attacked and marginalized. But the reaction to oppression based on group discrimination isn't further focusing on groups instead of individuals. That's a tennis match of identity politics.

Quote:
And this sort of analysis can be used to say “look this one black guy got to be a VP at a bank, so why is this other black guy sitting on a stoop at 3 in the afternoon?” And that’s bullshit because they both had a million facts hit them and lead to where they’re at.
2. Again, people are impossibly unique. And a lot of life is random.

Quote:
I was talking with a white man about affirmative action in colleges. His kids had just been born and he felt it was very wrong and unfair to white kids. I told him about 3 young black men I knew who were applying to college at that point and who didn’t have fathers in their lives (and this is one example I know the no dad thing could be an overblown stereotype, but it was true for these 3). And I said you cannot say these kids are on equal footing with say, my son. And white guy asked “whose fault is that?”
The truly honest answer would require an assessment of each kid's circumstances.

I know we have to govern and make policy using shortcuts like "groups," but it's really loose, and terribly unreliable. I support affirmative action because I think there needs to be redress and racism persists. I'm even inclined to support reparations if we could statistically come up with an amount of lifetime earnings lost. But again, this stuff is wildly unreliable in comparison to simply assessing people individually.

Quote:
And the question gave me pause- maybe it’s society’s as the legacy of racism carries over? Or maybe it’s the fathers for not being there? Or maybe it’s the mothers for having a kid with a guy who bails? But who gives a fuck- the kid isn’t at fault and that’s who is living with the harm. So point is why dream up stats, when the potential harm from the stat is bad, and the stat misses any legit point?
I agree. But the stats come into play when people become fixated on groups, backgrounds, etc. The Left is doing that on steroids at the moment, and the Right is loving every minute of it, because it's the debate that they've wanted to engage forever. Nothing makes a bigot happier than a discussion of people as groups. It's the bedrock of their thinking.

Harris makes the excellent point in his podcast that the end game is to think of people exclusively as individuals. It's not possible at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should abandon that aim. And we certainly shouldn't backslide into thinking of ourselves as members of some group first, individuals second.

Hank Chinaski 08-10-2018 11:52 AM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516799)
Exactly.
I thought you were saying it is valid to look at what an oppressed group could/should be doing. Then I said "why?" And explained why it doesn't seem valid to me. Then you agree with me? I am really feeling adrift here.

I need to go back to when stuff made sense.


I. Blame. the. Clintons.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2018 12:29 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516800)
I thought you were saying it is valid to look at what an oppressed group could/should be doing. Then I said "why?" And explained why it doesn't seem valid to me. Then you agree with me? I am really feeling adrift here.

I need to go back to when stuff made sense.


I. Blame. the. Clintons.
I was confused myself, but happy to see someone kick open the door of focusing on people individually.

The point at issue was whether, if we're assessing people as groups (I don't like doing this, but I'm not fighting the hypo), whether it's acceptable to measure how much a group's disadvantages are its own responsibility versus how much are the responsibility of historical (and if continuing, then continuing as well) discrimination and repression of that group.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2018 12:30 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516798)
I hate the whole concept of "groups." Recall, I'm the one coming to this critical of identity politics.

But that's an aside. We agree that a "group" (since we must lump individuals together for reasons I'm still not certain of) can be responsible for certain of its disadvantages.
I'm not sure I agree with you on this because I don't understand what you mean by some of the words you keep using. In particular, I don't understand how a "group" can have "responsibility." If you want to make some argument about what that means, go for it, and I'll respond. If you want to make broad statements and ask me whether I categorically disagreeing, I'll repeat: Maybe there's a counter-example, so I'm not going to rule it out. That's not the same as agreeing with you.

And the part of what you've said that is utterly incoherent (and which I keep asking you to explain, to no avail) is that it's somehow possible to "assess" this putative responsibility with "science".

Quote:
I agree it'd be difficult as all hell.
No, we don't agree. I said it's nonsense. Swimming to Hawaii would be difficult as hell. Swimming up Mt Everest is nonsense.

Quote:
But the framework for such an analysis (determining when certain disadvantages are more or entirely attributable to behaviors of the group rather than outside oppressive forces) exists. The notions of superseding cause, and comparative negligence, are not that complicated.
Please see my post in response to Adder. Tort law concepts cannot be used to assess whether tort law itself is unfair.

Quote:
The difference is oppression either ends, as in the case of Nazi persecution, or it decreases over time, as in the case of bigotry and racism. (Please don't argue "It has not!" I'm measuring relative to the past.) At a certain point following the end of the oppression or the decrease of the oppression to a certain level, the victims begin to bear some personal responsibility for circumstances. (Again, I hate this analysis, as personal responsibility is an concept focused on individuals, not groups [another of many reasons the concept of identity politics is built on sand]). If you disagree with that point, necessarily, you support the following: "The victims of oppression, even when that oppression ends or decreases, never again share responsibility for their circumstances." That cannot be true, of course.
Let's set aside the group aspect, which is difficult enough, and focus on your responsibility concept.

During World War II, Mr. X, a Gypsy in Tirana, Albania, bought a ticket to sail on a boat from Tirana to Lisbon, where he would be beyond the reach of the Nazis. The day before he was to leave, he went to visit his cousin in the mountains to say goodbye. I say his cousin, although they were not blood relatives, because Mr. X shared a bond with him that other Romany would understand though we would not. That evening, as he walked back to Tirana, he heard horses coming and hid in some bushes, worried (perhaps unreasonably) that local villagers, not fond of Romany, would rob him or worse. In the dark he stepped on his bag, and without realizing it he broke his alarm clock. It was a cheap clock, the best he could afford after a winter without much work, and maybe it had broken before he stepped on his bag -- who is to say? When the horses had passed out of earshot, Mr. X resumed his walk, but between drinking with his cousin and the long walk and having to hide in the bushes it was quite late when he got home. The next morning, his broken alarm clock did not go off, and he overslept, missing the boat to Lisbon. Not too long after that, the militia detained him and turned him over to the Germans, who put him on a train to a concentration camp, where he later died.

Multiple choice

1. Which is true?
a) Mr. X bears no responsibility for his plight because the Nazis killed him.
b) Mr. X bears some responsibility for his plight.

2. If your answer is a), which is true?
a) Mr. X never bore any responsibility for his plight because eventually the Nazis killed him
b) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight because he was oppressed by non-Romany Albanians who were not Nazis and who did not kill him, even though he was later killed by German Nazis.
c) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight at points before the Nazis killed him, but then his responsibility for his plight disappeared because the Nazis killed him.

3. If your answer to 2. was c), at what point did Mr. X's responsibility for his plight end?
a) When he heard the horses on the road and feared for his safety.
b) When the militia seized him.
c) When the Germans put him on a train.
d) When he got to the concentration camp.
e) When he was killed.

4. If your answer to 1 was b), apportion responsibility for Mr. X's plight among the following groups:
a) Romany __%
b) Albanians who live in the mountains __%
c) Albanians who live in the city __%
d) Albanians who make shoddy clocks __%
e).Albanians who join militias __%
f) Germans __%
g) Other __%
All percentages must add up to 100%

Quote:
....[A] clinical/scientific/anthropological assessment of "group responsibility" can be performed.
Presumably, to get the group score, you just average up all of the aggregate scores of the life histories of everyone in that group, correct? That's a pretty simple analysis. Except that I really only picked a few facts from Mr. X's life -- maybe I need to develop his story a little more. And then all the other Romany, in Albania and elsewhere. Once that's done, we can move on to this country, yes?

Extra-Credit Question! Please identify a good one that someone has done. Just one, that you are willing to stand by as an example that such a thing is possible. I know that you will be all tired out after answering my little quiz, so I suspect you'll pass on answering this question, but it would help your final grade.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2018 12:34 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516799)
Harris makes the excellent point in his podcast that the end game is to think of people exclusively as individuals. It's not possible at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should abandon that aim.
Setting aside whether Harris says this, why is this a good thing? We are not atomized individuals with no connection to other people? We are members of groups -- countries, religions, trade associations, companies, states (and commonwealths), neighborhoods, ethnic groups, families, benevolent and protective fraternal orders named after fauna, etc. Why on Earth would people want to ignore all that? How ever could they?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-10-2018 01:02 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516802)
I'm not sure I agree with you on this because I don't understand what you mean by some of the words you keep using. In particular, I don't understand how a "group" can have "responsibility." If you want to make some argument about what that means, go for it, and I'll respond. If you want to make broad statements and ask me whether I categorically disagreeing, I'll repeat: Maybe there's a counter-example, so I'm not going to rule it out. That's not the same as agreeing with you.

And the part of what you've said that is utterly incoherent (and which I keep asking you to explain, to no avail) is that it's somehow possible to "assess" this putative responsibility with "science".



No, we don't agree. I said it's nonsense. Swimming to Hawaii would be difficult as hell. Swimming up Mt Everest is nonsense.



Please see my post in response to Adder. Tort law concepts cannot be used to assess whether tort law itself is unfair.



Let's set aside the group aspect, which is difficult enough, and focus on your responsibility concept.

During World War II, Mr. X, a Gypsy in Tirana, Albania, bought a ticket to sail on a boat from Tirana to Lisbon, where he would be beyond the reach of the Nazis. The day before he was to leave, he went to visit his cousin in the mountains to say goodbye. I say his cousin, although they were not blood relatives, because Mr. X shared a bond with him that other Romany would understand though we would not. That evening, as he walked back to Tirana, he heard horses coming and hid in some bushes, worried (perhaps unreasonably) that local villagers, not fond of Romany, would rob him or worse. In the dark he stepped on his bag, and without realizing it he broke his alarm clock. It was a cheap clock, the best he could afford after a winter without much work, and maybe it had broken before he stepped on his bag -- who is to say? When the horses had passed out of earshot, Mr. X resumed his walk, but between drinking with his cousin and the long walk and having to hide in the bushes it was quite late when he got home. The next morning, his broken alarm clock did not go off, and he overslept, missing the boat to Lisbon. Not too long after that, the militia detained him and turned him over to the Germans, who put him on a train to a concentration camp, where he later died.

Multiple choice

1. Which is true?
a) Mr. X bears no responsibility for his plight because the Nazis killed him.
b) Mr. X bears some responsibility for his plight.

2. If your answer is a), which is true?
a) Mr. X never bore any responsibility for his plight because eventually the Nazis killed him
b) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight because he was oppressed by non-Romany Albanians who were not Nazis and who did not kill him, even though he was later killed by German Nazis.
c) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight at points before the Nazis killed him, but then his responsibility for his plight disappeared because the Nazis killed him.

3. If your answer to 2. was c), at what point did Mr. X's responsibility for his plight end?
a) When he heard the horses on the road and feared for his safety.
b) When the militia seized him.
c) When the Germans put him on a train.
d) When he got to the concentration camp.
e) When he was killed.

4. If your answer to 1 was b), apportion responsibility for Mr. X's plight among the following groups:
a) Romany __%
b) Albanians who live in the mountains __%
c) Albanians who live in the city __%
d) Albanians who make shoddy clocks __%
e).Albanians who join militias __%
f) Germans __%
g) Other __%
All percentages must add up to 100%



Presumably, to get the group score, you just average up all of the aggregate scores of the life histories of everyone in that group, correct? That's a pretty simple analysis. Except that I really only picked a few facts from Mr. X's life -- maybe I need to develop his story a little more. And then all the other Romany, in Albania and elsewhere. Once that's done, we can move on to this country, yes?

Extra-Credit Question! Please identify a good one that someone has done. Just one, that you are willing to stand by as an example that such a thing is possible. I know that you will be all tired out after answering my little quiz, so I suspect you'll pass on answering this question, but it would help your final grade.
I'll address all of this in detail, but I don't have time at the moment.

I do have time, however, to say this: Any flaws or difficulties in an analysis attempting to show that a historically oppressed group's current disadvantages are caused in part by the group's own actions are equally applicable to any analysis attempting to show they are entirely caused and perpetuated by the oppression. You can't assert that you can prove one, but using the same tools you'd need to prove that, it's impossible to test whether the other applies.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2018 05:42 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516804)
I'll address all of this in detail, but I don't have time at the moment.

I do have time, however, to say this: Any flaws or difficulties in an analysis attempting to show that a historically oppressed group's current disadvantages are caused in part by the group's own actions are equally applicable to any analysis attempting to show they are entirely caused and perpetuated by the oppression. You can't assert that you can prove one, but using the same tools you'd need to prove that, it's impossible to test whether the other applies.
In tort cases, contributory negligence is used to reduce an award of damages. A plaintiff who has been harmed $100K and who is deemed to be 10% at fault will recover $90K from a defendant deemed 90% at fault. As I bet you know, in some states and the District of Columbia, a plaintiff who has been harmed, say, $5M, say because a bus driver recklessly ran a red light and hit her, might recover nothing because the bus company's lawyer convinces a jury that she was 1% at fault, unjust as that seems.

When we talk about issues of systemic bias and oppression, and about what society might do to achieve a more perfect union, we don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how much of the inequality we see is the direct and proximate cause of bias and oppression. Beyond any reasonable dispute, the people who devote themselves to discussing how much the victims of oppression brought it on themselves are opponents of doing anything, on the margin, to ameliorate past harms, and are often working to reverse things that society has done to reward the content of people's characters rather than the color of their skins. Even assuming the best of intentions and perfect execution, I have to ask whether there would be any benefit to society from trying to use "science" to "assess" a marginalized group's "responsibility" for their own situation. What sounds like an intellectual exercise has the practical effect of saying to someone who got hit by bus, "sorry, you should have been more careful, you're out of luck."

sebastian_dangerfield 08-12-2018 08:26 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516812)
In tort cases, contributory negligence is used to reduce an award of damages. A plaintiff who has been harmed $100K and who is deemed to be 10% at fault will recover $90K from a defendant deemed 90% at fault. As I bet you know, in some states and the District of Columbia, a plaintiff who has been harmed, say, $5M, say because a bus driver recklessly ran a red light and hit her, might recover nothing because the bus company's lawyer convinces a jury that she was 1% at fault, unjust as that seems.

When we talk about issues of systemic bias and oppression, and about what society might do to achieve a more perfect union, we don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how much of the inequality we see is the direct and proximate cause of bias and oppression. Beyond any reasonable dispute, the people who devote themselves to discussing how much the victims of oppression brought it on themselves are opponents of doing anything, on the margin, to ameliorate past harms, and are often working to reverse things that society has done to reward the content of people's characters rather than the color of their skins. Even assuming the best of intentions and perfect execution, I have to ask whether there would be any benefit to society from trying to use "science" to "assess" a marginalized group's "responsibility" for their own situation. What sounds like an intellectual exercise has the practical effect of saying to someone who got hit by bus, "sorry, you should have been more careful, you're out of luck."
This is an argument against engaging in research on certain topics. It doesn't address the issue of whether such research could be done.

But it does get to the point Klein hinted at -- that people like Harris should be careful about what sorts of inquiries they make. I don't know why he didn't say it as plainly as you have here, but my suspicion is he's uncomfortable, as am I, with stating, "Some studies, some data, some analyses, are better left undone, unexamined." That may be what caused me to accuse Klein of attempting censorship. It's not really censorship to say certain inquiries can embolden bad policies and should be avoided. But any open minded person recoils a little bit at the suggestion we should avoid certain questions and investigations. Or allow social or policy concerns to control how they're done.

I think we'll see a lot more controversy over research in the future. Our technological capacities increase at multiples over our abilities to consider the policy and potential social impacts of what they uncover. An endless number of potentially impolitic questions are going to be raised an answered over our lifetimes.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-13-2018 12:24 AM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516813)
This is an argument against engaging in research on certain topics. It doesn't address the issue of whether such research could be done.

But it does get to the point Klein hinted at -- that people like Harris should be careful about what sorts of inquiries they make. I don't know why he didn't say it as plainly as you have here, but my suspicion is he's uncomfortable, as am I, with stating, "Some studies, some data, some analyses, are better left undone, unexamined." That may be what caused me to accuse Klein of attempting censorship. It's not really censorship to say certain inquiries can embolden bad policies and should be avoided. But any open minded person recoils a little bit at the suggestion we should avoid certain questions and investigations. Or allow social or policy concerns to control how they're done.

I think we'll see a lot more controversy over research in the future. Our technological capacities increase at multiples over our abilities to consider the policy and potential social impacts of what they uncover. An endless number of potentially impolitic questions are going to be raised an answered over our lifetimes.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my Albanian quiz, the point of which is that the intellectual exercise you propose is futile.

Klein is more charitable than me. He thinks that Murray's work, if it is going to be discussed, should be put in context (not "censored"). But one has to say that with Murray because it's clear after many decades that he is going to continue to pump noxious ideas into the discussion.

Your project is different. Apart from being utterly nonsensical, no one is doing it. (Once again, please post a good example if you know of one.) That being the case, my question is: why? If it could be done, why would you do it? Would the world be a better place if you could do a lot of research and work and conclude scientifically that Albanian Romany were 87% responsible for what Germany Nazis did to them? Or 26% responsible?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-13-2018 09:24 AM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516814)
I'm still waiting for you to answer my Albanian quiz, the point of which is that the intellectual exercise you propose is futile.

Klein is more charitable than me. He thinks that Murray's work, if it is going to be discussed, should be put in context (not "censored"). But one has to say that with Murray because it's clear after many decades that he is going to continue to pump noxious ideas into the discussion.

Your project is different. Apart from being utterly nonsensical, no one is doing it. (Once again, please post a good example if you know of one.) That being the case, my question is: why? If it could be done, why would you do it? Would the world be a better place if you could do a lot of research and work and conclude scientifically that Albanian Romany were 87% responsible for what Germany Nazis did to them?

One of the more entertaining threads a few weeks ago was when the Historian Kevin Kruse began taking on and responding to everything Dinesh D'Souza was writing about history. Kevin ripped it all to shreds pretty quickly but carefully and systematically. For about three days it was informative and interesting, because Kevin's knowledge is vast and he did a great job on the background historiography and pulled in great amounts of detail, and watching D'Souza get trashed was entertaining.

But D'Souza of course kept his head down and admitted nothing, and just resorted to endless ad hominems on Kruse and various other actual historians, and learned zero from all of this. And after a while it got tedious, because Kevin needed to keep reposting old threads and keep making the same point over.

Such is Murray and all the purveyors of this trash. He's been debunked thousands of times over the last few decades. His professional associated released a report saying he was full of bunk. Top real scientists of all stripes stepped in to explain why he was bunk. Yet he continues. How dumb and how vacant do you have to be to bother with him at this point? Why not just have an astrologist on? At least they won't blame their victims.

Adder 08-13-2018 11:25 AM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516813)
It's not really censorship to say certain inquiries can embolden bad policies and should be avoided.
It's much closer to censorship, and would actually be censorship if enforced, than suggesting that context is needed to avoid misleading people.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-13-2018 11:41 AM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516817)
It's much closer to censorship, and would actually be censorship if enforced, than suggesting that context is needed to avoid misleading people.
I agree with this. But if the context is offered to make the argument that a group, once oppressed, bears no responsibility for its circumstances at any point in the future, that's not mere context, but an effort to abridge factual inquiry. It's actually avoiding context, as full context necessarily includes assessment of that group's own actions.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-13-2018 12:11 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516814)
I'm still waiting for you to answer my Albanian quiz, the point of which is that the intellectual exercise you propose is futile.

Klein is more charitable than me. He thinks that Murray's work, if it is going to be discussed, should be put in context (not "censored"). But one has to say that with Murray because it's clear after many decades that he is going to continue to pump noxious ideas into the discussion.

Your project is different. Apart from being utterly nonsensical, no one is doing it. (Once again, please post a good example if you know of one.) That being the case, my question is: why? If it could be done, why would you do it? Would the world be a better place if you could do a lot of research and work and conclude scientifically that Albanian Romany were 87% responsible for what Germany Nazis did to them?
I would say that if the "plight" of the Romany person is his having been killed, he bears zero responsibility. The Nazis killed him, and they own that 100%.

If his "plight" is defined as disadvantages he suffered prior to his murder, we don't have enough facts.

A better hypothetical would reverse the facts and use controls. Let's say he and his brother are kidnapped by Nazis. They survive the ordeal and go back to their home village. One brother decides to go into carpentry. The other goes into fishing. Carpentry has huge upside, as people have to rebuild. It's so in demand that purchasers of such services forget the local bigotries (they're happy to have anyone do the work). Fishing, OTOH, is a glutted industry. The carpenter tells his brother to stop fishing and join his growing contracting business, but the fisherman, being proud, keeps fishing. The carpenter lives out his retirement in comfort. The fisherman survives retirement near poverty.

To what extent are Nazis responsible for where these men are at the ends of their lives versus each man's personal choices? I don't know. It's tricky.

But what I do know is that to assert the person is not at all responsible for his circumstance because of oppression, one has to make exactly such a measurement. (One has to prove there are no other causes which may be placed under "personal responsibility.") This assessment involves exactly the same nebulous analysis you have said is impossible. If it's impossible to analyze comparative responsibility, it's logically impossible to reach a finding there's no personal responsibility.

This is where I agree with Klein a bit. Asking how much comparative responsibility an oppressed individual bears invites excuses not to redress the oppression. But where the Left raises the argument that a person from a group oppressed cannot bear any responsibility going forward, which it does (and even moderate people here have done so, excepting you), the comparative responsibility argument becomes necessary. Otherwise, something that is logically provable as false is allowed to stand without question. That's obviously not acceptable, except under a "positive ends justify the means" reasoning. I'm never comfortable with that sort of reasoning, on any subject. And I don't think anyone else should be.

ETA: Once more, I include the caveat that discussion of this using "groups" is, I believe, invalid. People must be taken one on one because, yes, we are ultimately atomized. I may never raise the argument that my behavior can be credited to or blamed upon my European heritage. I cannot state that a personal decision I have made is consistent with my similarly socio-economically situated neighbors. I cannot state it's the kind of thing a man, or a Christian (lapsed), does. Ultimately, I own the decisions my limited free will allows me to make.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-13-2018 12:11 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516815)
One of the more entertaining threads a few weeks ago was when the Historian Kevin Kruse began taking on and responding to everything Dinesh D'Souza was writing about history. Kevin ripped it all to shreds pretty quickly but carefully and systematically. For about three days it was informative and interesting, because Kevin's knowledge is vast and he did a great job on the background historiography and pulled in great amounts of detail, and watching D'Souza get trashed was entertaining.

But D'Souza of course kept his head down and admitted nothing, and just resorted to endless ad hominems on Kruse and various other actual historians, and learned zero from all of this. And after a while it got tedious, because Kevin needed to keep reposting old threads and keep making the same point over.

Such is Murray and all the purveyors of this trash. He's been debunked thousands of times over the last few decades. His professional associated released a report saying he was full of bunk. Top real scientists of all stripes stepped in to explain why he was bunk. Yet he continues. How dumb and how vacant do you have to be to bother with him at this point? Why not just have an astrologist on? At least they won't blame their victims.
If you want to discuss censorship, there are people who are actually losing their jobs because of what they say? Murray and others (like Milo) are capitalizing on the attention.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-13-2018 12:13 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516818)
I agree with this. But if the context is offered to make the argument that a group, once oppressed, bears no responsibility for its circumstances at any point in the future, that's not mere context, but an effort to abridge factual inquiry. It's actually avoiding context, as full context necessarily includes assessment of that group's own actions.
For someone who says he doesn't like treating individuals as members of groups, you return to the need to assessed people as members of groups quite a bit.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-13-2018 12:26 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516820)
If you want to discuss censorship, there are people who are actually losing their jobs because of what they say? Murray and others (like Milo) are capitalizing on the attention.
Completely agreed.

And losing a job because of what one says doesn't necessarily count as censorship. For example, one hopes that Universities still occasionally fire faculty who prove to be idiots.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-13-2018 12:38 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516821)
For someone who says he doesn't like treating individuals as members of groups, you return to the need to assessed people as members of groups quite a bit.
I'm not fighting the hypo. You see the meta point.

The whole act of chopping people into groups and comparing them is futile. And yet the Right and the Left are telling us this is how we must have the debate.

All of what I've said about the Left's poor reasoning applies to the Right. The only valid analyses are those done on individuals.

Example: Murray cites Asians as a monolithic group and then tells Harris, "This was tough, because we had very little solid data on Chinese people." So half of the Asian population is represented by sketchy data in his study? How's that a "study" at all?

The same applies to races, religions, etc. here. You can never tease out how many outliers skew the group IQ upward or downward. Murray was about four or five layers too high in terms of granularity. Someone will get there in the future, and I'm pretty confident they'll reach the conclusion, "It's really only useful to assess people one on one."

ETA: By the way, Murray does the same sort of lazy analysis of whites in Coming Apart. I've not read it, and probably won't because of its flaws. But there, Murray argues that poor whites and affluent whites are turning into culturally unique groups which, via assortative mating, will eventually diverge genetically in terms of ability. For all the same reasons I find the Bell Curve unpersuasive, this too is unpersuasive.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-13-2018 12:41 PM
Re: icymi above
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516822)
Completely agreed.

And losing a job because of what one says doesn't necessarily count as censorship. For example, one hopes that Universities still occasionally fire faculty who prove to be idiots.
You're right. It's Orwellian.

I'm just glad we have enlightened sorts like you to tell us who's an idiot and who's not.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 AM.
Page 57 of 126 « First 7475556 57 585967107 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com