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.
