Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The logic employed involves the testing of hypotheses. Is it pure scientific method? No. But again, it's the only science we have for this sort of thing.
|
No, no it doesn't involve the testing of hypotheses. It involve observation and explanation. There's no testing. It's not science.
Why am I dwelling on this? Because you keep invoking the idea of science to suggest that there is some way to be objective and precise about judgments that are ultimately highly subjective and imprecise. There is nothing scientific about deciding that a group that has been discriminated against is somehow responsible for its own victimization.
Quote:
|
(And as someone else noted, if you quibble with it, you quibble with evolution and much of climate change science.)
|
We're talking about anthropology, Sebby. Try to remember the last silly thing you said.
Quote:
|
Not in the least. You have every right to argue that invisible aliens are potential inputs. And I have every right to attack that, which I did.
|
Relax, I was making fun of your misunderstanding of what the word "censorship" means.
Yes, and I'm asking for to address its concrete implications. The fact that you refuse to do so should be telling you that it's a bad idea, not to double down on the idea that an abstract notion might be a great one even if it seems awful in an real implementation.
Quote:
|
This is, to come full circle to my earliest point, a form of sly censorship. It is an attempt to foreclose discussion and inquiry. And to the extent it bars an accused from arguing the victim's plight may not be entirely the accused's fault, it converts an allegation to a judgment, a verdict.
|
Bull. shit. I am doing the opposite of censoring you. I am asking you to explain what the f*ck you are talking about. You refuse to do it. The only person censoring you is you. I am discussing and inquiring here, my friend.
Quote:
|
You are stating that you have the right to make a broad allegation about society, "This country has caused oppressed groups to be disadvantaged." That is a true statement. No problem with that.
|
Kumbaya, motherfucker.
Quote:
|
After that, however, you go off the rails into authoritarian-land. When you say that in response to that statement, no one may offer the reply, "But do the disadvantaged possibly bear some personal responsibility for their continued disadvantage?",...
|
Yeah, I actually haven't said that. Which is inconvenient for your schtick, I know. Please go back to the paragraph yesterday with the observation that black cops shoot black kids. Why don't you try thinking about what I'm saying instead of putting words in my mouth.
I've never said you're can't say (stupid) things. I've just asked you why you would want to
Quote:
|
That's a clever repackaging. But it's not the question on the table. It never was. Stop trying to shift the debate to a social value assessment of the inquiry. I've already conceded I'm not sure it has much. But whether it does or it doesn't, neither you nor I nor Klein nor anyone else has the right to dictate what ideas should not be discussed, or how controversial ideas should be discussed.
|
It's on the table because I asked you the question. Using your logic, aren't you now censoring me because you are stifling my discussion and inquiry. Now you're the authoritarian, right? (NOTE: I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS BUT AM ASKING IT TO EXPOSE THE STUPIDITY OF THE IDEA.)
You say you've conceding your ideas don't have "much" social value. Why do they have any?
