Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Klein suggested it should not be made at all, but could not explain why, as he had no argument around Harris's assertion that it was a logical inquiry.
|
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I guess I'll just keep doing so. It is not a logical inquiry. It is not an exercise one can perform. I don't give a shit about Klein. I have given you reason after reason after reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't think the group's disadvantages are the group's fault. As I've said, I think the group concept does not work.
|
Your argument has shifted so often that I don't know what the fuck you're saying. You say things like this:
"This takes right back to Murray and Harris and Klein. To talk effect is to examine inequality between races, which involves an analysis of causes. That analysis includes an examination of how much responsibility a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances versus how much was inflicted by outside forces beyond its control.
I agree with the approach, but this is the third rail conversations of all third rail conversations, apparently."
And you've said this often. You talk about logical inquiry into a group's responsibility for their circumstances. Then you turn around
the next minute and talk about how this can't be done for groups. You are making no sense. The argument you have seized on and keep making (and denying you're making) is ridiculous. But you can't drop it no matter how stupid it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But if one is going to have these debates by defining people by group, as Klein and Harris did, how else can I respond?
|
Defining people by group? I haven't read the Klein and Harris piece, but what are you talking about? Blacks, as a group are at a disadvantage because of racism and oppression. If they weren't, they would never be defined as a group when it comes to achievement or treatment or whatever because they'd be treated like everyone else. I don't think even you understand what you're saying anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The truth is, each person is individually responsible for his own actions. Each should be assessed exclusively as an individual.
Here's a personal example. My grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe. Came over with nothing. Started working in menial labor as did everyone else on the boat. But then he said "This shit's a train to nowhere." He took a chance and started a business. Life got better. Compare him to the other people who remained in menial labor (and this can be done, as he remained in his neighborhood for most of his life). The people who faced the same choice he did and decided to stick with the menial labor enjoyed a life a few degrees below the life he did. (Many died young, abused by oppressive corporate bosses at a time when there were few labor protections.) Some others took the same chance and failed. Still some others took the same chance and succeeded far beyond him. Are these people not partly responsible for the differentials between their success or lack thereof? Stated otherwise, because they were significantly disadvantaged at the start, do their personal decisions somehow not matter?
I have another grandfather who was an Ivy League fuckup. Blew a pile of opportunities. He owns 100% of his failures. But let's say he'd been oppressed, rather than advantaged. Would he then have no responsibility for his situation?
|
This is the dumbest fucking analogy to support an argument I've seen in quite some time.
Either we discuss the impact of the disadvantages an individual faces
in the context of the treatment that person endured as a part of a group or we don't. Discussing what an individual does
outside of that context is fucking pointless because
it has nothing to do with whatever impact on that class of people the negative treatment has had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Each person always owns some % of responsibility for his life's circumstance. That's not a point up for debate.
|
Brilliant. No one is debating that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's impossible for a contrary situation to exist. There can never be a scenario where it can be said, "[Name] bore absolutely no responsibility for his fortune or lack thereof." The percentages can vary wildly based on individual and outside forces acting upon that individual. And there can be discrete instances over a lifetime in which a person bears no responsibility. But there can never be a scenario where it can be said that a person has 0% responsibility.
|
Again, you are arguing a point that no one is making anywhere.
The whole point of the conversation is that if one group suffers a difference in circumstances than another after disparate treatment, whatever evidence you think you're analyzing about why part of it is their fault is really evidence of how they are treated differently. I don't know why you keep bringing up individuals in the context of this conversation to make your point. It makes absolutely no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That a bunch of people want to abuse a logical argument doesn't render it invalid.
|
It's not a logical argument. That's the whole fucking point. You can't shift the conversation into something that no one was discussing and call it logical. It is illogical to try to figure out a percentage of blame that you can assign to a group that has suffered oppression for their current circumstances. Period. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
For the 50th time, I do not think the group construct works. But if we use the correct construct, the individual, the argument is this:
"Is an oppressed person 0% responsible for his life's circumstance?" No. That's flatly absurd. Every individual owns some percentage of responsibility for where he's at.
|
Holy shit. NO ONE is saying that or has said it. We can take a look at any individual's life and understand that any specific choice they make is a bad one or a good one. Of course. We can gauge to what extent that person's choices are limited or influenced by racism and oppression. We can step back and say, "Okay. We see you don't have the same opportunity that others do, but you could have started a business like this other guy in a similar situation." But what the fuck does that do? And
how do we measure a percentage of blame for each individual and then aggregate it for a group. And even if that were possible, what is the point other than to point to the group and say, "See? It's __% your fault."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I do not think the assertion that an individual owns some percentage of responsibility for his circumstances on par with arguing the sky is not blue. And I think I'm on fairly solid footing there.
|
You are shifting the argument away from the one being had into one that no one but you is having. So your footing is definitely not solid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. I do not. I do not think any "group" owns a certain % of responsibility (blame is a different concept) for its circumstances.
|
This response is confusing. Are you saying groups are to blame for a certain percentage of their circumstances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think every individual person owns a percentage of responsibility for his circumstances. And this applies to the positive as well as the negative. The most wildly successful person owes a certain percentage of his success to luck and, if he had certain advantages, those advantages.
This is a big part of why looking at people as groups first, individuals second, is dumb. But that's what Klein and Harris did, and a lot of fans of identity politics do. I'm not fighting the hypo.
|
Your inability to understand the point of what you have deemed to be "identity politics" is sickening. Black people don't engage in identity politics because it's fun. They do it because they are in a class of people that is treated worse than other people. They are asking to be treated in the same way as white people. "Fans of identity politics." What a stupid fucking way to look at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The argument wasn't proven to be bullshit.
|
Yes. It absolutely was. You just can't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I provided Ty with a study from Duke, based on data, doing the assessment he claimed could not be done. (I think it's flawed because, again, it's using groups where the only valid measure is individuals.) I could offer many more similar studies, I'm sure.
|
Sure. I'm sure it did what you said it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But Klein suggested we not even engage in that kind of study. That's foreclosing inquiry. That's not a "marketplace of ideas," as Ty put it, but the preclusion of certain ideas. Klein is not a judge, nor is Ty. They don't get to decide what gets dismissed with prejudice on a 12(b)(6) based on their sensibilities.
|
Again, didn't read it, but based on what everyone else has said here, that's not what Klein said at all. In any case, whatever.
TM
