We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's not stupid if my aim was to expose that, like Klein, you think you have the right to decide what sorts of skepticism and defenses may be raised and what ones shall be taboo.

Will respond to the rest later, but I think what you're saying is, if I don't think I have the right to decide what sorts of skepticism and defenses may be raised and what ones shall be taboo, then it's stupid.

Guess what? I don't think I have that right. I'm not saying anything is taboo. I've been discussing your ideas with you, which is the exact opposite!

Ergo, your idea is stupid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

ETA: Holy shit... In 30 seconds of Googling, here's a study of data on exactly the types of issues discussed by Harris and Klein. https://socialequity.duke.edu/sites/...%20REPORT_.pdf Exactly the type of data you said could not be assessed. And to boot -- it supports the argument that personal responsibility is not a cause of the disadvantages referenced within it (wealth disparity).

Now it's time for you to subtly shift your position from "It can't be done or shouldn't be done" to, "See, it's pointless to do it. As you can see from this study (in which they do it), it proves that Harris was wrong to even consider personal responsibility."

You're going to contradict yourself on so many levels in the next post, let me just distill this to a neat final point: It's always a good thing to ask questions - to test things. And arguing against that is really, really stupid.

(I was not holding this to rope a dope you. I really found it in 30 seconds.)

I have no problem with that study and don't see how it challenges anything I've said. Why don't you quote what I said that you think the existence of that study falsifies.

eta: I never said questions like ones in that study can't be assessed. I said that a disadvantaged group's "responsibility" for its own disadvantages cannot be "assessed" with "science." Do you not see the difference?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As an antitrust lawyer, I love me some natural experiments. But let's not pretend that what Sebby wants to do is science.

I thought I knew what sebby was talking about, but then it turns out I didn't, so I have to pretend something if I want to have a position on it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have no problem with that study and don't see how it challenges anything I've said. Why don't you quote what I said that you think the existence of that study falsifies.

eta: I never said questions like ones in that study can't be assessed. I said that a disadvantaged group's "responsibility" for its own disadvantages cannot be "assessed" with "science." Do you not see the difference?

See Section 8 of the study.

Section 7 is also somewhat related.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

See Section 8 of the study.

Section 7 is also somewhat related.

You can reply to my post, but you can't respond to my post, apparently.

Why don't you quote what I said that you think the existence of Sections 7 & 8* of that study falsify.

*I believe you mean the discussion under the headings, Myth 7 and Myth 8.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

How the fuck can you determine how a group contributes to their own situation? You keep saying things like "factual" and "scientific," but you never address the underlying ridiculous premise that racial groups voluntarily act in concert somehow and don't just react to their treatment as a group.

A large number of black people do not fail to learn how to swim because black people have decided they don't really want to swim. They have been (and continue to be) forced to live in areas where there is no access to water, they were historically excluded from public pools, they don't have a foundation of people who are capable of teaching them to swim because their parents, friends, etc. never learned (for the reasons stated above). You want to argue that we need to assess some kind of blame percentage to blacks as a group because a disproportionate number of us (compared to whites, similarly situated minorities, everyone else?) do not know how to swim and are not going out and getting swimming lessons? Can you see why this shit is so stupid?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

At this point, there is no explanation for how you characterize this as anything but intentionally and stubbornly ridiculous.

The left is saying, "Stop treating these groups differently than you treat white, heterosexual males."

The right is saying, "Blame groups for a whole lot of shit, including the circumstances they're in."

You are saying, "Yeah, let's see how much they are at fault for their own circumstances."

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

One can never argue that any person is responsible for his own abuse or oppression, as they were things he could not control. But logically (I know, broken record), one can always argue that a person is partly or fully responsible for his disadvantages.

Dude, there is a serious disconnect occurring in your brain.

If you want to argue that an individual who has experienced something negative can be studied and held responsible for subsequent actions they've engaged in that are not the best decisions, go for it. I'm not sure how you could possibly reconcile how you assign a percentage blame on actions that sprung from that negative experience, but knock yourself out.

But you absolutely cannot apply this approach to a group , because if a group of people acts in a way that is different than another group of people it is necessarily because of outside influences on that group of people. Races do not get together and decide to act a certain way. The only thing races share is a common treatment. Period. There is no getting around that conclusion.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That argument can be logically made. Refuting it is another issue.

??

Any argument can be made. This one gets dismissed pretrial with prejudice.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Also, the argument wasn't that the oppression is the oppressed group's fault. It's that the group's disadvantages can be argued, after a time, to be partly the group's fault.

Please make that argument for me. How the fuck can a group's disadvantages be partly the group's fault if they were oppressed? I think you'll need an example, but maybe not. So far, all I've heard from you is that this is a thing. You have yet to explain how the hell it's possible.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Totally agree that using groups here does not work when discussing allegations of personal responsibility.

You just did it like a sentence ago.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm pinning Ty down as advocating that certain arguments should not be made.

No. He's pinning you down by (i) stating that this argument can't actually be made in any logical way (and I have been arguing that as well) and (ii) asking you what the point of the argument is. The only people who want to make such an argument are looking to say, "This minority group is partly to blame for their own circumstances because as a group they ________."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

At core, my point is very simple: If you wish to assert claims that certain groups have been oppressed and consequently suffer disadvantages, you invite a rebuttal that the groups may bear some responsibility for some of those disadvantages.

No I don't because that rebuttal is fucking ridiculous. It's like saying, "If you say that the sky is blue, you invite a rebuttal that it is not."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Arguing whether it's true or not is of no interest to me.

Bullshit. Based on what you have posted, I think it is quite clear that you believe minority groups need to own a certain percentage of the blame for their circumstances.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What is of interest to me is Ty's suggestion, and Klein's, that such rebuttal should not be raised or considered. That strikes me as soft censorship.

You are conflating a response to a ridiculous rebuttal that says the rebuttal is complete bullshit and steeped in racism with soft censorship. It is a ridiculous position to take. Every time an argument is proven to be stupid and/or racist is not an example of "soft censorship," whatever the fuck that means.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

argument can be made. This one gets dismissed pretrial with prejudice.

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.

Please make that argument for me. How the fuck can a group's disadvantages be partly the group's fault if they were oppressed? I think you'll need an example, but maybe not. So far, all I've heard from you is that this is a thing. You have yet to explain how the hell it's possible.

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. But if one is going to have these debates by defining people by group, as Klein and Harris did, how else can I respond?

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?

Each person always owns some % of responsibility for his life's circumstance. That's not a point up for debate. 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.

No. He's pinning you down by (i) stating that this argument can't actually be made in any logical way (and I have been arguing that as well) and (ii) asking you what the point of the argument is. The only people who want to make such an argument are looking to say, "This minority group is partly to blame for their own circumstances because as a group they ________."

That a bunch of people want to abuse a logical argument doesn't render it invalid. 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.

No I don't because that rebuttal is fucking ridiculous. It's like saying, "If you say that the sky is blue, you invite a rebuttal that it is not."

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.

Bullshit. Based on what you have posted, I think it is quite clear that you believe minority groups need to own a certain percentage of the blame for their circumstances.

No. I do not. I do not think any "group" owns a certain % of responsibility (blame is a different concept) for its circumstances. 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.

You are conflating a response to a ridiculous rebuttal that says the rebuttal is complete bullshit and steeped in racism with soft censorship. It is a ridiculous position to take. Every time an argument is proven to be stupid and/or racist is not an example of "soft censorship," whatever the fuck that means.

The argument wasn't proven to be bullshit. 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.

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.

TM[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

At this point, there is no explanation for how you characterize this as anything but intentionally and stubbornly ridiculous.

The left is saying, "Stop treating these groups differently than you treat white, heterosexual males."

The right is saying, "Blame groups for a whole lot of shit, including the circumstances they're in."

You are saying, "Yeah, let's see how much they are at fault for their own circumstances."

TM

The last line is incorrect. I am saying, "One cannot argue that any individual, anywhere, bears 0% responsibility for his circumstances."

Ty will cite in response scenarios in which someone is murdered, hit by a car, etc. So yes, there are come discrete instances in which a person has 0% responsibility. But barring extreme events like that, every person owns a percentage of responsibility for where he finds himself.

To argue otherwise effectively creates a man free of obligation of any kind -- not at all responsible for any of his acts.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The argument wasn't proven to be bullshit.

Yes. It absolutely was. You just can't see it.

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.

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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The last line is incorrect. I am saying, "One cannot argue that any individual, anywhere, bears 0% responsibility for his circumstances."

Why? Why are you saying this when no one has said anything like what you put into quotes?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ty will cite in response scenarios in which someone is murdered, hit by a car, etc. So yes, there are come discrete instances in which a person has 0% responsibility. But barring extreme events like that, every person owns a percentage of responsibility for where he finds himself.

To argue otherwise effectively creates a man free of obligation of any kind -- not at all responsible for any of his acts.

Since you've decided to shift this argument into a realm that no one but you is talking about, I'll avoid responding to this.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

You need to find a disadvantaged group that Sebby truly relates to for this to work. I'd suggest trying to think of an example using wealthy white conservatives trying to get by at Ivy League schools.

[Hank Chinaski]

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. But if one is going to have these debates by defining people by group, as Klein and Harris did, how else can I respond?

would it help to summarize what Harris and/or Klein said or suggested be done? they suggested some study of a disadvantaged group, and what, successes within that group despite the disadvantages, and how that can then be applied to rate "blame for individuals?" No one seems to understand the point you are trying to make, but maybe there was a concrete example that started you down this road?