We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But to say that is to assert that certain defenses may not be raised. If you say "X suffers because of the actions of Y," then you've accused Y of something.

This is a truly bizarre and basic level of logic failure.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wut.

This is dumb in at least two important ways: There are a ton of great history books from the last 75 years, and all scholars have biases.

The unspoken assumption in Sebby's rants is that conservatives are somehow smarter, something you would think would be belied by their relentless idiotic behavior. Certainly, his rants do nothing to convince us of this point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is a truly bizarre and basic level of logic failure.

If I say, "Adder, you've caused harm to Ty," how is this not an accusation?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The unspoken assumption in Sebby's rants is that conservatives are somehow smarter, something you would think would be belied by their relentless idiotic behavior. Certainly, his rants do nothing to convince us of this point.

Nope. You're putting words in my mouth. I don't think they're smarter at all.

Bias and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. I don't think liberals or conservative are dumb or smart for being liberals or conservatives.

What I said was that a history book written by anyone with a right or left bias may not convey the full history. If all the good history books of the last 75 years were written exclusively by conservatives, I'd suggest we probably weren't getting the full picture, as there'd be a right bias.

ETA: I also wouldn't call the idiots of today's right "conservatives." They're classically liberal (desirous of govt intervention to enforce their views over others) to that extreme level where that interventionism veers into authoritarianism.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I say, "Adder, you've caused harm to Ty," how is this not an accusation?

Because it neither states nor implies wrongdoing on my part unless you assume that all actions that cause harm are culpable, which they are not.

Which, in fact, is a really important distinction to be able to make to be able to think about what "institutional" or "structural" racism is. It's not the sum of a collection of malicious decisions. There doesn't need to be a specific bad actor to get a bad outcome.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...te-the-economy

And the Ivory Tower's response would no doubt be, "But the US can't stop lending to the kids!!! Who will pay for all of the History and Trans Lit Departments' sabbaticals! How will we fund the new Modern Dance pavilion? ...And I need $600k... I'm President of a very prestgious university!"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Because it neither states nor implies wrongdoing on my part unless you assume that all actions that cause harm are culpable, which they are not.

Which, in fact, is a really important distinction to be able to make to be able to think about what "institutional" or "structural" racism is. It's not the sum of a collection of malicious decisions. There doesn't need to be a specific bad actor to get a bad outcome.

If I say, "Adder, you've indirectly or perhaps inadvertently caused harm to Ty," how's that not an accusation? I'm still accusing you of causing the harm. You get to retort.

I'm not saying one gets to respond to a charge that there's institutional oppression by arguing lack of mens rea. And by switching the target of the accusation from an individual or group of individuals to a "system," you don't get away from the essential argument. Even if someone says society at large - all of govt, systems, and institutions are together causing certain groups to be disadvantaged - any person hearing that argument has the right to respond by questioning if the groups themselves bear some level, however small, of responsibility for the disadvantages.

You might say that rebuttal does nothing to help heal the situation, potentially even enflames things, and you'd possibly be right. But on pure logical, rational bases, any time you say something is causing harm to something else, examination of whether there's any self-inflicted harm is required.

This is offered as pure logic. As I noted before, I'm sympathetic to avoiding these conversations for social reasons. But that's not logic.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...te-the-economy

And the Ivory Tower's response would no doubt be, "But the US can't stop lending to the kids!!! Who will pay for all of the History and Trans Lit Departments' sabbaticals! How will we fund the new Modern Dance pavilion? ...And I need $600k... I'm President of a very prestgious university!"

Boy, am I glad I never had a short-cut across your lawn when I was a kid.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

any person hearing that argument has the right to respond by questioning if the groups themselves bear some level, however small, of responsibility for the disadvantages.

Only if the person hearing it somehow thinks it needs to absolve itself, perhaps because that person is not capable of understanding how society being collectively at fault does not imply personal wrongdoing on their part.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've just argued that certain facts should not be discussed.

From an intellectual perspective, I'm open to the idea that some groups do some things that make things worse for them. For example, there are aspects of Romany culture that have made things worse for them. The question is, what do you do what that idea. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why we need to "assess" with what you call "science" those sorts of facts. You don't have one.

But to say that is to assert that certain defenses may not be raised.

In what sense is it a "defense"? A defense to what?

I'm having a hard time understand when you think it's a "defense" to what to argue that an oppressed minority was responsible for its own abuse. Please explain.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'd like to see the power struggle here play itself out nakedly.

It's not a power struggle. Trump is trashing institutions and individuals who might pose a threat to him.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Only if the person hearing it somehow thinks it needs to absolve itself, perhaps because that person is not capable of understanding how society being collectively at fault does not imply personal wrongdoing on their part.

That's putting words in that person's mouth. The person may simply be applying the most basic of calculations -- assessing culpability among all actors in the situation.

I don't see how one can get around the logic of doing that. It's the most basic approach. You don't see any empirical assessment of cause, of any kind, anywhere, that doesn't try to take into account all possible inputs.

Your better argument, I believe, is Ty's and Klein's: It's entirely logical to do so, but it's probably not socially very helpful. We can all agree on that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You got me on the first point. That was some rhetorical hyperbole. Your second point, however, proves another of mine. Scholars all have bias. So if the last 75 years of history books have been written exclusively by liberals, as GGG would suggest, they may be good books, but they may also be telling us less than the full story. You might be assessing what's great without necessary comparisons.

GGG did point to some good histories written by conservatives. I agree with him that conservatives are less likely to want to be historians, and that schools really want to have ideological balance and do what they can do hire historians. On the former point, consider people like Dinesh D'Souza and Niall Ferguson who started with strong academic credentials, discovered that it was more lucrative to publish the kind of crap that conservatives buy, and went over to the dark side never to return.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

From an intellectual perspective, I'm open to the idea that some groups do some things that make things worse for them. For example, there are aspects of Romany culture that have made things worse for them. The question is, what do you do what that idea. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why we need to "assess" with what you call "science" those sorts of facts. You don't have one.

We don't. But if one says it's impossible to do so, or a violation of logic to attempt to do so, we have a duty to flag that as untrue.

In what sense is it a "defense"? A defense to what?

An allegation of causation.

I'm having a hard time understand when you think it's a "defense" to what to argue that an oppressed minority was responsible for its own abuse. Please explain.

Not its own abuse. Its disadvantages. 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. To state otherwise requires one to assert that a group or person once oppressed is consequently absolved of any responsibility for all disadvantages that group or person has going forward. I believe you disagreed with that earlier.

If you're wondering where this goes, the argument over whether one can do something and whether one should do something are very different things. You can't go mixing those notions. It invites the worst sorts of sophistry.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

GGG did point to some good histories written by conservatives. I agree with him that conservatives are less likely to want to be historians, and that schools really want to have ideological balance and do what they can do hire historians. On the former point, consider people like Dinesh D'Souza and Niall Ferguson who started with strong academic credentials, discovered that it was more lucrative to publish the kind of crap that conservatives buy, and went over to the dark side never to return.

Ferguson and D'Souza do not belong in the same sentence. Ferguson may be sloppy and lazy in some texts, but he's still respectable. D'Souza is an Anne Coulter. He's dealing in fiction and lurid advocacy.