We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

BSME, look that shit up.

I still think you're the E in STEM. Maybe a bit of the T. But not much to do with S and M.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

As commonly understand, anthropology does not involve experiments.

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. (And as someone else noted, if you quibble with it, you quibble with evolution and much of climate change science.)

Now you're censoring me, right?

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.

This is how ideas are tested, as opposed to yours and Klein's view that some statements should not be challenged. I'm engaging the debate, rather than attempting to squelch it. And since the inclusion of invisible aliens as a potential cause of anything is absurd on its face, the idea has been rejected. This is how debate works. There's a back and forth, rather than a handicapper at the gate, saying, "Your skepticism is offensive and should not be offered, regardless of its merit."

Again: you do need to explain why you think it matters. In what actual context in the real world is one of these defenses, "unpopular" or otherwise, relevant? What is it relevant to? You keep using the language of judicial proceedings, but groups are not put on trial in judicial proceedings. Are you talking about discussion of legislation? Cable-tv opinion shows? Elevator conversations? What are you talking about?

My point is abstract and deals with how people communicate and exchange ideas. Arguing the social value of particular ideas, inquiries, or forms of skepticism is a different discussion.

You have advocated that, in certain situations, we should not entertain challenges. Klein argued something similar. This could apply to any subject, but as to the one we're dealing with here, you have asserted that once a group has been oppressed and consequently suffered disadvantages, inquiry regarding whether the continuation of those disadvantages is partly the group's fault is invalid. You have argued that such inquiry should not be given a platform, and should be avoided, even where it demonstrates merit.

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.

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. 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?", you have become the judge of what speech is acceptable. You don't have that right. And if you don't see how that's drifting into authoritarianism, I fear this discussion has been a waste of time.

Actually, I know it's been waste of time. No one ever convinces another he's wrong.

To put it differently, where in current discourse is it a problem that a group's responsibility for its own plight is not being discussed?

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Probably not real, but it seems real.

Real and spectacular.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The difference is oppression either ends, as in the case of Nazi persecution, or it decreases over time, as in the case of bigotry and racism. (Please don't argue "It has not!" I'm measuring relative to the past.) At a certain point following the end of the oppression or the decrease of the oppression to a certain level, the victims begin to bear some personal responsibility for circumstances. (Again, I hate this analysis, as personal responsibility is an concept focused on individuals, not groups [another of many reasons the concept of identity politics is built on sand]). If you disagree with that point, necessarily, you support the following: "The victims of oppression, even when that oppression ends or decreases, never again share responsibility for their circumstances." That cannot be true, of course.

I am quite obviously wonking, and I hope you've all moved past this, but I am floored that you can't see all the logical leaps and fallacies in what you wrote.

At a certain point in time, the decrease of oppression to a certain level means that the group being oppressed now bears some personal responsibility for their situation? What?

Even though groups can't be personally responsible by definition because it's a concept that can only apply to an individual, those groups have to take responsibility for their circumstances? Uh...?

You're not making any sense at all.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

(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.

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.

My point is abstract...

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am quite obviously wonking, and I hope you've all moved past this, but I am floored that you can't see all the logical leaps and fallacies in what you wrote.

At a certain point in time, the decrease of oppression to a certain level means that the group being oppressed now bears some personal responsibility for their situation? What?

Even though groups can't be personally responsible by definition because it's a concept that can only apply to an individual, those groups have to take responsibility for their circumstances? Uh...?

You're not making any sense at all.

TM

Sebby, let's try it this way. What's a real, recent example of a disadvantaged group that you think has been partly responsible for its circumstances, and to what (a decision, proceeding, proposal, topic -- anything) do you think that responsibility is relevant? Just one good example, please.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

At a certain point in time, the decrease of oppression to a certain level means that the group being oppressed now bears some personal responsibility for their situation? What?

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

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.

Totally agree that using groups here does not work when discussing allegations of personal responsibility. I made exactly that argument myself. But the issue was raised initially by Klein and Harris using groups, so we're stuck with a flawed hypothetical.

Even though groups can't be personally responsible by definition because it's a concept that can only apply to an individual, those groups have to take responsibility for their circumstances? Uh...?

The Klein and Harris debate used groups. I agree groups do not work.

You're not making any sense at all.

I'm pinning Ty down as advocating that certain arguments should not be made. 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. Arguing whether it's true or not is of no interest to me. 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.

TM[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, let's try it this way. What's a real, recent example of a disadvantaged group that you think has been partly responsible for its circumstances, and to what (a decision, proceeding, proposal, topic -- anything) do you think that responsibility is relevant? Just one good example, please.

You aren't getting off the hook here. The issue is abstract.

For the 50th time:

If you assert that someone is disadvantaged because of oppression, a person has a right to disagree with you. And within that disagreement, he has a right to offer the argument that the disadvantages accrue to some extent from the oppressed person's own actions.

Is it true? Is it not? I don't know or care. What I care about is you and Klein buying into the notion - the illogic - that certain assertions should be placed beyond skepticism.

You aren't weaseling out of this by demanding an example in a dispute regarding the abstract. Nor are you going to do so by turning it into a discussion of the "concrete" impacts. (I would say the potential harms to our free speech rights from people like Klein and you are enormous and quite concrete, but that kicks the door open for you to change the issue.)

Every assertion of every kind may be met with a defense or skepticism. There is no assertion of any kind, about any subject, which may not be met with a defense or skepticism. Do you agree with that? Or do you think certain defenses or skeptical replies should be off limits, taboo?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No, no it doesn't involve the testing of hypotheses. It involve observation and explanation. There's no testing. It's not science.

Observe, reach conclusion, observe some more to test conclusion. It's a process of reaching hypotheses and testing them.

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.

That's a merits discussion you've been emphasizing.

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.

Sure you have. The inescapable conclusion of your thinking is that certain things should not be said. That certain assertions should be immune to skepticism, or at a minimum skepticism of them should be marginalized, and never given a platform.

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.)

No. I've just flagged you for trying to change the subject. Carry on (and you will...).

You say you've conceding your ideas don't have "much" social value. Why do they have any?

They might not have any. I don't know. But I do know that deciding what should or shouldn't be said based on the social value assessments of you or me is a very fucked up notion. And one that stands free speech on its ear.

That sort of thinking is but a few steps divorced from those bizarre hate speech laws they have in Europe. Bad ideas die from exposure. Passively squelching them only causes them to fester.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

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.

Sebby, at some point, you need to take responsibility for your own gibberish. I don't care what your IQ is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You aren't getting off the hook here. The issue is abstract.

For the 50th time:

If you assert that someone is disadvantaged because of oppression, a person has a right to disagree with you. And within that disagreement, he has a right to offer the argument that the disadvantages accrue to some extent from the oppressed person's own actions.

Is it true? Is it not? I don't know or care. What I care about is you and Klein buying into the notion - the illogic - that certain assertions should be placed beyond skepticism.

You aren't weaseling out of this by demanding an example in a dispute regarding the abstract. Nor are you going to do so by turning it into a discussion of the "concrete" impacts. (I would say the potential harms to our free speech rights from people like Klein and you are enormous and quite concrete, but that kicks the door open for you to change the issue.)

Every assertion of every kind may be met with a defense or skepticism. There is no assertion of any kind, about any subject, which may not be met with a defense or skepticism. Do you agree with that? Or do you think certain defenses or skeptical replies should be off limits, taboo?

I'm not weaseling out of anything. Your whole idea here is stupid, from top to bottom. You have a stupid abstract idea. It's stupid because it's not science, because it's incoherent, because it's impossible to execute, and also -- here is the point I was getting to most recently -- because however attractive to you it may be in the abstract, it's fundamental stupidity is revealed when you try to find a concrete application.

On the very last point, prove me wrong: Describe a single meaningful and useful practical application of your abstract principle.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not weaseling out of anything. Your whole idea here is stupid, from top to bottom. You have a stupid abstract idea. It's stupid because it's not science, because it's incoherent, because it's impossible to execute, and also -- here is the point I was getting to most recently -- because however attractive to you it may be in the abstract, it's fundamental stupidity is revealed when you try to find a concrete application.

On the very last point, prove me wrong: Describe a single meaningful and useful practical application of your abstract principle.

http://cognitionandculture.net/blog/...n-anthropology

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not weaseling out of anything. Your whole idea here is stupid, from top to bottom. You have a stupid abstract idea. It's stupid because it's not science, because it's incoherent, because it's impossible to execute, and also -- here is the point I was getting to most recently -- because however attractive to you it may be in the abstract, it's fundamental stupidity is revealed when you try to find a concrete application.

On the very last point, prove me wrong: Describe a single meaningful and useful practical application of your abstract principle.

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.

You've proved it by pivoting to the argument, "your idea is stupid." The personal responsibility analysis discussed might indeed be stupid. Or it might not be. But how would we know unless it was aired? You'll never admit it, but it's inescapable: You believe in gatekeepers, and you think your sensibilities of what's stupid and what's taboo are decent ones to be applied. I think that's pretty arrogant, and more than a little Trumpian.

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.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They might not have any. I don't know. But I do know that deciding what should or shouldn't be said based on the social value assessments of you or me is a very fucked up notion. And one that stands free speech on its ear.

If you are now saying that you can't think of any actual situation where your ideas would have any useful implication, then I too will stipulate that your ideas are useless.

This is how the marketplace of ideas works. Ideas are presented and tested by exposure to other ideas. You have presented your idea and it has failed.

That is not censorship. If I say, we could do cold fusion with a system I have designed that uses corn cobs as fuel, and we talk about it for a while and decide that it has no practical application and then we stop talking about it, that is not censorship or an affront to free speech, that is how the marketplace of ideas works. If you say, hey, here's a great idea, we can find a way to blame disadvantaged groups for their share of their responsibility for their disadvantages, and we talk about it for a while and decide that it has no practical application (for a whole host of reasons), that also is not censorship.

That sort of thinking is but a few steps divorced from those bizarre hate speech laws they have in Europe. Bad ideas die from exposure. Passively squelching them only causes them to fester.

This reminds me of that famous court case where the one guy started yelling "fire" in a movie theater during a movie, and the government didn't do anything about it but a bunch of the other people who were trying to watch the movie said, "shut up, you jerk," and then the first guy said, "hey, I'm being censored, you're all authoritarians." Actually, it wasn't a court case, but in the end everyone agreed that the first guy was wrong.

I do think that you have discovered a potentially lucrative career, though. There is big money to be made in claiming to be a free-speech martyr on college campuses, and there is always support for the idea that minorities are to blame for the discrimination they have suffered (see, e.g., Charles Murray, who has been exploiting that schtick for many years). No one really cares about the actual ideas involved. If you can turn this stuff into a book and schedule some college speeches, Bob's your uncle. Just remember us when you're rich.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://cognitionandculture.net/blog/...n-anthropology

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