We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You're not wrong, but you're also not hearing what I'm saying. Murray presents his work as scientific, though it is riddled with bias. When you pretend it's possible to engage in "a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppressed acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed," you are doing the same thing as Murray -- using "science" as a pretense for engaging in something that inevitably will reflect the bias and oppression of the culture.

I get what you're saying. It's a mischaracterization of what I'm saying. I'm saying a scientific study assessing in what ways an oppressed group's actions contribute to that group's disadvantaged circumstances can be performed. Murray is saying he can and has performed it. (From what I read, he has not. Not even close. He's made all kinds of reckless leaps.) Those are two different statements.

I think the notion that you can somehow measure and "assess" the "responsibility" of a discriminated group for its condition, let alone with "science," is total nonsense.

Why? We do it in courts all day every day. A person claims discrimination caused career earning losses. The defense counters that not all of the claimed losses were caused by the discrimination -- that some were caused by the plainitff's own decisions. How is this controversial? The concept of a superseding cause is Torts 101.

I tried to make that clear when you first referred to the idea, and I asked you for a published example where someone had done that. If someone tells me they are going to write a book assessing the Gypsies' responsibility for their genocide by German Nazis, and that they are going to do it with science, I would expect that person to be wearing a tin-foil hat and driving a cab, at best.

This is where you're engaging in sleight of hand. No one has asserted that any oppressed group is responsible for its own oppression (Gypsies being responsible for the Nazis killing them). That would be absurd. But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages. To use your example, if Gypsies in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not. There would be myriad causes.

Is there some accepted and respected model in the world for what you think you are talking about?

I don't know and I don't care. What's at issue is whether it's conceptually possible. And you've made no compelling rebuttal that it isn't.

Honestly, the thing that comes closest to me is Murray's projected of blaming blacks' genes for their treatment by the culture, and using that as a justification to cut social spending and taxes for the rich.

Again, that he fails to credibly apply science does not mean that conceptually, if one wanted to apply scientific rigor in an unbiased fashion, it could not be done. I'm sure it has been done somewhere, but I'm not interested in that, as that's not necessary to answer the abstract question of whether it could be done.*

Murray at least blames genetics rather than choices by blacks. And you have dumped on Murray, so he is not your pole star. So what's your model here?

See immediately preceding point.

eta: Maybe you are thinking about comparative negligence and contributory negligence, and following the lead of the great Justice Traynor in Li v. Yellow Cab in thinking that it's rational for even a victim to be deemed to bear some responsibility?

You still haven't answered my question. Is it your position that a group once and persistently discriminated against can not be responsible to any extent for anything it does afterward?

_______
* I also don't really want to see the study done, or read the results of any that were done. It'd involve too much identity politics-style generalization. I do not believe one can assess people based on their background "groups" at all, and that one can only credibly assess people individually. I'm only accepting the notion that assessing people based on their groups is valid for purposes of this discussion.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm saying a scientific study assessing in what ways an oppressed group's actions contribute to that group's disadvantaged circumstances can be performed.

I'm with Ty in thinking that this isn't even hypothetically possible, but more importantly, why? What are we going to learn? "Oh, it turns out you're responsible for your own oppression, so gtfo?"

But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages.

I should be directing you to go read TM again, but to restate, how do you divorce a "group's own actions" (whatever that means) from the context in which they acted?

And even if it was possible, how is "black people smoke 17% more weed than would be expected as a reaction to systemic oppression" useful information? Would it allow us to stop caring about the systemic oppression? No. (Although that's Murray's goal)

Gypsies

Just to keep up my role as PC Police, Roma and Sinti, people.

in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not.

As with most (all?) ethnic prejudice in Europe, the Nazis were/are not alone in discriminating against Roma and Sinti people, they just took it a lot farther.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm with Ty in thinking that this isn't even hypothetically possible, but more importantly, why? What are we going to learn? "Oh, it turns out you're responsible for your own oppression, so gtfo?"

I agree. The area of inquiry has little upside in my estimation.

But that doesn't mean one gets to say things that aren't true to avoid it. The true answer here is, "We could make such assessments, but it's not going to aid society."

I should be directing you to go read TM again, but to restate, how do you divorce a "group's own actions" (whatever that means) from the context in which they acted?

The way courts have been doing it for years. Unless you don't believe people have free will (which, oddly, Harris does not, and has written about at length, enough to be considered an expert on the subject).

And even if it was possible, how is "black people smoke 17% more weed than would be expected as a reaction to systemic oppression" useful information? Would it allow us to stop caring about the systemic oppression? No. (Although that's Murray's goal)

Nor should it. If the study were done here, all but a small fraction of the disadvantages would be traceable directly back to systemic oppression. But again, people do not get to say an assessment is impossible, or that no such assessment is credible just because its value would be dubious. They get to say, "We could do that... But we shouldn't." Which is what I think Klein wanted to say but couldn't because I think he thought it would be a capitulation to Harris.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The true answer here is, "We could make such assessments, but it's not going to aid society."

I honestly have no idea how it could be done.

The way courts have been doing it for years.

The courts have been making determinations about individual cases. (1) Do you honestly think they've been doing it well? (2) How do you do it for entire groups of people in the aggregate?

Btw, the answer to 1 is definitely not.

Unless you don't believe people have free will (which, oddly, Harris does not, and has written about at length, enough to be considered an expert on the subject).

I don't know what Harris has written, but I do know there's a scientific case that we do not have free will.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The courts have been making determinations about individual cases.

Courts are applying laws, which establish standards by which one can decide who is responsible. Responsibility is human construct, not a brute fact of nature.

When a group is systematically oppressed (or "disadvantaged"), the law is a tool of oppression (or disadvantage), not an impartial standard. That's the whole point. So how would one "assess" that in a "scientific" way?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I get what you're saying. It's a mischaracterization of what I'm saying. I'm saying a scientific study assessing in what ways an oppressed group's actions contribute to that group's disadvantaged circumstances can be performed. Murray is saying he can and has performed it. (From what I read, he has not. Not even close. He's made all kinds of reckless leaps.) Those are two different statements.



Why? We do it in courts all day every day. A person claims discrimination caused career earning losses. The defense counters that not all of the claimed losses were caused by the discrimination -- that some were caused by the plainitff's own decisions. How is this controversial? The concept of a superseding cause is Torts 101.



This is where you're engaging in sleight of hand. No one has asserted that any oppressed group is responsible for its own oppression (Gypsies being responsible for the Nazis killing them). That would be absurd. But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages. To use your example, if Gypsies in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not. There would be myriad causes.



I don't know and I don't care. What's at issue is whether it's conceptually possible. And you've made no compelling rebuttal that it isn't.



Again, that he fails to credibly apply science does not mean that conceptually, if one wanted to apply scientific rigor in an unbiased fashion, it could not be done. I'm sure it has been done somewhere, but I'm not interested in that, as that's not necessary to answer the abstract question of whether it could be done.*



See immediately preceding point.



You still haven't answered my question. Is it your position that a group once and persistently discriminated against can not be responsible to any extent for anything it does afterward?

_______
* I also don't really want to see the study done, or read the results of any that were done. It'd involve too much identity politics-style generalization. I do not believe one can assess people based on their background "groups" at all, and that one can only credibly assess people individually. I'm only accepting the notion that assessing people based on their groups is valid for purposes of this discussion.

An example: European Jews were persistently discriminated against. Some Zionists relocated to Israel and then did some things for which they might be held responsible. Are Zionists a "group"? Is Zionism to blame for anything that followed? Not sure, but perhaps. So my answer to your last question there shouldn't be "no."

But your idea of a "study," somehow "scientific," is total nonsense.

You said,

No one has asserted that any oppressed group is responsible for its own oppression (Gypsies being responsible for the Nazis killing them). That would be absurd. But one can test whether over time, a group's own actions have contributed to its current disadvantages. To use your example, if Gypsies in Europe today suffer certain disadvantages, some of those would accrue from Nazi persecution, others would not. There would be myriad causes.

You do something tricky with an unclear distinction between "oppression" and "disadvantages" here. What's the difference? If what you say is right, why couldn't a Nazi in 1945 have said, hey, Gypsies in Europe suffer, sure, but one can test over time the extent to which their own actions have contributed to their current situation? And the Nazi might say that this could be done with a study, scientifically. Why would that have been wrong?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

An example: European Jews were persistently discriminated against. Some Zionists relocated to Israel and then did some things for which they might be held responsible. Are Zionists a "group"? Is Zionism to blame for anything that followed? Not sure, but perhaps. So my answer to your last question there shouldn't be "no."

I hate the whole concept of "groups." Recall, I'm the one coming to this critical of identity politics.

But that's an aside. We agree that a "group" (since we must lump individuals together for reasons I'm still not certain of) can be responsible for certain of its disadvantages.

But your idea of a "study," somehow "scientific," is total nonsense.

I agree it'd be difficult as all hell. But the framework for such an analysis (determining when certain disadvantages are more or entirely attributable to behaviors of the group rather than outside oppressive forces) exists. The notions of superseding cause, and comparative negligence, are not that complicated.

You do something tricky with an unclear distinction between "oppression" and "disadvantages" here. What's the difference? If what you say is right, why couldn't a Nazi in 1945 have said, hey, Gypsies in Europe suffer, sure, but one can test over time the extent to which their own actions have contributed to their current situation? And the Nazi might say that this could be done with a study, scientifically. Why would that have been wrong?

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 don't think your Nazi study analogy works because you cannot say that Roma people were at all responsible for Nazis murdering them. If fifty years following those murders, Roma people remained uniquely disadvantaged relative to others murdered by Nazis, you can credibly assess how much of that remains attributable to Nazis and how much of it is attributable to Roma culture. (I think you have to drill down to each person in Roma culture to determine if outliers aren't causing an unreliable assessment [80% of Roma doing fine, and 20% dragging them down], but if I do that, I'm abandoning the conceit that assessing people based on their "group" holds validity.)

I'll end this with the repeated caveat that all of these analyses assume a "group" is either responsible or not responsible for the circumstances of its members. People within these groups, however, are impossibly complex. To use these labels to assert who's at fault for or deserves credit for their circumstances is dangerous. But if one is to concede that "groups" are useful categories for purposes of determining responsibility or non-responsibility of individuals, as Harris and Klein did, and people here seem to agree, then a clinical/scientific/anthropological assessment of "group responsibility" can be performed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I hate the whole concept of "groups." Recall, I'm the one coming to this critical of identity politics.

But that's an aside. We agree that a "group" (since we must lump individuals together for reasons I'm still not certain of) can be responsible for certain of its disadvantages.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this because I don't understand what you mean by some of the words you keep using. In particular, I don't understand how a "group" can have "responsibility." If you want to make some argument about what that means, go for it, and I'll respond. If you want to make broad statements and ask me whether I categorically disagreeing, I'll repeat: Maybe there's a counter-example, so I'm not going to rule it out. That's not the same as agreeing with you.

And the part of what you've said that is utterly incoherent (and which I keep asking you to explain, to no avail) is that it's somehow possible to "assess" this putative responsibility with "science".

I agree it'd be difficult as all hell.

No, we don't agree. I said it's nonsense. Swimming to Hawaii would be difficult as hell. Swimming up Mt Everest is nonsense.

But the framework for such an analysis (determining when certain disadvantages are more or entirely attributable to behaviors of the group rather than outside oppressive forces) exists. The notions of superseding cause, and comparative negligence, are not that complicated.

Please see my post in response to Adder. Tort law concepts cannot be used to assess whether tort law itself is unfair.

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.

Let's set aside the group aspect, which is difficult enough, and focus on your responsibility concept.

During World War II, Mr. X, a Gypsy in Tirana, Albania, bought a ticket to sail on a boat from Tirana to Lisbon, where he would be beyond the reach of the Nazis. The day before he was to leave, he went to visit his cousin in the mountains to say goodbye. I say his cousin, although they were not blood relatives, because Mr. X shared a bond with him that other Romany would understand though we would not. That evening, as he walked back to Tirana, he heard horses coming and hid in some bushes, worried (perhaps unreasonably) that local villagers, not fond of Romany, would rob him or worse. In the dark he stepped on his bag, and without realizing it he broke his alarm clock. It was a cheap clock, the best he could afford after a winter without much work, and maybe it had broken before he stepped on his bag -- who is to say? When the horses had passed out of earshot, Mr. X resumed his walk, but between drinking with his cousin and the long walk and having to hide in the bushes it was quite late when he got home. The next morning, his broken alarm clock did not go off, and he overslept, missing the boat to Lisbon. Not too long after that, the militia detained him and turned him over to the Germans, who put him on a train to a concentration camp, where he later died.

Multiple choice

1. Which is true?
a) Mr. X bears no responsibility for his plight because the Nazis killed him.
b) Mr. X bears some responsibility for his plight.

2. If your answer is a), which is true?
a) Mr. X never bore any responsibility for his plight because eventually the Nazis killed him
b) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight because he was oppressed by non-Romany Albanians who were not Nazis and who did not kill him, even though he was later killed by German Nazis.
c) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight at points before the Nazis killed him, but then his responsibility for his plight disappeared because the Nazis killed him.

3. If your answer to 2. was c), at what point did Mr. X's responsibility for his plight end?
a) When he heard the horses on the road and feared for his safety.
b) When the militia seized him.
c) When the Germans put him on a train.
d) When he got to the concentration camp.
e) When he was killed.

4. If your answer to 1 was b), apportion responsibility for Mr. X's plight among the following groups:
a) Romany __%
b) Albanians who live in the mountains __%
c) Albanians who live in the city __%
d) Albanians who make shoddy clocks __%
e).Albanians who join militias __%
f) Germans __%
g) Other __%
All percentages must add up to 100%

....[A] clinical/scientific/anthropological assessment of "group responsibility" can be performed.

Presumably, to get the group score, you just average up all of the aggregate scores of the life histories of everyone in that group, correct? That's a pretty simple analysis. Except that I really only picked a few facts from Mr. X's life -- maybe I need to develop his story a little more. And then all the other Romany, in Albania and elsewhere. Once that's done, we can move on to this country, yes?

Extra-Credit Question! Please identify a good one that someone has done. Just one, that you are willing to stand by as an example that such a thing is possible. I know that you will be all tired out after answering my little quiz, so I suspect you'll pass on answering this question, but it would help your final grade.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure I agree with you on this because I don't understand what you mean by some of the words you keep using. In particular, I don't understand how a "group" can have "responsibility." If you want to make some argument about what that means, go for it, and I'll respond. If you want to make broad statements and ask me whether I categorically disagreeing, I'll repeat: Maybe there's a counter-example, so I'm not going to rule it out. That's not the same as agreeing with you.

And the part of what you've said that is utterly incoherent (and which I keep asking you to explain, to no avail) is that it's somehow possible to "assess" this putative responsibility with "science".



No, we don't agree. I said it's nonsense. Swimming to Hawaii would be difficult as hell. Swimming up Mt Everest is nonsense.



Please see my post in response to Adder. Tort law concepts cannot be used to assess whether tort law itself is unfair.



Let's set aside the group aspect, which is difficult enough, and focus on your responsibility concept.

During World War II, Mr. X, a Gypsy in Tirana, Albania, bought a ticket to sail on a boat from Tirana to Lisbon, where he would be beyond the reach of the Nazis. The day before he was to leave, he went to visit his cousin in the mountains to say goodbye. I say his cousin, although they were not blood relatives, because Mr. X shared a bond with him that other Romany would understand though we would not. That evening, as he walked back to Tirana, he heard horses coming and hid in some bushes, worried (perhaps unreasonably) that local villagers, not fond of Romany, would rob him or worse. In the dark he stepped on his bag, and without realizing it he broke his alarm clock. It was a cheap clock, the best he could afford after a winter without much work, and maybe it had broken before he stepped on his bag -- who is to say? When the horses had passed out of earshot, Mr. X resumed his walk, but between drinking with his cousin and the long walk and having to hide in the bushes it was quite late when he got home. The next morning, his broken alarm clock did not go off, and he overslept, missing the boat to Lisbon. Not too long after that, the militia detained him and turned him over to the Germans, who put him on a train to a concentration camp, where he later died.

Multiple choice

1. Which is true?
a) Mr. X bears no responsibility for his plight because the Nazis killed him.
b) Mr. X bears some responsibility for his plight.

2. If your answer is a), which is true?
a) Mr. X never bore any responsibility for his plight because eventually the Nazis killed him
b) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight because he was oppressed by non-Romany Albanians who were not Nazis and who did not kill him, even though he was later killed by German Nazis.
c) Mr. X bore some responsibility for his plight at points before the Nazis killed him, but then his responsibility for his plight disappeared because the Nazis killed him.

3. If your answer to 2. was c), at what point did Mr. X's responsibility for his plight end?
a) When he heard the horses on the road and feared for his safety.
b) When the militia seized him.
c) When the Germans put him on a train.
d) When he got to the concentration camp.
e) When he was killed.

4. If your answer to 1 was b), apportion responsibility for Mr. X's plight among the following groups:
a) Romany __%
b) Albanians who live in the mountains __%
c) Albanians who live in the city __%
d) Albanians who make shoddy clocks __%
e).Albanians who join militias __%
f) Germans __%
g) Other __%
All percentages must add up to 100%



Presumably, to get the group score, you just average up all of the aggregate scores of the life histories of everyone in that group, correct? That's a pretty simple analysis. Except that I really only picked a few facts from Mr. X's life -- maybe I need to develop his story a little more. And then all the other Romany, in Albania and elsewhere. Once that's done, we can move on to this country, yes?

Extra-Credit Question! Please identify a good one that someone has done. Just one, that you are willing to stand by as an example that such a thing is possible. I know that you will be all tired out after answering my little quiz, so I suspect you'll pass on answering this question, but it would help your final grade.

I'll address all of this in detail, but I don't have time at the moment.

I do have time, however, to say this: Any flaws or difficulties in an analysis attempting to show that a historically oppressed group's current disadvantages are caused in part by the group's own actions are equally applicable to any analysis attempting to show they are entirely caused and perpetuated by the oppression. You can't assert that you can prove one, but using the same tools you'd need to prove that, it's impossible to test whether the other applies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'll address all of this in detail, but I don't have time at the moment.

I do have time, however, to say this: Any flaws or difficulties in an analysis attempting to show that a historically oppressed group's current disadvantages are caused in part by the group's own actions are equally applicable to any analysis attempting to show they are entirely caused and perpetuated by the oppression. You can't assert that you can prove one, but using the same tools you'd need to prove that, it's impossible to test whether the other applies.

In tort cases, contributory negligence is used to reduce an award of damages. A plaintiff who has been harmed $100K and who is deemed to be 10% at fault will recover $90K from a defendant deemed 90% at fault. As I bet you know, in some states and the District of Columbia, a plaintiff who has been harmed, say, $5M, say because a bus driver recklessly ran a red light and hit her, might recover nothing because the bus company's lawyer convinces a jury that she was 1% at fault, unjust as that seems.

When we talk about issues of systemic bias and oppression, and about what society might do to achieve a more perfect union, we don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how much of the inequality we see is the direct and proximate cause of bias and oppression. Beyond any reasonable dispute, the people who devote themselves to discussing how much the victims of oppression brought it on themselves are opponents of doing anything, on the margin, to ameliorate past harms, and are often working to reverse things that society has done to reward the content of people's characters rather than the color of their skins. Even assuming the best of intentions and perfect execution, I have to ask whether there would be any benefit to society from trying to use "science" to "assess" a marginalized group's "responsibility" for their own situation. What sounds like an intellectual exercise has the practical effect of saying to someone who got hit by bus, "sorry, you should have been more careful, you're out of luck."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In tort cases, contributory negligence is used to reduce an award of damages. A plaintiff who has been harmed $100K and who is deemed to be 10% at fault will recover $90K from a defendant deemed 90% at fault. As I bet you know, in some states and the District of Columbia, a plaintiff who has been harmed, say, $5M, say because a bus driver recklessly ran a red light and hit her, might recover nothing because the bus company's lawyer convinces a jury that she was 1% at fault, unjust as that seems.

When we talk about issues of systemic bias and oppression, and about what society might do to achieve a more perfect union, we don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how much of the inequality we see is the direct and proximate cause of bias and oppression. Beyond any reasonable dispute, the people who devote themselves to discussing how much the victims of oppression brought it on themselves are opponents of doing anything, on the margin, to ameliorate past harms, and are often working to reverse things that society has done to reward the content of people's characters rather than the color of their skins. Even assuming the best of intentions and perfect execution, I have to ask whether there would be any benefit to society from trying to use "science" to "assess" a marginalized group's "responsibility" for their own situation. What sounds like an intellectual exercise has the practical effect of saying to someone who got hit by bus, "sorry, you should have been more careful, you're out of luck."

This is an argument against engaging in research on certain topics. It doesn't address the issue of whether such research could be done.

But it does get to the point Klein hinted at -- that people like Harris should be careful about what sorts of inquiries they make. I don't know why he didn't say it as plainly as you have here, but my suspicion is he's uncomfortable, as am I, with stating, "Some studies, some data, some analyses, are better left undone, unexamined." That may be what caused me to accuse Klein of attempting censorship. It's not really censorship to say certain inquiries can embolden bad policies and should be avoided. But any open minded person recoils a little bit at the suggestion we should avoid certain questions and investigations. Or allow social or policy concerns to control how they're done.

I think we'll see a lot more controversy over research in the future. Our technological capacities increase at multiples over our abilities to consider the policy and potential social impacts of what they uncover. An endless number of potentially impolitic questions are going to be raised an answered over our lifetimes.

[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 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]

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?

[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.