|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 29 2017 11:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Interestingly Krugman says the exact problem with Obamacare is not enough money. Good luck making sense of what he's trying to say.
When Trump said we need to add more dollars to have the greatest healthcare system, he meant it. He isn't just lying. The man really thought that. So in his mind ... Obamacare underfunds the healthcare system and we need to fund it more. Trump has no idea how health insurance is paid for in this country. The man is genuinely clueless and doesn't remember the slightest thing from his bills.
We had reports from the New Yorker earlier that Trump has no computer and can't read emails. He does everything by phone and makes decisions in person based on how his aides flatter and lie to him. His phone has 1 app: Twitter. Trump could truly believe the shit he hears on FOX about Obamacare and when Republicans go on cable and lie about AHCA ... Trump believes them.
|
On May 29 2017 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:10 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On May 29 2017 10:50 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
But let's dispense of the preposterous notion that racism is perpetuated not by racists, but by the oppressed people not properly courting their racist oppressors. Can you clarify whether your position is that the correct notion is 100% of the former and 0% of the latter? does it really matter when it's a strawman position; as noone was arguing that point anyways? at least not in any sense remotely related to fault or ethical worth, and not in the way he's implying. ... Whether anybody else was arguing a related point or not, I still wouldn't mind a clarification of what that statement meant. The statement means what it says. But for kicks, what do you imagine the balance to be?
I wouldn't have asked you to clarify your statement if it were clear to me what it says.
Trying to divert my reasonable request with a loaded question is neither nice nor polite.
EDIT: To be absolutely clear I did not intend to ask you to put numbers on it either.
|
On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
It would be the part where he suggests it's really the POC oppressing white people with this day (that he clearly doesn't understand).
As you understand it, what is the form it's taking this year?
|
Norway28716 Posts
On May 29 2017 11:00 LegalLord wrote:
Sam Harris certainly always seemed to be lacking something that made him interesting. Though I've been aware of him for a while he was mostly a forgettable individual. I'm surprised he still comes up every once in a while.
There aren't really any guys who are more eloquent and outspoken who argue his particular point of view. Personally I kinda think he's misrepresented both by his supporters and his opposition (they both think he's way more critical of Islam than he actually is, from what I've seen). I don't have a problem with him, personally, although I wish he focused more on neuroscience and free will, and less on religion, as I have the impression that he's reliable and brings valuable insight to the former, and somewhat out of his depth on the latter.
|
On May 29 2017 11:26 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 11:10 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On May 29 2017 10:50 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
But let's dispense of the preposterous notion that racism is perpetuated not by racists, but by the oppressed people not properly courting their racist oppressors. Can you clarify whether your position is that the correct notion is 100% of the former and 0% of the latter? does it really matter when it's a strawman position; as noone was arguing that point anyways? at least not in any sense remotely related to fault or ethical worth, and not in the way he's implying. ... Whether anybody else was arguing a related point or not, I still wouldn't mind a clarification of what that statement meant. The statement means what it says. But for kicks, what do you imagine the balance to be? I wouldn't have asked you to clarify your statement if it were clear to me what it says. Trying to divert my reasonable request with a loaded question is neither nice nor polite.
I'm not ascribing a percentage (because I think that's a stupid idea), I'm just making the statement that we should reject the notion that racism is perpetuated by the oppressed people not properly addressing their oppressors, as opposed to the oppressors and oppressive structures that reject the oppressed people's approaches to lifting that oppression.
On May 29 2017 11:27 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
It would be the part where he suggests it's really the POC oppressing white people with this day (that he clearly doesn't understand). As you understand it, what is the form it's taking this year?
I posted the link to the event with the description already, are you asking me to repeat it?
|
On May 29 2017 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:26 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 11:10 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On May 29 2017 10:50 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
But let's dispense of the preposterous notion that racism is perpetuated not by racists, but by the oppressed people not properly courting their racist oppressors. Can you clarify whether your position is that the correct notion is 100% of the former and 0% of the latter? does it really matter when it's a strawman position; as noone was arguing that point anyways? at least not in any sense remotely related to fault or ethical worth, and not in the way he's implying. ... Whether anybody else was arguing a related point or not, I still wouldn't mind a clarification of what that statement meant. The statement means what it says. But for kicks, what do you imagine the balance to be? I wouldn't have asked you to clarify your statement if it were clear to me what it says. Trying to divert my reasonable request with a loaded question is neither nice nor polite. I'm not ascribing a percentage (because I think that's a stupid idea), I'm just making the statement that we should reject the notion that racism is perpetuated by the oppressed people not properly addressing their oppressors, as opposed to the oppressors and oppressive structures that reject the oppressed people's approaches to lifting that oppression. Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:27 Gahlo wrote:On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
It would be the part where he suggests it's really the POC oppressing white people with this day (that he clearly doesn't understand). As you understand it, what is the form it's taking this year? I posted the link to the event with the description already, are you asking me to repeat it?
I'm asking you to express it in your words.
|
On May 29 2017 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:26 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 11:10 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On May 29 2017 10:50 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
But let's dispense of the preposterous notion that racism is perpetuated not by racists, but by the oppressed people not properly courting their racist oppressors. Can you clarify whether your position is that the correct notion is 100% of the former and 0% of the latter? does it really matter when it's a strawman position; as noone was arguing that point anyways? at least not in any sense remotely related to fault or ethical worth, and not in the way he's implying. ... Whether anybody else was arguing a related point or not, I still wouldn't mind a clarification of what that statement meant. The statement means what it says. But for kicks, what do you imagine the balance to be? I wouldn't have asked you to clarify your statement if it were clear to me what it says. Trying to divert my reasonable request with a loaded question is neither nice nor polite. I'm not ascribing a percentage (because I think that's a stupid idea), I'm just making the statement that we should reject the notion that racism is perpetuated by the oppressed people not properly addressing their oppressors, as opposed to the oppressors and oppressive structures who reject the oppressed people's approaches to lifting that oppression.
I wasn't intending to ask you to put a percentage on it. The question I was trying to ask was a yes/no to "is it 100%".
To rephrase then: Are there any possible instances in which an oppressed peoples' address is inappropriate?
If there are, then it may be appropriate to consider instances case by case.
|
On May 29 2017 11:36 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 11:26 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 11:10 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On May 29 2017 10:50 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
But let's dispense of the preposterous notion that racism is perpetuated not by racists, but by the oppressed people not properly courting their racist oppressors. Can you clarify whether your position is that the correct notion is 100% of the former and 0% of the latter? does it really matter when it's a strawman position; as noone was arguing that point anyways? at least not in any sense remotely related to fault or ethical worth, and not in the way he's implying. ... Whether anybody else was arguing a related point or not, I still wouldn't mind a clarification of what that statement meant. The statement means what it says. But for kicks, what do you imagine the balance to be? I wouldn't have asked you to clarify your statement if it were clear to me what it says. Trying to divert my reasonable request with a loaded question is neither nice nor polite. I'm not ascribing a percentage (because I think that's a stupid idea), I'm just making the statement that we should reject the notion that racism is perpetuated by the oppressed people not properly addressing their oppressors, as opposed to the oppressors and oppressive structures who reject the oppressed people's approaches to lifting that oppression. I wasn't intending to ask you to put a percentage on it. The question I was trying to ask was a yes/no to "is it 100%". To rephrase then: Are there any possible instances in which an oppressed peoples' address is inappropriate? If there are, then it may be appropriate to consider instances case by case.
Yeah totally, if it wasn't a case of millions of people being abused and oppressed, vs some college students getting overzealous.
We actually had someone call these kids "fascists"
If I were to say that a police force founded in white supremacy and catching people escaping slavery for their lives in a country that promised "every man" freedom, and to this day is found to have systemically violated black people's constitutional rights in practically every major city that was investigated* in and still has laws in some states as Kwark pointed out, that are intended to keep black people from exercising their most necessary and basic right to vote were "a bunch of fascists" people would immediately be all over here complaining I can't call the police (that I just described) fascists.
The idea that we should try to balance these college kids against a racist and abusive criminal justice system, generic systemic/institutional racism, etc... is as asinine as it is absurd.
|
Canada11378 Posts
On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 10:58 Falling wrote:I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email. Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting. It would be the part where he suggests it's really the POC oppressing white people with this day (that he clearly doesn't understand).
So if we are thinking of racism as prejudice + power, in what way is he being prejudicial? As far as I can tell, it's a disagreement about tactics, not about outcomes. Now he might be wrong about his interpretation, but that would mean he is wrong but not prejudiced. So if it's not prejudiced, I suppose it is the power part- POC are already oppressed, so then his emailing is stopping the liberation process, thereby being racist. Is that the angle you are thinking? Because even then, I do not think it follows, unless it can be evidentially shown that reversing Day of Absence is one of the keys to ending POC oppression. That may be its goal, but not every action taken in support of goal is helpful. In many cases, it is the opposite of helpful, hence the need for rigorous testing in the social sciences whenever one tries to change people by use of policy.
However, Bret was not even stopping the reversal of the Day of Absence but making it known that he would not be in support of it and would continue his classes as per usual. So then if the power part of racism is the key issue here, it would need to be evidentially shown that by Bret continuing his classes, he was stopping the liberation process (I guess because his participation was essential?) However, I doubt either of those are true but rather he disagreed with the particular methodology and was going to carry on like normal until he was accosted.
On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
Then when he suggests in a condescending way that POC and white people should put "phenotype aside" (disregarding this isn't an option for POC) and that white people should "be on campus" as if they weren't welcome on campus (like the POC feel constantly and have come together collectively to say).
That's some of it.
What makes his sentence condescending? That seems more like eisegesis than exegesis. In what way isn't it an option to put phenotype aside true of POC and not whites? And again, I don't see the prejudicial part? So then it must have to do with the power part? One thing I wish is that I could see the rest of the email chain- if he really was mischaracterizing the event, I would think he would have been corrected on the matter. But again, at most that's being wrong, not prejudicial and again a disagreement about methodology not a disagreement about equality.
What is causing the POC to feel not welcome on campus constantly? Is it the professors? Other students?
By the way, I threw this out a couple times with no commentary in reply. Do you think a Jewish American can be a POC or a minority?
@Drone
I don't have a problem with him, personally, although I wish he focused more on neuroscience and free will, and less on religion, as I have the impression that he's reliable and brings valuable insight to the former, and somewhat out of his depth on the latter.
He has said he would like to move on as he has more or less tired of talking on the subject but has felt compelled to defend himself as has little desire to let the label racist or islamophobic racist stick. He felt one of his book tours on an entirely different subject got entirely derailed because he needed to constantly set the record straight with his actual beliefs. I'm rather surprised to see the new internet meta is to dismiss him out of hand as he doesn't seem as bad as all that.
|
On May 29 2017 11:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 10:58 Falling wrote:I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email. Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting. It would be the part where he suggests it's really the POC oppressing white people with this day (that he clearly doesn't understand). So if we are thinking of racism as prejudice + power, in what way is he being prejudicial? As far as I can tell, it's a disagreement about tactics, not about outcomes. Now he might be wrong about his interpretation, but that would mean he is wrong but not prejudiced. So if it's not prejudiced, I suppose it is the power part- POC are already oppressed, so then his emailing is stopping the liberation process, thereby being racist. Is that the angle you are thinking? Because even then, I do not think it follows, unless it can be evidentially shown that reversing Day of Absence is one of the keys to ending POC oppression. That may be its goal, but not every action taken in support of goal is helpful. In many cases, it is the opposite of helpful, hence the need for rigorous testing in the social sciences whenever one tries to change people by use of policy. However, Bret was not even stopping the reversal of the Day of Absence but making it known that he would not be in support of it and would continue his classes as per usual. So then if the power part of racism is the key issue here, it would need to be evidentially shown that by Bret continuing his classes, he was stopping the liberation process (I guess because his participation was essential?) However, I doubt either of those are true but rather he disagreed with the particular methodology and was going to carry on like normal until he was accosted. Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
Then when he suggests in a condescending way that POC and white people should put "phenotype aside" (disregarding this isn't an option for POC) and that white people should "be on campus" as if they weren't welcome on campus (like the POC feel constantly and have come together collectively to say).
That's some of it. What makes his sentence condescending? That seems more like eisegesis than exegesis. In what way isn't it an option to put phenotype aside true of POC and not whites? And again, I don't see the prejudicial part? So then it must have to do with the power part? One thing I wish is that I could see the rest of the email chain- if he really was mischaracterizing the event, I would think he would have been corrected on the matter. But again, at most that's being wrong, not prejudicial and again a disagreement about methodology not a disagreement about equality. What is causing the POC to feel not welcome on campus constantly? Is it the professors? Other students? By the way, I threw this out a couple times with no commentary in reply. Do you think a Jewish American can be a POC or a minority?
While I sincerely appreciate your attempt to better understand this issue. The questions you're asking betray a gross lack of understanding that could take pages more to walk through and I simply don't have the time or desire to do it.
I encourage you to discuss with others what you may be missing in this equation and approach it from the perspective that you are wrong, you just don't understand why. If you do that long enough, you'll find the answers to your questions.
EDIT: I don't mean to portray the ignorance as a slight or anything, I just don't have it in me at the moment to explain so much of the nuance of US race relations that seem to not be part of your understanding. Totally fair, my understanding about the abuse of indigenous people in Canada is limited too.
|
On May 29 2017 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:36 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 11:26 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 11:10 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On May 29 2017 10:50 Aquanim wrote:On May 29 2017 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
But let's dispense of the preposterous notion that racism is perpetuated not by racists, but by the oppressed people not properly courting their racist oppressors. Can you clarify whether your position is that the correct notion is 100% of the former and 0% of the latter? does it really matter when it's a strawman position; as noone was arguing that point anyways? at least not in any sense remotely related to fault or ethical worth, and not in the way he's implying. ... Whether anybody else was arguing a related point or not, I still wouldn't mind a clarification of what that statement meant. The statement means what it says. But for kicks, what do you imagine the balance to be? I wouldn't have asked you to clarify your statement if it were clear to me what it says. Trying to divert my reasonable request with a loaded question is neither nice nor polite. I'm not ascribing a percentage (because I think that's a stupid idea), I'm just making the statement that we should reject the notion that racism is perpetuated by the oppressed people not properly addressing their oppressors, as opposed to the oppressors and oppressive structures who reject the oppressed people's approaches to lifting that oppression. I wasn't intending to ask you to put a percentage on it. The question I was trying to ask was a yes/no to "is it 100%". To rephrase then: Are there any possible instances in which an oppressed peoples' address is inappropriate? If there are, then it may be appropriate to consider instances case by case. Yeah totally, if it wasn't a case of millions of people being abused and oppressed, vs some college students getting overzealous. We actually had someone call these kids "fascists" If I were to say that a police force founded in white supremacy and catching people escaping slavery for their lives in a country that promised "every man" freedom, and to this day is found to have systemically violated black people's constitutional rights in practically every major city that was instigated in and still has laws in some states as Kwark pointed out, that are intended to keep black people from exercising their most necessary and basic right to vote were "a bunch of fascists" people would immediately be all over here complaining I can't call the police (that I just described) fascists. The idea that we should try to balance these college kids against a racist and abusive criminal justice system, generic systemic/institutional racism, etc... is as asinine as it is absurd.
I think I now understand your position. Thank you.
To clarify mine, I am not suggesting that this should be "balanced". I don't have much of an opinion presently on this specific case because I don't have high confidence that I know and understand the details.
|
Canada11378 Posts
esoteric gnosis
|
I think a big part of what prompted the furor of the email was the ending which has the super unfortunate implication of "we should do what I want instead of this Day of Absence/Presence and talk about race from an scientific and evolutionary lens." Which is basically saying "yeah your entire understanding of these days is crap, I'm right, and you're wrong" but nice enough to send by email.
I would also have to see this "scientific and evolutionary lens" to know for sure, but usually when someone says they want to talk about race "scientifically" things start to go sour.
|
On May 29 2017 12:07 Falling wrote:esoteric gnosis
There are worse fates, consider it a challenge. It's not as if I haven't suppressed my urges to say things far more unproductive (not because of you though) to engage with these conversations for a while. I encourage you to go back to the beginning and see if it reads any differently than the first time you read it (meaning the recent conversations about race). Not just this Evergreen thing which I couldn't have scripted as a better example of the hyperventilating (not accusing you) of some people about stuff like this while the gross and devastating abuses I've mentioned before barely draw a peep, but all the way back to when I started with that point.
+ Show Spoiler +Of course this is like a multi-year conversation we've circled back to in a variety of ways.
I'll give you this one before I go:
On May 29 2017 12:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think a big part of what prompted the furor of the email was the ending which has the super unfortunate implication of "we should do what I want instead of this Day of Absence/Presence and talk about race from an scientific and evolutionary lens." Which is basically saying "yeah your entire understanding of these days is crap, I'm right, and you're wrong" but nice enough to send by email.
Yup, that too for sure. Someone suggested it was basically like "All Lives Matter" which would explain why a lot of people don't see the offensiveness.
|
On May 29 2017 11:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2017 10:58 Falling wrote:I think it's clear at this point that I disagree that there was nothing racist in that email. Here is the email in its entirety. Exegete it and show me. + Show Spoiler +The reality is, you and I have not had many back and forth exchanges, so one shouldn't preclude the outcome before starting. It would be the part where he suggests it's really the POC oppressing white people with this day (that he clearly doesn't understand). So if we are thinking of racism as prejudice + power, in what way is he being prejudicial? As far as I can tell, it's a disagreement about tactics, not about outcomes. Now he might be wrong about his interpretation, but that would mean he is wrong but not prejudiced. So if it's not prejudiced, I suppose it is the power part- POC are already oppressed, so then his emailing is stopping the liberation process, thereby being racist. Is that the angle you are thinking? Because even then, I do not think it follows, unless it can be evidentially shown that reversing Day of Absence is one of the keys to ending POC oppression. That may be its goal, but not every action taken in support of goal is helpful. In many cases, it is the opposite of helpful, hence the need for rigorous testing in the social sciences whenever one tries to change people by use of policy. However, Bret was not even stopping the reversal of the Day of Absence but making it known that he would not be in support of it and would continue his classes as per usual. So then if the power part of racism is the key issue here, it would need to be evidentially shown that by Bret continuing his classes, he was stopping the liberation process (I guess because his participation was essential?) However, I doubt either of those are true but rather he disagreed with the particular methodology and was going to carry on like normal until he was accosted. Show nested quote +On May 29 2017 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
Then when he suggests in a condescending way that POC and white people should put "phenotype aside" (disregarding this isn't an option for POC) and that white people should "be on campus" as if they weren't welcome on campus (like the POC feel constantly and have come together collectively to say).
That's some of it. What makes his sentence condescending? That seems more like eisegesis than exegesis. In what way isn't it an option to put phenotype aside true of POC and not whites? And again, I don't see the prejudicial part? So then it must have to do with the power part? One thing I wish is that I could see the rest of the email chain- if he really was mischaracterizing the event, I would think he would have been corrected on the matter. But again, at most that's being wrong, not prejudicial and again a disagreement about methodology not a disagreement about equality. What is causing the POC to feel not welcome on campus constantly? Is it the professors? Other students? By the way, I threw this out a couple times with no commentary in reply. Do you think a Jewish American can be a POC or a minority? @Drone Show nested quote +
I don't have a problem with him, personally, although I wish he focused more on neuroscience and free will, and less on religion, as I have the impression that he's reliable and brings valuable insight to the former, and somewhat out of his depth on the latter.
He has said he would like to move on as he has more or less tired of talking on the subject but has felt compelled to defend himself as has little desire to let the label racist or islamophobic racist stick. He felt one of his book tours on an entirely different subject got entirely derailed because he needed to constantly set the record straight with his actual beliefs. I'm rather surprised to see the new internet meta is to dismiss him out of hand as he doesn't seem as bad as all that.
I'll take a stab at explaining why suggesting that POC put phenotype aside is at the very least racially insensitive. POC often have to be hyper-aware of their skin color when they are around non-POC. Among other things, there is always a chance that they will be viewed as threatening by those around them including police officers, and so it can be literally life threatening for a POC to go on blissfully unaware of their own skin color.
White people, on the other hand, rarely have to think of their skin color because it is considered the societal default. It is unusual for a white person to be treated differently based upon their race, but this is not the case for many POC. This may be why suggesting that people put phenotype aside doesn't seem like a big deal to the average white person, while it would sound crazy to the average POC.
As a side note, this is why safe spaces are important to many POC. It's one of the few places POC can go where they don't have to constantly think about how they are being viewed and judged by non-POC around them.
|
Oh, and we don't have to constantly think that we might be perceived as racist. That's fun, isn't it.
|
I've found that with a modicum of self-awareness and empathy it's pretty easy to avoid being perceived as a racist.
|
It was a cheeky way of saying that safe spaces are bs. It's just another way of dividing instead of uniting. Why don't people get this? How do we ever get to an even playing field if every type of difference needs to be highlighted, sealed in a vacuum and put on display?
|
Have you ever spoken to a person of color about why they think safe spaces are important?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e5CwA9M.jpg)
