| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
KwarK
United States42495 Posts
On October 07 2016 10:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I probably treat individuals more impartially than anyone here, regardless of their general background. Except when you're using racial slurs to deride people of the race that it's a slur against? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On October 07 2016 13:51 KwarK wrote: Except when you're using racial slurs to deride people of the race that it's a slur against? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/impartial On October 07 2016 15:29 IgnE wrote: impartially judging how closely they conform to your white american upper class "rational" expectations sure I don't even know what you're trying to say here do non- white american upper class people not like being treated with respect as individual human beings? I feel like you misunderstood what that statement regarding impartiality meant just like Kwark I don't treat people differently based on their background. I don't treat them differently based on the color of their skin. I am confident that I would feel just as justified in calling the people in that video the same insults if the perpetrators had been of a different skin color. I make a constant effort to be as impartial as possible when I judge people to judge them as individuals and I think I do a better job than most. I don't judge individuals as responsible for actions committed by a group they belong to if they were not a part of said actions themselves. Racism is very much a natural byproduct of living with a collectivist philosophy on life. Judging groups of individuals as unique ontological entities in-of-themselves is going to lead to you attaching identities to said groups to the detriment of respecting the individual as the highest ontological entity. A reductionist approach to groups as nothing more than the aggregate collective of individuals themselves allows you to hold only individuals as morally responsible for their own actions, rather than attach collective moral responsibility to all individuals in a group for the actions of the group. I'm pretty sure if everyone adhered to staunch individualism then racism would not be a problem and would just cease to exist. Treat every human being as an individual and respect them as such, not holding preconceived biases or prejudices against them because they belong to a larger collective that is completely out of their individual control. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17959 Posts
Apparently that takes you to the start screen. Take a look at the other tests and do them if you're interested, but in particular do the Race IAT. There's plenty's of criticism for their methodology, which we can discuss, but it's a good starting point for realizing that the colorblind approach isn't actually colorblind at all. And for discussion let's not use website feedback, btw. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On October 07 2016 13:51 KwarK wrote: Except when you're using racial slurs to deride people of the race that it's a slur against? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mckgh8B8if1rfw30ho1_400.gif) | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On October 07 2016 17:22 Acrofales wrote: Go here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1 Apparently that takes you to the start screen. Take a look at the other tests and do them if you're interested, but in particular do the Race IAT. There's plenty's of criticism for their methodology, which we can discuss, but it's a good starting point for realizing that the colorblind approach isn't actually colorblind at all. And for discussion let's not use website feedback, btw. ROFL "Here is your result: Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Black people over White people." That test is just stupid btw it's by no means a good scientific test that should ever be used in any serious intellectual manner. It literally conditions you to get it wrong the way it starts one way and swaps the other. It's like someone never learned about controlled variables in statistics 101. Does it always start white/good black/bad, then proceeding to switch the i/e buttons for white/black randomly to further increase error in results? The test induces the response it wants. It's not a scientific test it's a pseudointellectual scam You recognize the methods of this test are flawed but use it as evidence to support your worldview anyways, don't you see that as problematic? I wonder how many stupid people are being brainwashed by this test being cited as a credible source The colorblind approach isn't perfect because no one is going to be able to be perfectly impartial we're imperfect human beings with a natural inclination towards partiality with regards to how we treat others - treating those similar to ourselves better than those different. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be as impartial as we can though. Sure humanity will never be perfectly colorblind, but you should try to be and that's how you end racism. The alternative you suggest seems to be a 'separate but equal' approach which I can't see ever producing positive results in combating racism, just propagating it further. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42495 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:20 KwarK wrote: GGTemplar, did you go to Harvard? Because it seems a lot like you're just assuming that the people at Harvard who came up with the test were so ignorant of how to run a study that they neglected to include a control. You're sounding very confident in your own superiority over those people, and yet you know nothing about them beyond that they're at Harvard and secured funding to run this study. If a Harvard student told me the earth was flat that doesn't mean they're right I explained why the test is bullshit and instead of telling me why my criticism is incorrect, you whop out this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority I wouldn't even go so far to say they've neglected the controlled variables here. They're obviously not that stupid. I would say they've gone out of their way to manipulate them to better produce the results they want to publish in line with their thesis, which is a serious issue in scholasticism. In a perfect world people would publish studies and the results that they indicated. In actuality not everyone is a good scholar, as evidenced by how this test was conducted, they have concocted a thesis and manipulated the test such that it is more likely to provide supporting evidence for that thesis. This is not how science or scholasticism is supposed to work. This is how the medieval church operated. The fact that they're students from Harvard does not make them immune to such faults Let's go through the steps of the test again 1 e = black i = white 2 e = bad i = good 3 e = black or bad i = white or good 4 repeat of 3 5 e = white i = black 6 e = white or bad i = black or good 7 repeat of 6 Please tell me why the structure of this test isn't inherently designed to produce more error in 6/7 than 3/4 "You're doubting | ||
|
farvacola
United States18822 Posts
On June 26 2016 09:47 IgnE wrote: You know I know that you are just repeating the "post-factual" thing from that viral FT comment, but anyone that emphasizes "facts" is missing both why so many voted for Brexit and why so many support Trump. Lamenting the deconstruction of the fact is to assert an objective position that is the form of disguise for a thoroughly subjective position: "I decide what the 'facts' are and whether they are relevant or not. I decide the epistemic grounds of debate. And in doing so have constructed an ethical system that cannot broach disgreement, because the 'facts' are on my side." Brexit and Trump supporters are in many ways voting for propositions that they know will hurt their short-term neoclassically-defined economic interests in return for some semblance of psychosocial control over their lives. The politicization, and hence, weaponization of facts in ideological wars has produced a somewhat justified reaction against the "facticity" of facts handed down from on high (i.e. the social elites). It is about the ability to control the presuppositions or coordinates that define individuals' and communities' symbolic orders. People are sick and tired of being completely powerless to find satisfying jobs, as work, healthcare, welfare, and material security in general is increasingly difficult to control for the majority of the population. The "growth" of the last 5 years is not being felt by the masses who are instead subjected to increasingly precarious employment and subsistence. That's why you have regions that ostensibly "benefit" most from remaining in the EU voting against. And people who think facts are apolitical or who decry the workingman's disdain for "facts" are blinded by a hegemonic ideology that effectively hides the politics at play, making it literally impossible to get a handle on the underlying struggle here. Edit: this also applies to sandernistas and its one of the reasons that many people on this board, including one who will remain nameless, have been heaping endless scorn on the sandernistas while attributing their position to youthful idiocy, ignorance, or living in an "echo chamber". such people miss the point. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42495 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote: GGTemplar you're literally too stupid to understand when I explain shit to you. regardless of gg's issues, it'd help if you were a bit less mean to him. please tone it down man. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote: GGTemplar you're literally too stupid to understand when I explain shit to you. Kwark, this is going to be a tough pill for you to swallow, but you're a stupider person than me | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
edit: followed by a circle-jerk. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Kwark, this is going to be a tough pill for you to swallow, but you're a stupider person than me Pretty hard to disagree here given some of Kwark's recent lines of posting. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42495 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Kwark, this is going to be a tough pill for you to swallow, but you're a stupider person than me Your reply illustrates my point pretty neatly. | ||
|
Hondelul
1999 Posts
Given that these posters are supporters of either Hillary or Trump I am also not really sure how to feel, but this may be influenced by the heated tone. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 08 2016 04:34 Hondelul wrote: As someone who wanted to inform himself about the US election I am actually very disturbed about the level of posting in that thread. I don't think I saw something like this on TL till now and think there should be some moderation (both "sides") or simple closing for a short time to cool down. Given that these posters are supporters of either Hillary or Trump I am also not really sure how to feel, but this may be influenced by the heated tone. vote for me to moderate the thread! I promise to keep everyone in line with an iron fist! have you followed other tl general discussion threads? this kind of thing is not uncommon in threads in the general discussion area that involve politics or sensitive topics. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
BSL: ProLeague
SOOP
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL: ProLeague
|
|
|
EPT
