831–840 of 906 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sunlight isn't the best disinfectant. Censorship is. Ideas, especially those that stoke resentments, are like viruses Prove it.
i would just say to that, if censorship didn't work, then why are people (especially on "the right" nowadays) so up in arms about it? is it just a grift?
He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is vi…
> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. Stepping aside from the main debate, how can you possibly justify this? If I'm going to be forgiven every time I discriminate, assault, and slander people, why would I ever want to change my behavior? After all, I get rewarded for it: When I do those things I gain advantages over other people that b…
If that's too much, you could at least forgive the people who had nothing to do with the discrimination, assault and slander - which is something that Kendi doesn't seem to be able to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm genuinely missing your point Yes, you are missing my point. I am not insinuating anything, I am stating directly that some people might be biased against unusual (to them) names. Names that are difficult to say, spell, etc. depending on the language, or just out-right stereotypical prejudice with a name (which is what these studies just assume). I am not saying that any of this is ok, people rarely get to pick t…
Reducing racial bias to solely and precisely "skin color", and not the cultural biases that come with it is itself missing the point. Begin biased against Black skin is a problem (and is the important bit in some instances). Being biased against "Black" names is also a problem, even if you can devise situations where the name is attached to a person who doesn't have Black skin. And both are racism, because they are d…
You assume a racist motive in your scenario, but what if the bias is actually towards all unfamiliar names, only some of which are black names?
The specter of racism is so great that people are expected to be free from every potential bias because it could be race-equity related somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the #9 most controversial article in wikipedia, historically: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-ten-most-contr... It is heavily censored with wikipedia's left-leaning bias. Go read the talk page to see it in action.
All the talk page indicates is that the article is correct, despite what a number of skull-measuring right-wingers would like you to believe. Wikipedia doesn't have a left-leaning bias, reality does.
Wiki rules are tools to build better content, not absolutes we must die on. If 90% of readers of an entry find it lacking or untrustworthy because it doesn't mention well-known studies or even fields of endeavor then it's not a useful article.
> despite what a number of skull-measuring right-wingers would like you to believe
Do you believe that acceptance of the theory that genes impact IQ is split along communist/non-communist lines? That communists are less likely than average to believe this? These broad statements and the identities around them are the partisanship behind much of the politically-motivated editing going on in Wiki now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to pick on your personal story, but it would only be relevant if you found your bullies 60 years later, punched them in the face, and that somehow fixed your broken character. In the real world, your bullies are no longer the same people, and punching them 60 years later won't address your past or future problems.
That's adorable. When white people have kids, they have to give their children the birds and the bees talk when they reach an appropriate age. When black people have kids, they have to give them the same talk, and also the one where you need to be really careful about acting a specific way around cops lest they unalive you because police officers view blacks as more aggressive than whites because of prejudice. As lon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that.
> Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? Yes. The right are quite ready to entirely ignore pretty much all of that if you're in agreement with them on whatever other issue is currently at hand. Plenty of women on the right have had abortions. Some fairly prominent gay figures would be Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think Blair White needs much introduction either. Be…
Why is it race instead of class and not race AND class?
Also, who has been canceled inappropriately? In fact, who has even suffered significant consequences for being cancelled? My impression is that it's a band of rapists who become right wing celebrities and get book deals.
I think the people being pushed right are:
1. Generally already on the right
2. If they are pushed, it's by the internal contradictions on the left. And those internal contradictions are caused by a wavering of conviction, not an excess
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I can tell most racists are either born into it (grew up surrounded by it) or fall into it looking for a place to fit in. Mere exposure to an idea is insufficient. I propose you test this 'idea virus' theory yourself. Go find a racist podcast and see how many episodes it takes for you to start thinking that jews and black people are inferior. I'm going to go ahead and guess that no amount of hate speech wil…
Exposure is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition. But exposure increases the propagation. You have this realization yourself when you say "grew up surrounded by", which is one way people get exposed. There are many case studies in the real world. "Go find a racist podcast and see how many episodes it takes for you to start thinking that jews and black people are inferior." That is what happens, though. Not wi…
Also I don't think the Nazis and Hutus were made into racists by academic discussion of genetics, and I don't think that people who study genetic factors of IQ are more likely to be Nazi-sympathetic. It's not like the Nazis were scientific racists, they were pseudo-scientific racists - they started out racist and went on a quest for the appearance of proof.
The pro-censorship side needs to prove the science->racism pathway and then prove that "deplatforming" works to reduce overall belief in or following of that path. Censorship tends to have a whiplash effect to those who notice it which is rarely taken into account by those who preach censorship. (Which is what you'd expect if the people who were doing the censoring didn't care about the issues and were simply using them to bolster their control of the censoring mechanism...)
Yes, racism is bad for the believer and for society but there is no evidence censorship could help and a ton of evidence that it is ruinous to democracies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one said that, and I don't view people as that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Discriminating against already well off groups to help chronically not well-off groups (affirmative action) is of course discrimination You said exactly that.
I did not say that it's okay, I stated a simple fact, that positive discrimination is discrimination too.
Then I tried to explain the likely consequence of one usual version of that, and then I explicitly said that it's not that simple, because looking at ethnic groups and deciding the fate of individuals, just because they belong to that ethnic group, is almost textbook racism, as you also pointed out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? Yes. The right are quite ready to entirely ignore pretty much all of that if you're in agreement with them on whatever other issue is currently at hand. Plenty of women on the right have had abortions. Some fairly prominent gay figures would be Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think Blair White needs much introduction either. Be…
>Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines. Why is it race instead of class and not race AND class? A…
It's not race and class because race has eclipsed class in the public discourse. I don't know why that is but if I was being cynical I'd say it's to sow division and limit effectiveness.
On And vs Or, there's limited space in public discourse. Introducing additional issues necessitates that space being divided into smaller chunks. Grouping the issues also only serves to narrow your potential support. That's not to say certain issues can't/shouldn't be grouped.
Personally I believe that a focus on class would be more effective in dealing with the harms of systemic racism than the current approach focused on race. While also taking a lot of steam out of the right's rhetoric.
I honestly only see harm in the current approach where upper middle class white people tell some guy living in a trailer, paycheck to paycheck, that he has white privilege and that's why he should be paying reparations and passed over for a job.
> Also, who has been canceled inappropriately?
I'm not talking about people being cancelled, I'm talking about how we engage with people who are either politically apathetic or exploring a leftist perspective for the first time.
> 1. Generally already on the right
There seems to be this insular view that we should only engage with people that already fully agree with us and it often results in attacking people that might have problematic views that they would otherwise have become open to examining. I've seen a lot of younger people who don't necessarily have fully formed opinions pushed away in this way. The same applies for people who are generally apathetic and maybe examining their opinions for the first time.
> 2. If they are pushed, it's by the internal contradictions on the left. And those internal contradictions are caused by a wavering of conviction, not an excess
Hard disagree. The demand for ideological purity is the biggest factor that pushes people who haven't quite made up their mind or don't fully engage to the right. We literally saw this play out with the atheism movement in the early 2010s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people aren't pulling themselves over and and shooting themselves. They aren't invading their own homes and shooting themselves. They aren't kneeling on their own chests and asphyxiating themselves. And the simple fact of the matter is that this is a RESPONSE to how cops have treated minorities for generations. Pretending that educating children on how to act around people who have a preconception that the co…
> Because people aren't pulling themselves over and and shooting themselves. They aren't invading their own homes and shooting themselves. They aren't kneeling on their own chests and asphyxiating themselves Are you aware that for every example you brought up (Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd) there's a recent example of the exact same thing happening to a white person and getting no national attention w…