3 ms·

This kind of argument is verboten when it's a white person talking to a black person, say, because it's not OK to tell someone their experience isn't valid. Str

by aaronem 11y ago

This kind of argument is verboten when it's a white person talking to a black person, say, because it's not OK to tell someone their experience isn't valid. Strangely, that rule seems not to apply when it's a progressive talking to a traditionalist. And progressives wonder why they have such a hard time talking to traditionalists? You'd have to be willfully blind.

fweespeech 11y ago
> This kind of argument is verboten when it's a white person talking to a black person, say, because it's not OK to tell someone their experience isn't valid. Is there some kind of large, documented body of evidence proving what the OP says is true? [ Hint: We have that for racism but we don't for what the OP is stating as far as I'm aware. ] > Strangely, that rule seems not to apply when it's a progressive talking to a traditionalist. And progressives wonder why they have such a hard time talking to traditionalists? You'd have to be willfully blind. I'm unaware requiring broad, systemic evidence of discrimination before applying the "this is a problem beyond a few individuals" is a strange standard. Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard?
- RightWingRabble 11y ago
  > Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard? Because you haven't described a standard, you've asked for "broad, systematic evidence." What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? If we were to provide you with, say, 20 instances of left wing discrimination against the right, would you admit you're wrong? How these conversations usually go is you demand evidence, we provide evidence, you say our evidence is invalid and round and round we go. This is called "bringing dialectic to a rhetorical debate". You're not arguing logic or facts, you're arguing emotions. If I'm wrong on that fact, please, describe an exact standard that would convince you the OP is, in fact, correct.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    > What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? Empirical research by enough different researchers that reasonable people can assume it to be true and not the product of statistical manipulation. Hell, I won't even hold you to that standard. Provide lots of things like this: http://blog.linkedin.com/2015/06/17/measuring-gender-diversity-with-data-from-linkedin/?sf10026881=1 http://blog.linkedin.com/2015/06/17/measuring-gender-diversi... I don't care if they are real academics.
  - noselfrighteous 11y ago
    Go for 20, I'd be interested to see if you can do it.

by aaronem 11y ago

fweespeech 11y ago

> This kind of argument is verboten when it's a white person talking to a black person, say, because it's not OK to tell someone their experience isn't valid. Is there some kind of large, documented body of evidence proving what the OP says is true? [ Hint: We have that for racism but we don't for what the OP is stating as far as I'm aware. ] > Strangely, that rule seems not to apply when it's a progressive talking to a traditionalist. And progressives wonder why they have such a hard time talking to traditionalists? You'd have to be willfully blind. I'm unaware requiring broad, systemic evidence of discrimination before applying the "this is a problem beyond a few individuals" is a strange standard. Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard?

RightWingRabble 11y ago
> Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard? Because you haven't described a standard, you've asked for "broad, systematic evidence." What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? If we were to provide you with, say, 20 instances of left wing discrimination against the right, would you admit you're wrong? How these conversations usually go is you demand evidence, we provide evidence, you say our evidence is invalid and round and round we go. This is called "bringing dialectic to a rhetorical debate". You're not arguing logic or facts, you're arguing emotions. If I'm wrong on that fact, please, describe an exact standard that would convince you the OP is, in fact, correct.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? Empirical research by enough different researchers that reasonable people can assume it to be true and not the product of statistical manipulation. Hell, I won't even hold you to that standard. Provide lots of things like this: http://blog.linkedin.com/2015/06/17/measuring-gender-diversity-with-data-from-linkedin/?sf10026881=1 http://blog.linkedin.com/2015/06/17/measuring-gender-diversi... I don't care if they are real academics.
- noselfrighteous 11y ago
  Go for 20, I'd be interested to see if you can do it.