3 ms·
We can disagree that the author's analysis is faulty (or that they inadequately support their reasoning with evidence) without merely casting it away as propaga
by germinalphrase 10y ago
We can disagree that the author's analysis is faulty (or that they inadequately support their reasoning with evidence) without merely casting it away as propaganda.
For instance, doesn't technology lead to significant gains in productivity, thus potentially exacerbating the vary demographic/economic shifts the author is arguing for (stipulating, for argument, that these shifts are actually taking place)?
What, specifically, do you disagree about the author's argument?
- oompaloopa 10y ago.
- germinalphrase 10y agoOr, perhaps this social/economic sorting is merely an emergent behavior? I don't understand how it is arguing against free will to acknowledge, for example, that I when I buy a house in a particular neighborhood I may be contributing to a larger pattern of social segregation (or gentrification or - when my parents bought their first home - racial segregation via the unknown redlining of that neighborhood). If this social sorting has larger negative effect on the country (which I don't know to be true, but is the author's argument) then it follows that these people are systemically responsible even if they aren't personally/morally/ethically responsible. I don't find that any more offensive than acknowledging that I am contributing to the pollution of my city when I drive a car - because I am and I do.