5 ms·

Why are you worried that your children will be threatened for their heritage in a world where children can be exposed to a diversity of opinion, including those

by jimmyk 10y ago

Why are you worried that your children will be threatened for their heritage in a world where children can be exposed to a diversity of opinion, including those you don't approve of? Do you think you'll lose the war of ideas to "bullshit"?

jrkatz 10y ago
I'm worried because my children will have the same Jewish heritage I have, and while it is not likely reason will lose the day, it is possible. Even a slim chance is worth taking very seriously. It's like giant, apocalyptic asteroids. Odds are one won't hit the Earth in our time, and if it's on track to odds are we won't be able to stop it. We're still looking out for them.
- jimmyk 10y ago
  We're not exactly spending hundreds of billions each year on asteroid mitigation programs. From what I can tell, the total spending at least in the US is at most in the hundreds of millions annually. If the odds of an impact were vastly higher, we probably would spend hundreds of billions each year. If we knew an impact was coming, we'd spend nearly every cent we had trying to stop it. Given the sheer magnitude of outrage which predictably follows "racist bullshit" being publicly displayed, I can infer, if people are acting somewhat near rationally, that they rate the chance of "racist bullshit" winning the day somewhat higher than "slim". Do you agree with that? If so, why are you worried about reason losing the day? Is it the quality of your ideas that you find lacking, or the reasoning power of the people around you?
  - jrkatz 10y ago
    To be clear, you are laying out the premise that by reacting to racism at all, I am revealing I secretly believe it is more right than anti-racism. Does that sound about right? Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then? By the same logic, if racism is right you'll be fine.
    - jimmyk 10y ago
      Does that sound about right? No, not quite. It's the way in which you react, which is to silence the opposition. If you believed your ideas would win reasonable minds on their merits, and you believed the minds in question were reasonable, and you yourself were a rational person, you wouldn't feel such a strong need to shut down the dissemination of other ideas. Have I gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning? Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then? Sorry, where have I attempted to police anti-racism? Do you consider asking questions to be tantamount to policing thought? I've expressed no outrage over your ideas. I've never hinted at a desire to shut your ideas down at the source. I've simply asked you to defend them in a calm, reasonable conversation. If asking you reasonable questions counts as policing your opinion, that is a very serious condemnation of your opinions.
      - jrkatz 10y ago
        I've already made it quite clear that I think not all the minds in question are reasonable, but you keep asking this question, like you really want to get something in it out there. Since it's not likely, then, that you are engaging in good faith, I have to go digging for the bad faith and it is not far beneath the surface. In the end these discussions come down a fundamental moral question, outside all reasoning and apologia: "Is racism inherently bad?" I posit that it is and no matter how you or I react to racism, no matter how many minds are swayed to or against it, it is still wrong. From the position that racism is inherently bad, my arguing against racism is not evidence that my position is weak; my belief that left unchecked racism could fester in us and cause great harm is not evidence that anti-racism is irrational and racism is rational; I'm simply arguing against something that is fundamentally wrong. You may as well ask me why I argue the sky is blue when someone tells me it is green. "Well, if you have to argue the sky is blue, how sure are you that it really is blue? The green-sky people will come around". It's strange someone would ask me why I argue the sky is blue -- you'll have to forgive me for assuming they also think it's green but are too shy to admit it. Engaging in good faith, then, does this answer your question or would you like to ask it again?
        jimmyk 10y ago
watwut 10y ago
If that exposed opinion is "race x should be attacked" then kids of race x can end up attacked as result. If you convince children that it is right to attack members of race x, then other kids of race x will end up attacked. That is how it always was. After all, nazi did won war of ideas and so did hutu and so did khmer rouge.
- jimmyk 10y ago
  If you convince children that it is right to attack members of race x, then other kids of race x will end up attacked. OK, but we're not discussing a scenario in which stormfront members have total control over what the children are exposed to. We're discussing a scenario where they have at most a few minutes of the child's attention. For the other fifteen and three quarters waking hours of the child's day, their attention belongs to their teachers or their parents. If you believe the 'racist bullshit' coming from stormfront has any chance of winning the war of ideas against those odds, that tells me something about what you think of either the quality of the other ideas or the ability of teachers and parents to impart them into the minds of children, and, let me tell you, it's not flattering. After all, nazi did won war of ideas Now we're no longer talking about children. We're talking about "racist bullshit" winning the war of ideas in the minds of full grown adults. If you're concerned that "racist bullshit" is going to win the war of ideas in the minds of full grown adults, that tells me very clearly what you think about the quality of your preferred ideas or what you think about the quality of the minds of those full grown adults. And again, it's not flattering.
  - jrkatz 10y ago
    Given that racist adults exist it is quite clear that the scenario is possible, and I think it is reasonable to assume that is a process that begins in childhood, when their minds are malleable, until finally they are old enough they cannot be swayed but can fully rationalize it, and maybe even hide between the lines in almost palatable questions like, "Is it really bullshit if it wins the war of ideas?", which assumes some kind of fair marketplace of ideas where the right thing always wins, ergo if we kill a million people here and there for the group they belong to they must have deserved it.

by jimmyk 10y ago

jrkatz 10y ago

I'm worried because my children will have the same Jewish heritage I have, and while it is not likely reason will lose the day, it is possible. Even a slim chance is worth taking very seriously. It's like giant, apocalyptic asteroids. Odds are one won't hit the Earth in our time, and if it's on track to odds are we won't be able to stop it. We're still looking out for them.

jimmyk 10y ago
We're not exactly spending hundreds of billions each year on asteroid mitigation programs. From what I can tell, the total spending at least in the US is at most in the hundreds of millions annually. If the odds of an impact were vastly higher, we probably would spend hundreds of billions each year. If we knew an impact was coming, we'd spend nearly every cent we had trying to stop it. Given the sheer magnitude of outrage which predictably follows "racist bullshit" being publicly displayed, I can infer, if people are acting somewhat near rationally, that they rate the chance of "racist bullshit" winning the day somewhat higher than "slim". Do you agree with that? If so, why are you worried about reason losing the day? Is it the quality of your ideas that you find lacking, or the reasoning power of the people around you?
- jrkatz 10y ago
  To be clear, you are laying out the premise that by reacting to racism at all, I am revealing I secretly believe it is more right than anti-racism. Does that sound about right? Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then? By the same logic, if racism is right you'll be fine.
  - jimmyk 10y ago
    Does that sound about right? No, not quite. It's the way in which you react, which is to silence the opposition. If you believed your ideas would win reasonable minds on their merits, and you believed the minds in question were reasonable, and you yourself were a rational person, you wouldn't feel such a strong need to shut down the dissemination of other ideas. Have I gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning? Why are you so eager to police anti-racism, then? Sorry, where have I attempted to police anti-racism? Do you consider asking questions to be tantamount to policing thought? I've expressed no outrage over your ideas. I've never hinted at a desire to shut your ideas down at the source. I've simply asked you to defend them in a calm, reasonable conversation. If asking you reasonable questions counts as policing your opinion, that is a very serious condemnation of your opinions.
    - jrkatz 10y ago
      I've already made it quite clear that I think not all the minds in question are reasonable, but you keep asking this question, like you really want to get something in it out there. Since it's not likely, then, that you are engaging in good faith, I have to go digging for the bad faith and it is not far beneath the surface. In the end these discussions come down a fundamental moral question, outside all reasoning and apologia: "Is racism inherently bad?" I posit that it is and no matter how you or I react to racism, no matter how many minds are swayed to or against it, it is still wrong. From the position that racism is inherently bad, my arguing against racism is not evidence that my position is weak; my belief that left unchecked racism could fester in us and cause great harm is not evidence that anti-racism is irrational and racism is rational; I'm simply arguing against something that is fundamentally wrong. You may as well ask me why I argue the sky is blue when someone tells me it is green. "Well, if you have to argue the sky is blue, how sure are you that it really is blue? The green-sky people will come around". It's strange someone would ask me why I argue the sky is blue -- you'll have to forgive me for assuming they also think it's green but are too shy to admit it. Engaging in good faith, then, does this answer your question or would you like to ask it again?
      - jimmyk 10y ago

watwut 10y ago

If that exposed opinion is "race x should be attacked" then kids of race x can end up attacked as result. If you convince children that it is right to attack members of race x, then other kids of race x will end up attacked. That is how it always was. After all, nazi did won war of ideas and so did hutu and so did khmer rouge.

jimmyk 10y ago
If you convince children that it is right to attack members of race x, then other kids of race x will end up attacked. OK, but we're not discussing a scenario in which stormfront members have total control over what the children are exposed to. We're discussing a scenario where they have at most a few minutes of the child's attention. For the other fifteen and three quarters waking hours of the child's day, their attention belongs to their teachers or their parents. If you believe the 'racist bullshit' coming from stormfront has any chance of winning the war of ideas against those odds, that tells me something about what you think of either the quality of the other ideas or the ability of teachers and parents to impart them into the minds of children, and, let me tell you, it's not flattering. After all, nazi did won war of ideas Now we're no longer talking about children. We're talking about "racist bullshit" winning the war of ideas in the minds of full grown adults. If you're concerned that "racist bullshit" is going to win the war of ideas in the minds of full grown adults, that tells me very clearly what you think about the quality of your preferred ideas or what you think about the quality of the minds of those full grown adults. And again, it's not flattering.
- jrkatz 10y ago
  Given that racist adults exist it is quite clear that the scenario is possible, and I think it is reasonable to assume that is a process that begins in childhood, when their minds are malleable, until finally they are old enough they cannot be swayed but can fully rationalize it, and maybe even hide between the lines in almost palatable questions like, "Is it really bullshit if it wins the war of ideas?", which assumes some kind of fair marketplace of ideas where the right thing always wins, ergo if we kill a million people here and there for the group they belong to they must have deserved it.