2 ms·

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 chan

by 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
        not evidence that anti-racism is irrational I haven't argued that it is evidence of such. I've argued that your particular chosen method of combating racism is irrational under a few specific conditions: A) your position is reasonable and B) the bulk of the people around you are reasonable and just. It seems like you don't believe B is the case ("I've already made it quite clear that I think not all the minds in question are reasonable.... [L]eft unchecked racism could fester in us and cause great harm...") and don't especially care if A is the case ("outside all reasoning...no matter how you or I react to racism...it is still wrong."). Given you believe your heritage is at stake ("I'm worried because my children will have the same Jewish heritage I have"), your method is quite rational under those conditions. I wonder if your co-religionists tend to be of a similar mind. You may as well ask me why I argue the sky is blue when someone tells me it is green. Except you're not arguing against racism, you're arguing for outrage against racism. Those are two very different things. It's strange someone would ask me why I argue the sky is blue I'm not asking you why the sky is blue, I'm asking why you think outrage and censorship is the appropriate way to keep minds from thinking the sky is green. From what you've said, the answer is that A) you feel the stakes are quite high for you personally, B) you didn't reason yourself into the position that the sky is blue, but in fact believe it's outside the bounds of reason to even weigh in on the subject (I suspect you don't actually think this, but it is what you said), and C) believe a great deal of the people around you are mentally deficient in such a way that they're biased toward belief in a green sky.

by jrkatz 10y ago

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
      not evidence that anti-racism is irrational I haven't argued that it is evidence of such. I've argued that your particular chosen method of combating racism is irrational under a few specific conditions: A) your position is reasonable and B) the bulk of the people around you are reasonable and just. It seems like you don't believe B is the case ("I've already made it quite clear that I think not all the minds in question are reasonable.... [L]eft unchecked racism could fester in us and cause great harm...") and don't especially care if A is the case ("outside all reasoning...no matter how you or I react to racism...it is still wrong."). Given you believe your heritage is at stake ("I'm worried because my children will have the same Jewish heritage I have"), your method is quite rational under those conditions. I wonder if your co-religionists tend to be of a similar mind. You may as well ask me why I argue the sky is blue when someone tells me it is green. Except you're not arguing against racism, you're arguing for outrage against racism. Those are two very different things. It's strange someone would ask me why I argue the sky is blue I'm not asking you why the sky is blue, I'm asking why you think outrage and censorship is the appropriate way to keep minds from thinking the sky is green. From what you've said, the answer is that A) you feel the stakes are quite high for you personally, B) you didn't reason yourself into the position that the sky is blue, but in fact believe it's outside the bounds of reason to even weigh in on the subject (I suspect you don't actually think this, but it is what you said), and C) believe a great deal of the people around you are mentally deficient in such a way that they're biased toward belief in a green sky.