3 ms·

I of course was mistaken to choose the word "systematic". I intended to use the word "systemic". Though I am not surprised you did not offer me the courtesy of

by cjslep 9y ago

I of course was mistaken to choose the word "systematic". I intended to use the word "systemic". Though I am not surprised you did not offer me the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong. I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective. Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition. Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further. I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from"). So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions: - "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman) - "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman) - "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?) - "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?) - "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won) Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion: - "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering." Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win. Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do. At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.

whitemale 9y ago
> the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong. I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker. > Though I am not surprised Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you? > For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition. No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage. Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 . > Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence. If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not. > Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. The original claim: white men are privileged My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true > Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further. I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'. > (Rooted in strawman) More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word. > Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem? How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue? I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that? > (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won) The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them. > Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid... > Language matters. It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong. Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse. I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.

by cjslep 9y ago

whitemale 9y ago

> the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong. I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker. > Though I am not surprised Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you? > For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition. No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage. Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 . > Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence. If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not. > Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. The original claim: white men are privileged My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true > Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further. I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'. > (Rooted in strawman) More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word. > Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem? How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue? I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that? > (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won) The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them. > Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid... > Language matters. It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong. Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse. I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.