3 ms·

What on bloody earth are you talking about? Take a moment and listen to yourself, because what you say is exactly the hate speech that we are having today, wher

What on bloody earth are you talking about? Take a moment and listen to yourself, because what you say is exactly the hate speech that we are having today, where people take words of someone else and completely flip it around and claim something terrible which did not happen. > something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition. Of course it is! Seriously listen to yourself! If I say "The average 20 year old healthy person will be able to climb this mountain faster than the average 80 year old healthy person" then it is a fact based on science and DOES NOT make me a ageist, or does it? Now apply the same logic to the previous topic and listen to yourself again.

alkonaut 9y ago
I only said that something being factually true does not necessarily protect it from being racist or sexist when used in argument or action. I only argue that there are (or could be) examples of scientific facts being used in racist discourse where an argument or action is racist regardless of whether it's supporting facts are true or false. Just like libel/slander law in many (most?) places doesn't care whether a defamation is factually correct or not. (In US that's not the case though) I'll quote an oxford writer: > Take a simple example. Imagine there was an imaginary newspaper, let’s call it the Mail Daily, which only cited certain facts about immigration – let’s say negative facts. True facts. Facts which might have to do with crime, for example, or housing shortages, or the abuse of the welfare system. Imagine that the Mail Daily never gave any positive facts about immigration – never emphasized any of the enormous benefits that immigration brings.Would it be fair to accuse the Mail Daily of being racist in its coverage of immigration? That’s a rhetorical question. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-racist/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-ra... His point (which is counter to Dawkins - who holds your position) is that this tabloid is racist while only reporting facts - simply because of how facts are filtered in res publication and which arguments are made with them.

alkonaut 9y ago

I only said that something being factually true does not necessarily protect it from being racist or sexist when used in argument or action. I only argue that there are (or could be) examples of scientific facts being used in racist discourse where an argument or action is racist regardless of whether it's supporting facts are true or false. Just like libel/slander law in many (most?) places doesn't care whether a defamation is factually correct or not. (In US that's not the case though) I'll quote an oxford writer: > Take a simple example. Imagine there was an imaginary newspaper, let’s call it the Mail Daily, which only cited certain facts about immigration – let’s say negative facts. True facts. Facts which might have to do with crime, for example, or housing shortages, or the abuse of the welfare system. Imagine that the Mail Daily never gave any positive facts about immigration – never emphasized any of the enormous benefits that immigration brings.Would it be fair to accuse the Mail Daily of being racist in its coverage of immigration? That’s a rhetorical question. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-racist/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-ra... His point (which is counter to Dawkins - who holds your position) is that this tabloid is racist while only reporting facts - simply because of how facts are filtered in res publication and which arguments are made with them.