8 ms·

> Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a

> Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC"). Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. In many places, he does not respond to the probing questions asked of him at all (this is assuming the poster didn't add them in afterwards) instead opting to insult the poster. Poster: 1: By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today? 2: For example, how is white supremacy responsible for single-parent families in the American black community? Allegedly single-parent rates have skyrocketed since the Civil Rights Movement. Chomsky: Racism is quite extreme today, and by many measures increasing. I don’t know what cocoon you live in. Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with racism and its impact, in particular, the extreme racism experienced constantly by African-Americans. If so, I would suggest that you learn something about the world, and then you will understand the mechanisms very well. If you don’t want to have direct experience – which is not that hard –then at least look at the literature. Again, try following your own logic. It’s not genes, so it is circumstances. Do you perceive any circumstances beyond the extreme white racism that it takes real effort to be oblivious to? > He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times too. Hinting at ignorance is not helpful unless you show a path away from ignorance. Saying that something is obvious or trivial (as Mathematicians say) is not helpful. If it is truly obvious, just provide evidence. Now this is not to criticize Chomsky, he is still replying rather than remaining silent. And with his limited time, it doesn't necessarily make sense for him to give a solid argument in that case, but his argument in that link wasn't convincing.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
geezerjay 9y ago
> Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. That was patently clear from the thread. His followers also showed a complete lack of intellectual honesty, by trying to avoid any of the points made in the thread and instead trying to dismiss with paternalistic non-sequiturs such as "Why should Chomsky waste time shoring up your self-imposed ignorance?" When a cult-like following forms, they do behave like a cult.
- reader5000 9y ago
  I mean if you're just going to give non-argumentative question-begging, why even respond? I think Chomsky was wasting Chomsky's time more than the kid.
kenjackson 9y ago
Chomsky had stated earlier that there are experts to read who cover such things. The kid kept asking variations of the same question. If I were Chomsky I would have been done after a couple of responses.
- imminentviolet 9y ago
  Why not sketch out the picture in a little more detail than he did (he wasted entire paragraphs on veiled insults anyway) and refer the kid to a better source?
- reader5000 9y ago
  "These 'experts' agree with me" is not an argument. Indeed, clearly Chomsky did not want to engage the argument so ceasing responding would have been logical.
  - kenjackson 9y ago
    That's a pretty good argument to me. I defer to Wiles and other mathematicians on FLT. Full stop, that's sufficient to me.
    - reader5000 9y ago
      The purpose of an argument is to show why something is true. Saying an 'expert' believes something is true does not show why it is true nor that it is true. Deferring to Wiles is just ceasing to argue.
      - 1024core 9y ago
        I know I should be "deferring to Wiles" here too, since you are oblivious to what's being said in response. There are certain things that we take for granted: like gravity. Or a round Earth. If some flat-earther comes over and starts asking you to prove that the Earth is flat, or that gravity is not just little gremlins pulling on your jeans, then I think it's safe to "defer to an expert".
PeterisP 9y ago
There's immense difference between ignorance and intentional ignorance - for intentional ignorance showing a path isn't helpful, since the problem is taking a step on the obvious path.
sidlls 9y ago
The example questions you included are just not even wrong and are themselves loaded with racism. It would take hours or days of remedial education just to get the person asking them up to speed on the history and circumstances around black Americans' experiences to the point where the racism in his questions could be addressed. And that assumes he's honestly curious and not just spouting racism disguised as a question on purpose. In such a forum there just isn't a point to treat the poster as coming from a place of honest discussion.
- thethirdone 9y ago
  > The example questions you included are just not even wrong and are themselves loaded with racism. What about the first question, "By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today?", is loaded with racism? It is asking for how white supremacy directly affects black culture. I do not see how even the assertion "There is not a mechanism by which white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today." instead is racist. It may not be an educated viewpoint, but I do not see it as racist. Besides whether the question is racist, a good answer to the question could be very illuminating. You could probably fill a book responding to that question.
Stratoscope 9y ago
Readable version... Poster: > 1: By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today? > 2: For example, how is white supremacy responsible for single-parent families in the American black community? Allegedly single-parent rates have skyrocketed since the Civil Rights Movement. Chomsky: > Racism is quite extreme today, and by many measures increasing. I don’t know what cocoon you live in. > Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with racism and its impact, in particular, the extreme racism experienced constantly by African-Americans. If so, I would suggest that you learn something about the world, and then you will understand the mechanisms very well. If you don’t want to have direct experience – which is not that hard –then at least look at the literature. > Again, try following your own logic. It’s not genes, so it is circumstances. Do you perceive any circumstances beyond the extreme white racism that it takes real effort to be oblivious to?
- chillwaves 9y ago
  More from Chomsky. > Why were you and your friends raised in a different non-ghetto culture? Agreed, it has absolutely nothing to do with genes. Rather, it has everything to do with extreme white racism, which includes refusal to acknowledge what has been created by a history of 400 years of vicious slave labor camps which were the source of a large part of our wealth and privilege, a culture of white supremacy that is the most extreme in the world, beyond South Africa, as comparative studies have shown, and very powerful effects right to the present moment. Including what is sometimes called “intentional ignorance”.
- taw55 9y ago
  Worth noting that the questioner was pretty much stonewalling him by asking the same question over and over. That's not how to have a constructive dialogue.
abalone 9y ago
That's not really accurate. Chomsky's "key statement" at the very beginning of the thread refers to studies that have demonstrated "white supremacy that is more rampant here even than it was in apartheid South Africa." That, despite the experience of racism being a naked fact that anyone with eyes can see should they make a modicum of effort to break out of their "white racist cocoon". But these studies would presumably detail how white supremacy works, for those that need it explained. He implies that these studies are readily available, alongside "a huge literature of professional criminology," for anyone willing to look. What he's facing here is an interlocutor that isn't interested in doing the research or following logic, just citing right-wing op-eds.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

geezerjay 9y ago

> Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. That was patently clear from the thread. His followers also showed a complete lack of intellectual honesty, by trying to avoid any of the points made in the thread and instead trying to dismiss with paternalistic non-sequiturs such as "Why should Chomsky waste time shoring up your self-imposed ignorance?" When a cult-like following forms, they do behave like a cult.

reader5000 9y ago
I mean if you're just going to give non-argumentative question-begging, why even respond? I think Chomsky was wasting Chomsky's time more than the kid.

kenjackson 9y ago

Chomsky had stated earlier that there are experts to read who cover such things. The kid kept asking variations of the same question. If I were Chomsky I would have been done after a couple of responses.

imminentviolet 9y ago
Why not sketch out the picture in a little more detail than he did (he wasted entire paragraphs on veiled insults anyway) and refer the kid to a better source?
reader5000 9y ago
"These 'experts' agree with me" is not an argument. Indeed, clearly Chomsky did not want to engage the argument so ceasing responding would have been logical.
- kenjackson 9y ago
  That's a pretty good argument to me. I defer to Wiles and other mathematicians on FLT. Full stop, that's sufficient to me.
  - reader5000 9y ago
    The purpose of an argument is to show why something is true. Saying an 'expert' believes something is true does not show why it is true nor that it is true. Deferring to Wiles is just ceasing to argue.
    - 1024core 9y ago
      I know I should be "deferring to Wiles" here too, since you are oblivious to what's being said in response. There are certain things that we take for granted: like gravity. Or a round Earth. If some flat-earther comes over and starts asking you to prove that the Earth is flat, or that gravity is not just little gremlins pulling on your jeans, then I think it's safe to "defer to an expert".

PeterisP 9y ago

There's immense difference between ignorance and intentional ignorance - for intentional ignorance showing a path isn't helpful, since the problem is taking a step on the obvious path.

sidlls 9y ago

The example questions you included are just not even wrong and are themselves loaded with racism. It would take hours or days of remedial education just to get the person asking them up to speed on the history and circumstances around black Americans' experiences to the point where the racism in his questions could be addressed. And that assumes he's honestly curious and not just spouting racism disguised as a question on purpose. In such a forum there just isn't a point to treat the poster as coming from a place of honest discussion.

thethirdone 9y ago
> The example questions you included are just not even wrong and are themselves loaded with racism. What about the first question, "By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today?", is loaded with racism? It is asking for how white supremacy directly affects black culture. I do not see how even the assertion "There is not a mechanism by which white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today." instead is racist. It may not be an educated viewpoint, but I do not see it as racist. Besides whether the question is racist, a good answer to the question could be very illuminating. You could probably fill a book responding to that question.

Stratoscope 9y ago

Readable version... Poster: > 1: By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today? > 2: For example, how is white supremacy responsible for single-parent families in the American black community? Allegedly single-parent rates have skyrocketed since the Civil Rights Movement. Chomsky: > Racism is quite extreme today, and by many measures increasing. I don’t know what cocoon you live in. > Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with racism and its impact, in particular, the extreme racism experienced constantly by African-Americans. If so, I would suggest that you learn something about the world, and then you will understand the mechanisms very well. If you don’t want to have direct experience – which is not that hard –then at least look at the literature. > Again, try following your own logic. It’s not genes, so it is circumstances. Do you perceive any circumstances beyond the extreme white racism that it takes real effort to be oblivious to?

chillwaves 9y ago
More from Chomsky. > Why were you and your friends raised in a different non-ghetto culture? Agreed, it has absolutely nothing to do with genes. Rather, it has everything to do with extreme white racism, which includes refusal to acknowledge what has been created by a history of 400 years of vicious slave labor camps which were the source of a large part of our wealth and privilege, a culture of white supremacy that is the most extreme in the world, beyond South Africa, as comparative studies have shown, and very powerful effects right to the present moment. Including what is sometimes called “intentional ignorance”.
taw55 9y ago
Worth noting that the questioner was pretty much stonewalling him by asking the same question over and over. That's not how to have a constructive dialogue.

abalone 9y ago

That's not really accurate. Chomsky's "key statement" at the very beginning of the thread refers to studies that have demonstrated "white supremacy that is more rampant here even than it was in apartheid South Africa." That, despite the experience of racism being a naked fact that anyone with eyes can see should they make a modicum of effort to break out of their "white racist cocoon". But these studies would presumably detail how white supremacy works, for those that need it explained. He implies that these studies are readily available, alongside "a huge literature of professional criminology," for anyone willing to look. What he's facing here is an interlocutor that isn't interested in doing the research or following logic, just citing right-wing op-eds.