3 ms·

Not true, and this is precisely what I find troubling -- that you misunderstand them and miss the actual problem they point out. Obviously, I can't vouch for e

by pron 9y ago

Not true, and this is precisely what I find troubling -- that you misunderstand them and miss the actual problem they point out. Obviously, I can't vouch for everyone, but since I haven't seen any behavior of the kind you refer to (certainly not among more-or-less mainstream figure), I can safely assume it's not done by "lots of people".

justAnotherNET 9y ago
Do we need to start linking famous peoples tweets to show that your position is false? Plenty of people jump on the “that’s racism” bandwagon. If they can’t attack the math they attack the author and make wild accusations about their intent. Truth is treason in an empire of lies, and socially most would rather live with comfortable lies.
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago
  Very true. Ben Affleck on Real Time was a perfect example of this. He literally equated challenging bad ideas with racism.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Do you have a citation for that? It’s not what we’re talking about – no one is being criticized for actual science – but the coverage I saw didn’t support that claim at all.
    - whatyoucantsay 9y ago
      A citation? I shudder at the idea of lending an air of academic gravitas to Bill Maher's Real Time, but yes it's clear that jumping on the “that’s racism” bandwagon, as the gp put it, is exactly what Affleck did. He was so angered by the statement, "We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam get conflated as bigotry against Muslims as people. It is intellectually ridiculous." that he went on the offensive and said, "That's gross, it's racist. It's like saying you're a 'shifty Jew.' You guys are saying: 'If you want to be liberals, believe in liberal principles, like freedom of speech" Whatever your opinion about the acceptability of criticizing Islam over violence, sexism or treatment of homosexuals, it's clear that some people do equate that criticism with racism. Ideological intolerance can often make people blind to nuanced positions, such as being open to a group of people but not all of their traditional beliefs. > " no one is being criticized for actual science" Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade. The criticism coming form people who have little experience in their fields, but intense political and social beliefs, has been intense.
      - acdha 9y ago
        Re:Affleck, again, that’s not the claim being discussed. Nobody is being criticized for scientific study – this is just a bunch of rich elite men talking about politics. That said, it also doesn’t match the claims you’re making. Affleck wasn’t saying that no bad had ever happened with Islam, but rather that it wasn’t good to make such broad claims about a huge and diverse population — note that each of the things mentioned are also true of Christians but we are far less likely to treat such blanket statements about them as useful or accurate. > Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade. I’m well aware of that and you’re misrepresenting it. They’re not being criticized for actual science but for unsupported claims which aren’t supported by the scientific evidence but are conveniently close to existing political beliefs.
        whatyoucantsay 9y ago
        > note that each of the things mentioned are also true of Christians but we are far less likely to treat such blanket statements about them as useful or accurate. The "rich elite man" Affleck was yelling at for criticizing Islam wrote two full books criticising Christianity earlier in his career and received very little blowback for them. In fact, those books are what made him a "rich elite man", as you put it. >> Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade. > I’m well aware of that and you’re misrepresenting it. How can you both be well aware of what I was thinking and that I was misrepresnting? I didn't even reference a specific incident! You've both mentally filled in an example and invented some misrepresentation you believe I've made about it. The principle of charity dictates the opposite.
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  > Do we need to start linking famous peoples tweets to show that your position is false? Yes, obviously
Yetanfou 9y ago
Just have a look at the public discourse in Sweden and you'll soon find out your position is untenable. While you are right in stating that the majority of the population will not find [these assertions] racist (or xenophobe, islamophobe, etcetera) there is a big discrepancy between what people think and what they can state out loud for fear of being called just that. This is due in part to the fact that the media - print and broadcast - are very active in disavowing such standpoints and putting those labels on people who hold them. This in turn is most likely related to the large difference in political affiliations between the public at large (where you'll find an about even divide between "left" and "right", largely clustered around the centre) and those who work in the media (89% on the left side, 78% of which on the extreme left [1]). As those who are stamped with such a label can expect to be shunned by both friends as well as employers this habit of vocally labelling anyone who steps outside of the left-of-centre narrative as racist has created an atmosphere of fear for being pointed out [2]. So yes, at least in Sweden you'll voice an opinion like this at your own peril. You describe yourself as a radical leftist (and a radical feminist). I can all but guarantee that you would be an outcast among your peers if you even hint to having such opinions. A good example of this phenomenon can be found with Amineh Kakabaveh [3], a Kurdish woman who was shunned her party [4] because of her active stance against honour crimes, for women's rights and secularism. [1] https://jmg.gu.se/digitalAssets/1284/1284227_nr38.pdf https://jmg.gu.se/digitalAssets/1284/1284227_nr38.pdf [2] The wall seems to be crumbling a bit now that it is nearly impossible to remain ignorant of the facts. Some politicians still try to keep up the narrative but critical voices are now heard even in some mainstream publications. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amineh_Kakabaveh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amineh_Kakabaveh [4] "Vänsterpartiet", they used to call themselves the left-wing communist party but ditched the "communist" term after the dissolution of the Soviet Union
- pron 9y ago
  > While you are right in stating that the majority of the population will not find [these assertions] racist That's not what I meant. What I meant is that the left, even the radical left -- as an intellectual movement -- does not find this kind of statements racist in and of themselves. > This is due in part to the fact that the media - print and broadcast - are very active in disavowing such standpoints and putting those labels on people who hold them. But this is different, and I would agree with the viewpoint that such discourse is racist, and precisely what I meant by saying that the point is misunderstood. The left does not consider a factual statement such as "muslims carry out a disproportionately large number of terror acts" as itself racist. On the other hand, such constant discourse is racist because its subtext is to instill the idea that terrorism is innately muslim (factually false) or that Muslims are somehow intrinsically drawn to terrorism (also false). If talk shows were to constantly talk about the temperature of the sun, that would also mean that there is something going on beside the desire to educate the public of a scientific fact. I.e., there is a difference between some fact and the action of repeatedly talking about that fact in contexts that aren't really about statistics. It's like that famous story of a man who escapes the insane asylum and, intent on not being taken back, decides to only speak the truth so he won't be considered crazy, and he goes around telling everyone he sees "the Earth is round." It's not the fact itself that is crazy in this story. Because I work in the tech industry I have come across quite a few people in the course of my carreer who are on the autistic spectrum, and some of them were simply unable to understand how a statement and the constant repetition of that statement are different acts and may have completely different meanings. > I can all but guarantee that you would be an outcast among your peers if you even hint to having such opinions. You are absolutely wrong about that. Like I said, there is a big difference in subtext between constantly bringing up some fact and stating that the fact itself is racist. The facts I mentioned are a statistical description of some current (and transient) historical conditions; frequently bringing them up is a sign of a (racist) political sentiment.

by pron 9y ago

justAnotherNET 9y ago

Do we need to start linking famous peoples tweets to show that your position is false? Plenty of people jump on the “that’s racism” bandwagon. If they can’t attack the math they attack the author and make wild accusations about their intent. Truth is treason in an empire of lies, and socially most would rather live with comfortable lies.

whatyoucantsay 9y ago
Very true. Ben Affleck on Real Time was a perfect example of this. He literally equated challenging bad ideas with racism.
- acdha 9y ago
  Do you have a citation for that? It’s not what we’re talking about – no one is being criticized for actual science – but the coverage I saw didn’t support that claim at all.
  - whatyoucantsay 9y ago
    A citation? I shudder at the idea of lending an air of academic gravitas to Bill Maher's Real Time, but yes it's clear that jumping on the “that’s racism” bandwagon, as the gp put it, is exactly what Affleck did. He was so angered by the statement, "We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam get conflated as bigotry against Muslims as people. It is intellectually ridiculous." that he went on the offensive and said, "That's gross, it's racist. It's like saying you're a 'shifty Jew.' You guys are saying: 'If you want to be liberals, believe in liberal principles, like freedom of speech" Whatever your opinion about the acceptability of criticizing Islam over violence, sexism or treatment of homosexuals, it's clear that some people do equate that criticism with racism. Ideological intolerance can often make people blind to nuanced positions, such as being open to a group of people but not all of their traditional beliefs. > " no one is being criticized for actual science" Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade. The criticism coming form people who have little experience in their fields, but intense political and social beliefs, has been intense.
    - acdha 9y ago
      Re:Affleck, again, that’s not the claim being discussed. Nobody is being criticized for scientific study – this is just a bunch of rich elite men talking about politics. That said, it also doesn’t match the claims you’re making. Affleck wasn’t saying that no bad had ever happened with Islam, but rather that it wasn’t good to make such broad claims about a huge and diverse population — note that each of the things mentioned are also true of Christians but we are far less likely to treat such blanket statements about them as useful or accurate. > Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade. I’m well aware of that and you’re misrepresenting it. They’re not being criticized for actual science but for unsupported claims which aren’t supported by the scientific evidence but are conveniently close to existing political beliefs.
      - whatyoucantsay 9y ago
        > note that each of the things mentioned are also true of Christians but we are far less likely to treat such blanket statements about them as useful or accurate. The "rich elite man" Affleck was yelling at for criticizing Islam wrote two full books criticising Christianity earlier in his career and received very little blowback for them. In fact, those books are what made him a "rich elite man", as you put it. >> Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade. > I’m well aware of that and you’re misrepresenting it. How can you both be well aware of what I was thinking and that I was misrepresnting? I didn't even reference a specific incident! You've both mentally filled in an example and invented some misrepresentation you believe I've made about it. The principle of charity dictates the opposite.
tehwebguy 9y ago
> Do we need to start linking famous peoples tweets to show that your position is false? Yes, obviously

Yetanfou 9y ago

Just have a look at the public discourse in Sweden and you'll soon find out your position is untenable. While you are right in stating that the majority of the population will not find [these assertions] racist (or xenophobe, islamophobe, etcetera) there is a big discrepancy between what people think and what they can state out loud for fear of being called just that. This is due in part to the fact that the media - print and broadcast - are very active in disavowing such standpoints and putting those labels on people who hold them. This in turn is most likely related to the large difference in political affiliations between the public at large (where you'll find an about even divide between "left" and "right", largely clustered around the centre) and those who work in the media (89% on the left side, 78% of which on the extreme left [1]). As those who are stamped with such a label can expect to be shunned by both friends as well as employers this habit of vocally labelling anyone who steps outside of the left-of-centre narrative as racist has created an atmosphere of fear for being pointed out [2]. So yes, at least in Sweden you'll voice an opinion like this at your own peril. You describe yourself as a radical leftist (and a radical feminist). I can all but guarantee that you would be an outcast among your peers if you even hint to having such opinions. A good example of this phenomenon can be found with Amineh Kakabaveh [3], a Kurdish woman who was shunned her party [4] because of her active stance against honour crimes, for women's rights and secularism. [1] https://jmg.gu.se/digitalAssets/1284/1284227_nr38.pdf https://jmg.gu.se/digitalAssets/1284/1284227_nr38.pdf [2] The wall seems to be crumbling a bit now that it is nearly impossible to remain ignorant of the facts. Some politicians still try to keep up the narrative but critical voices are now heard even in some mainstream publications. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amineh_Kakabaveh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amineh_Kakabaveh [4] "Vänsterpartiet", they used to call themselves the left-wing communist party but ditched the "communist" term after the dissolution of the Soviet Union

pron 9y ago
> While you are right in stating that the majority of the population will not find [these assertions] racist That's not what I meant. What I meant is that the left, even the radical left -- as an intellectual movement -- does not find this kind of statements racist in and of themselves. > This is due in part to the fact that the media - print and broadcast - are very active in disavowing such standpoints and putting those labels on people who hold them. But this is different, and I would agree with the viewpoint that such discourse is racist, and precisely what I meant by saying that the point is misunderstood. The left does not consider a factual statement such as "muslims carry out a disproportionately large number of terror acts" as itself racist. On the other hand, such constant discourse is racist because its subtext is to instill the idea that terrorism is innately muslim (factually false) or that Muslims are somehow intrinsically drawn to terrorism (also false). If talk shows were to constantly talk about the temperature of the sun, that would also mean that there is something going on beside the desire to educate the public of a scientific fact. I.e., there is a difference between some fact and the action of repeatedly talking about that fact in contexts that aren't really about statistics. It's like that famous story of a man who escapes the insane asylum and, intent on not being taken back, decides to only speak the truth so he won't be considered crazy, and he goes around telling everyone he sees "the Earth is round." It's not the fact itself that is crazy in this story. Because I work in the tech industry I have come across quite a few people in the course of my carreer who are on the autistic spectrum, and some of them were simply unable to understand how a statement and the constant repetition of that statement are different acts and may have completely different meanings. > I can all but guarantee that you would be an outcast among your peers if you even hint to having such opinions. You are absolutely wrong about that. Like I said, there is a big difference in subtext between constantly bringing up some fact and stating that the fact itself is racist. The facts I mentioned are a statistical description of some current (and transient) historical conditions; frequently bringing them up is a sign of a (racist) political sentiment.