3 ms·

If people buy into this too much, you can win arguments just by pushing your narrative before anyone has all the facts. A news report comes out as, "dozens dea

If people buy into this too much, you can win arguments just by pushing your narrative before anyone has all the facts. A news report comes out as, "dozens dead at nightclub shooting," and someone posts, "I bet it was a muslim. We need to kick all of them out". The first response is, "We have no idea who was behind this." Or, even worse, maybe even an outright denial if there's some initial evidence that suggests they're not Muslim. Days later, once more evidence has been collected the police confirm the perpetrator was a Muslim radical. From that point on, every argument against discrimination gets tarred as being apologism and backpeddling. Sound arguments are dismissed merely because they followed after a valid argument that turned out to be unsound. Racism wins the day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making more than one argument if we have a good reason to believe each is valid. Just following that pattern does not mean anything about whether it's correct or not.

jjoonathan 9y ago
Yes! Racism is a moral issue but the liberal political tribe likes to frame it as a logic issue. Sometimes it is a logic issue, but often it's not, and as a tribe we need to develop the self-restraint to differentiate. It's entirely possible for uncomfortable statements like "P(terrorist|muslim)>P(terrorist)" or "P(criminal|black)>P(criminal)" to be true but worth ignoring for the sake of the greater good if following up on them would trample individual rights. Sometimes discarding information against your immediate self interest is the right thing to do! Lady Justice doesn't wear a blindfold as a fashion accessory. Unfortunately, the prevailing tactic seems to be "attack the uncomfortable fact" rather than "argue from morality when you cannot argue from logic." People on the fence can see right through this hypocrisy, which by my estimation is responsible for a significant portion of the unapologetic racism that has flourished in recent years.
- isaachier 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure you are talking about a different point. The original comment is about laying out all the arguments upfront to avoid the appearance of back peddling if the first argument turns out to be false. You seem to be focusing on the example more than this point.

jjoonathan 9y ago

Yes! Racism is a moral issue but the liberal political tribe likes to frame it as a logic issue. Sometimes it is a logic issue, but often it's not, and as a tribe we need to develop the self-restraint to differentiate. It's entirely possible for uncomfortable statements like "P(terrorist|muslim)>P(terrorist)" or "P(criminal|black)>P(criminal)" to be true but worth ignoring for the sake of the greater good if following up on them would trample individual rights. Sometimes discarding information against your immediate self interest is the right thing to do! Lady Justice doesn't wear a blindfold as a fashion accessory. Unfortunately, the prevailing tactic seems to be "attack the uncomfortable fact" rather than "argue from morality when you cannot argue from logic." People on the fence can see right through this hypocrisy, which by my estimation is responsible for a significant portion of the unapologetic racism that has flourished in recent years.

isaachier 9y ago
I'm pretty sure you are talking about a different point. The original comment is about laying out all the arguments upfront to avoid the appearance of back peddling if the first argument turns out to be false. You seem to be focusing on the example more than this point.