5 ms·

I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are c

I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are criminal and we have laws against this. People who discriminate against others can be charged or sued, which is perfectly okay. But if someone quotes someone who asks the question "why do people not talk about black-on-black crime?" and then their entire livelihood is at risk just for asking a question, that is fascism and censorship of ideas. This is what Matt Tabbiti talks about in his article https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i.... The problem is that "banning every thought or idea that hurts people" it has crossed over to just simple thoughts and discussions, which is wrong. People need to be tougher. If you're "hurt" by an idea, then you are fragile. That's the whole point about talking, discussing, arguing and ultimately agreeing or disagreeing.

UncleMeat 6y ago
I think the history of Blood Libel is instructive here. The story of Simon of Trent was spread both maliciously and foolishly and led directly to the murders of a large number of jewish people and played a role in centuries long persecution of european jews. The example you mention is interesting because I think it is a good example of a statement that is both spread maliciously and foolishly. There has been both deep study and serious activism surrounding "black on black crime" yet this phrase persists because it is powerful ammunition from people who seek to persist white supremacy to convince people that people that activism is just whining and should be ignored. If you stood up in a Q&A session at a sociology conference on criminology and asked this you'd be outing yourself as truly ignorant of the field - the same as if you stood up in a Q&A session at an atmospheric science conference and asked "what about milankovitch cycles". The heterodox academy tips their hand when they bring up examples of thoroughly discredited ideas as things that they should be able to force people to take seriously.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? I'm not saying that blacks haven't suffered immeasurably due to white racism, but if a journalist retweets a link to an interview of a black activist that asks the question about black-on-black crime, and then the journalist gets attacked as racist, that's too many levels of indirection. It sounds like people aren't even allowed to ask the question unless they wish to be fearful about their careers and livelihood. That is the definition of censorship of ideas. And if someone were to ask a question that is ridiculous, is the answer to cancel them or to engage in a discussion and educate them? That is the essence of free speech.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people. People are allowed to ask questions. I just ask two things. 1. That when somebody provides you with an answer, you stop asking the question. 2. That you recognize when a question has been weaponized as a means to dismiss activism and analysis rather than as a means to expand activism and expand analysis. This is the same as my point about Milankovich cycles. They are real things. But "what about Milankovich cycles" is a weaponized idea among climate deniers designed to convince people that the experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism. Similarly, experts have concluded clearly that the existence of Milankovich cycles does not dismantle claims about climate change and the role of carbon emissions.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      > No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people. So now we're taking the literal definition of "nobody", and using it to say that this is false. Personally, I'd feel comfortable saying "nobody is talking about cause X", if related cause Y was being talked about 100x more. Otherwise "nobody is talking about X" is always trivially false - by saying that, you are talking about it. But by the 100x standard... Yeah, nobody (right now) is talking about black-on-black crime, in comparison to white-on-black crime. > Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have. > Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism. The problem with this argument - that this is a bad-faith question and it's been sufficiently addressed so shutup and stop asking - is twofold. First, many people will ask this due to not being familiar with those answers. Second, some people might think those answers are insufficient. Why not just link to the experts addressing it?

UncleMeat 6y ago

I think the history of Blood Libel is instructive here. The story of Simon of Trent was spread both maliciously and foolishly and led directly to the murders of a large number of jewish people and played a role in centuries long persecution of european jews. The example you mention is interesting because I think it is a good example of a statement that is both spread maliciously and foolishly. There has been both deep study and serious activism surrounding "black on black crime" yet this phrase persists because it is powerful ammunition from people who seek to persist white supremacy to convince people that people that activism is just whining and should be ignored. If you stood up in a Q&A session at a sociology conference on criminology and asked this you'd be outing yourself as truly ignorant of the field - the same as if you stood up in a Q&A session at an atmospheric science conference and asked "what about milankovitch cycles". The heterodox academy tips their hand when they bring up examples of thoroughly discredited ideas as things that they should be able to force people to take seriously.

ping_pong 6y ago
Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? I'm not saying that blacks haven't suffered immeasurably due to white racism, but if a journalist retweets a link to an interview of a black activist that asks the question about black-on-black crime, and then the journalist gets attacked as racist, that's too many levels of indirection. It sounds like people aren't even allowed to ask the question unless they wish to be fearful about their careers and livelihood. That is the definition of censorship of ideas. And if someone were to ask a question that is ridiculous, is the answer to cancel them or to engage in a discussion and educate them? That is the essence of free speech.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > Sorry, are you saying black-on-black crime is thoroughly discredited? No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people. People are allowed to ask questions. I just ask two things. 1. That when somebody provides you with an answer, you stop asking the question. 2. That you recognize when a question has been weaponized as a means to dismiss activism and analysis rather than as a means to expand activism and expand analysis. This is the same as my point about Milankovich cycles. They are real things. But "what about Milankovich cycles" is a weaponized idea among climate deniers designed to convince people that the experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have. Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism. Similarly, experts have concluded clearly that the existence of Milankovich cycles does not dismantle claims about climate change and the role of carbon emissions.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    > No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people. So now we're taking the literal definition of "nobody", and using it to say that this is false. Personally, I'd feel comfortable saying "nobody is talking about cause X", if related cause Y was being talked about 100x more. Otherwise "nobody is talking about X" is always trivially false - by saying that, you are talking about it. But by the 100x standard... Yeah, nobody (right now) is talking about black-on-black crime, in comparison to white-on-black crime. > Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have. > Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism. The problem with this argument - that this is a bad-faith question and it's been sufficiently addressed so shutup and stop asking - is twofold. First, many people will ask this due to not being familiar with those answers. Second, some people might think those answers are insufficient. Why not just link to the experts addressing it?