3 ms·

>The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the PPP program is somehow magically immune to that discrimination. Come on. You can't do to that. That's no

>The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the PPP program is somehow magically immune to that discrimination. Come on. You can't do to that. That's not how it works. The burden of proof is always on a positive claim. General negative claims are intrinsically unprovable. This is because for one, you've begged the question, and there is no level of evidence that you would accept or even list what you would accept as evidence that your conclusion is wrong. More importantly, it is impossible to list every factor and modality of this discrimination (and you have to do that to prove a universal negative claim that there is no racial discrimination), because there is an infinite number of possibilities of this manifestation (i.e. what is the nature of this racist discrimination you're claiming?). Here are some potential modalities for this 'racist discrimination'. 1) The program was designed with the intent to discriminate against certain minorities (and not others). 2) The program was not designed with the intent to discriminate, but certain factors had as a side-effect discriminating against certain minorities (and not others). 3) The program was not designed with the intent to discriminate and does not intrinsically discriminate, but the executors of this program intentionally discriminated against certain minorities (but not others) 4) The program was not designed with the intent to discriminate and does not intrinsically discriminate, and the executors of this program did not intentionally discriminated against certain minorities (but not others), but certain factors had a side-effect of discrimination. 5) The program and execution was not intrinsically discriminatory, but other structural factors led to discrimination. Factors such as the claim that minorities are discriminated in banking, or certain minorities being turned away from entrepreneurship by lack of role-models, or ... etc. I can go on ... but each one is different and independent of the next and even within each one you have countless of potential mechanism. For example, if the claim is the program was intentionally designed to be discriminatory, you have unpack that and provide the mechanism for that. Is it Congress that did that? Is the White House? Which statue was discriminatory, etc.. And there are countless other potential avenues for discrimination. Each kind of discrimination calls for different approach to a solution. You're not honest when you shift the burden of proof like you did.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> The burden of proof is always on a positive claim. The positive claim here is "demonstrable, long documented racist discrimination in the banking system does not affect the PPP program within it".
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Ceejayoz come on. That's not a positive claim. You literally have a 'NOT' statement in there. You can't distort language to fit your narrative like this. And you can see the intrinsic impossibility of the burden you're placing to disprove this claim. Besides the fact that you posited no mechanism by which this racist discrimination takes place, what if the racist discrimination in the banking system did affect the PPP program, but was only a minor factor. That is, racist discrimination only explained 5% (or 10% or 30%) of the discrepancy and other factors dominated (racist or otherwise). Is that a possibility? It sure is. That's why you need to do the legwork. This is especially true when you're talking about politically and culturally sensitive matters. The left typically makes a similar point around social studies research. Certain kind of research results may be used by racists, so you have to take extra care to qualify and frame the results. I agree with both. This is too important to be sloppy with. I cannot stress this enough, you are hurting your case, because some individuals will believe you, they will do a deeper dive, and they may become disillusioned if they see you lied to them. Trust is so easily broken.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> The burden of proof is always on a positive claim. The positive claim here is "demonstrable, long documented racist discrimination in the banking system does not affect the PPP program within it".

macspoofing 6y ago
Ceejayoz come on. That's not a positive claim. You literally have a 'NOT' statement in there. You can't distort language to fit your narrative like this. And you can see the intrinsic impossibility of the burden you're placing to disprove this claim. Besides the fact that you posited no mechanism by which this racist discrimination takes place, what if the racist discrimination in the banking system did affect the PPP program, but was only a minor factor. That is, racist discrimination only explained 5% (or 10% or 30%) of the discrepancy and other factors dominated (racist or otherwise). Is that a possibility? It sure is. That's why you need to do the legwork. This is especially true when you're talking about politically and culturally sensitive matters. The left typically makes a similar point around social studies research. Certain kind of research results may be used by racists, so you have to take extra care to qualify and frame the results. I agree with both. This is too important to be sloppy with. I cannot stress this enough, you are hurting your case, because some individuals will believe you, they will do a deeper dive, and they may become disillusioned if they see you lied to them. Trust is so easily broken.