4 ms·

So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements,

So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? And, perhaps conveniently, this determination preserves your existing worldview that claims of racism are false or exaggerated. Most people would call that ignorance.

anamax 16y ago
> So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? Not at all. I said that I looked at incidents of supposed racism such as the above. My observations drove my opinion of "anti-racists". Is there racism - yes. My point is that the anti-racists aren't pointing it out, that they're engaged in political posturing. BTW - I'm familiar with many of the so-called "direct" measurements. The vast majority don't measure racism so they're useful only to identify folks who either can't do science or don't bother in this case. Which category do you find virtuous? (You do know that "he meant well" is an insult, right?)
- jessedhillon 16y ago
  If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes. All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. You're presenting an argument based on biased assimilation of evidence -- accepting only the evidence which supports your positive opinion of yourself and your prior understanding of racism. You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes. Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them? (I'm not typing them in for you.) > All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. Actually, you are. You're assuming things about my observations without any supporting evidence. > You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction. Pot, kettle, black. Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - jessedhillon 16y ago
      Sorry, your anecdotal evidence is not valuable, nor are the generalizations derived thereof, and not deserving of serious consideration. If you had some actual evidence that we could consider here, that would be helpful. If your notes had any value then you should type them up, or at least don't expect anyone to take them seriously -- they're not a legitimate basis to get up and object to people claiming to be hurt. For someone to say "my observations drove my opinions of anti-racists" is ill-conceived on so many levels. To use only your own observations as a meaningful source of knowledge about an entire group of people is the quintessential definition of prejudice. What are your controls? How are you countering for known psychological biases when making these determinations? That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding. On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements. They are only making claims about their own internal state. It's you who claims to have some special knowledge about the interior emotional states of other people. What you're presenting, without any kind of evidence, is essentially "I know when people are and aren't offended, and therefore I have a right to say XYZ because I know who is genuinely hurt." I would guess, with a standard like this, that nobody can be genuinely, unjustly hurt by anything you say. They're all crying wolf. Or, perhaps most stupidly, people who claim to be hurt by Achmed stereotypes are faking, unless you personally observe them holding signs at next weekend's rally against some cause that you think is "actual" racism. > Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"? Because I have been a victim of racism.

anamax 16y ago

> So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? Not at all. I said that I looked at incidents of supposed racism such as the above. My observations drove my opinion of "anti-racists". Is there racism - yes. My point is that the anti-racists aren't pointing it out, that they're engaged in political posturing. BTW - I'm familiar with many of the so-called "direct" measurements. The vast majority don't measure racism so they're useful only to identify folks who either can't do science or don't bother in this case. Which category do you find virtuous? (You do know that "he meant well" is an insult, right?)

jessedhillon 16y ago
If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes. All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. You're presenting an argument based on biased assimilation of evidence -- accepting only the evidence which supports your positive opinion of yourself and your prior understanding of racism. You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.
- anamax 16y ago
  > If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes. Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them? (I'm not typing them in for you.) > All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. Actually, you are. You're assuming things about my observations without any supporting evidence. > You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction. Pot, kettle, black. Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jessedhillon 16y ago
    Sorry, your anecdotal evidence is not valuable, nor are the generalizations derived thereof, and not deserving of serious consideration. If you had some actual evidence that we could consider here, that would be helpful. If your notes had any value then you should type them up, or at least don't expect anyone to take them seriously -- they're not a legitimate basis to get up and object to people claiming to be hurt. For someone to say "my observations drove my opinions of anti-racists" is ill-conceived on so many levels. To use only your own observations as a meaningful source of knowledge about an entire group of people is the quintessential definition of prejudice. What are your controls? How are you countering for known psychological biases when making these determinations? That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding. On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements. They are only making claims about their own internal state. It's you who claims to have some special knowledge about the interior emotional states of other people. What you're presenting, without any kind of evidence, is essentially "I know when people are and aren't offended, and therefore I have a right to say XYZ because I know who is genuinely hurt." I would guess, with a standard like this, that nobody can be genuinely, unjustly hurt by anything you say. They're all crying wolf. Or, perhaps most stupidly, people who claim to be hurt by Achmed stereotypes are faking, unless you personally observe them holding signs at next weekend's rally against some cause that you think is "actual" racism. > Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"? Because I have been a victim of racism.