4 ms·

To me it's a contrived argument to support racism without looking like it's supporting racism. A veneer of misdirection and logic doesn't make something less ra

To me it's a contrived argument to support racism without looking like it's supporting racism. A veneer of misdirection and logic doesn't make something less racist if the end goal is a more racist society.

snakeboy 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand how that would be implicitly or explicitly supporting racism. You think the end goal of that proposal is a more racist society? Donating money to the Against Malaria Foundation? "Supporting Black Lives Matter" is not equivalent to "not being racist".
- marcinzm 6y ago
  The argument is an attempt to make you not care about BLM. First it makes an axiomatic assumption about what BLM is about, saving lives and only saving lives. Not long term impact of high incarceration rates, not about the perpetual fear many minorities live in, not about the non lethal abuses by police and so on. Then it tries to use emotional blackmail about dying children in Africa. In reality, people don't value things far away as much as those close by so it's inherently a false equivalence. It's a hack job of an argument designed to make you not value BLM and I can only presume due to its hack job nature that the end goal is a more racist society.
  - snakeboy 6y ago
    It sounds like you disagree with their argument, which is fine, but then you go on to harshly criticize an interpretation that you've imposed on it. There are plausible alternative interpretations which are both reasonable and likely, so why not assume best intentions? That's the bedrock of productive debate.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I’m not sure I’m fully on board with GP’s conclusion, but their first paragraph is spot on. SSC’s whole shtick is thinking deeply from first principles, so it is very… let’s say curious, that his assessment of BLM would be so shallow.
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Scott Alexander has a known blind spot for convenient examples. When he's found something that seems to perfectly make the point he needs, he often doesn't stop to consider “hang on, does that actually fit the point, or am I blatantly distorting the evidence?”. It's something I do a lot, so I can't really blame him; fortunately, he isn't practised at deliberate deception so it's fairly obvious when he's doing it.
      - FFRefresh 6y ago
        Trying to follow your train of thought here: do you think his first principles are in favor of the subjugation of humans based on immutable characteristics? And does his support of Malaria prevention based on a utilitarian calculation that it'll help save the most lives (including more black lives) therefore prove he is in favor of subjugating black people based on their race?
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You’re riding this train a lot farther than I’m willing to go. All I’m saying is that his myopic description of BLM is very obviously a straw man. It may or may not have been intentional, but it’s certainly worth asking why, since setting up straw men is basically antithetical to quote unquote rationalist precepts.
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
        He sorted BLM into the “trying to save lives”, then observed that it was inefficient at saving lives. I don't think he thought about it hard enough to realise that BLM is not just about saving lives; it's also about improving them, nor that the death toll of the things BLM fights against is higher than just direct police murders. Judging others' goals by your own heuristics isn't a hard mistake to make, though it creates very flimsy straw arguments.
wizzwizz4 6y ago
One of Scott Alexander's goals is to end world poverty. He's focusing on international inequality more than national inequality, because he thinks that'll be more effective. If a lot of activists did what he recommends, that would effectively create a more racist society in the US, but it would also reduce the impact of racism (specifically, colonialism) in other countries. I maintain that this isn't racism; it's just him having different priorities. I'm not even confident enough to say his priorities are wrong; only that I have good reasons to disagree with some of them (e.g. attacking problems that can be solved short-term frees up resources for solving long-term problems later, and your investments into solving a problem go further when there's public support, so BLM advocacy right now might be a time-sensitive problem (above and beyond the deaths it causes; I don't know how to weigh deaths v.s. deaths, and I'm suspicious of people who do)).
FFRefresh 6y ago
What does it mean to 'support racism' to you? If I'm reading your comments correctly (please do correct me if I'm wrong here), it seems like you are suggesting any commentary that would suggest that the BLM movement isn't most optimally trying to improve black lives, is therefore racist? Is BLM unquestionable? To question it, or to suggest other pathways to improve black lives would be misdirection from BLM, and therefore is racist? From a high-level perspective, this style of thinking seems like it's the most racist of all (and a very popular take!). Suggesting that we shouldn't be thinking through how to most optimally improve black lives, and that we should constrain our thinking to whatever the current popular incarnation of a solution is (BLM!), isn't a recipe for progress.

snakeboy 6y ago

I'm not sure I understand how that would be implicitly or explicitly supporting racism. You think the end goal of that proposal is a more racist society? Donating money to the Against Malaria Foundation? "Supporting Black Lives Matter" is not equivalent to "not being racist".

marcinzm 6y ago
The argument is an attempt to make you not care about BLM. First it makes an axiomatic assumption about what BLM is about, saving lives and only saving lives. Not long term impact of high incarceration rates, not about the perpetual fear many minorities live in, not about the non lethal abuses by police and so on. Then it tries to use emotional blackmail about dying children in Africa. In reality, people don't value things far away as much as those close by so it's inherently a false equivalence. It's a hack job of an argument designed to make you not value BLM and I can only presume due to its hack job nature that the end goal is a more racist society.
- snakeboy 6y ago
  It sounds like you disagree with their argument, which is fine, but then you go on to harshly criticize an interpretation that you've imposed on it. There are plausible alternative interpretations which are both reasonable and likely, so why not assume best intentions? That's the bedrock of productive debate.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I’m not sure I’m fully on board with GP’s conclusion, but their first paragraph is spot on. SSC’s whole shtick is thinking deeply from first principles, so it is very… let’s say curious, that his assessment of BLM would be so shallow.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Scott Alexander has a known blind spot for convenient examples. When he's found something that seems to perfectly make the point he needs, he often doesn't stop to consider “hang on, does that actually fit the point, or am I blatantly distorting the evidence?”. It's something I do a lot, so I can't really blame him; fortunately, he isn't practised at deliberate deception so it's fairly obvious when he's doing it.
    - FFRefresh 6y ago
      Trying to follow your train of thought here: do you think his first principles are in favor of the subjugation of humans based on immutable characteristics? And does his support of Malaria prevention based on a utilitarian calculation that it'll help save the most lives (including more black lives) therefore prove he is in favor of subjugating black people based on their race?
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You’re riding this train a lot farther than I’m willing to go. All I’m saying is that his myopic description of BLM is very obviously a straw man. It may or may not have been intentional, but it’s certainly worth asking why, since setting up straw men is basically antithetical to quote unquote rationalist precepts.
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
        He sorted BLM into the “trying to save lives”, then observed that it was inefficient at saving lives. I don't think he thought about it hard enough to realise that BLM is not just about saving lives; it's also about improving them, nor that the death toll of the things BLM fights against is higher than just direct police murders. Judging others' goals by your own heuristics isn't a hard mistake to make, though it creates very flimsy straw arguments.

wizzwizz4 6y ago

One of Scott Alexander's goals is to end world poverty. He's focusing on international inequality more than national inequality, because he thinks that'll be more effective. If a lot of activists did what he recommends, that would effectively create a more racist society in the US, but it would also reduce the impact of racism (specifically, colonialism) in other countries. I maintain that this isn't racism; it's just him having different priorities. I'm not even confident enough to say his priorities are wrong; only that I have good reasons to disagree with some of them (e.g. attacking problems that can be solved short-term frees up resources for solving long-term problems later, and your investments into solving a problem go further when there's public support, so BLM advocacy right now might be a time-sensitive problem (above and beyond the deaths it causes; I don't know how to weigh deaths v.s. deaths, and I'm suspicious of people who do)).

FFRefresh 6y ago

What does it mean to 'support racism' to you? If I'm reading your comments correctly (please do correct me if I'm wrong here), it seems like you are suggesting any commentary that would suggest that the BLM movement isn't most optimally trying to improve black lives, is therefore racist? Is BLM unquestionable? To question it, or to suggest other pathways to improve black lives would be misdirection from BLM, and therefore is racist? From a high-level perspective, this style of thinking seems like it's the most racist of all (and a very popular take!). Suggesting that we shouldn't be thinking through how to most optimally improve black lives, and that we should constrain our thinking to whatever the current popular incarnation of a solution is (BLM!), isn't a recipe for progress.