3 ms·

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? An

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.
  - FFRefresh 6y ago
    As someone who wants to maximize their time/money for impact: How should we value the impact of BLM's 'improvement' efforts, compared to the 'improvement' of black lives that stems from Malaria prevention? Then how should we balance improvement and saving lives?
- FFRefresh 6y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. So it was myopic of him to assume that the core focus of BLM was to _save_ black lives (particularly from police violence)? And that understanding of BLM is a straw man? As a minority myself, that was my mental model of BLM as well, as this movement was given fuel by deaths of African-Americans after interactions with police officers. And much of the rhetoric/protests/media coverage was around how the police are racists, and if only we could defund the police, it would save black lives. It seems like you are poking at the idea that BLM isn't just about _saving_ black lives, but also _improving_ black lives. To be fair to Scott, he doesn't also factor in how Malaria prevention _improves_ black lives either. So it's not like he's not doing an apples-to-apples comparison along a very key factor. I would personally argue that the incremental value of being alive compared to being dead is much greater than any marginal increase in quality of life. How would you improve and help Scott with his calculation, accounting for the value of BLM's 'improving' black lives efforts? And how would you then weight the improvement of black lives stemming from Malaria prevention?
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    He’s right that one core goal is saving Black lives. But there’s also a more primal aspect, whereby many people in the US simply won’t acknowledge that Black lives matter. Which plays out in a lot of ways, but it also defies the sort of utilitarian calculus Scott seems to want to do here. The reason I’m saying it’s myopic is that yes, it’s also about systemic racism and the prison-industrial complex and a ton of other things that probably even vary person-to-person. And even if Scott doesn’t realize that from the jump, surely he realizes that it deserves more than a single paragraph comparing it to fighting malaria… right? Anyway, if you’re committed to looking at this through this strictly utilitarian lens, let me save us both some time and say we probably won’t be able to agree.
    - FFRefresh 6y ago
      Thanks for responding in kind. As someone frequently faced with tough trade-off decisions, I tend to try to take a utilitarian view (or simple pros vs cons) of the issues at hand. It feels very natural to me to try to compare the value of each of the choices before me (for decisions that matter), in order to maximize the efficacy of my time/money. So I find the disagreeing on using a utilitarian approach here interesting. I may be reading into this wrong, so do pushback if I'm off here, but I'm picking up the sense that you feel that whatever value BLM provides to society cannot (and perhaps should not?) be measured/quantified? Since BLM is targeting nebulous goals ('systemic racism') that vary from person-to-person, then any attempts to compare the efficacy of its efforts to other initiatives should be duly questioned? I accept that some things are hard to quantify. But I'm not sure I fully comprehend why we shouldn't _try_, if that's a held view (if it's not, ignore this sentence). I also think Scott deserves some grace here. That paragraph in question wasn't meant to be the sole point of his post. It was merely an anecdote to suggest that it's important to think about the impact/efficacy of your actions if you're trying to improve the world. Not all actions have equal impacts. A point I very much agree with.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        With the caveat that I am but one very insignificant person with regard to all this, here’s my take: I broadly agree with the utilitarian goal of maximizing the efficacy of one’s aid. But the reason I can’t fully co-sign is that I feel there are some things that aren’t really quantifiable. Example: a classic response to BLM is that police commit relatively few murders compared to murders overall. My feeling is that the people entrusted to protect and serve have an additional responsibility; that violence + abuse of power is somehow “worse” than violence on its own. But how do you quantify that? How many “normal” murders are equal to one “police” murder? I don’t even know how to begin answering that question. And I don’t think BLM should be immune from pushback because some of its goals can’t be objectively measured! But I do think a lot, if not most, criticism has been from a place of prejudice. That we’re going to look back on this in 50 years the way we look back on the Civil Rights Movement now, where some of the goals will have been achieved and basically everyone pretends they would have supported it all along (even though they oppose the contemporary version because they’re not protesting nicely or whatever). So when people see shallow dismissals, I think their guards (justifiably!) go up, because they know where it’s coming from more often than not. I’m not trying to deny Scott the grace you’re talking about. I know it was a mostly throwaway paragraph in a longer essay. I’m just noting that his whole thing is supposed to be about digging into the strongest versions of uncomfortable arguments to get at the truth. Straw manning is supposed to be anathema — so when he does it, I think it’s worth questioning why.

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.
- FFRefresh 6y ago
  As someone who wants to maximize their time/money for impact: How should we value the impact of BLM's 'improvement' efforts, compared to the 'improvement' of black lives that stems from Malaria prevention? Then how should we balance improvement and saving lives?
FFRefresh 6y ago
Thanks for clarifying. So it was myopic of him to assume that the core focus of BLM was to _save_ black lives (particularly from police violence)? And that understanding of BLM is a straw man? As a minority myself, that was my mental model of BLM as well, as this movement was given fuel by deaths of African-Americans after interactions with police officers. And much of the rhetoric/protests/media coverage was around how the police are racists, and if only we could defund the police, it would save black lives. It seems like you are poking at the idea that BLM isn't just about _saving_ black lives, but also _improving_ black lives. To be fair to Scott, he doesn't also factor in how Malaria prevention _improves_ black lives either. So it's not like he's not doing an apples-to-apples comparison along a very key factor. I would personally argue that the incremental value of being alive compared to being dead is much greater than any marginal increase in quality of life. How would you improve and help Scott with his calculation, accounting for the value of BLM's 'improving' black lives efforts? And how would you then weight the improvement of black lives stemming from Malaria prevention?
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  He’s right that one core goal is saving Black lives. But there’s also a more primal aspect, whereby many people in the US simply won’t acknowledge that Black lives matter. Which plays out in a lot of ways, but it also defies the sort of utilitarian calculus Scott seems to want to do here. The reason I’m saying it’s myopic is that yes, it’s also about systemic racism and the prison-industrial complex and a ton of other things that probably even vary person-to-person. And even if Scott doesn’t realize that from the jump, surely he realizes that it deserves more than a single paragraph comparing it to fighting malaria… right? Anyway, if you’re committed to looking at this through this strictly utilitarian lens, let me save us both some time and say we probably won’t be able to agree.
  - FFRefresh 6y ago
    Thanks for responding in kind. As someone frequently faced with tough trade-off decisions, I tend to try to take a utilitarian view (or simple pros vs cons) of the issues at hand. It feels very natural to me to try to compare the value of each of the choices before me (for decisions that matter), in order to maximize the efficacy of my time/money. So I find the disagreeing on using a utilitarian approach here interesting. I may be reading into this wrong, so do pushback if I'm off here, but I'm picking up the sense that you feel that whatever value BLM provides to society cannot (and perhaps should not?) be measured/quantified? Since BLM is targeting nebulous goals ('systemic racism') that vary from person-to-person, then any attempts to compare the efficacy of its efforts to other initiatives should be duly questioned? I accept that some things are hard to quantify. But I'm not sure I fully comprehend why we shouldn't _try_, if that's a held view (if it's not, ignore this sentence). I also think Scott deserves some grace here. That paragraph in question wasn't meant to be the sole point of his post. It was merely an anecdote to suggest that it's important to think about the impact/efficacy of your actions if you're trying to improve the world. Not all actions have equal impacts. A point I very much agree with.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      With the caveat that I am but one very insignificant person with regard to all this, here’s my take: I broadly agree with the utilitarian goal of maximizing the efficacy of one’s aid. But the reason I can’t fully co-sign is that I feel there are some things that aren’t really quantifiable. Example: a classic response to BLM is that police commit relatively few murders compared to murders overall. My feeling is that the people entrusted to protect and serve have an additional responsibility; that violence + abuse of power is somehow “worse” than violence on its own. But how do you quantify that? How many “normal” murders are equal to one “police” murder? I don’t even know how to begin answering that question. And I don’t think BLM should be immune from pushback because some of its goals can’t be objectively measured! But I do think a lot, if not most, criticism has been from a place of prejudice. That we’re going to look back on this in 50 years the way we look back on the Civil Rights Movement now, where some of the goals will have been achieved and basically everyone pretends they would have supported it all along (even though they oppose the contemporary version because they’re not protesting nicely or whatever). So when people see shallow dismissals, I think their guards (justifiably!) go up, because they know where it’s coming from more often than not. I’m not trying to deny Scott the grace you’re talking about. I know it was a mostly throwaway paragraph in a longer essay. I’m just noting that his whole thing is supposed to be about digging into the strongest versions of uncomfortable arguments to get at the truth. Straw manning is supposed to be anathema — so when he does it, I think it’s worth questioning why.