2 ms·

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 li

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.

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.