5 ms·
> The problem is that he attempted to question the ideological firmaments of contemporary anti-racist training. These firmaments are protected with aggressive v
by vinay427 6y ago
> The problem is that he attempted to question the ideological firmaments of contemporary anti-racist training. These firmaments are protected with aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny. Had Bhattacharya merely scoffed at them, or even if he had been outright condescending and dismissive, he probably would not have received such a severe punishment. The problem was that he was right, and his accusers knew it.
This line of reasoning doesn't seem logical to me, but perhaps someone can explain it to me. I don't see how responding with "aggressive viciousness" leads to a conclusion that one knows their position doesn't make sense and that they are in the wrong. This reminds me of reasoning I might associate with a children's playground: "you got mad when I said it, so the rumor must be true!"
- strangeattractr 6y agoNo that's not playground reasoning. If someone points out a contradiction in your reasoning and your only response is to label their pointing out of a contradiction 'dangerous', you are quite literally showcasing the hollowness of your argument.
- vinay427 6y agoSomeone choosing to respond by labeling a contradiction as "dangerous" does not mean there is no proper response, and certainly doesn't (to me) literally showcase the hollowness of an argument. I genuinely don't understand this reasoning, which to me seems like a massive leap.
- strangeattractr 6y agoI'd just like to clarify - you are saying their inability to produce a counterpoint is irrelevant to their argument because there might exist a possible counterpoint not yet articulated that validates their argument?
- vinay427 6y agoEssentially, yes. In other words, I wouldn't endorse their line of argument or discussion, but I also wouldn't use it to dismiss the point being argued.
- strangeattractr 6y agoHow would you dismiss points being argued if not on the ability of their proponents to argue them?
- cool_dude85 6y agoOn their merits? Participants in a debate are not avatars of their side of the argument. One guy fails to make a counterpoint, ok. Doesn't mean he's wrong.
- strangeattractr 6y agoHow do you evaluate the merits of an argument?
- cool_dude85 6y agoCritical thinking, reasoning skills, historical and subject knowledge. I'm sure you could think of more techniques if you put your mind to it.
- strangeattractr 6y agoNo those are just tools, you evaluate an argument based on the chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion. Critical thinking is how you produce an apparent contradiction in an argument. Once you put this to the person articulating an argument, given all arguments are articulated by people, and they cannot provide a counterpoint to make the chain of reasoning logically sound. You have to reject that argument or else there is no point in arguing - there are no grounds to reject an argument. That it is possible there exists a potential argument that links the premise to the same conclusion doesn't save the particular argument presented. Being right for the wrong reasons is still being wrong.
- cool_dude85 6y agoNo, people can be right and still be dismissive. If someone comes to me and tells me 2+2=5, and I say "no, dummy, get out of here", that doesn't make them right. Sometimes people don't want to have to deal with nonsense.
- prepend 6y agoWhat if you say “2+2=5” and someone comes up and says “respectfully it seems 2+2 should equal 4” and rather than engaging in a discussion you have them kicked out of school, that probably means your argument is not sound and is not defendable.
- cool_dude85 6y agoI agree. Being dismissive doesn't mean you're right, either. It would be quite foolish of me to claim otherwise.