5 ms·

It's interesting that your first instinct in counterargument is to claim that anyone making the argument in the letter must be a white man.

• Brian_K_White 4y ago
  It's interesting that what they actually said was that it's usually the case, and that you provided no counter evidence.
  • xfitm3 4y ago
    It's extremely sad that racism against white people is acceptable to so many.
    • ttpphd 4y ago
      It's not racism against white people to notice and critique attitudes of oppression.
      • zozbot234 4y ago
        There's a difference between noticing and "noticing". By now, claims of "noticing oppression" are well past the point where they should be uniformly regarded as crude dog-whistling.
        • ttpphd 4y ago
          This is funny to me. "You saying that I enslaved you, barred you from education, and divided and slaughtered your family is actually a subtle dog whistle against white people"
          • zozbot234 4y ago
            Yes, indeed. What you just quoted is in fact the language of crude conspiracy theory, not even of the most cursory thinking about real-world systems and structures of oppression.
            • ttpphd 4y ago
              History is a thing
  • scarmig 4y ago
    Many people don't believe that the truth or falsehood of a logical argument rests on the identity of the person making the argument. If you want to convince them of something, it's best to point out flaws in the argument, not try to discredit the person making the argument by calling them names.
    • Brian_K_White 4y ago
      And yet I still don't see a refutation of the claim that this particular complaint usually comes from a particular demographic. If an observation is true, then the observation is true, and is a valid data point to consider along with any others. A logical argument can be perfectly true and still invalid if it is the result of motivated cherry picking and framing to support an agenda or incentive. As a master logician lecturer, we can assume you already knew that, which makes this comment curious.
      • scarmig 4y ago
        > A logical argument can be perfectly true and still invalid if it is the result of motivated cherry picking and framing to support an agenda or incentive. The approach to take here, then, would be to critique the part of the letter that is invalid and cherry picked. Perhaps universities have a broader scope than education and research, and focusing on the pursuit of truth doesn't allow it to fulfill its broader responsibilities. If that's your point, make it, instead of saying that certain personal traits of an arguer inherently makes their argument wrong. A world where arguments are primarily about which identities are good and bad is a world where you just have insults being thrown back and forth about who's a "white man reply guy" and who's an "autistic enby about to saw his genitals off." I'd prefer a different one.
        • ttpphd 4y ago
          I wrote a specific criticism (it's a mistake to believe the status quo is apolitical) AND I noticed who it is that this criticism usually applies to. Your brain got short circuited and you instead tried to make it personal against me and my approach to critique.
  • crackercrews 4y ago
    Why would parent need to provide counter-evidence when GP provided no evidence in the first place?
• ttpphd 4y ago