4 ms·

Without a hint of sarcasm, I genuinely admire your resolve to be open minded no matter how patently stupid an idea is. I'm not as open minded as you; some day I

by gatlin 14y ago

Without a hint of sarcasm, I genuinely admire your resolve to be open minded no matter how patently stupid an idea is. I'm not as open minded as you; some day I'd like to be. The moment someone can supply an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that formal discrimination would have ended on its own, then I'll consider it. Otherwise, it sounds like after-the-fact rationalizing from people who were part of the problem and ashamed of themselves (as they should be). Ideology and academic hand-waving about the principles of some Invisible Hand moving society forward simply did nothing. The hands that broke the shackles were very visible, covered in dirt sweat and blood, and very pragmatic. In general, I steer clear of ideological decisions with hand-wave philosophies which hold their conclusions to be self-evident. I see a lot of this in economic discussions, too. My challenge is for these ridiculous vapid ideologies to come with formal justification that doesn't involve circular reasoning or false premises.

tptacek 14y ago
When you consider that the law was only changed due to a change in the prevailing attitudes towards racism, it's not all that far fetched. A much harder argument to make is that the change would have happened as quickly as it did. But then you look at the last 20 years and you wonder whether quickly changing legislative reality is a good thing to want.
danielweber 14y ago
someone can supply an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that How could you do this for any counter-factual of a government policy? Is criticism of the PATRIOT Act stupid if someone cannot provide an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that we wouldn't have been attacked without it?
- gatlin 14y ago
  I did a poor job of explaining myself despite my over-sized rhetoric. It's one thing to point to specific provisions of a policy and say "In the following case, Provision A had Effect B" and show the specifics. It's another to espouse platitudes with to backing data about a hypothetical scenario and claim ideological superiority. So, no, criticisms of the Patriot Act backed by data are not stupid, especially if the criticism is up front and says "we believe this to be true."

by gatlin 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

When you consider that the law was only changed due to a change in the prevailing attitudes towards racism, it's not all that far fetched. A much harder argument to make is that the change would have happened as quickly as it did. But then you look at the last 20 years and you wonder whether quickly changing legislative reality is a good thing to want.

danielweber 14y ago

someone can supply an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that How could you do this for any counter-factual of a government policy? Is criticism of the PATRIOT Act stupid if someone cannot provide an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that we wouldn't have been attacked without it?

gatlin 14y ago
I did a poor job of explaining myself despite my over-sized rhetoric. It's one thing to point to specific provisions of a policy and say "In the following case, Provision A had Effect B" and show the specifics. It's another to espouse platitudes with to backing data about a hypothetical scenario and claim ideological superiority. So, no, criticisms of the Patriot Act backed by data are not stupid, especially if the criticism is up front and says "we believe this to be true."