4 ms·

Disputing definitions is pointless. Obviously voluntary housing choices are segregation_dalke but not segregation_fajitas. Now lets get back to discussing objec

Disputing definitions is pointless. Obviously voluntary housing choices are segregation_dalke but not segregation_fajitas. Now lets get back to discussing objective reality, and remember that words are merely convenient shorthands for that reality. http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ The point I was making: Yzzxy was arguing against a straw man, acting as if enlightenedfool advocated in favor of using violence to confine certain groups to certain regions ("separate but equal"). Enlightenedfool argued no such thing. Now if you really want to argue against consumption choices based on tribalist preferences, make that argument. Also be wary of the fallacy of expanding a definition and then expecting all conclusions drawn from the narrow definition to also hold for the wide one - I've noticed when people dispute definitions on topics like this, that fallacy often follows.

dalke 12y ago
You created a non-standard definition and used that to make your argument. Then you refuse to allow anyone to object to your basis of argument, and imply that any further corrections likely stem from a fallacy on my side. How bloody convenient for you. Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence. The original article even compared the violence of the Jim Crow South with "the Californian way [which] worked tacitly through housing, jobs and education policies. On top of racially restrictive covenants, realtors around the San Francisco Bay Area were engaged in a practice called blockbusting." This isn't violence. Restricted covenants have been unenforceable by the government since Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, so it's not like there's even any threat of government force to back up a covenant through the civil courts. The comment by enlightenedfool are personal, but don't reflect the law. It is illegal to discriminate based on national origin just like it's illegal to discriminate based on race. Both have been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1968/Fair Housing Act. Currently the only legally accepted threat of violence, for those who hold that government force is backed by a threat of violence, is against those who use discriminatory practices. In any case, enlightenedfool was not talking about violence either. ("And that's not because of violence.") Neither was yzzxy, who referred to the housing discrimination in Chicago, which were very similar to the non-violent way of California. For your statement to make sense means (I believe) that you inferred that yzzxy's reference to "separate but equal" was a statement that equated enlightenedfool's beliefs on "own kind" as identical to the specific government practices ruled illegal in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and that you believe laws are only possible via the threat of violence by the government, and therefore yzzxy must mean that enlightenedfool also want coercive violence. This is a stretch. It's much easier to believe that yzzxy uses it as a short-hand for the thinking behind the separate but equal doctrine rather than specific implementation points. For one, Brown v. Board of Education was not about private discrimination in the housing market but about government discrimination. For another, the theory of "laws backed by threat of violence" is extremely tenuous here. Redlining occurred through mortgage discrimination, via the National Housing Act of 1934, where banks ended up denying mortgage capital to high-risk/strongly minority areas. Where is the violence in "we will not give federal mortgage insurance to houses in this neighborhood"? For a third, if anything, it is yzzxy who supports government-backed violence as a way to prevent further segregation. The only way I could understand your conclusion required an implicit acceptance of an incorrect definition - that 'housing segregation uses threats of force to live separately.' It seemed easier to first start with that wrong statement, as it would otherwise be impossible to address your other substantive points. Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless - quite odd from someone who asked "What does "systemic" mean?" on this very thread? If you really believe that definition arguments are meaningless, why do you get into them? You say you are "trying to understand", and yet reject as meaningless anything which might lead to a change in your understanding. How disingenuous. And yes, I'm using my own private definition that you can't respond to because I haven't told you what it means.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence. Yzzxy did refer to violent segregation: ""Seperate but equal" was abandoned by SCOTUS decades ago. Maybe it's time for you to catch up." The fact is that housing segregation in this era was enforced by threats of violence, aka "law". Same for banking regulations. Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless Providing definitions is important to clarify thinking. Thanks to you providing a definition, I know what concepts you refer to when you say "segregation". In contrast, I don't know what concept "systemic" refers to because of the lack of a definition. There is no point in me telling you your definition is wrong. If I convince you, all that will happen is you'll apply different mental labels to the same things. Your conclusions will remain the same, they'll just be phrased with different words. Further, all this argument over definitions has gotten us completely distracted from the actual point. The point is this: humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence consumption choices (housing, movies, etc). Is this a bad thing that should be prevented and/or condemned? The definition of segregation is completely irrelevant to the answer to this question.
  - pron 12y ago
    > The point is this: humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence consumption choices (housing, movies, etc). Is this a bad thing that should be prevented and/or condemned? No, see what you did there? While humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence their choices, there is a difference between those who can choose more and those who can choose less, and the discussion is about those who can can choose more restricting the mobility of those who can choose less. Those are facts -- they are not a matter of opinion or ideology, but the objective reality. It is you who decided that "tribalist feelings" are the cause of segregation, which is a nice hypothesis but a factually wrong one. What you have here isn't tribe A and tribe B, but a dominant tribe A and a weak tribe B, and power dynamics has a far stronger effect than in-group dynamics, as proven by history in this particular case and others like it. That there are several dynamics here concurrently does not mean that they're all equal in influence.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

You created a non-standard definition and used that to make your argument. Then you refuse to allow anyone to object to your basis of argument, and imply that any further corrections likely stem from a fallacy on my side. How bloody convenient for you. Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence. The original article even compared the violence of the Jim Crow South with "the Californian way [which] worked tacitly through housing, jobs and education policies. On top of racially restrictive covenants, realtors around the San Francisco Bay Area were engaged in a practice called blockbusting." This isn't violence. Restricted covenants have been unenforceable by the government since Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, so it's not like there's even any threat of government force to back up a covenant through the civil courts. The comment by enlightenedfool are personal, but don't reflect the law. It is illegal to discriminate based on national origin just like it's illegal to discriminate based on race. Both have been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1968/Fair Housing Act. Currently the only legally accepted threat of violence, for those who hold that government force is backed by a threat of violence, is against those who use discriminatory practices. In any case, enlightenedfool was not talking about violence either. ("And that's not because of violence.") Neither was yzzxy, who referred to the housing discrimination in Chicago, which were very similar to the non-violent way of California. For your statement to make sense means (I believe) that you inferred that yzzxy's reference to "separate but equal" was a statement that equated enlightenedfool's beliefs on "own kind" as identical to the specific government practices ruled illegal in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and that you believe laws are only possible via the threat of violence by the government, and therefore yzzxy must mean that enlightenedfool also want coercive violence. This is a stretch. It's much easier to believe that yzzxy uses it as a short-hand for the thinking behind the separate but equal doctrine rather than specific implementation points. For one, Brown v. Board of Education was not about private discrimination in the housing market but about government discrimination. For another, the theory of "laws backed by threat of violence" is extremely tenuous here. Redlining occurred through mortgage discrimination, via the National Housing Act of 1934, where banks ended up denying mortgage capital to high-risk/strongly minority areas. Where is the violence in "we will not give federal mortgage insurance to houses in this neighborhood"? For a third, if anything, it is yzzxy who supports government-backed violence as a way to prevent further segregation. The only way I could understand your conclusion required an implicit acceptance of an incorrect definition - that 'housing segregation uses threats of force to live separately.' It seemed easier to first start with that wrong statement, as it would otherwise be impossible to address your other substantive points. Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless - quite odd from someone who asked "What does "systemic" mean?" on this very thread? If you really believe that definition arguments are meaningless, why do you get into them? You say you are "trying to understand", and yet reject as meaningless anything which might lead to a change in your understanding. How disingenuous. And yes, I'm using my own private definition that you can't respond to because I haven't told you what it means.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence. Yzzxy did refer to violent segregation: ""Seperate but equal" was abandoned by SCOTUS decades ago. Maybe it's time for you to catch up." The fact is that housing segregation in this era was enforced by threats of violence, aka "law". Same for banking regulations. Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless Providing definitions is important to clarify thinking. Thanks to you providing a definition, I know what concepts you refer to when you say "segregation". In contrast, I don't know what concept "systemic" refers to because of the lack of a definition. There is no point in me telling you your definition is wrong. If I convince you, all that will happen is you'll apply different mental labels to the same things. Your conclusions will remain the same, they'll just be phrased with different words. Further, all this argument over definitions has gotten us completely distracted from the actual point. The point is this: humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence consumption choices (housing, movies, etc). Is this a bad thing that should be prevented and/or condemned? The definition of segregation is completely irrelevant to the answer to this question.
- pron 12y ago
  > The point is this: humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence consumption choices (housing, movies, etc). Is this a bad thing that should be prevented and/or condemned? No, see what you did there? While humans often allow tribalist feelings to influence their choices, there is a difference between those who can choose more and those who can choose less, and the discussion is about those who can can choose more restricting the mobility of those who can choose less. Those are facts -- they are not a matter of opinion or ideology, but the objective reality. It is you who decided that "tribalist feelings" are the cause of segregation, which is a nice hypothesis but a factually wrong one. What you have here isn't tribe A and tribe B, but a dominant tribe A and a weak tribe B, and power dynamics has a far stronger effect than in-group dynamics, as proven by history in this particular case and others like it. That there are several dynamics here concurrently does not mean that they're all equal in influence.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago