2 ms·

Biologists don't make claims like "because X is a species, P is true of X" or "because Z is not a species, P is false of Z". The term "species" is not involved

Biologists don't make claims like "because X is a species, P is true of X" or "because Z is not a species, P is false of Z". The term "species" is not involved in any predictions. In contrast, consider "structural". Structural and non-structural oppression is treated differently. For example: http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement-rebel-alliance-empire http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement... I'm also not sure what facts you feel we are debating, or why you feel I "pushed back". I don't even know which facts lsiebert is attempting to assert, which is why I asked. And the analogy you make to physics or other technical topics is a bit silly. Consider alternate technical topics which have critics - consider HFT. Go read kasey_junk or tptacek's comments on the topic - they don't don't appeal to unstated authorities, refuse to define their terms and attack anyone who asks questions. Strangely, they tend to be far more precise than the critics.

pron 12y ago
Fajitas, I'm sorry but you're behaving just like an evolution denialist. You ask something, you get an answer, you want more details (obviously, because there's a limit to what can be said here), you get referred to studies and books, which you don't read, and it's back to square one. You call this "appeal to authority", but it's nothing than an appeal to science. I am really sorry about your frustration -- you can go on believing what you like, but know that your beliefs are in opposition to thousands and thousands of studies conducted in the past 40 years or so in many countries. Nerd discrimination makes sense to you? Great, go study it in earnest. You know what, if you publish a serious paper citing, say 20 of the top 200 papers done on racial and sexual discrimination, comparing them to anti-nerd sentiments, I will be an enthusiastic supporter of your findings. In fact, I'll be especially interested in the section on nerd disenfranchisement. But the thing is, that some people spend their careers studying these things. They are called experts, but if you don't like the "appeal to authority" just look at their findings! But of course, you won't, because you're one of those people who keep saying "we haven't found the missing links" over and over, even though the fossil record is right in front of them. Now HFT is a much, much, much simpler topic than racial marginalization in the United States. And trust me, the evidence on the nature of racism and sexism is a lot more convincing than tptacek opinions on HFT. Like an evolution denier, you just insist on not looking at the facts, going over your mantras again and again. EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered how when I succumbed to your pleas for education and gave you the actual definition of sexism -- a new word invented by feminists in the 60s -- you still insisted that the people who invented the term use it wrong! EDIT2: BTW, you and the writer of that infamous comment about nerd privilege both seem to think that what we're discussing is a lot less objective, and more subjective than it actually is. For example, you confuse misogyny (which is subjective and carries judgement) with sexism (which is simply an objective description of the state of affairs). Scott Aaronson confuses suffering (which is subjective) with disenfranchisement which is objective. Because you resent what you perceive as judgment (which may, indeed, be there) you try as hard as you can to misunderstand what is being said, which is no more than fact.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  You call it an appeal to science, but science isn't about definitions. It's about predictions and matching them to evidence. Unfortunately, we never get that far in this discussion because you want to argue about what words to use (and now throw ad hominems at me) rather than the real world. And trust me, the evidence... Not citing evidence and merely disputing definitions does not inspire trust.
  - pron 12y ago
    Cite evidence? We're not talking about anything contentious, but a consistent body of research that has been accumulating for decades! Type "racial discrimination US" or "racial marginalization US" into Google Scholar and you'll get tens of thousands of papers with more evidence than you can read in a year. If you only dedicate a single weekend of your life into researching this, you'll see why what you said is exactly like that woman who told Richard Dawkins on TV, "but where are the fossils?" over and over, while he kept saying "but they're right there in the museum, why won't you go see them?", and she kept saying, "you don't have the fossils". Well, there's tons and tons and tons of evidence, right there on Google Scholar. And I throw ad hominems because you keep saying "I just want to understand", when clearly you have no desire to do that.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      Evidence about what? What idea a poster intends to express when he uses a particular word? Could you clearly state what positive claims you think I'm "denying"? Or is asking what you are talking about also somehow equivalent to creationism?
      - pron 12y ago
        > Could you clearly state what positive claims you think I'm "denying"? That racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation and marginalization of black people, and that that racism is systemic, i.e. cultural as well as bureaucratic (and so not directly related to personal xenophobia).

pron 12y ago

Fajitas, I'm sorry but you're behaving just like an evolution denialist. You ask something, you get an answer, you want more details (obviously, because there's a limit to what can be said here), you get referred to studies and books, which you don't read, and it's back to square one. You call this "appeal to authority", but it's nothing than an appeal to science. I am really sorry about your frustration -- you can go on believing what you like, but know that your beliefs are in opposition to thousands and thousands of studies conducted in the past 40 years or so in many countries. Nerd discrimination makes sense to you? Great, go study it in earnest. You know what, if you publish a serious paper citing, say 20 of the top 200 papers done on racial and sexual discrimination, comparing them to anti-nerd sentiments, I will be an enthusiastic supporter of your findings. In fact, I'll be especially interested in the section on nerd disenfranchisement. But the thing is, that some people spend their careers studying these things. They are called experts, but if you don't like the "appeal to authority" just look at their findings! But of course, you won't, because you're one of those people who keep saying "we haven't found the missing links" over and over, even though the fossil record is right in front of them. Now HFT is a much, much, much simpler topic than racial marginalization in the United States. And trust me, the evidence on the nature of racism and sexism is a lot more convincing than tptacek opinions on HFT. Like an evolution denier, you just insist on not looking at the facts, going over your mantras again and again. EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered how when I succumbed to your pleas for education and gave you the actual definition of sexism -- a new word invented by feminists in the 60s -- you still insisted that the people who invented the term use it wrong! EDIT2: BTW, you and the writer of that infamous comment about nerd privilege both seem to think that what we're discussing is a lot less objective, and more subjective than it actually is. For example, you confuse misogyny (which is subjective and carries judgement) with sexism (which is simply an objective description of the state of affairs). Scott Aaronson confuses suffering (which is subjective) with disenfranchisement which is objective. Because you resent what you perceive as judgment (which may, indeed, be there) you try as hard as you can to misunderstand what is being said, which is no more than fact.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
You call it an appeal to science, but science isn't about definitions. It's about predictions and matching them to evidence. Unfortunately, we never get that far in this discussion because you want to argue about what words to use (and now throw ad hominems at me) rather than the real world. And trust me, the evidence... Not citing evidence and merely disputing definitions does not inspire trust.
- pron 12y ago
  Cite evidence? We're not talking about anything contentious, but a consistent body of research that has been accumulating for decades! Type "racial discrimination US" or "racial marginalization US" into Google Scholar and you'll get tens of thousands of papers with more evidence than you can read in a year. If you only dedicate a single weekend of your life into researching this, you'll see why what you said is exactly like that woman who told Richard Dawkins on TV, "but where are the fossils?" over and over, while he kept saying "but they're right there in the museum, why won't you go see them?", and she kept saying, "you don't have the fossils". Well, there's tons and tons and tons of evidence, right there on Google Scholar. And I throw ad hominems because you keep saying "I just want to understand", when clearly you have no desire to do that.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Evidence about what? What idea a poster intends to express when he uses a particular word? Could you clearly state what positive claims you think I'm "denying"? Or is asking what you are talking about also somehow equivalent to creationism?
    - pron 12y ago
      > Could you clearly state what positive claims you think I'm "denying"? That racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation and marginalization of black people, and that that racism is systemic, i.e. cultural as well as bureaucratic (and so not directly related to personal xenophobia).