3 ms·

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 f

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).
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      Let me get this straight. Elsewhere in this thread I discuss consumption choices based on tribalist feelings, including in housing, being a major contributor to segregation (using the word the way you and dalke use it at this point). Further, I compare it to tribally informed consumption choices of extremely non-xenophobic people, such as my girlfriend's consumption of African American comedy. Then somehow you conclude that I don't think racism/tribalism is the primary cause of segregation/separation? Or that I don't think it's cultural rather than bureaucratic, and not directly related to personal xenophobia? Um, ok. Clearly I'm just a big racist nerd and you have excellent reading comprehension skills. And you are right that I definitely did bring up the topic of causes of marginalization in the auras and penumbras of my comments.
      - pron 12y ago
        Racism is not tribalism. Tribalism is in-group loyalty. Racism is a property of a society where some races are largely absent from positions of power. If black people like Bugs Bunny and white people like Daffy Duck, that's not racism. If blacks are underrepresented in tech, politics and CEO positions -- that's racism. If blacks and whites live in different neighborhoods then that's not racism. If blacks live in neighborhoods where college attendance and average income are lower -- that's racism. Once you understand that power is the central component in what constitutes racism and sexism, we can move this discussion forward. You see, if you asked something like, "well, teenaged nerds are in fewer romantic relationships, which are a source of social status and hence power, isn't that like racism", then at least you'll be in the ballpark. But as long as power is missing from your discussion of what you think racism (or sexism) is, then you're missing the issue altogether.
        yummyfajitas 12y ago
        By the definition you espoused in the other thread (which is different from the dictionary and common usage), the claim that "racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation" is a near tautology. I have literally no idea why you would believe I deny a tautology, particularly given that I haven't even discussed it in this thread. Why do you deny my claim that water is wet? Seriously dude - get a grip. Read the post before dropping a gigantic wall of text on an unrelated tangent. And please read an article by uncited experts showing that disputing definitions is pointless. Just kidding, here it is: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

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).
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Let me get this straight. Elsewhere in this thread I discuss consumption choices based on tribalist feelings, including in housing, being a major contributor to segregation (using the word the way you and dalke use it at this point). Further, I compare it to tribally informed consumption choices of extremely non-xenophobic people, such as my girlfriend's consumption of African American comedy. Then somehow you conclude that I don't think racism/tribalism is the primary cause of segregation/separation? Or that I don't think it's cultural rather than bureaucratic, and not directly related to personal xenophobia? Um, ok. Clearly I'm just a big racist nerd and you have excellent reading comprehension skills. And you are right that I definitely did bring up the topic of causes of marginalization in the auras and penumbras of my comments.
    - pron 12y ago
      Racism is not tribalism. Tribalism is in-group loyalty. Racism is a property of a society where some races are largely absent from positions of power. If black people like Bugs Bunny and white people like Daffy Duck, that's not racism. If blacks are underrepresented in tech, politics and CEO positions -- that's racism. If blacks and whites live in different neighborhoods then that's not racism. If blacks live in neighborhoods where college attendance and average income are lower -- that's racism. Once you understand that power is the central component in what constitutes racism and sexism, we can move this discussion forward. You see, if you asked something like, "well, teenaged nerds are in fewer romantic relationships, which are a source of social status and hence power, isn't that like racism", then at least you'll be in the ballpark. But as long as power is missing from your discussion of what you think racism (or sexism) is, then you're missing the issue altogether.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        By the definition you espoused in the other thread (which is different from the dictionary and common usage), the claim that "racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation" is a near tautology. I have literally no idea why you would believe I deny a tautology, particularly given that I haven't even discussed it in this thread. Why do you deny my claim that water is wet? Seriously dude - get a grip. Read the post before dropping a gigantic wall of text on an unrelated tangent. And please read an article by uncited experts showing that disputing definitions is pointless. Just kidding, here it is: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/