2 ms·

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 ca

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
First, I'm not debating definitions. But when a topic is discussed, like racism, if your definition is different from that intended in the article, then whatever you say is off-point. Second, my definition of racism might be different from common usage, but so is that of spin or color in QM (as is that for energy), and I'm not going to start a debate on the use of the word color, when discussing a QM paper. What matters here isn't the common usage, but usage by the people quoted in the article. They use the definition(s) common in academic circles, or among those who study or care about the issue. Reading the introduction for the Wikipedia article on racism should suffice to at least know what kinds of definitions are commonly used in academia. And, in fact, the dictionary definition is much closer to the usage in academia than to your tribalism. And that segregation in the US is a result of racism is, indeed, a near tautology, yet you were saying it's a result of tribalism, which is simply factually wrong. As to Less Wrong, that blog and the people behind it are the subjects of a recent, brilliant Harper's article which I'll be happy to email you, if you want.

pron 12y ago

First, I'm not debating definitions. But when a topic is discussed, like racism, if your definition is different from that intended in the article, then whatever you say is off-point. Second, my definition of racism might be different from common usage, but so is that of spin or color in QM (as is that for energy), and I'm not going to start a debate on the use of the word color, when discussing a QM paper. What matters here isn't the common usage, but usage by the people quoted in the article. They use the definition(s) common in academic circles, or among those who study or care about the issue. Reading the introduction for the Wikipedia article on racism should suffice to at least know what kinds of definitions are commonly used in academia. And, in fact, the dictionary definition is much closer to the usage in academia than to your tribalism. And that segregation in the US is a result of racism is, indeed, a near tautology, yet you were saying it's a result of tribalism, which is simply factually wrong. As to Less Wrong, that blog and the people behind it are the subjects of a recent, brilliant Harper's article which I'll be happy to email you, if you want.