tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post5226802759698162708..comments2024-03-21T03:55:51.565-07:00Comments on Omniorthogonal: Racist Lives Mattermtravenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-8504112801054474732018-06-04T16:09:54.661-07:002018-06-04T16:09:54.661-07:00@OP,
Dude, if you think "Against Murderism&q...@OP,<br /><br />Dude, if you think "Against Murderism" was about defending racism then your reading comprehension is terrible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-43028100393010183672017-08-13T09:52:01.900-07:002017-08-13T09:52:01.900-07:00"Maybe you are right and the epistemological ..."Maybe you are right and the epistemological gulf between me and SSC/rationalism is unbridgeable."<br /><br />I think it is.Dainhttp://dryhyphenolympics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-56480261296827005982017-08-12T09:04:57.624-07:002017-08-12T09:04:57.624-07:00I knew it reminded me of someone<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/samadlerbell/status/884791493982072836" rel="nofollow">I knew it reminded me of someone</a>mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-55822156221157007952017-08-09T20:36:42.452-07:002017-08-09T20:36:42.452-07:00Well, if Scott and the gang really believe somethi...Well, if Scott and the gang really believe something that stupid than I probably don't actually want to engage with them. Structural racism is not a theory but an easily observable fact, although exactly how it works and what its consequences are are all open questions. The article I linked goes into some detail about one quantifiable aspect of it; the dollar amounts might assuage whatever ridiculous aspie rule you have about what counts as facts and what doesn't.<br /><br />Maybe you are right and the epistemological gulf between me and SSC/rationalism is unbridgeable. That would be too bad, I certainly would like to engage, but I will still feel free to write posts like this because their real purpose for me is to try to clarify this gulf and understand and articulate my own positions. mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-1315806338448816452017-08-09T19:40:56.780-07:002017-08-09T19:40:56.780-07:00> The reality of structural racism is not reall...> The reality of structural racism is not really controversial; the only reason I can see to call it "voodoo"<br /><br />It seems clear you sincerely want to engage with Scott. Whatever you think of structural racism, you should know in that blog such theories are considered unfalsifiable and that what's unfalsifiable is not accepted. Not because Scott is an hyperindividualist, simply because of methodological problems.<br />Commenting on Scott's post and seemingly being unaware of that seems... Wrong on a literary/Kuhnian sense. Like reading a Gospel without knowing about the Old Testament. I mean absolutely no offense, and the community has its own jargon sometimes, but I do mean that confusion will result.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04485097839438234853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-51897634541050891442017-07-22T12:35:28.663-07:002017-07-22T12:35:28.663-07:00And just what is "real, actual racism" a...And just what is "real, actual racism" according to you?<br /><br />The reality of structural racism is not really controversial; the only reason I can see to call it "voodoo" is if you are a prisoner of some kind of hyperindividualist ideology. I don't find such POVs interesting. If you sincerely don't understand how it works <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/" rel="nofollow">you can start here</a>.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-37205549325450486042017-07-22T11:23:37.349-07:002017-07-22T11:23:37.349-07:00"Pretty much anyone who thinks about racism s..."Pretty much anyone who thinks about racism seriously recognizes that it is a structural problem of society that goes way deeper than the irrational hatreds of individuals."<br /><br />Actually, no. Trying to parse out just where real, actual racism is at work - as opposed to some other less nefarious and often perfectly anodyne dynamic - is what Scott is trying to do. And so far it undermines the unfalsifiable voodoo that is "structural racism."Dainhttp://dryhyphenolympics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-63183404046640985432017-07-21T14:57:07.786-07:002017-07-21T14:57:07.786-07:00"However in order to fight it, we have to get..."However in order to fight it, we have to get past the notion that racism is caused by irrational hatred" -- if that's what he's saying, I agree, but I don't think it's a very incisive point. Pretty much anyone who thinks about racism seriously recognizes that it is a structural problem of society that goes way deeper than the irrational hatreds of individuals.<br /><br />He may be saying, it's bad to label racists as bad evil people, because they aren't that evil, they are just expressing these deep social forces. On that too I at least partially agree, the way we talk about and try to combat racism doesn't work very well. However, I don't have any better ideas, and making racism socially toxic, which seems to be the current more or less successful strategy, seems like an improvement on the previous status quo.<br /><br />mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-17834469367851950472017-07-18T22:47:17.793-07:002017-07-18T22:47:17.793-07:00I read him a bit differently from the other readin...I read him a bit differently from the other readings here. I don’t think he’s saying that racism is just another point of view that should be respected, nor do I think he’s saying that lots of times people incorrectly assess others as being racists, and they should be more careful. <br /><br />I read him as saying that racism exists, and it is bad, and it should be fought. However in order to fight it, we have to get past the notion that racism is caused by irrational hatred. Almost all of the time it is not, but rather caused by incorrect beliefs, actions based on incomplete information, and other things that are not irrational hatred. This doesn’t lessen the injustice or oppression of racism to those on its receiving end, but it does suggest different, and more liberal, ways of fighting racism than would be used to fight people who are driven by blind irrational hatred.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-1676323181904720712017-07-10T23:51:22.828-07:002017-07-10T23:51:22.828-07:00It's all based on feeling (as is the original ...It's all based on feeling (as is the original SSC piece), we aren't exactly doing abstract mathematics here. Accusations of "the genetic fallacy" only apply to decontextualized facts, there are none of those in the neighborhood. <br /><br />Privilege does not mean that white guys are automatically wrong. It means that circumstances matter, and if you are lucky enough to have relatively privileged circumstances you have a moral and intellectual responsibility to make an extra effort to take the viewpoints of the less privileged into account. (You may disagree that this obligation exists -- certainly it is not universally observed, but it is central to the ethos of a democratic and egalitarian society). I am a white guy but I try and think about how a black guy might react to the idea that being mean to racists is a bigger problem than racism. (I'm also a Jewish guy whose parents fled Nazi Europe so sensitive to the fact that privilege can be temporary),<br /><br />I don't mean to pick on Scott, whose writing I admire. But in many contexts, he seems to be bending over backwards to be fair and ethical. But he seems to bend more readily for some things than others. mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-3963581688425598582017-07-10T11:23:08.670-07:002017-07-10T11:23:08.670-07:00All in all it sounds like you don't have a ver...All in all it sounds like you don't have a very compelling argument, apart from how it just FEELS wrong, what he's saying. And what's this about privilege? You're a white guy, right? Is your point of view likewise a manifestation of privilege? Sounds like the genetic fallacy in action.<br /><br />Dainhttp://dryhyphenolympics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-7817613841100607552017-07-09T10:12:33.291-07:002017-07-09T10:12:33.291-07:00Stumbled on another SSC post from 3 years ago in t...Stumbled on <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/" rel="nofollow">another SSC post from 3 years ago</a> in the same vein, and my reactions were about the same mix of:<br />- very well written and argued<br />- he's brave for jumping into this potentially toxic area<br />- it also reeks of privilege <br />- he's right that the discourse around race and racism and "racism" is broken in various ways. <br />- he wants the underlying power struggles between groups and ideologies to please go away<br /><br />It's the latter point that interests me most, probably because it is the most abstract. <br /><br /><br />mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-81050208513807121782017-07-03T11:53:20.329-07:002017-07-03T11:53:20.329-07:00"Or if you can't and liberalism is dead, ..."Or if you can't and liberalism is dead, what's the way forward?"<br /><br />This question is vital. On my most cynical days I believe you just HAVE to pick a side in the culture war and that above-it-all liberalism really is dead. It's like answering the question "Should gays be allowed to marry?" by saying "How about just get the government out of it." Since that's a non-option, you end up unofficially on the side of whatever the status quo is. If free speech absolutism and rule of law is dead, you may as well as root for the team - crudely identified as they are - you think has the best societal outcome in mind. Forget means, go for ends?Dainhttp://dryhyphenolympics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-41730170685616146132017-07-01T17:18:37.204-07:002017-07-01T17:18:37.204-07:00I read him as saying that in fact people are often...<i>I read him as saying that in fact people are often INCORRECT in their assessment that someone is racist, and that the quest to uncover it is turning up a lot of false positives and contributing to counterproductive rhetoric and attitudes. He attempted to establish something like a checklist for discerning real racism from fake.</i><br /><br />That՚s not how I read him (although maybe I will go take another look). He՚s saying that racism is used to mean a bunch of very different phenomenon and we shouldn՚t tar the ones that stem from basically innocent motives with the sins of those that are based on hatred. So there isn՚t a simple correct/incorrect about it as you have it. <br /><br />To that extent I agree with him. <br /><br />Where I disagree with him is in his epistemological stance – roughly, that racism is just another belief system, and liberalism requires that we let all belief systems have their say. And that liberalism is so important – because it՚s an amazing cognitive and political tool – that preserving its standards is more important than, say, shielding victims of racism from having their feelings hurt. We can՚t treat racism any differently than we treat any other questionable set of ideas, like Mormonism or Scientology or flat-earthism. <br /><br />I՚m kind of steelmanning his ideas, or trying my best to. So all of the above sounds very plausible. But I don՚t buy it, for two reasons: (1) I don՚t think thats how liberalism works and (2) it leads, despite all of Scott՚s brilliance, to the really dumb position of desperately wanting to avoid a civil war that is already underway.<br /><br /><i>I get the sense that what you're bothered by is that in a world of finite resources and mental energy, to even take up a task such as that is a wrongheaded and perhaps a little morally suspect.</i><br /><br />I am not sure exactly why I am so bothered, to be honest. Scott՚s stance on racism may or may not be morally suspect but why is that any of my business? It՚s the more abstract issues that interest me: how do you maintain something like liberalism in the face of illiberal threats? Or if you can't and liberalism is dead, what's the way forward? mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-82117214112439205742017-06-26T16:59:28.301-07:002017-06-26T16:59:28.301-07:00"All of the above is valid and well-reasoned ..."All of the above is valid and well-reasoned and supported. Nevertheless, it has the glaringly obvious property that it is far more worried about people being mean to racists than it is about racism itself."<br /><br />I read him as saying that in fact people are often INCORRECT in their assessment that someone is racist, and that the quest to uncover it is turning up a lot of false positives and contributing to counterproductive rhetoric and attitudes. He attempted to establish something like a checklist for discerning real racism from fake. Seems a legit and valuable endeavor.<br /><br />I get the sense that what you're bothered by is that in a world of finite resources and mental energy, to even take up a task such as that is a wrongheaded and perhaps a little morally suspect. Dainhttp://dryhyphenolympics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-9778068054436014072017-06-25T22:04:23.892-07:002017-06-25T22:04:23.892-07:00Because in practice, there are no innocuous tribal...Because in practice, there are no innocuous tribalists who just want to hang out with their own kind. Or if they are, they don't bother me. The two anti-liberal forces I mentioned (Nazis and slavers) are notorious for not leaving other groups alone, and every movement for an ethnically pure homeland ends up in war crimes.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-45894387174373854032017-06-24T23:05:31.651-07:002017-06-24T23:05:31.651-07:00I don't consider myself a racist in the typica...I don't consider myself a racist in the typical sense, but I am somewhat of a segregationist (not for the way it worked in the US 100 years ago, but mostly on the level of nation states), for the simple reason that a good chunk of the population would be happier this way, roughly speaking. I think forcing "diversity" on them would do more harm than forcing homogeneity would do to the pro-diversity crowd.<br /><br />Some kind of tribalism is inevitable and if people want ethnic/racial tribalism, let them have it. As long as it's done in a humane way (no persecution, no Nazis, mostly just immigration policies) why does it bother you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com