... is not because he's a dead, white male. It's because the SJWs don't want to be confronted with a different viewpoint.
This just dawned on me while doing something that I have forgotten which means this sentence is simply useless filler, like sawdust in sausages. You're welcome.
I had a Twitter exchange with a young androgyne yesterday, discussing systemic racism. I tried to keep it simple and suggested that he was too nice of a person to be racist. My logical statement was this:
Since large, black populations are governed by people like you - see: Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and Oakland - and since systems have no life without people running them, in order for me to believe that the citizens of those cities suffer under systemic racism, I'd have to believe that you are racist. I don't believe you are racist. I believe you're a nice person.
Now that may or may not be true, but at least it's a logical chain and its merits can be discussed. After a 10-round discussion, the best he could do was 8 ad hominems and the claim that current leaders aren't to blame for it because it had been going on for 400 years.
I didn't bother to point out that if current leaders couldn't redirect the system, then this whole movement was a waste of time. I had learned what I wanted to learn from the exchange, which was: He had never encountered this argument.
His replies were marked by horror and shock. He was embarrassed for me. I wasn't scholarly. I was inexperienced. I didn't understand this or that. At no point did he suggest a flaw in my logical chain. He was intensely irritated throughout the exchange. I kept it light and pleasant. In fact, my argument relied heavily on my warmth for him.
Could it be that it's difficult to debate Shakespeare and Kipling? Is that why they're being banned?
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
 |
| Cancel him all you want, the dude's work abides |
Bonus Question: In places where dead white dudes are banned, is Thomas Sowell being added to the reading list?
6 comments:
His replies were marked by horror and shock. He was embarrassed for me. I wasn't scholarly. I was inexperienced. I didn't understand this or that. At no point did he suggest a flaw in my logical chain.
He had likely not been introduced to logic.
I had to buy my logic class.
Which sucked, it would've made math class much easier.
http://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/column/2011/12/12/banned-books-awareness-william-shakespeare/#:~:text=The%20Complete%20Works%20of%20William,schools%20and%20libraries%20throughout%20history.&text=Family%20Shakespeare%20was%20published%20in,prose%20in%20the%20English%20language.
Banning Shakespeare is a centuries-old tradition. Is there a particular banning you are upset about?
As for the logical chain, since you deny the existence of habitual or unconscious racism, naturally a conversation with you on the topic would prove frustrating. It would be like debating evolutionary theory with a creationist.
...not actually that frustrating, I've had many fruitful debates with creationists on evolutionary theory.
It is especially easy since the same folks who insist on the theory of unconscious racism have redefined standard science-- that there are thing which cannot be concluded due to there being no evidence for or against them-- insisting that not ruling out the possibility of external influence is "creationism."
It's a lot more frustrating to have debates with people who think they love science, when in reality they wouldn't know the scientific method from a hole in the ground.
If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and judged by the same same standards; you would have been labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago, and a racist today.
Thomas Sowell
Since unconscious racism can be detected by how people act, both in tightly controlled experiments and in experiments done in the wild, only someone who refuses to acknowledge the concept would deny the scientific basis for it.
Although, I don't love science. It's interesting, and I accept the results of it for a variety of reasons, but my loves are my family, mathematics, and board games.
Thomas Sowell says exactly what some people like to hear, and uses fancy words to do so, and thus is considered a quotable source. However, any systemic look at, for a start, our criminal justice system would show that everyone is *not* judged by the same standards today. It's still pretty radical to claim we should make changes to to help that happen.
Post a Comment