I hate it when white supremacists admire and respect black authors.
669 karma · joined August 20, 2014
Maybe he is. If that's the case, let's "steelman" his position and do better. Do you feel that Thomas Sowell would read your response and feel you grasped the argument he was making to the fullest extent? Do you feel you've honestly and accurately portrayed his position after understanding it fully?
In my opinion, you haven't. I think you're upset and its preventing you from understanding the argument being made.
> Sowell hasn't done economic research at all.
He has a wikipedia. Try your best to read it.
Advocating for critical thinking is not bad. You shouldn't tell children what to believe. You should give them the tools to determine their own beliefs.
> "What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice."
Are criticisms of social welfare limited to talk radio hosts?
> How is he nonconformist as far his views go?
He's nonconformist for the class he occupies. I.e. the "intellectual elite" (or however you want to refer to them).
Always the supporting actor. Never allowed to have ideas which inspire others to action. Just a tool for white people.
This is so ridiculously racist and uninformed I don't know where to begin.
First, it assumes Sowell hasn't made any unique contributions to economics or politics. This is completely false but you presume it because... he's black? If he were white would you take him more seriously?
Second, you presume the only reason he is allowed to speak is to justify the racism of others. Which reduces Sowell to a useful idiot or a token. It completely strips him of his accomplishments. Imagine saying that a former member of government, a PhD, award winning economist, author of more than a dozen best selling books, and fellow at more than a dozen prestigious institutions is only listened to because he's black.
Read his books and find out. You'll be supporting a black author if you do.
How does this follow? One faction burns a bible and another faction puts it out. How do you choose which narrative to privilege?
Is this true? When I was a kid my daycare was like 30 kids per teacher. It was called "Mother's Day Out". I can't remember the cost but judging by the amount of time I spent there it was basically free.
And I have to have some sympathy for people who live their entire internet lives is absolute obscurity only to have their worst moment (or maybe just their most misunderstood) be promoted to a "nationally televised" level post-hoc.
Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous? People aren't being canceled for having overt racist beliefs. They're being canceled for having polite (but political) disagreements.
The issue at play here is large-scale mob action. In the online space, it takes the form of bullying and cancel culture.
Terry Crews, for example, is in trouble for using the word "coon". But Terry Crews didn't call anyone a coon. He was called coon and made up an acronym that he felt could empower himself and others. Whether Terry's career is destroyed or not, the attempt to bully him out of the public eye is there and it sends a message.
> "Take what we give you."
> "You won't be given a charitable reading of anything you say."
> "Your beliefs will be stretched and twisted to the extreme."
> "And if they can't be then we'll attack you for what you didn't say."
"what’s wrong with our public education system [...] the most powerful force in our schools: White parents"
but, of course, im small. the relative harm to the extremist is small. they can find another place to spread their awful message. but what if i'm bigger? what if i have monopolized a large portion of political speech within a country? what if my platform is the primary communication channel for the president of the united states? do i then have an obligation to provide a platform to that speech?
what if myself and a few friends own such a significant share of the internet that we can effectively remove extremists from all online participation. they cant host a server. they cant register a domain. they cant use private messenger apps. they cant send or receive money.
to what degree can a person be ostracized from society for having an unpopular opinion.
i certainly don't agree with the views of the taliban. i certainly wouldn't want to be complicit in the hosting of those views. but i have to wonder, if "illegitimate" speech can be removed by a small minority of corporate leaders how long is it before "legitimate" speech is removed?
can a democratic society really exist where all opinions are filtered through a corporate elite? can "problematic" speech be allowed to exist so long as it doesn't call for violence? are calls to violence always evil?
the BLM protests have certainly made calls to violence. should the cause for racial equality be stopped because it offends or threatens a minority (or even a majority) of people? couldnt' the BLM protest be construed as "problematic" or "illegitimate" and removed from the civil discourse overnight?
im asking because i don't know what to do. there doesn't seem to be a clear path forward. there is no "public square" on the internet. its all private. but there's no one left in the "real" public square. the one in meat space. the "public square" has moved onto private property and there's no way to get it back.
> it denies that anything unfair is happening to people because of their skin color.
Like you did here. In my experience, an "all lives matter" activist is quite happy to both acknowledge racism and have a discussion on the nuance of racial treatment in the United States.
Where the two sides really differ is in their general view of America. Whether its optimistic or pessimistic. Whether its isolated or systematic. Whether its "racial" or "cultural".
To be blunt, its absurd to label a movement which has millions of adherents as a "racist dog whistle". Its either an overt, racist megaphone or just a difference in opinion.
I think its appropriate to advocate for gay students at these private schools. But I do question its significance to the economy, society, and public life relative to the university system. And constraining this problem to universities or silicon valley does it a disservice. This is becoming a general, corporate problem.
To enumerate a few:
1. Lack of participation in political events. "Silence is violence". Having a private opinion is suspicious.
2. Participating in activities which are a-political but have political consequences. For example, going to a church or a gun range isn't a political statement but it can be interpreted as one (with all the baggage that comes with it).
3. A lack of "tribal knowledge". Political tribes have their own set of facts and theories which influences their view of the world. Acknowledging facts from other tribes (political or not) can out you (either as an outsider or as non-committal).
4. And, of course, racial, social, or sexual characteristics can be used to make inferences about your beliefs. My sister, for example, was spit on at a protest at her university. Partially, because she didn't participate but also because she was a "white bitch". This was said by a (presumably) white woman. This happened three years ago.
It is a horror when a private political opinion can get you fired, de-platformed, and removed from society.
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he's "against others expressing their opinions".
Personally, I wouldn't read it but its no different (and maybe slightly more civil in its content) than the news I see in my Apple news feed from NBC or the Chicago Tribune.
You have no idea how significant of a limit that is... I'm kidding.
Thanks for the response! And zombodb looks very cool. I might bring it up since we have a couple of heavy analytics endpoints right now.
Science is a process not a body of knowledge. A scientist, outside of the scientific process, is just a hobbyist. An interested layman. I can't tell you how many "science-denial" stories start and end with "such and such said so and so in an interview -- this is wrong according to this research paper". And of course, the "science-denier" is correct. But the problem in this situation isn't science. Its the belief that doing science gives you credibility outside the narrow scope of the science you actually do. Even if the topics are related.
I know enough scientists to know they are human. They make mistakes. Science as a process helps correct that. Science as a belief system turns them into false prophets.
The belief in the "expert" needs to die. "Experts say [...]" is such a common refrain in American media its become a cliche. Experts can write a peer-reviewed paper under all the rigors of the scientific method and then they may summarize it for broader consumption. But to extend that ethos any further than the recitation of knowledge already produced is to do a disservice to science and the progress of humanity.
Well... aside from letting go of past injustices and instead focusing on some better future. Which isn't really a solution at all since it relies on the permanent good will of all future generations.
The situation is at the very least complex and will likely require a "morally impure" solution.
What acknowledgement would right the wrongs of history? What is the appropriate amount of reparations to be paid?