Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all, care to take another wild stab?

Ah... so it's more that you would prefer them to rely on white expertise?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a remarkably racist post, IMHO.

You're strongly implying that if a white person has an idea to improve society they are dismissing everything from POC. Apparently you believe that white people are inherently immoral racists unless they agree with you.
Tom

I have no idea what post you think you're replying to, but it doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the one I wrote.

 

[columbus]

I have no idea what post you think you're replying to, but it doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the one I wrote.

I quoted it.
Oh well.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Ah... so it's more that you would prefer them to rely on white expertise?

Why do you insist on a racist interpretation of all this?
Why does everything have to a conflict between races?
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you insist on a racist interpretation of all this?

I don't.

 

[Tambourine]

There are many related sources, but one common originating influence is the idea of "intersectionality theory" (IT). IT can raise its head across many domains, and one of ITs ideas is that IT should supersede expertise in all of those domains.

As far as I know, intersectional theory has very little to do with the question of expertise.
Your response also does not address my question.

Whose expertise is being denied, and by whom?

 

[Tambourine]

Why do you insist on a racist interpretation of all this?
Why does everything have to a conflict between races?
Tom

Where do you see the racism?

 

[icehorse]

Ah... so it's more that you would prefer them to rely on white expertise?

Okay, that's infinity - 2 guesses, still wrong. Wanna take another whack at it?

 

[icehorse]

As far as I know, intersectional theory has very little to do with the question of expertise.
Your response also does not address my question.

Whose expertise is being denied, and by whom?

Well we might have to agree to disagree on this point. I see IT attacking expertise in many domains. The fact that you're not aware of it, isn't my problem. In other words, this feels like a LMGTFY request.

But here's a recent example. Not a perfect fit, but if you can zoom out a bit I hope you can see a pattern here:

Canceling Harvard's Steven Pinker Is Very Very Stupid | National Review

Open Letter to the LSA

 

[Tambourine]

Well we might have to agree to disagree on this point. I see IT attacking expertise in many domains.The fact that you're not aware of it, isn't my problem. In other words, this feels like a LMGTFY request.

I'm sorry, but communication can only happen as an exchange.

If you cannot name a single concrete example of what you want to discuss, and are seemingly only able to talk about it via oblique references that nobody but you understands, then I am going to question the utility of conducting this debate in the first place.

But here's a recent example. Not a perfect fit, but if you can zoom out a bit I hope you can see a pattern here:

Canceling Harvard's Steven Pinker Is Very Very Stupid | National Review

Open Letter to the LSA

So if people disagree with a scientist who is speaking outside his chosen field of research, they are denying his expertise?

Do you actually believe that we should uncritically trust the authority of people who are speaking on subjects outside their chosen fields of expertise?

 

[icehorse]

So if people disagree with a scientist who is speaking outside his chosen field of research, they are denying his expertise?

I have no problem with healthy disagreements, doh! But these folks are sanctimoniously calling to "cancel culture" him, to de-platform him.

As for expertise, the posts he's in trouble about were based on him doing basic, statistical research.

 

[Tambourine]

I have no problem with healthy disagreements, doh! But these folks are sanctimoniously calling to "cancel culture" him, to de-platform him.

And they have no power to actually follow through with any of this, because all of this is in the hands of the authorities at Havard, who, as far as I can tell, are not beholden to these "folks" in any shape or form.

As for expertise, the posts he's in trouble about were based on him doing basic, statistical research.

You mean, going off on statistics he's no expert in, on a topic he's had, to put it charitably, a passing familiarity with at best. Speaking publically as a scientist always carries greater weight than the average person's voice, due to the intrinsic authority we grant scientists in their chosen field, so I would argue that any scientist who is speaking publically ought to do so with responsibility.

 

[icehorse]

And they have no power to actually follow through with any of this, because all of this is in the hands of the authorities at Havard, who, as far as I can tell, are not beholden to these "folks" in any shape or form.

Missing the point. The folks calling to de-platform him should be ashamed to do so, whether or not they could make it happen. It's an anti-free-speech, sanctimonious action. And if they're not ashamed, we should shame them.

Instead, they should debate him, and let the best ideas win.

You mean, going off on statistics he's no expert in, on a topic he's had, to put it charitably, a passing familiarity with at best.

EVERY idea must be allowed to be scrutinized. full stop. He was merely questioning an earlier claim. Would it be your position that "some claims" made by "some people" are above questioning?

 

[Tambourine]

Missing the point. The folks calling to de-platform him should be ashamed to do so, whether or not they could make it happen. It's an anti-free-speech, sanctimonious action. And if they're not ashamed, we should shame them.

Instead, they should debate him, and let the best ideas win.

So this wasn't an issue about expertise to begin with?

EVERY idea must be allowed to be scrutinized. full stop. He was merely questioning an earlier claim. Would it be your position that "some claims" made by "some people" are above questioning?

It is factually true that not every forum is fit for every question and every debate. And it is factually true because we are debating in a forum that factually disallows certain topics and methods of debate. It follows from this factual truth, that even if every idea is to be scrutinized, it does not have to be scrutinized in every circumstance or every context, nor by every means available.

 

[icehorse]

So this wasn't an issue about expertise to begin with?

It's not any false dilemma you might put forth. (I was going to say "it's not black and white", but we're probably going to have to retire that phrase now.)

Of course it is about expertise. And expertise comes in degrees. I'd bet you $100 that Pinker's grasp of statistics could be said to be at an "expert" level, certainly it exceeds most protestors' grasp.

But the OP is about more than expertise. It's also about free speech. It's also about critical inquiry.

 

[icehorse]

So this wasn't an issue about expertise to begin with?

It is factually true that not every forum is fit for every question and every debate. And it is factually true because we are debating in a forum that factually disallows certain topics and methods of debate. It follows from this factual truth, that even if every idea is to be scrutinized, it does not have to be scrutinized in every circumstance or every context, nor by every means available.

The example I gave was "the public forum", in this case in the form of an "open letter".

(And I realize I'm misusing air quotes )

 

[Tambourine]

It's not any false dilemma you might put forth. (I was going to say "it's not black and white", but we're probably going to have to retire that phrase now.)

Of course it is about expertise. And expertise comes in degrees. I'd bet you $100 that Pinker's grasp of statistics could be said to be at an "expert" level, certainly it exceeds most protestors' grasp.

On what do you base this belief? What role did statistics play in his academic work? Do you really believe that there are no statistics majors among the thousands of BLM supporters, nobody who would be able to understand the numbers at the same level as an academic with no knowledge in how to properly read police statistics?

At any rate, what do you think entitles Pinker to not be called out or deplatformed?

 

[Tambourine]

The example I gave was "the public forum", in this case in the form of an "open letter".

(And I realize I'm misusing air quotes )

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this, sorry.

 

[icehorse]

On what do you base this belief? What role did statistics play in his academic work? Do you really believe that there are no statistics majors among the thousands of BLM supporters, nobody who would be able to understand the numbers at the same level as an academic with no knowledge in how to properly read police statistics?

At any rate, what do you think entitles Pinker to not be called out or deplatformed?

"called out" and "de-platformed" are two VERY different things.

Call him out all you want! Engage in a debate, disprove his thinking, that's ALL GOOD !

But de-platforming is very dangerous. It is often a tool of fascists and totalitarians, which seems largely to be the case with Pinker. And Pinker is just one of many such cases.

 

[dybmh]

I try to focus on ideas.

So, what ideas are out there that you like?

Assuming you had unlimited money to spend...

Focusing on the high incidence of unnecessary deadly force being used against brown and black people by white police officers; what would you do address this problem?