Author Topic: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."  (Read 5395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Beη

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
  • Resident density functional theorist
    • electron exchange
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #210 on: Mar 25, 2012, 11:21:02 PM »
"Soft science" is not meant to imply inferiority.  A science is usually considered "hard" if it has easily quantifiable variables and if its experiments can be easily controlled, resulting in strong conclusions.

so, it's not superior to be able to produce strong conclusions rather than merely perspectives/paradigms that may just be structurally bound rather than objectively reliable?

My point is that saying a science is "soft" is not a jab at those practicing the said science, it's simply a description of the methodologies.  Of course physics produces more objectively reliable results than cultural anthropology, but that doesn't mean that physicists are "superior" to cultural anthropologists.  It just so happens that it's much easier to make objective, quantifiable observations about an ideal gas in an isolated system than it is about ...whatever it is that cultural anthropologists study.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12162
  • Apteryx Pessimistus
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #211 on: Mar 26, 2012, 12:42:12 AM »
"Soft science" is not meant to imply inferiority.  A science is usually considered "hard" if it has easily quantifiable variables and if its experiments can be easily controlled, resulting in strong conclusions.

so, it's not superior to be able to produce strong conclusions rather than merely perspectives/paradigms that may just be structurally bound rather than objectively reliable?

My point is that saying a science is "soft" is not a jab at those practicing the said science, it's simply a description of the methodologies.  Of course physics produces more objectively reliable results than cultural anthropology, but that doesn't mean that physicists are "superior" to cultural anthropologists.  It just so happens that it's much easier to make objective, quantifiable observations about an ideal gas in an isolated system than it is about ...whatever it is that cultural anthropologists study.

I kind of agree with you. I mean, they have a value that physics doesn't, they're not less important sciences, they're just _potentially_ _in some areas_ less easily reliable. there's no societal equivalent of a microscope in which we can confirm some social equivalent of 'germ theory', etc. -- if it was able to be harder (like econometrics over economics?) that would make it superior to its softer origins...methodologically and culturally (the more reliable a conclusion, the more superior, surely, so the more reliable a field, the more superior it is to others ...the way psychology is superior to philosophy).
Quote from: La Rochefoucauld
If we had no faults we should not take so much pleasure in noting those of others.

Offline Citizen Skeptic

  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 21450
  • I LOVE the IRS
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #212 on: Mar 26, 2012, 01:06:01 AM »
I dislike hate speech but I dislike muzzled speech even more. I think it is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater. If any harm comes from it, you pay the consequences. If no harm comes from it, you probably should just be thrown out. Are we going to make it illegal for someone to call me hispanic? I hate it when people do that.

what does "harm comes from it" mean? (think of the heckler's veto; think of radical Muslim responses to newspaper comic strips. does the speaker get any blame for the violence that happened in response to their words in this scenario of 'paying for the consequences'?)

No harm comes from words (which also means thought), only actions. The problem with the muslim cartoons isn't the cartoonist. It's the loony muslims who went after him who should suffer the consequences. It's the same as if I trotted up to the local Hells Angels chapter and called them a bunch of Mongols.

I get very paranoid about controlling speech, pc speech, speech codes, and all that stuff. I'm OK with assholes in white sheets expressing their hate for people like me. In fact, I'd like to see them get more coverage, it's the best antidote/vacine for racism that I can think of for anyone who has two brain cells rubbing together and the tiniest bit of self esteem.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12162
  • Apteryx Pessimistus
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #213 on: Mar 26, 2012, 01:08:34 AM »
I dislike hate speech but I dislike muzzled speech even more. I think it is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater. If any harm comes from it, you pay the consequences. If no harm comes from it, you probably should just be thrown out. Are we going to make it illegal for someone to call me hispanic? I hate it when people do that.

what does "harm comes from it" mean? (think of the heckler's veto; think of radical Muslim responses to newspaper comic strips. does the speaker get any blame for the violence that happened in response to their words in this scenario of 'paying for the consequences'?)

No harm comes from words (which also means thought), only actions.

so, what, if anything, should we think ill of (or have tried to kill) Hitler for?
Quote from: La Rochefoucauld
If we had no faults we should not take so much pleasure in noting those of others.

Offline Tatyana

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2222
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #214 on: Mar 26, 2012, 03:49:42 AM »
As for my issue with the British Museum... come on. ... It has the Rosetta Stone in there as well and won't give that back to Egypt.

apparently they don't want to set a dangerous precedent. ...apparently the RS is but one in a string of their cultural crimes :P

Just so we keep things factual here, it was the French who initially 'stole' the Rosetta Stone, the Brits just stole it from the French.

This is one of my pet peeves when it comes to discussions about colonialism.

Why is it that the British are always perceived as the big baddies when all of the European nations were at it, and frankly, they were far more cruel and rarely put anything back into the country. At least the British did things like build railways and sewage systems.

I would have thought that Americans would be far more willing to look at the situation as a combination of both good and bad as their recent history as the modern colonialists and global police force is rife with situations where it isn't always crystal clear if invading and/or assisting countries with wars is such a good thing.

Colonialism, for the most part, was atrocious, however, due to the histories of the US and the Americas, I do think that the role of the British Empire is viewed in an odd way.

Jeebus Christ, it could have so easily been the French that you rail against as the big bad Imperialists. 

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12162
  • Apteryx Pessimistus
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #215 on: Mar 26, 2012, 04:10:52 AM »
This is one of my pet peeves when it comes to discussions about colonialism.

Why is it that the British are always perceived as the big baddies when all of the European nations were at it,


didn't know that was the perception.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/france-gives-back-maori-warrior-heads-4699164
Quote from: La Rochefoucauld
If we had no faults we should not take so much pleasure in noting those of others.

Offline stonesean

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5780
  • Dumb sailor on the Sea of Awesome
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #216 on: Mar 26, 2012, 05:26:59 AM »
This is one of my pet peeves when it comes to discussions about colonialism.

Why is it that the British are always perceived as the big baddies when all of the European nations were at it,


didn't know that was the perception.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/france-gives-back-maori-warrior-heads-4699164


My college educated wife and I just got back from Amsterdam, and she and I had no idea the extent of the Dutch Empire during the "golden age" until we visited a few museums......I'd bet this is not uncommon.
Well.  There it is.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • Jesus Christ HI PANDA U R HOT
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8661
  • Evilution's Worst Nightmare
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #217 on: Mar 26, 2012, 10:58:47 AM »
Why is it that the British are always perceived as the big baddies when all of the European nations were at it, and frankly, they were far more cruel and rarely put anything back into the country. At least the British did things like build railways and sewage systems.

I would have thought that Americans would be far more willing to look at the situation as a combination of both good and bad as their recent history as the modern colonialists and global police force is rife with situations where it isn't always crystal clear if invading and/or assisting countries with wars is such a good thing.

Colonialism, for the most part, was atrocious, however, due to the histories of the US and the Americas, I do think that the role of the British Empire is viewed in an odd way.

Jeebus Christ, it could have so easily been the French that you rail against as the big bad Imperialists.
The French helped us win the Revolutionary War so they get a pass!!!!

Okay, but seriously, the issue here is that *do* deal with our past on a daily basis. Unlike the European powers, our colonialism was all about actually making the country itself larger. As a result we have people living on soil which a couple hundred years ago belonged to someone else. Giving Seattle back to the local Native Americans is not feasible but at the same time we do take great care to deliver Native American artifacts back to the original holders when they are found (we do have, that being said, a lot of stuff on display in museums as well but by and large that is with consent).

I'm not saying that England doesn't do that, not in England at least (England's national archaeology is quite admirable), it's that they don't really do the equivalent with colonized or otherwise defeated nations. It'd be nice if they'd even acknowledge the reality that they stole the Elysian Marble and re-stole the Rosetta Stone (and speaking of "keeping good care" of the artifacts they own, anyone want to guess what its original color was? I'll give you a hint: not the color that it is now) but the British Museum instead has a panel which basically says "yeah, it's ours now and we're better at this than the Greeks so nyah".

As for England and Spain, we simply know more about what they did over here than France, the Netherlands, and Germany (who of course only got into colonization really late in the game due there not technically being a Germany until the 1870s). A large part of *that* is because the USA and Canada were founded by English people (well, Canada in the form of Quebec was French territory until the French and Indian War) and modern Mexico was colonized by the Spanish. I mean, that's our local history. FWIW the Spanish are considered far, far more harshly than the English are, and with good reason. Most people in the States are as ignorant of English action in India and China as we are of Dutch action in Africa.
"Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone." - Oscar Wilde

Quote from: Schlock Treatment, Episode 73
There is only one Johnny Slick, and he is a son of a [redacted].
Quote
You're really good at bad ideas.

Offline Ajzzz

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1010
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #218 on: Mar 26, 2012, 11:03:32 AM »
This is one of my pet peeves when it comes to discussions about colonialism.

Why is it that the British are always perceived as the big baddies when all of the European nations were at it, and frankly, they were far more cruel and rarely put anything back into the country. At least the British did things like build railways and sewage systems.

Britain had the largest empire and the other nations didn't speak English so places in their former empire tend to have people who speak other languages. I think the Belgians and the Germans were far worse, and the French were better, than the British. The criticism of the European powers is ridiculous, they're held up to a standard that others aren't held up to, people want nothing short of them to have been strictly benevolent. There's been many empires, plenty of them were not European, people don't seem to take into account that people did not need European help for cruelty and tyranny, they weren't exactly replacing wealthy functioning democracies (that can't be said for other empires >:D).

I'd like someone to show me the rightful owners of the Rosetta Stone and similar artefacts. A place, a land, does not own property.

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 28750
  • My homunculus uses shit logic.
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #219 on: Mar 26, 2012, 11:42:08 AM »
People are shit. If they have the power they will use it. Nobody can point fingers. Every group has been oppressed or oppressor somewhere in their past.
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline Citizen Skeptic

  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 21450
  • I LOVE the IRS
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #220 on: Mar 26, 2012, 11:45:12 AM »
I dislike hate speech but I dislike muzzled speech even more. I think it is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater. If any harm comes from it, you pay the consequences. If no harm comes from it, you probably should just be thrown out. Are we going to make it illegal for someone to call me hispanic? I hate it when people do that.

what does "harm comes from it" mean? (think of the heckler's veto; think of radical Muslim responses to newspaper comic strips. does the speaker get any blame for the violence that happened in response to their words in this scenario of 'paying for the consequences'?)

No harm comes from words (which also means thought), only actions.

so, what, if anything, should we think ill of (or have tried to kill) Hitler for?

Genocide?

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 28750
  • My homunculus uses shit logic.
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #221 on: Mar 26, 2012, 11:47:05 AM »
I dislike hate speech but I dislike muzzled speech even more. I think it is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater. If any harm comes from it, you pay the consequences. If no harm comes from it, you probably should just be thrown out. Are we going to make it illegal for someone to call me hispanic? I hate it when people do that.

what does "harm comes from it" mean? (think of the heckler's veto; think of radical Muslim responses to newspaper comic strips. does the speaker get any blame for the violence that happened in response to their words in this scenario of 'paying for the consequences'?)

No harm comes from words (which also means thought), only actions.

so, what, if anything, should we think ill of (or have tried to kill) Hitler for?

Genocide?

Poland
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline Johnny Slick

  • Jesus Christ HI PANDA U R HOT
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8661
  • Evilution's Worst Nightmare
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #222 on: Mar 26, 2012, 11:55:27 AM »
People are shit. If they have the power they will use it. Nobody can point fingers. Every group has been oppressed or oppressor somewhere in their past.
While I agree with 3 of those 4 sentences, #3 is incorrect for the exact reasons that 1, 2, and 4 are right. Because it is almost societal nature to keep other people down and create scapegoats, we should be vigilant in pointing this out wherever it occurs. Yes, absolutely the lesson that should be brought out of this is that no one is immune to this pattern of thinking. It's only by being aware of this that we can consciously work against it in the present and in the future.
"Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone." - Oscar Wilde

Quote from: Schlock Treatment, Episode 73
There is only one Johnny Slick, and he is a son of a [redacted].
Quote
You're really good at bad ideas.

Offline Citizen Skeptic

  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 21450
  • I LOVE the IRS
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #223 on: Mar 26, 2012, 12:47:30 PM »
I dislike hate speech but I dislike muzzled speech even more. I think it is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater. If any harm comes from it, you pay the consequences. If no harm comes from it, you probably should just be thrown out. Are we going to make it illegal for someone to call me hispanic? I hate it when people do that.

what does "harm comes from it" mean? (think of the heckler's veto; think of radical Muslim responses to newspaper comic strips. does the speaker get any blame for the violence that happened in response to their words in this scenario of 'paying for the consequences'?)

No harm comes from words (which also means thought), only actions.

so, what, if anything, should we think ill of (or have tried to kill) Hitler for?

Genocide?

Poland

OK, but to be fair, he did give us the Beetle and Autobahns.

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 28750
  • My homunculus uses shit logic.
Re: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."
« Reply #224 on: Mar 26, 2012, 04:20:53 PM »
I dislike hate speech but I dislike muzzled speech even more. I think it is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater. If any harm comes from it, you pay the consequences. If no harm comes from it, you probably should just be thrown out. Are we going to make it illegal for someone to call me hispanic? I hate it when people do that.

what does "harm comes from it" mean? (think of the heckler's veto; think of radical Muslim responses to newspaper comic strips. does the speaker get any blame for the violence that happened in response to their words in this scenario of 'paying for the consequences'?)

No harm comes from words (which also means thought), only actions.

so, what, if anything, should we think ill of (or have tried to kill) Hitler for?

Genocide?

Poland

OK, but to be fair, he did give us the Beetle and Autobahns.

Well, there ya go. No harm, no foul!
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll