Author Topic: "Rules of Engagement," article on modern debate-me culture from The New Republic  (Read 8420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7383
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
This is where I started to wonder if you're an intelligent racist working to corrupt our community.

Clearly, you don't really deserve any response. But here we go...

I didn't expect Quez to deny racism is a thing, for example.

Where did I do that?

If you make such a public, specific statement or accusation like that, you absolutely owe it to substantiate it, or retract and apologize.

Since you are apparently not going to substantiate your slander, I can play this game too.

I really didn't expect brilligtove to deny the suffering of First Nations in Canada and Canadian society, both historically and contemporary.

Your denial of racism is blatant in this thread:

(click to show/hide)


None of this establishes that I am a racist, or that I deny that racism is a thing. You will have to point out the exact quotes that to your mind do so.

And my claim was never that the US does not have issues.

And can you clarify how I "corrupt" the community?

As for your claim that I'm slandering you...



Still, it isn't libel or slander if it is true.

This is in contrast to your actual libel - or at least lies - about what I have said. In the same thread about Canada you can find several specific quotes from me about the heinous shit Canada has done.

I'll check back in another week or two.

I'm not interested in semantics here. English is not my first language, and you understood very well what I meant. My English is still better than your Swedish. My Norwegian is probably better than your Norwegian...

Your ongoing insistence that race isn't a thing and that segregation doesn't happen anymore are evidence that my asking if you're racist is not libel. The defence against a claim of defamation (slander or libel) is that the statements were true.

The YouTube video is a jokey way I remember that slander is spoken and libel is written. I learned that from that scene and it still makes me smile.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline heyalison

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Clearly, you don't really deserve any response. But here we go...

Yeah, it's shocking how holding racist opinions and sharing racist talking points will make people suspect your motives when talking about race.

And maybe if this isn't your native tongue then hold back on the smugness and arrogance? Maybe the aggression, too? Apart from your dogwhistle racism it makes you sound like an asshole and a bit of a loser.

Odd how there are so many progressive, totally not racist/sexist men here who just happen to lose their shit if they're ever challenged by a woman or person of colour (or queer people or trans people, or anyone who isn't a white cis man).



Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4999
Your ongoing insistence that race isn't a thing

Science says it isn't a thing. Take your dispute to the scientists.

and that segregation doesn't happen anymore

A very uncharitable reading on your part. It was clear from the context that I referred to segregation in the American south up until the 1960s or so.

are evidence that my asking if you're racist is not libel.

Being mistaken about the two things you mentioned would not constitute racism.

The defence against a claim of defamation (slander or libel) is that the statements were true.

That race isn't a thing is a scientific fact. And I referred to segregation in a particular context, which is what we were talking about.

You should retract and apologize, but I doubt you will.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4999
Clearly, you don't really deserve any response. But here we go...

Yeah, it's shocking how holding racist opinions

Such as?

and sharing racist talking points

Such as?

will make people suspect your motives when talking about race.

I never talk about race. You and your ideological compatriots talk about race, skin color, etc, all the time. I never ever do that. I never make sweeping comments about entire demographics, like skin colors, "races", ethnic groups, religious groups, nationalities, etc.

And maybe if this isn't your native tongue then hold back on the smugness and arrogance? Maybe the aggression, too? Apart from your dogwhistle racism it makes you sound like an asshole and a bit of a loser.

Ad hominem.

Odd how there are so many progressive, totally not racist/sexist men here who just happen to lose their shit if they're ever challenged by a woman or person of colour (or queer people or trans people, or anyone who isn't a white cis man).

Well, again, I never refer to demographic factors like that. You do that, not me. Yet, in your world, I am the racist, and you are not. ::)
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4999
Philosophy is attacked by skeptics all the time for being "subjective" or "unproven." I'm not going to sit here and explain 3000 years of scholarship to you, just to get you to accept CA, or intersectional feminism, or any other basic concept, or why they are different from pseudoscience. For some reason, people seem to think they can become experts on these subjects by reading a couple articles. I read about astronomy all the time, does that make me an astrophysicist? Move over, NASA, I'll fix that rocket for you!

I have never made the claims that philosophy is subjective or unproven.

And you have not yet shown us the supposedly existing expert consensus about cultural appropriation, despite several requests.

We can look at a real consensus for you to chew on: The consensus among economists about the benefits of free trade. The consensus is strong, and very easy to find on the internet. For example:

Quote
4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree

None of the economists surveyed disagreed that the gains to freer trade are much larger than any costs. And only two economists even said that the answer is uncertain. In a space for additional comments, MIT's Richard Schmalensee declared "If that's not right, almost all of economics is wrong".

Economists have emphasized the benefits of free trade for a long time, reflecting the field's belief in the importance of specialization, comparative advantage, and gains from trade. Indeed, these results are similar to other surveys that show economists strongly supporting free trade.

...

Paul Krugman provides three reasons why intellectuals in particular resist the theory of comparative advantage that underpins free trade: 1) opposition to free trade is intellectually fashionable, 2) comparative advantage is hard to understand, and 3) they are averse to a fundamentally mathematical understanding of the world.

As is reflected in the comments by some of the panelists trade will create winners and losers, which may also explain some opposition to trade. But economists on the left and the right still struggle the understand the level of opposition to trade, and the rejection of the overall gains. Whatever their reasons for resisting, people should follow economists lead and embrace the fact that the gains from freer trade outweigh the costs.

Quote
Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade

If Congress were to take an exam in Economics 101, would it pass? We are about to find out.

...

Economists are famous for disagreeing with one another, and indeed, seminars in economics departments are known for their vociferous debate. But economists reach near unanimity on some topics, including international trade.

Quote
Why Economists Are Worried About International Trade

When President Trump imposed tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines, I was reminded of a line from George Orwell: “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

While Orwell’s comment was focused on military and political issues of the late 1930s, my subject is economics, and to most people in my field, the benefits of an unfettered system of world trade are obvious. Any good student of Econ 101 can explain the logic.

...

This argument was expanded by David Ricardo in the 19th century. Ricardo addressed the question: What if one nation does everything better than another? His answer was that trade depends on comparative advantage — how good a nation is at producing one thing relative to how good it is at producing another.

Ricardo used England and Portugal as an example. Even if Portugal was better than England at producing both wine and cloth, if Portugal had a larger advantage in wine production, Portugal should export wine and import cloth. Both nations would end up better off.

The same principle applies to people. Given his athletic prowess, Roger Federer may be able to mow his lawn faster than anyone else. But that does not mean he should mow his own lawn. The advantage he has playing tennis is far greater than he has mowing lawns. So, according to Ricardo (and common sense), Mr. Federer should hire a lawn service and spend more time on the court.

Do you accept the (very real) expert consensus on free trade?
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4999
Since Soldier of FORTRAN has blocked me for pm, maybe he can explain in public what he finds likable about a post of logical fallacies and personal attacks?
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16039
No problems with 'debate me culture' on this forum. No sir!

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9593
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Since Soldier of FORTRAN has blocked me for pm, maybe he can explain in public what he finds likable about a post of logical fallacies and personal attacks?

Cognitively, you're a little fucked up. And I've run out of patience given how much you rely on delusional superiority as a coping mechanism. 

(Hint: That coping mechanism is a problem which keeps you stuck)
If global warming is real then how come I just felt this chill down my spine?

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4999
No problems with 'debate me culture' on this forum. No sir!

Why post something on a (skeptic) forum and then demand that people don't discuss it? Seems a little odd to me. I would not have posted anymore in this thread, had brilligtove not made his post.

But whatever. If heyalison posts a new thread, I promise I will not post in it, unless it directly addresses me. Complete homogenization of views seems to be what you desire.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7383
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Your ongoing insistence that race isn't a thing

Science says it isn't a thing. Take your dispute to the scientists.

and that segregation doesn't happen anymore

A very uncharitable reading on your part. It was clear from the context that I referred to segregation in the American south up until the 1960s or so.

are evidence that my asking if you're racist is not libel.

Being mistaken about the two things you mentioned would not constitute racism.

The defence against a claim of defamation (slander or libel) is that the statements were true.

That race isn't a thing is a scientific fact. And I referred to segregation in a particular context, which is what we were talking about.

You should retract and apologize, but I doubt you will.

*Sigh*


I don't know why you even care. If race doesn't exist it doesn't matter if I call you racist. The concept has no meaning, right?

Oh! Unless race is a social construct with real, measurable effects, as has been stated many times in this and other threads. Your inability to comprehend this plants you in racist territory in the same way that Bachfiend's inability to comprehend language change plants him in transphobic territory.

At this point I don't know what else to say about your insistence that segregation stopped 50 years ago, despite ample, overwhelming, in-your-face, scientifically measured evidence to the contrary. Unless you can provide some alternative explanation, I'm forced to conclude that you've chosen a racist position and don't care about changing it in light of evidence. I'd really like there to be an alternative that means you're not holding a racist position. Is there one?
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4999
Oh! Unless race is a social construct with real, measurable effects

Of course I have never denied that. But that doesn't make it real beyond being a social construct, that in the US has changed over time, and in other places is different.

Your inability to comprehend this plants you in racist territory in the same way that Bachfiend's inability to comprehend language change plants him in transphobic territory.

Inability to understand anything would't plant anyone anywhere except inability to understand anything. I am not familiar of what you are referring to about bachfiend or any conflict you might have with him, so I won't comment on that one.

At this point I don't know what else to say about your insistence that segregation stopped 50 years ago, despite ample, overwhelming, in-your-face, scientifically measured evidence to the contrary. Unless you can provide some alternative explanation, I'm forced to conclude that you've chosen a racist position and don't care about changing it in light of evidence. I'd really like there to be an alternative that means you're not holding a racist position. Is there one?

Huh? Of course segregation exists. I was talking about institutionalized segregation in the US south in the 1960s, which I have repeatedly stated to you. It's your choice to ignore that, and stick to an uncharitable interpretation.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16039
Moderator Comment Speculation on the mental state of other users is not ok. Keep it civil.

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16039
Discussion is discussion.
PMing someone to demand an explanation for what posts they 'like' and then calling them out in public when they express that they do not want to talk to you, is the epitome of debatemebro culture.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6409
Racial archetypes are not evidenced in the science of genetics, and pointing that out does not indicate that one is a racist or in denial of racism.

Racism in the US is not the same as it was in the 18th Century, but that certainly doesn't mean that racism isn't a problem in the US anymore. If anything, racism has been on a sharp increase again in the last decade since the 2007-'08 presidential campaign season. It seems that having a black president has stirred up the previously underlying racism in the US, and staunch racists have once again become emboldened to speak their bigotry in public.

Offline random poet

  • That's bullshit!
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • On n'a jamais le temps, le temps nous a.
    • I have a LJ
And you have not yet shown us the supposedly existing expert consensus about cultural appropriation, despite several requests.
I have already stated that I don't have to show you shit. I don't owe you an education. This is not a debate. I don't care. Are you seriously this clueless? This is a thread about why refusing to debate is a good idea, and you are providing everyone with one of the most egregious examples yet.

You have successfully brow-beaten your way into winning an argument, even while being wrong on every level about the subject of said debate. This is how we know that debate is completely useless. Congratulations.
Aujourd'hui j'ai vu un facteur joyeux.