So Saying That "All Lives Matter" Is Derogatory?

[rogue06]

I can read them. It appears from the letter that Rohini's real crime is not abjectly apologizing for what she posted (it references actions and statements done after the posting).

She really had done nothing requiring an apology.

[Sparko]

here is a link to a better version and the complete article: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/...facebook-post/

also apparently it was in response to a tweet saying only black lives matter.

TTUBSA-Tweet.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

She really had done nothing requiring an apology.

I agree.

[seer]

Rohini Sethi, the vice president of the Student Government Association at the University of Houston, has been given a 50 day suspension from the Student Government Association and required to attend a diversity workshop as well as attend three cultural events per month, plus write a "reflection letter" and give a public presentation at a Student Government Association meeting after completing her sentence.

Her offense?

Posting "Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like #AllLivesMatter" on Facebook (since deleted).

More evidence that the left are the cultural jack boots of the age. Anti-liberal control freaks.

[Psychic Missile]

You must be typing to yourself, PM. This is exactly what you're doing -- I've actually posted backup.

Point to even one reply in this thread where you directed any contrary evidence to me at all. Meanwhile, you asked me to provide proof of my claim and I did in reply #43, and you haven't responded with anything since.

[Psychic Missile]

Are you saying that no evidence can prove or disprove the existence (or degree of) 'systemic racism'?

You didn't read what I wrote. I said "No single statistic would all of a sudden show any type of [systemic racism or sexism] to be true or false."

Sounds like a made-up stick for bashing those who disagree with you.

How so?

[Psychic Missile]

That's consistent with what I said. So disproportionate deaths does not imply systemic racism. What are you arguing about then?

That black people are shot disproportionately from white people because of systemic racism. The evidence for that conclusion doesn't solely come from the fact that black people are shot disproportionately from white people. It comes from a body of evidence that includes that fact. If you are familiar with scientific theories, this should not be difficult to grasp.

[seer]

That black people are shot disproportionately from white people because of systemic racism.

No, blacks are shot disproportionately because their rates of violent crime are disproportionately higher than for whites.

[Joel]

That black people are shot disproportionately from white people because of systemic racism. The evidence for that conclusion doesn't solely come from the fact that black people are shot disproportionately from white people. It comes from a body of evidence that includes that fact. If you are familiar with scientific theories, this should not be difficult to grasp.

As seen earlier in this thread, there are other possible interpretations of the statistic (e.g. Seer's post just above). So it seems that what you are doing is starting with the assumption of systemic racism (which may be based on other evidence), then reading that into this statistic so as to interpret it as an instance of systemic racism, and then adding it to your total body of evidence for systemic racism against black people. And that seems circular.


It is an easy kind of trap to fall into. For an example that will hopefully be non-controversial in this forum, I was reading a historian who was talking about a theory popular among historians that love of the ancient Greek and Roman classics in the U.S. 1800s was an aristocratic phenomenon. The problem is that historians would, because of the theory, classify any historical figure/writing praising the classics as an aristocrat, and include that in the body of evidence for the theory. The result is an apparently overwhelming body of evidence, but obtained by circular reasoning. (This historian's book was making the case that the theory is false--that the love of the classics was a widespread popular phenomenon.)

There can also be a catch-22, where no data speaks for itself, and can only be interpreted in light of some theory. But then none of it can then be used as evidence for any such theory. I think this occurs often in the social sciences.

[Joel]

I think the thing that bothers me about BLM is that, as has been explained in this thead, BLM is not about exclusivity but about equality. But is the ideal equality of murder or zero murder?

[MaxVel]

You didn't read what I wrote. I said "No single statistic would all of a sudden show any type of [systemic racism or sexism] to be true or false."

I did read it, I just wanted explicit clarification.

How so?

I think Joel has explained it far better than I could, but basically it looks like an interpretative frame through which evidence is viewed. So it's going to be prone to issues of confirmation bias, circularity and so on; and going to be difficult to prove/disprove either way. Which makes it less than objective. A charge of "you are part of systemic racism, you scum!" is going to be hard to rebut effectively, thus it's a handy stick to beat your political/social opponents with.

It looks like someone can be 'racist' just by virtue of their existence, or their skin colour / place in society / occupation / etc; rather than by their actual motives, beliefs and actions. That kind of approach is only going to create more racial division, as it insists on defining and separating people into different moral categories based on things like their ethnicity.

[seer]

Deadliest July in Chicago in 10 years: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...801-story.html