View Single Post
Old 10-17-2018, 06:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,328
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Have you ever asked her?
I'm not referring to myself. Reread post #186.

You didn't specify "only losers at legal arguments" when you called CRT a cancer or a loser's tactic.

Naah, sorry, facts and truth are not synonymous, and the fact/truth (synthetic/analytic) distinction has been the subject of endless debate. You don't get to declare that resolved for all of Science.No, you cannot pretend like narratives and stories of e.g. experiences of racism are complete fiction unrelated to real lived experience.
Anecdotes are data.

"The plural of anecdote is not data" is a terrible guideline in social sciences, and anyway, it's a horrible misquote of the original.
Naah, you just treat it that way.
Really? You're blithely saying that on this board, where people will quite happily tell you things were better for everyone 50 years ago? You'd think if the effects of racism are so purely objective, there'd be so much doubting of its existence here?

This would be a fair point ... if BLM had a President and Congress behind it, the way the Nazis continue to have.
Not from the posts I'm reading...I've repeatedly suggested on you refuse to carry out...
It's not a "quibble" - you're the one who brought up the self-evident-within-this-thread nature of my politics:
"I think any7one reading this thread does."[sic]
And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even try to actually answer the question.

You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between Civil Rights and Revolutions, but your own cite's cite includes Civil Rights movements in the same class of movement as the Revolutions you cited. Proving the distinction is artificial.

Like I said, we aren't robots, and there's nothing wrong with emotion.
So much for empiricism, eh?Since neither of those is an accurate quote of what either I or Wood actually wrote, I don't have an opinion on the truth value of your statement.It's not?...who would be White menNot be held back by a gang of White Men.She did not succeed at the biggest thing she set out to do. That's failure.Do you also excessively celebrate the award of Junior League "Just For Participating" trophies?The nazis aren't the gatekeepers of whiteness, nor success. They just hang on its coat-tails....point made...How many Finns? How many Italians? You don't get to ask "why not this subgroup" when the point is about the group as a whole.Of course it is.I'm aware of the success of African immigrants and the factors involved. The "are you fucking kidding me" was because you already had Barack Obama...consider it exasperation at your repeating yourself.
It's a good proxy measure for the issue under discussion. More so than, say, financial success, because that has more paths which could bypass the routes traditionally blocked or limited to non-White Men.It's not prickly at all. They're a smaller, often much more self-selected sample, compared to the other minorities like African-Americans or Mexicans. And many of them do get to benefit from Whiteness as well.

The argument isn't that no minority would ever succeed. In fact, one could argue that it benefits Whiteness even more to have some smaller, less threatening minorities do just that.

And if anyone made such a strawman argument, Barack Obama is the example that would put them in their place. Well done, you!

More-or-less the top 1%. Note that "purposefully" doesn't mean "white supremacy" is the intended purpose. It's more like a side-effect of the actual purpose of maintaining the status quo, wealth and power for oneself and one's heirs.

Have you said that to Matsuda?
Why the hell would you think that? I specifically said "here", and I'm not American - I'm assuming you know this from reading "the hundreds of other pages of your posts "You think racism is a uniquely American problem?

And - "pontificating"? Is that an example of you arguing with logic and reason rather than emotion?Nope. But I wasn't talking about the end, I was talking about the beginning. Which should have been evident from me saying "50 years"In the way "pure democracy" is practical?
I don't know her that well. I've met her at events and we have mutual acquaintances. Its mostly in the legal context.

Storytelling and anecdote is STILL storytelling and anecdote. I just want to be clear, you are eschewing logic and reason for anecdote. Have you read their writing? These legal scholars talk about their personal experiences and then extrapolate that onto society. This is how institutional racism came into existence. Mostly rich white guys used the perspective of their life experiences and extrapolated that experience into how society was sculpted and voila inadvertant white supremecist society. Logic and reason is the minority's friend, subjectivity is his enemy. Because all the subjective calls are not going to go your way over the long term.