—Take it to the other thread (link in both places if you like).
—Find at least one other poster who cares and will speak up to say they are eager to see this rehashed.
—Then and only then, I will try for the umpteenth time to make you understand your error(s).
You’re missing the point, or maybe begging the question. It’s not about whether you can compare two things, it’s whether it’s a reasonable argumentation tactic to do so in that context. Namely, when trying to say someone should quit bitching/whining because they don’t have it so bad compared to others. If the comparison is being offered for some other reason, this fallacy doesn’t apply. But that was quite obviously what you were doing there. If you want to ludicrously insist it was not, I’d be curious to know what was the purpose of the comparison.
I’m sure people pooh-poohed anti-Tutsi talk and jokes the same way. They had been on top so long, they can take a little ribbing and mockery. The Hutus had lived under Tutsi oppression for centuries, and just wanted to vent their spleen. Moreover, it’s only natural that they should be wary of the possibility that Tutsis will take power again, right? And then on talk radio all that joking, and mocking, and shit-talking, and warnings to be on guard, ultimately got Hutus ginned up for genocide.
They certainly don’t want to say it out loud, and they may be able to overcome the cognitive dissonance implied by their feeling that they don’t believe it. But it’s the clear implication of not wanting to continue to put those kids through testing and receiving low scores: they don’t expect them to improve, but they don’t think it’s the schools’ fault that they won’t.
Let’s make a bet–if you are in fact the one who is wrong, as determined by a neutral third party, you make a post admitting that you are a low IQ racist douche-bag, and that I’m smarter than you.
Let’s turn it into a bet anyway. Pick whatever odds you’re willing to accept. Even something trivial, like simply making a post admitting that you were wrong (that might not be trivial for you).
You know, or run away, like a coward.
Side bet–who wants to take odds against **SlackerInc **running away like a coward?
I have already told you that I don’t need a bet to admit if I’m wrong. But just like last time, I won’t need to. You finally admitted it once before, but you keep going back to the same nonsense.
SlackerInc has already done that (completely serious). It’s important he keeps a copy of his IQ test to show around, otherwise no one would know he’s intelligent.
That’s not quite what happened. “People” didn’t complain about James Gunn, Neo-Nazi Mike Cernovich did. James Gunn apologized for the jokes long ago, and seems like a pretty cool guy. He’s a talented director who makes flicks people like, and people are genuinely upset that Disney caved to one (1) neo-nazi troll.
As Paranoid Randroid and I both stressed, the point is not that it’s okay to insult white people. The point is that the real-world negative impacts of insulting white people are far lower than those of insulting nonwhite people.
And like it or not, that means that those two forms of insult have different levels of bitching/whining as their socially appropriate response. According to you, is there any possible way to acknowledge such a difference without committing what you insist on characterizing as a fallacy?
:dubious: Er. This little cautionary tale reveals more about the way you… think about race relations than about any real-life parallels between the Rwandan and American social contexts.
I don’t have sufficient time or space (hell, the universe doesn’t have sufficient time or space) to discuss in detail all the manifold ways your attempted analogy is inaccurate and/or misleading. But here are a few of the major points:
The Rwandan Tutsi genocide took place in the context of prolonged warfare beginning with the 1959 Hutu-led revolt against Belgian colonial rule and continuing with clashes between the subsequent Hutu government and the Tutsi-dominated insurrectionary Rwandan Patriotic Front, which grew into a full-scale civil war starting in 1990. We are talking about two ethnic/political factions who had literally been at open war with each other for many years.
The situations of members of the politically dominant Hutu majority (who constituted well over three-quarters of the population) and members of the Tutsi (formerly politically and socially elite) minority, whose rule had been strengthened and made more burdensome to the majority under colonial government, were historically and socially very different from race relations in the US. Just because both were marked by ethnicity-based social and political oppression doesn’t mean that they’re analogous in other ways.
The only substantive reason that some white Americans think the Rwandan genocide is relevant to their situation is that racist bigots are always scared that a bunch of formerly oppressed revenge-bent “savages” are just about to rise up and slaughter them bloodily. This is a matter for therapy, with a pretty strong-stomached therapist, rather than serious policy-focused analysis.
Eh, this is just more of your personal conclusion-jumping speculations about what other people are “really” thinking. You want to believe that other people are secretly as convinced of the rightness of your beliefs about the innate inferiority of black students’ abilities as you are, so you make up rationalizations about their behavior “implying” their agreement even when they don’t agree at all.
So they think there’s no real inherent reason these kids shouldn’t be able to have scores as high as white people on average. But they don’t want to do whatever should be done to ensure they do get similar scores, don’t want schools and teachers to get punished if they don’t do that…but they do want to stop testing. That all seems of a piece to you? No logical inconsistency there? :dubious: I mean, the narrative around the anti-teachers’ union “reform” crowd at least is logical, even if I strongly oppose it.
It’s completely irrelevant how many people it was, or whether we call them right wingers or Nazis. The tweets are the same either way. If they are a fireable offense, he should get fired regardless of who brought them to light. If they are not, he should keep his job regardless. I can’t believe I even have to explain this.
Are you suggesting that there’s no logically consistent way to simultaneously hold the positions that black students are not innately cognitively inferior to white ones and that the current school testing/penalizing system unfairly disadvantages black students?
You might want to re-read your own cites from post #814. Hint: note the frequent appearance of the word “low-income”.
Sure, but the honesty with which their context is presented is not. The alt-right trolls are doing their best to blur the differences between people who said a few debatably stupid/offensive things years ago and apologized for them, and people who are actively abusive of others and propagandists of hatred. Naturally, from the alt-righters’ point of view as active abusers and hatred-propagandists themselves, this is an eminently logical strategy.
That’s not really what happened, but people can look at the story and draw their own conclusions.
In any event I have know desire to participate in this hijack. There’s a James Gunn thread somewhere in Cafe Society if you really want to argue with people about it. I won’t be arguing with you over it, not because I think you’re right, but because I think you are a very tedious poster obsessed with “winning” arguments on the internet and crowing about how smart you are.
That has nothing to do with what I said. You said that most people get their news from “regular media”, but you neglect to notice that many people get their news from those places.
And I don’t know how much overlap there is on some things, but there is quite a bit of overlap between your racism and theirs.
OMG, an opiniated and argumentative poster on the SDMB?!? So out of place! :rolleyes:
Is there, though?
I Googled “fox news racism” and on the first page of results, it was mostly articles from FOX News with the word “racism” in the headline—but there were two stories about racism at FOX, the first one detailing a number of recent incidents:
I don’t endorse anything any of those people said. Conversely, if FOX is pushing an agenda of reparations for slavery, increased funding for education and social programs that benefit nonwhites, and universal always-on body cameras, I haven’t heard about it.
This is the problem with so many people on the left and right: they see someone who disagrees with them about something political, and they lump them in with the most extreme/numerous camp of those they disagree with politically. All nuance is thrown away. The fallacy of the excluded middle.
It’s this same extremism and lack of nuance, BTW, that gets both sides incensed at me if I enter a discussion about abortion. The hardcore antiabortion crowd thinks I’m a despicable babykiller because I laugh at them for thinking a blastocyst is a person, and support increased access to low-cost first trimester abortion in currently underserved areas of the country; the hardcore pro-abortion-rights side says I must be a misogynist who wants to control women’s bodies because I favor restricting abortion after the first trimester. :rolleyes:
I’m not saying whose opinion is better but EE does not seem smart enough to be an economist. We can safely ignore him. I tell him he’s wrong about his math and he (and other idiots) respond by saying “oooh you’re going to feel so stupid when you realize that 2+2 actually DOES equal 5”
Its not even hard math. Its the sort of numerical relationships that an economist should almost know instinctively. My guess is he is a barista that thinks he understands economics because he read a few wiki articles.