Assume that Prismatic was making a claim about “worse” being different for each English speaker, and each of our models of others differ, and argue against that point instead.
the precise determination of “character” is doing a lot of work in this formulation
So what your saying is that if it’s not safe for your daughter to wait in a certain neighborhood that doesn’t qualify as the neighborhoods residents having worse “character” for your and/or Prismatic’s definition of “character”?
Would you also arrange for your daughter to wait for you on Martin Luther King Boulevard?
Sam0345 is making the assumption that I am white. This happens to be correct (at least, as far as most people are concerned since sometime in the mid-20th century), but I don’t think there was anything in my analysis to justify that assumption.
Thus we can assume that Sam0345 thinks my putative daughter is white. The problem is, while it may be unsafe for my putative white daughter to wait on the corner of MLK Blvd, there are also majority-white neighborhoods where it would be unsafe for a black individual to linger (and I mean because they risk being assaulted, not because the police would harrass them). This makes “neighborhoods you wouldn’t want to linger in” a muddled proxy for “average character of the residents.”
Would you also arrange for your daughter to wait for you on Martin Luther King Boulevard?
Sam0345 is making the assumption that I am white.
I am not making that assumption: Blacks are race realists—they know what neighborhoods are dangerous better than anyone. If you search twitter for racist references to recent violent incidents, most of the people complaining about the violence in explicitly racial terms are black.
There are also majority-white neighborhoods where it would be unsafe for a black individual to linger
Don’t be silly. If blacks were in danger of racist attack, you would have a better poster boy than Emmet Till. Till was not attacked by a white mob for being black, but by a husband for groping that husband’s wife, something that is apt to happen regardless of the race of groper and gropee.
Every day there are incidents where a black mob attacks a random white screaming racist epithets, indicating that the attack is motivated simply by whiteness. If the equivalent thing had ever happened to a black, that black would be the poster boy, not Till. Till was killed by a husband for making a pass at that husband’s wife, not by a white for being black, while every day whites are beaten and often killed purely for being white.
ETA: what this means is that assuming I wouldn’t arrange for my daughter to wait for me on MLK blvd., that doesn’t mean MLK blvd. is worse than other places unless I would arrange for my daughter to wait for me at those places. So I am criticizing the form of the argument.
Above, Konkvistador at least phrases it properly. My problem with sam0345′s post is that he seems to sacrifice clarity for offensiveness.
This is unlike normal arguments over political correctness, in which all sides agree some tradeoff between positive values of communicating clearly, being correct, not making people feel offended, etc. is appropriate.
My problem with the above post is that it sacrifices accuracy for offensiveness, as if that were a positive value, rather than, say, a worthless thing, which might be the typical extreme anti-PC position.
Assume that Prismatic was making a claim about “worse” being different for each English speaker, and each of our models of others differ, and argue against that point instead.
So what your saying is that if it’s not safe for your daughter to wait in a certain neighborhood that doesn’t qualify as the neighborhoods residents having worse “character” for your and/or Prismatic’s definition of “character”?
Sam0345 asks:
Sam0345 is making the assumption that I am white. This happens to be correct (at least, as far as most people are concerned since sometime in the mid-20th century), but I don’t think there was anything in my analysis to justify that assumption.
Thus we can assume that Sam0345 thinks my putative daughter is white. The problem is, while it may be unsafe for my putative white daughter to wait on the corner of MLK Blvd, there are also majority-white neighborhoods where it would be unsafe for a black individual to linger (and I mean because they risk being assaulted, not because the police would harrass them). This makes “neighborhoods you wouldn’t want to linger in” a muddled proxy for “average character of the residents.”
Would statistically speaking your Black daughter be safer on Robert E. Lee Boulevard or on MLK Boulevard?
I am not making that assumption: Blacks are race realists—they know what neighborhoods are dangerous better than anyone. If you search twitter for racist references to recent violent incidents, most of the people complaining about the violence in explicitly racial terms are black.
Don’t be silly. If blacks were in danger of racist attack, you would have a better poster boy than Emmet Till. Till was not attacked by a white mob for being black, but by a husband for groping that husband’s wife, something that is apt to happen regardless of the race of groper and gropee.
Every day there are incidents where a black mob attacks a random white screaming racist epithets, indicating that the attack is motivated simply by whiteness. If the equivalent thing had ever happened to a black, that black would be the poster boy, not Till. Till was killed by a husband for making a pass at that husband’s wife, not by a white for being black, while every day whites are beaten and often killed purely for being white.
P(H|e)=P(H)P(e|H)/P(e), P(e|H)/P(e) ~ 1
ETA: what this means is that assuming I wouldn’t arrange for my daughter to wait for me on MLK blvd., that doesn’t mean MLK blvd. is worse than other places unless I would arrange for my daughter to wait for me at those places. So I am criticizing the form of the argument.
Above, Konkvistador at least phrases it properly. My problem with sam0345′s post is that he seems to sacrifice clarity for offensiveness.
This is unlike normal arguments over political correctness, in which all sides agree some tradeoff between positive values of communicating clearly, being correct, not making people feel offended, etc. is appropriate.
My problem with the above post is that it sacrifices accuracy for offensiveness, as if that were a positive value, rather than, say, a worthless thing, which might be the typical extreme anti-PC position.