Belief without evidence is bad Defining one’s terms before an argument is good
Note the contradiction between the two sets of memes above. The first set of memes involve condemning a vaguely defined concept and frequently involve encouraging people to believe things, e.g., that race and sex don’t correlate with anything significant, despite nearly all the evidence suggesting otherwise.
that race and sex don’t correlate with anything significant
If you define “racism” and “sexism” that broadly, sure, but there are plenty of people who use the terms more narrowly, and wouldn’t call David Epstein racist for pointing out that the Kalenjin comprise a sizeable fraction of marathon champions for genetic reasons.
Note the contradiction between the two sets of memes above. The first set of memes involve condemning a vaguely defined concept and frequently involve encouraging people to believe things, e.g., that race and sex don’t correlate with anything significant, despite nearly all the evidence suggesting otherwise.
If you define “racism” and “sexism” that broadly, sure, but there are plenty of people who use the terms more narrowly, and wouldn’t call David Epstein racist for pointing out that the Kalenjin comprise a sizeable fraction of marathon champions for genetic reasons.
What about calling people like Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray racists for pointing out the correlation between race and IQ?
Also mbitton24′s claim was that said memes were “almost impossible to misuse”, and some people do in fact define the terms very broadly.
By the way what do you think are reasonable definitions of the terms?
Good point. Grandparent retracted.
Tapping out.