[Pete Svarrior]

If you cannot separate institutionalised racism from irrelevant factors, then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Also, if you can't navigate a Google search, then I'm not going to repeat the mistake of writing a long response to a post of yours.

I've made my case, and the fact that you cannot address it without constantly moving the goalposts and attempting to belittle me with repeated strawman attacks makes me feel confident that we're done here.

[Densoro]

You're not half the philosopher you seem to think you are if you can't handle dismantling a false dichotomy.

[Pete Svarrior]

Ah, yes, you've stooped down to personal stabs. How surprising. Wait, wait, lemme try this one:

if u cant handle your false equivalence going kaplow then ur dumb lol

Yeah, we're done here. Tausami is at least capable of making valid arguments, so I'll just wait for him to come back.

[Densoro]

but of course all the people belittling pro-Ferguson peeps, dismissing their points as rants, aren't making personal stabs at all

[Pete Svarrior]

but of course all the people belittling pro-Ferguson peeps, dismissing their points as rants, aren't making personal stabs at all

I'm sorry, do you expect me to take responsibility for what other pro-forensic-evidence people are saying? Because I'm not doing that.

To reiterate my point: If you have falsifiable evidence of institutional racism going on in Ferguson, report it to the FBI. They're currently investigating the case. They'll be able to help. Just make sure you don't start pointlessly insulting them if they don't believe you on a "'cause I said so" basis - it generally makes people much less open to your views.

[Densoro]

I expect you to take responsibility for your leading language and inconsistent reactions to slips in debating form based on which side is making them. If this was really about personal attacks, then you'd have just as much a problem with all the hi-fiving and ass-slapping going on in this thread.

A great deal of philosophy is about examining the definitions of ideas and seeing where their boundaries really lie. For example, 'is there ultimately a difference between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity?' is a philosophical question. It examines the way in which the boundaries of these concepts contradict themselves. And hell, as contradictions go, that's an easy one. Refusing to even entertain that notion doesn't give you the right to brandish 'intellectual superiority' over your opponent just because they're trying to demonstrate logically how things you consider unrelated are actually more relevant than you might think upon closer inspection.

[Pete Svarrior]

I expect you to take responsibility for your leading language and inconsistent reactions to slips in debating form based on which side is making them. If this was really about personal attacks, then you'd have just as much a problem with all the hi-fiving and ass-slapping going on in this thread.

No one, other than you, responded directly to an argument by saying anything quite as devoid of substance as "'Brown people are systematically cheated by the system but lol that's not racism.'" or "You're not half the philosopher you seem to think you are if you can't handle dismantling a false dichotomy."

Yes, there were slips, and yes, there were elements of diminishing language in between other arguments. You, however, resorted to using just that. To me, that's a dealbreaker. You're welcome to disagree or think I'm a big dum-dum for that, it's still gonna be a dealbreaker for me.

A great deal of philosophy is about examining the definitions of ideas and seeing where their boundaries really lie. For example, 'is there ultimately a difference between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity?' is a philosophical question. It examines the way in which the boundaries of these concepts contradict themselves. And hell, as contradictions go, that's an easy one. Refusing to even entertain that notion doesn't give you the right to brandish 'intellectual superiority' over your opponent just because they're trying to demonstrate logically how things you consider unrelated are actually more relevant than you might think upon closer inspection.

I'm not sure what on Earth makes you think we're discussing philosophy, but I sure as hell am not. I also repeatedly invited you to discuss other aspects of racism as a separate discussion. It's entirely your decision to ignore these invitations and instead insult me for not letting you derail this discussion.

[Rushy]

I expect you to take responsibility for your leading language and inconsistent reactions to slips in debating form based on which side is making them. If this was really about personal attacks, then you'd have just as much a problem with all the hi-fiving and ass-slapping going on in this thread.

A great deal of philosophy is about examining the definitions of ideas and seeing where their boundaries really lie. For example, 'is there ultimately a difference between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity?' is a philosophical question. It examines the way in which the boundaries of these concepts contradict themselves. And hell, as contradictions go, that's an easy one. Refusing to even entertain that notion doesn't give you the right to brandish 'intellectual superiority' over your opponent just because they're trying to demonstrate logically how things you consider unrelated are actually more relevant than you might think upon closer inspection.

I'm sure following your debate up with personal attacks and "ur not smarter than me I am the better fillosophur" is the correct way to go. I think a proper philosopher would have just let the debate go and moved on, not throw a tantrum like a petulant child.

[Densoro]

^ Well sorry for being sick of watching this belittling shit pass for 'intellectualism' everywhere I go.

Philosophy isn't something sectioned off away from the rest of real life. It wouldn't be worth anything if it was. Philosophy is about real life and that's why it's included in this board's title. It influences how the data is interpreted in the first place because, for example, statistics on inequality inevitably bring up whether inequality of opportunity and outcome are all that different. If you don't examine situations like this from every direction, then you're going to miss something. Numbers mean next to nothing without application.

[Pete Svarrior]

^ Well sorry for being sick of watching this belittling shit pass for 'intellectualism' everywhere I go.

But you're the only one guilty of that here.

Philosophy isn't something sectioned off away from the rest of real life. It wouldn't be worth anything if it was.

You may or may not have just uncovered my views on philosophy.

[Densoro]

You arranged your goalposts in such a way that, if the evidence brought up had anything to do with socialization, it was suddenly inadmissible. This is a problem because socialization created the people who cause racial problems in the first place. You were asking your opponents to give you water without getting anything wet, which is a 'perfect' defense based on ignoring the very properties of water. You made this a philosophical issue by marking evidence of complex issues as inadmissible specifically due to its complexity, and that had to be challenged before any headway could be made otherwise. Then you didn't accept the challenge. That struck me as cowardly.

[Pete Svarrior]

You arranged your goalposts in such a way that, if the evidence brought up had anything to do with socialization, it was suddenly inadmissible. [...]

I did not arrange the goalposts. Tausami made his claim, and I opposed that claim. He used certain terms, and I interpreted them to mean what they're defined as. You then came and said "Hold on a minute, let's stop using definitions and tweak them so that I'm right". I rejected that notion, because my issue is with the claim as originally made - not some silly revisionist interpretation thereof. If this strikes you as cowardly, then:

You're welcome to disagree or think I'm a big dum-dum for that, it's still gonna be a dealbreaker for me.

[model 29]

Densoro, if a person of one race uses racial epithets while assaulting a person of another race, do you consider that as a 'hate crime'?

[Densoro]

PP: Demanding dry water would be a logical contradiction, objectively-speaking, no matter who said it. Demanding that we talk about social issues without talking about social issues is the same way. Highlighting a contradiction doesn't have anything to do with 'tweaking' anything 'so that I'm right.' A contradiction is a contradiction.

model 29: In the micro sense, almost definitely. Word choice shows where focus is placed; you'd call somebody an asshole if you were attacking them for being an asshole, but you'd call them a slur if you were attacking them for whatever demographic you're slurring.
However, two caveats: 1) that's not the only way that an attack could be racially-motivated. If a black person surprises you and your first reaction is fight-or-flight as with many of the news stories that I posted, then that shows a fearful bias against black bodies. 2) There's also a macro element that needs to be emphasized, composed of society's reactions to said attacks, institutional punishments/lack thereof, and the precedent set by past incidents. That affects the atmosphere and power dynamics at work. White people have done some heinous shit and still been taken alive, whereas black people know what could happen if they mess with white people, so they'd have to be pushed pretty damn far to take that risk. Granted, it makes little difference to the victim in the moment, but these things affect chances of being victimized in the first place. It's a bigger-picture kind of thing: hate crimes against minorities set a shitty precedent for other people in that minority, whereas hate crimes against those in power are swiftly dealt with.

[Pete Svarrior]

PP: Demanding dry water would be a logical contradiction, objectively-speaking, no matter who said it. Demanding that we talk about social issues without talking about social issues is the same way. Highlighting a contradiction doesn't have anything to do with 'tweaking' anything 'so that I'm right.' A contradiction is a contradiction.

If you believe that the definition of institutionalised racism as defined in social sciences is incorrect, then so be it. But that does not affect my claim - merely your understanding of it. If, in your view, Tausami's claim becomes self-contradictory when current mainstream definitions are used, then surely you shouldn't have an issue with me saying that his claim is incorrect.

[Densoro]

It's more that I think you're misusing that definition and its implications, which is why I see this as a philosophical issue =P Yes, institutional racism is a different thing. However, no, it's not completely 100% divorced from other kinds of racism, and basing any argument on the assumption that it is, just because it's a different item beneath the same umbrella, is inaccurate.

[Pete Svarrior]

Of course they're not completely divorced. However, this isn't relevant when statistical evidence of institutional racism's existence/prevalence is questioned. Other types of racism can lead to institutional racism, for sure. However, it doesn't matter what led to it - I want to see evidence that it's currently there.

If you tell me that there's a car in a ditch and I question it, I don't care how the car allegedly ended up in the ditch. I want to examine the ditch and see the car in it. Telling me that the road surface around the ditch is slippery, that the driver was drunk and that there are oh-so-many reasons why it would make sense for the car to be in the ditch doesn't help in this particular case.

[Densoro]

But if I show you the car and you go 'No that's more of a buggy tbh' or 'That's not a ditch so much as a pit' then I have to challenge your definitions because the fact is somebody's motor vehicle is still in a depression in the road and they need help. Furthermore, this discussion is about whether ditches are widespread hazards for motorists, rather than about a single isolated incident. I'm pointing to multiple depressions in multiple roads and you're essentially saying they're not deep enough to worry about, but I'm telling you the people who drive on that road say otherwise and trying to convince you that you probably don't know their road as well as they do.

[Pete Svarrior]

But if I show you the car and you go 'No that's more of a buggy tbh'

Sorry, you're not doing that. You're showing me the slippery road and the drunk driver.

the fact is somebody's motor vehicle is still in a depression in the road and they need help.

That may well be, but it's simply irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is very specific and very targeted. You're trying to make it not so. I reject these motions. You are still welcome to start a separate discussion about racism at large, or why you dislike the definitions of things.

I'm pointing to multiple depressions in multiple roads

And I don't care about them. Tausami said there's a specific car in a specific ditch. Don't show me other cars or buggies, don't show me other ditches. Don't show me moon rovers in moon craters. Show me this particular car in this particular ditch. If it's there and, as alleged, it's blatantly obvious and easily provable, then this is a very simple request. The fact that we're not looking at the car right now but are instead doing the macarena is a big tell here.

I'm telling you the people who drive on that road say otherwise and trying to convince you that you probably don't know their road as well as they do.

That's the thing. You keep talking about the road. I wanna see the bloody car in the bloody ditch. Yes, they're related, but my request is very specific.

[Densoro]

We're doing the macarena because you aren't accepting multiple examples of black people being attacked in circumstances where white people get their hands held as evidence of an inconsistency when I'm pretty sure it's the very definition of one. For some reason, it doesn't count. I'm trying to figure out why that is, so I try analyzing the definition of institutional racism you're working with for reasons why people of different colors in the same situations being treated differently don't cut it.