National Guard called into Minneapolis

[Dwarvenhobble]

The Civil Rights Act already doesn't apply to forcing charities to address things outside of their purview or remit. The very idea of using the CRA to prevent people arguing against racism runs so counter to its purpose, it's almost grotesque.

There's a reason nobody has taken BLM to court over this. They would be laughed out of the room, as you're well aware; this is just facetiousness.



Yes, you rather do have to establish that it affects group A, if you want to argue that it's discriminatory not to include group A in the slogan. The movement is obviously only concerned with affected people. Like every movement.

Technically (based on my understanding) the BLM super pac, it that is a thing would fall under that issue if as is suggested the money from it is part of the Biden democrat campaign funds.

Under 501(c)3 non profit status, if BLM as an organisational movement has this, it would be a violation of 501(c)3 non profit status to acting to raise money for or using raise funds to support one political campaign over another.

You can address he issue you're charity is for but if you step beyond advocacy and into the political sphere to supporting one candidate over another then and using the charities platform to do that then you do risk the non profit status being revoked.

My understanding is this is to prevent abuse from groups like churches etc trying to scare or push their congregations into voting for one candidate or another.

 

[Silvanus]

Technically (based on my understanding) the BLM super pac, it that is a thing would fall under that issue if as is suggested the money from it is part of the Biden democrat campaign funds.

Under 501(c)3 non profit status, if BLM as an organisational movement has this, it would be a violation of 501(c)3 non profit status to acting to raise money for or using raise funds to support one political campaign over another.

You can address he issue you're charity is for but if you step beyond advocacy and into the political sphere to supporting one candidate over another then and using the charities platform to do that then you do risk the non profit status being revoked.

My understanding is this is to prevent abuse from groups like churches etc trying to scare or push their congregations into voting for one candidate or another.

No, BLM is not a Super Pac, and donations to BLM do not go to Biden campaign funds or to the DNC. This is a false claim that's popped up in an effort to discredit it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, BLM is not a Super Pac, and donations to BLM do not go to Biden campaign funds or to the DNC. This is just a false claim that's popped up in an effort to discredit it.

My bad there then I was under the impression of of the groups collecting was donating there.

I mean I know there were actually 2 bail fund groups or something one of which was likely more legitimate than the other.

 

[Houseman]

The Civil Rights Act already doesn't apply to forcing charities to address things outside of their purview or remit.

I never said it did.

The very idea of using the CRA to prevent people arguing against racism

So "the means justify the ends"? Discrimination is okay as long as it's used to stop other kinds of discrimination?

Yes, you rather do have to establish that it affects group A, if you want to argue that it's discriminatory not to include group A in the slogan.

Well now that I can do.

Look up any sort of "# of people killed by the police by race" graph and you'll see more than just African-Americans on there. There we go, point proven.

 

[Silvanus]

I never said it did.

You said your view of what counts as discrimination is based in law. It would make little sense to say that if we're talking about something entirely outside of the purview of the law you brought up.

So "the means justify the ends"? Discrimination is okay as long as it's used to stop other kinds of discrimination?

Try not to put words in my mouth.

Well now that I can do.

Look up any sort of "# of people killed by the police by race" graph and you'll see more than just African-Americans on there. There we go, point proven.

Proving... that police brutality affects all groups of people, which isn't in dispute.

Police brutality and racism are not the same issue. There's inter-connectivity there, but there's not 100% overlap.

The long and the short of it is this: the nature of racism is in societal factors that affect different races differently. That is inseparable; it's in the definition. So if you want to stop people bringing up race, then in practice you want people to stop bringing up racism.

 

[Houseman]

You said your view of what counts as discrimination is based in law. It would make little sense to say that if we're talking about something entirely outside of the purview of the law you brought up.

Correct, my view of what counts as discrimination is based in law.
I never said "unless charities address things outside of their purview or remit, it's discrimination!" which is what you seemed to have just said.

Try not to put words in my mouth.

And you as well.

Proving... that police brutality affects all groups of people, which isn't in dispute.

Police brutality and racism are not the same issue. There's inter-connectivity there, but there's not 100% overlap.

The long and the short of it is this: the nature of racism is in societal factors that affect different races differently. That is inseparable; it's in the definition. So if you want to stop people bringing up race, then in practice you want people to stop bringing up racism.

Okay, so what is it that BLM is actually trying to solve, if not police brutality?

Their mission statement on their website says "...whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes"

Ignoring the bit about "eradicating white supremacy", they want to "intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes"
It's discriminatory because it focuses on black communities. It's discriminatory on the basis of race.

I wonder, would you have any issues with the 14 words, taken literally and out of context? Do you see anything especially troubling about "securing... a future for white children"? Or would you say something like "No, secure a future for ALL children"?

 

[Aegix Drakan]

*snip*

You know, when I read your posts, this following conversation hops into my head:
Person a: "I'm doing a marathon to raise funds to cure breast cancer!"
Person b: "Oh, so you hate people with prostate cancer then? Don't THEY deserve you to run a marathon for them? You're being divisive! You should be running to cure ALL cancers! ...Wait, but what about diabetic people, don't THEY deserve your marathon money? ...But wait! What about people in car accidents- *2 hours later* -So that's why your marathon should be for 'Stopping all bad things!' "
Person a: "...Then where does this money I'm raising go?"
Person b: "To everyone!"
Person a: "...But then nobody gets ANYTHING and no one gets any actual help!"

Like...To solve a problem, you have to start somewhere. You can't unilaterally solve everything at once. So, boiling something down to the most generic and appealing base will usually end up turning it into a useless platitude that everyone can say "Yup I agree" to, feel warm and fuzzy inside, and then do exactly nothing about.

And given that the recent spate of protests was caused over a very blatant strangling murder of a black man by a cop, who only got charged with anything after 2 full weeks of serious unrest...I'd argue that's a worthy fire to start putting out.

(and while I was typing, THIS happened)

I wonder, would you have any issues with the 14 words, taken literally and out of context?

...*heavy facepalm*

Imma reject that entire argument on its face.

Context is everything.

We are a species that has exceptional pattern recognition. We intrinsically understand context, so long as we actually, you know, see and address it. We don't live in sterile boxes removed from reality. It's why so many groups are in such a hurry to control the context that people see, whenever something happens, thus creating propaganda.

I guarantee you, that if "BLM" was called "All Lives Matter", it would have immediately been subverted into some useless platitude that didn't address the root problem the people were suffering, and the protests would have been decried as "a bunch of selfish people ruining a beautiful movement with rioting!!". Heck, if it was called "Black Lives ALSO Matter", it would likely have been brushed aside as a "yeah yeah, we already know that, why are they rioting over that? Clearly they're just looking for an excuse to make trouble!" kind of deal.

Because the people who would be making those statements are trying to control the context and make BML seem like they're causing trouble over nothing (or worse, actively hurting people over nothing), instead of as a movement trying to address a specific problem.

If you'd prefer to argue semantics about trying to offend the least people by using platitudes that will either be useless (or STILL get twisted into something that can attack those trying to address a problem) rather than talk about trying to solve problems that are actually hurting people, sure, fine that's your business.

I care more about thinking what can be done to help people who are suffering, in the vain hope that maybe we can alleviate even just a little bit of the needless suffering in the world. If whatever we call any movement offends someone, well, guess what, someone somewhere will already be offended by it, or twist it into something to be offended over.

Because ANYTHING can either be twisted or safely ignored.

(also, not even touching that 14 word thing with a 20 foot pole. That phrase is INSEPARABLE from its genocidal context)

I could probably try to make this post even more concise, or accurate, or bulletproof, but honestly, I've used up my entire lunch break doing it, and I'm just donezo at this point.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Or would you say something like "No, secure a future for ALL children"?

The problem with the 14 words isn't that it doesn't include everyone, it's that it propagates a very stupid conspiracy theory about "white genocide".

 

[Houseman]

Like...To solve a problem, you have to start somewhere.

I don't think that justifies discrimination. Nothing justifies discrimination.

When anti-discrimination laws were made, they didn't do for one protected class at a time. "You must not discriminate against Irish" "You must not discriminate against women". "You must not discriminate against baptists", "You must not discriminate against Lao people..."

No, it was "you must not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc...", all at once, one fell swoop.
No special privileges given to certain people, but not others. Nobody had to 'wait their turn' for their issue to be solved.

We are a species that has exceptional pattern recognition.

I'm recognizing a pattern that bad things happen when you discriminate by race. Racism happens. Treating others as subhuman happens. Slavery happens. Ethnic cleansing happens.

And people are justifying this type of discrimination. Who is it that isn't recognizing the pattern here?

I guarantee you, that if "BLM" was called "All Lives Matter", it would have immediately been subverted into some useless platitude that didn't address the root problem the people were suffering

I would agree with that hypothetical. I think not discriminating would be preferable to discriminating, though.

It's like Batman's morality. You can argue whether or not it's optimal for saving lives and stopping crime, but killing is a line he will not cross under any circumstances. He believes in trying to solve the problem without resorting to murder. I believe in trying to solve the problem without resorting to discrimination.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

When anti-discrimination laws were made, they didn't do for one protected class at a time.

No, it was "you must not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc...", all at once, one fell swoop.

No special privileges given to certain people, but not others. Nobody had to 'wait their turn' for their issue to be solved.

That's the thing though.

A lot of people's problems WEREN'T solved and ARE still waiting for their turn.

Yes, passing a law saying "There shall be no discrimination whatsoever" is a good thing. Absolutely. Without question.

But it's not being enforced in a way that stops discrimination against everyone.

Black people are policed MUCH more heavily and brutally than other people (Same rate of pot usage, black people face WAY more heavy policing and punishments over it). Not to mention, they are STILL trying to catch up after generations of being held back (Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, the burning of "black wall street", the KKK, etc). There are actual former cops who have come out saying that most police forces DELIBERATELY target black neighborhoods.

LGBT people still face considerable discrimination in plenty of places and there are consistently new cases that have to be dragged to the supreme court because people tried to fire them for being LGBT. Heck, protections were JUST RECENTLY removed from trans people, which were needed because people kept letting them bleed out instead of treating their injuries.

Indigenous people still have their sovereignty over their land messed with as large companies plant oil pipelines through it regardless of existing treaties, leading to leakages and spiking cancer rates in their communities.

And so on, and so on and so on. And this is just the obvious stuff, not even touching the "women who complain about pain/injures are often dismissed as them being overly emotional, and then years later it turns out that they had something serious and no one had taken them seriously about it" or "people with indigenous or black sounding names objectively get hired less than people with the EXACT same resume" type stuff that isn't related to any kind of national/state enforcement.

Yes, passing a law saying "There shall be no discrimination whatsoever" is a good thing. Absolutely. Without question.

But it's not being enforced in a way that protects everyone on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.

The general "protect everyone" law is being selectively enforced, typically along those same lines (although to be honest, economic class plays a big role as well. And even THAT is also often divided on those lines)

That's the issue here. That's why people keep bringing up these things. Because we claim that we solved the problem, but whole groups of people ARE still waiting for their problem to be solved by the law that already exists and has existed for a good while now.

And people are justifying this type of discrimination. Who is it that isn't recognizing the pattern here?

Tell you what. Once the problems of many minority groups are actually solved to a reasonable degree, I'll stop pointing out that the problems of these various minority groups haven't been solved.

It's like Batman's morality. You can argue whether or not it's optimal for saving lives and stopping crime, but killing is a line he will not cross under any circumstances. He believes in trying to solve the problem without resorting to murder. I believe in trying to solve the problem without resorting to discrimination.

If we're going to bring up a fictional character, in a medium where "millions died" is almost never addressed...Then let's actually analyze him from a more realistic lens.

Batman is negligent, or at the very least he's complicit in the fact that these supervillains keep killing tons of people after breaking out of the world's leakiest prison. If he doesn't want to kill them (understandable), then he can AT LEAST do something more effective to keep them from breaking out of Arkham every 3 months.

I like to think that if this were the real world, Joker would have been put somewhere he can't actually break out from after his second murder spree. Because unlike in comics, where they need to keep generating drama and bringing back villains that people liked so they can sell more issues...The real world doesn't actually RUN on Rule of Melodrama.

 

[Houseman]

Context is everything.

That phrase is INSEPARABLE from its genocidal context

Another thing I've noticed. People have been saying lots of stuff about context in this discussion, and it seems like everyone else but me is either unwilling or unable to separate words from their contexts, not even for the sake of argument. People also seem unable or unwilling to engage with my hypothetical scenarios, like lil devils.

Is it unwilling, or just unable?

Is there some aberration with my brain or my thought processes, that easily allows me to do this while others can't? Do I have some kind of symbolic thinking superpower? No, right? So then, it's not unable, it's just unwilling.

Normally when I debate things, my go-to tactic is argumentum ad absurdum which involves extrapolating logic to its breaking point to see whether or not it's still valid. This usually involves the use of hypothetical scenarios and evaluating things inside of a vacuum.

I've been doing this for almost a decade. Usually this works, but it does require people to join you in your hypothetical or vacuum.

I think that this is just a social issue that people feel strongly about, and they also have their "social credit" on the line where being on the "wrong side" of the issue will cause them to be labeled as a racist or bigot or whatever, so they let their emotions and the desire to keep up appearances cloud their thinking. That's why, I think, people are unwilling to follow my line of argumentation. Even if it's something as innocuous as "don't try to yank a loaded shotgun out of someone's hands". People can't even agree with such a simple, common-sense statement because the "context" means that, since an innocent black man was killed this way, that you're a victim-blaming racist if you say anything but the correct thing. You must shed real tears for our Dear Leader, and doing anything else will get you disappeared, or in our culture, #canceled.

That's ridiculous.

Rant over, back "on topic":

That's the issue here.

I agree that that's the issue here.

I just don't agree that using discrimination to solve those issues is justifiable.

 

[Schadrach]

As in, ca prop 209 banned affirmative action programs.

...a rather direct consequence of not being allowed to grant preferential treatment to people on the basis of races, sex, etc. To be fair, not being allowed to discriminate against people on those bases also logically should disallow that, since the difference between giving one group preferential treatment and discriminating against all other groups is mostly semantics.

So they're back to the good ol' "we only hire the most qualified people and, purely coincidentally, that just happens to be white people 95% of the time, trust us"

There are ways to avoid racism without resorting to explicit institutional racism (aka giving special benefits based on race), though. For example, for many things you can exclude one's demographics from the consideration entirely, so called blind recruitment - if you don't know the subjects race or sex, how can the decision be racist or sexist? Though that doesn't always create the desired result - sometimes it really just isn't sexism or racism causing the numbers to differ from the distribution of general population (see when Australian public service moved to blind recruitment for a short time - long story short when they didn't know the gender of applicants they were more likely to hire men, implying that they were actually biased in favor of hiring women and still weren't getting "enough" women to not be sexist).

No, BLM is not a Super Pac, and donations to BLM do not go to Biden campaign funds or to the DNC. This is a false claim that's popped up in an effort to discredit it.

That one got a noticeable uptick in popularity after that Reddit AMA where they dodged the question of what they spent donation money on repeatedly.

As Black Lives Matter donations surge, some want to know where the money goes

The current wave of protests across the United States has spurred an enormous surge in donations to Black Lives Matter and other racial justice and civil rights organizations, but the boost in fundraising has also brought increased scrutiny, calls for greater transparency, and a flurry of...

abc6onyourside.com

https://thousandcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Thousand-Currents-06.30.19-FS-FINAL.pdf BLM is referred to as the "fiscal project" on that report.

Or the fact that these other disparities are extremely hard to identify. After all, your image essentially takes a load of data not fit for purpose in the first place, and then makes dubious extrapolations from them.

You're actually demonstrating my point about what is an acceptable lens. Because what that image says about race is all stuff that no one is going to contest in the slightest without the gender stuff paired with it (I've even seen racial activists quote those same sources, or articles that reference those sources) - it's only when I move from the breakdown by race to the breakdown by gender that it becomes problematic.

 

[Agema]

People have been saying lots of stuff about context in this discussion, and it seems like everyone else but me is either unwilling or unable to separate words from their contexts, not even for the sake of argument.

It reminds me of a story about a physicist (Richard Feynman?). A student told him that an orange was the same size as a planet. The physicist asked how. The student explained that if the orange were cut up into infinite parts, when the infinite parts were put back together, it could be much larger. To which the physicist replied "So you don't mean a real orange, then." And that was the end of that.

Words operate in contexts. At the point you want to argue about something absent of the surrounding context, you want to argue about something that isn't real. If you want to play a thought experiment, feel free. But advertise it very clearly, and perhaps never bother trying when it looks for all the world like you're just trying to prove your argument about the real world off the back of it.

 

[Houseman]

Words operate in contexts.

Logic doesn't, necessarily. Logic is only valid when the premises, regardless of what they are, always lead to the conclusion. If they don't, the logic is invalid.

Valid logic is logic that works regardless of context.
Sound logic is valid logic, "in context".

Everything with four legs is a cat.
Socrates has four legs.
Socrates is a cat.

That's valid logic.

Logic is sound when the premises are true AND the logic is valid. You can't get sound logic from invalid logic. You might as well throw the whole thing out and start over.

Step 1: valid logic
Step 2: sound logic (add context)

That's what I'm trying to do. Step 1. Determine whether or not the logic is valid or not. Once we come to an agreement as to the validity of the logic, from there we can put it "in context" and make it sound. We can move from the abstract, to the real.

At the point you want to argue about something absent of the surrounding context, you want to argue about something that isn't real.

It's no use trying to get soundness from invalid logic.
One has to begin with the abstract, with the hypothetical, come up with valid logic, and then, Step 2, make it "real".

That's how the stealth bomber was made. Lockheed Martin took a theoretical research paper about calculating radar cross-sections from flat planes, implemented the math with real materials, and came up with an innovation that guaranteed the USA air superiority for decades. They started with the proven hypothetical, and made it real.

That's how, I would guess, most things work. If only the same amount of R&D went into solving social issues as creating weapons of war.

You might say "people's lives aren't a game! This isn't an experiment! Real people are dying!"
And to that I say, maybe that's what's missing. You're too connected and too passionate and it clouds your thinking and leads you to make sub-par decisions based on sentiment rather than facts. You can't step back and evaluate the situation with a level head because "people are dying!" And people will continue to die unless someone learns how to do this. If you could simulate all of humanity and mess with it with no moral or ethical ramifications, you'll probably solve many problems that we're still struggling with.

Or is that the premise of Bioshock?

 

[Buyetyen]

It reminds me of a story about a physicist (Richard Feynman?). A student told him that an orange was the same size as a planet. The physicist asked how. The student explained that if the orange were cut up into infinite parts, when the infinite parts were put back together, it could be much larger. To which the physicist replied "So you don't mean a real orange, then." And that was the end of that.

Funny note about that, creationist and convicted fraud Kent Hovind at one point attempted to use the same train of thought as the student in the anecdote to explain how a single drop of water, broken down to the molecular level, could feasibly envelop the earth's surface (it wouldn't, by the way) and meet the criteria for the biblical flood.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

Another thing I've noticed. People have been saying lots of stuff about context in this discussion, and it seems like everyone else but me is either unwilling or unable to separate words from their contexts, not even for the sake of argument. People also seem unable or unwilling to engage with my hypothetical scenarios, like lil devils.

Is it unwilling, or just unable?

Is there some aberration with my brain or my thought processes, that easily allows me to do this while others can't? Do I have some kind of symbolic thinking superpower? No, right? So then, it's not unable, it's just unwilling.

Probably because most of us realize that doing so has limited usefulness.

Can extracting all context provide new insight? Sometimes.

But generally? Context gives things meaning. And even something that, devoid of context, seems terrible/evil can actually be innocuous.

Like...Take someone saying he will 'fucking kill' someone. Is this a threat of violence? Two people playing a video game where the goal is to kill the other player's avatar? An actor in a movie saying it to another actor to simulate drama? Or just a sarcastic reaction to a bad pun with no actual malus behind it?

Oh, or you can just read Agema's post, he seems to have this even more concise than me.

Normally when I debate things, my go-to tactic is argumentum ad absurdum which involves extrapolating logic to its breaking point to see whether or not it's still valid. This usually involves the use of hypothetical scenarios and evaluating things inside of a vacuum.

I've been doing this for almost a decade. Usually this works, but it does require people to join you in your hypothetical or vacuum.

The issue is, you can use argumentum ad absurdum to argue ANYTHING.

Like, say, that slicing an orange into infinite pieces means the orange can now be infinitely huge because it's in infinite pieces, and infinite is infinite.

I think that this is just a social issue that people feel strongly about, and they also have their "social credit" on the line where being on the "wrong side" of the issue will cause them to be labeled as a racist or bigot or whatever, so they let their emotions and the desire to keep up appearances cloud their thinking. That's why, I think, people are unwilling to follow my line of argumentation. Even if it's something as innocuous as "don't try to yank a loaded shotgun out of someone's hands". People can't even agree with such a simple, common-sense statement because the "context" means that, since an innocent black man was killed this way, that you're a victim-blaming racist if you say anything but the correct thing. You must shed real tears for our Dear Leader, and doing anything else will get you disappeared, or in our culture, #canceled.

That's ridiculous.

Here's the thing.

Are some people too eager to jump the gun and punish people over a misstep? Yes.

Are MOST people like that? I'd argue no.

Most of the time, if you say something and then are shown "yo this hurts people", if you go back and promptly go "Yo, ok, I didn't realize the harm, I am sorry, I will not do that again", you will most likely get a pass from the majority.

Like, hell, in the Rowling thread I was like "strange men in drag breaking into bathrooms is a dangerous trope", and I was then promptly exposed to new information that made me realize "oh, it's not so simple, a poster here was hurt by stuff like this, and so were other people she knows". So, I apologized, expressed sincere and extreme frustration that the situation is so bad, and as far as I'm aware, I haven't been blocked by them or otherwise "cancelled".

My personal rule that USUALLY works is to ask myself "am I being the bad guy here?" before I post/like something. It's not always perfect, I HAVE jumped the gun before, and I HAVE lost a friend over something I thought was completely innocuous but wasn't...But generally? It works. It helps keep me nuanced and grounded.

And when it turns out that I AM the asshole because there was something I didn't realize? I apologize, try to make amends and make up for the harm done, and try to learn from the experience so that I'm not the asshole again.

I agree that that's the issue here.

I just don't agree that using discrimination to solve those issues is justifiable.

Alright, how about a hypothetical?

You have a house, right? You live in it with a few other people, k?

You all get together and agree that "The ENTIRE house must be properly maintained". Sensible.

Well, at some point you realize that a few of the rooms are not being properly maintained, and now there are leaks that are damaging other rooms.

So, you go "Oy! This room isn't being properly maintained!" And another person who frequently uses goes "OY! What makes this room more special than that OTHER room?! Why are you singling out THIS room? Why are you discriminating against THIS room, when other rooms have issues too! The rule is the entire house has to be maintained, stop pointing at individual rooms! It's the ENTIRE house's problem"

How do you address the un-maintained rooms and the people who aren't maintaining them without actually addressing the problematic rooms, when a bunch of the people are refusing to maintain them?

 

[Houseman]

The issue is, you can use argumentum ad absurdum to argue ANYTHING.

Yes... That's the point. How is that a bad thing?
You can use it... but it won't work for things that aren't true.

Alright, how about a hypothetical?

You have a house, right? You live in it with a few other people, k?

You all get together and agree that "The ENTIRE house must be properly maintained". Sensible.

Well, at some point you realize that a few of the rooms are not being properly maintained, and now there are leaks that are damaging other rooms.

So, you go "Oy! This room isn't being properly maintained!" And another person who frequently uses goes "OY! What makes this room more special than that OTHER room?! Why are you singling out THIS room? Why are you discriminating against THIS room, when other rooms have issues too! The rule is the entire house has to be maintained, stop pointing at individual rooms! It's the ENTIRE house's problem"

How do you address the un-maintained rooms and the people who aren't maintaining them without actually addressing the problematic rooms, when a bunch of the people are refusing to maintain them?

You restate that the entire house must be properly maintained, educate the person on what 'entire' means, or draw up more specific rules about what constitutes proper maintenance, who is responsible for what, and the punishments for not following these rules.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

Yes... That's the point. How is that a bad thing?

Because that has limited usefulness and often wastes time?

Like....What's the actual point of going "WELL, the sky isn't ACTUALLY blue, it's whatever our brain THINKS is blue! Let us know discuss what blue COULD potentially be for hours and hours" when you're just discussing what color car you want, for example?

Reducto ad absurdium can grant insight, sure, especially for fields not invented yet. But if you make that the entire basis of your logic, that's, quite literally, absurd. You basically have to randomly come up with the solution instead of looking at what works, and what has historically worked, and then improving/extrapolating on that until you get a working solution.

You restate that the entire house must be properly maintained...

And everyone agrees, cleans up some stuff that's visibly wrong and easy to clean, but doesn't touch the nasty leak that's dripping toilet water onto your mattress, or any of the other major problems?

...or draw up more specific rules about what constitutes proper maintenance, who is responsible for what, and the punishments for not following these rules.

And if most of the people are like "Eh, no, the rules are fine as is, we don't need to change them" because they're not directly suffering from any problems, or otherwise delay or dismiss the concerns until the entire house is falling apart, or at the very least your room is now permanently smelling like poop and has ruined your entire quality of life or given you some kind of nasty infection?

One has to begin with the abstract, with the hypothetical, come up with valid logic, and then, Step 2, make it "real".

That's how the stealth bomber was made. Lockheed Martin took a theoretical research paper about calculating radar cross-sections from flat planes, implemented the math with real materials, and came up with an innovation that guaranteed the USA air superiority for decades. They started with the proven hypothetical, and made it real.

Funny story, the game studio I work with has a similar approach. We theorycraft and discuss design a LOT before we actually implement them. We "play the game in our head" to make sure it works and would be enjoyable to our core audience before we seriously make something and commit resources to it.

...But here's the thing.

At some point, there's a time limit where we have to actually, you know, ship something. Before the money runs out and we can't make ANYTHING.

And sometimes, there's a perfectly workable and valid solution to a problem that already exists. Why not just adapt that and improve it instead of re-inventing the wheel for literally everything?

There's this story about how when the US went into space, they spent millions of dollars and several years developing a pen that functions perfectly in zero G...And the russians just used a pencil...

 

[ObsidianJones]

There are ways to avoid racism without resorting to explicit institutional racism (aka giving special benefits based on race), though. For example, for many things you can exclude one's demographics from the consideration entirely, so called blind recruitment - if you don't know the subjects race or sex, how can the decision be racist or sexist? Though that doesn't always create the desired result - sometimes it really just isn't sexism or racism causing the numbers to differ from the distribution of general population (see when Australian public service moved to blind recruitment for a short time - long story short when they didn't know the gender of applicants they were more likely to hire men, implying that they were actually biased in favor of hiring women and still weren't getting "enough" women to not be sexist).1

When a person is erroneously convicted of a crime he or she didn't commit, and is subject to incarceration for any length of time, there is compensation in order to at least attempt to rectify the wrong that was done to them. This is an accepted measure, one that most people sign off on with some sort of humanity, as our hearts go out to those who were unjustly wronged.

To whit, we shall speak of Richard Rothstein, his work, and what he brought to light.


In these clips, he spoke of Levittown and the deeds therein, which with no unclear language said that only whites were allowed to to be deed owners or renters. It's far from the only town that did this practice, as we know about redlining. By the time these houses were coming up, we were actually getting out of the war. Industries that rose up to support the effort eventually died down.

The brief time of the ubiquitous Black Middle Class came crashing down. Jobs weren't opening up. This was still pre-civil rights America so jobs weren't opening up. The educational system for Blacks has lagged since the concept even occurred in the minds of people. Mirrored to this day when studies find that even accounting for levels of poverty, white schools and students get around 23 billion more in federal money for Education.

We have Family Generations of federally mandated oppression that anyone can look up, if they care to.

The issue isn't trying to avoid racism now. Blind hiring is a great first step. The issue is that while systematic racism is definitely a horrible thing, it's normally coupled with implicit racism. People who are actually fine with the way things currently are, due to a belief or a hatred. Acceptance of the Implicit racism and/or bias could look like many things. Such as:

"Hey, minorities are great, but look, you're asking me to get involved in changing a situation that's been harming people I'm cool with for generations. That's like... a lot of work, right? Ok, I can't be bothered. I wish them the best, but I gotta think about my comfort, you know?"

"God, I mean, I'd hire more blacks, but do you see how they live in those ghettos... can I trust them to put a good face for this company"

"I hate everyone other than me and my own, and I like that they struggle".

Either way, they are not going to speak out against the way things are because it benefits their outlook. From laziness, to the guy who might not hate minorities, but doesn't know enough to be comfortable with them, to the guy who just loves seeing minorities squirm. People like this are the majority. And how do we know that? Because things are still the way they are. If they weren't the majority, things would have changed a long time ago.

Let's put it like this. I believe in equality of the genders and sexuality. I would speak out against any measure that would try to remove female, homosexual, trans, and fluid rights because I can't stand for it. Even if I was fine, my morals would not be fine because people were being harmed and I let it happen. Even if I benefited, I would vote against it because I truly don't believe I can benefit if it brings down my fellow citizens. A tax break means nothing if a family member, a coworker, or a friend needs to suffer.

To end this, We'll use a common phrase as an analogy: The Human Race.

A couple of people decided they wanted to have a race in efforts to win prizes. The track itself was wide and expansive. They got some workers to actually build most of it. The Race's rules were set by one of the actual runners. The others agreed, because it was just a simply race. Run hard, you win. That's all. But when a new runner (one of the workers) actually wanted to compete, the runner who made the rules said no. There was an outcry and an uproar, and that original rule-making runner finally 'relented'.

He changed the course in a way that anyone who is running the race would need a map. The original runner dictated the clothing the new runner could wear and made sure that new runner got the most slipshod gear while the original runner and the other runners already invited to the race were decked out in the best sneakers, clothes and what name you. There would be checkpoints that a guard would have to sign off for you to actually pass through to continue. And at any time, the officials will be able to stop a runner and ask why gives them the right to run in this race, even though they were allowed.

And said officials will stop the new runner and make sure he can only go so far, in the race. Oh yeah, the new runner wasn't even given a map, either.

All other runners are literally 50 miles away. The new runner is maybe 1200 feet away from the starting line, with the officials still asking him what is he doing here. A section of the audience says that it is not fair. That this isn't a race. It's a predetermined outcome that was given the the poor guise of a fair race.

So, the original runner gets all pouty and upset, yells "FINE", radios a few of the guards at the checkpoints to tell them to let the new runner through, but that message doesn't get to most guards and some ignore it all together. He tells the officials to back off a little, but watch him closely because he might cheat since he feels 'cheated'. The new runner is also afforded a really worn and hard to read map and told that it was good enough to make it as far as the other runners did. And is told that he can wear the new sneakers if he somehow finds the money during the race to get it.

The same audience hears this, feels this isn't enough, and says he needs at least a boost to 10 or 20 miles ahead. And the original runner is aghast. How DARE anyone suggest such a boost?! The restrictions were somewhat lessened! The new runner still has to dodge some obstacles, but I mean that's just how the race is, isn't it?! Why should that new runner get any advantage, even after he was so severely disadvantaged... How is that fair to the other runners who had to run that far to begin with on their own merit?!

In short, it's not institutional racism to put situations into place to counteract laws and mores that were specifically set into place harm one race in particular. And nor would it be an issue if other races who were affected by Federal and local law could actually benefit from those situations, as well.

 

[Revnak]

Logic doesn't, necessarily. Logic is only valid when the premises, regardless of what they are, always lead to the conclusion. If they don't, the logic is invalid.

Valid logic is logic that works regardless of context.
Sound logic is valid logic, "in context".

Everything with four legs is a cat.
Socrates has four legs.
Socrates is a cat.

That's valid logic.

Logic is sound when the premises are true AND the logic is valid. You can't get sound logic from invalid logic. You might as well throw the whole thing out and start over.

Step 1: valid logic
Step 2: sound logic (add context)

That's what I'm trying to do. Step 1. Determine whether or not the logic is valid or not. Once we come to an agreement as to the validity of the logic, from there we can put it "in context" and make it sound. We can move from the abstract, to the real.

I... no? A statement can be logical in one context but not in others. 2+2=0 in algebra modulo 4, but not in normal algebra. Context is absurdly important.
Also purely logical system must be incompressible, contradictory, or incomplete. Pure logic has massive inherent limits.