I just checked. unenlightened never used the words "race," "racist," or "racism" in his posts. — T Clark

There you go again questioning lived experience with facts. And there they go again complaining about it. :grimace:

… In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach
My existence led by confusion boats, mutiny from stern to bow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. — His Bobness

Thank you!

You pointed out the biggest fallacy of the other posts and of racial discussions in general, one that's hard to counter - Why did the original poster and the followers pick the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize. — T Clark

And stating you are a Social Democrat as some sort of credential is smarmy. Thanks for the opportunity to use that word — T Clark

I don't think you know what "smarmy", "fallacy", or "deride" even mean. Picking "statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize" is not fallacious. A fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. Appealing to ridicule, circular reasoning, and ad hominem attacks are examples of fallacies. Your example isn't. Saying that picking the statements of vulnerable people is not only fallacious, but "the biggest fallacy" (not even sure what it means for a fallacy to "the biggest"), makes about as much sense as saying the sound of toast is not only orange, but the most orange.

Furthermore, your entire post contributes nothing to this debate. It's really nothing more than the equivalent of hitting the Like button on Facebook (for unenlightened), and blowing raspberries at me.

This is a very productive discussion.

But the complaint is precisely that the evidence is dismissed without evidence to the contrary, and the evidence of testimony is discounted on one side and counted on the other. — unenlightened

Thanks unenlightened. I was siding with the OP, but I had missed this point (funny, that seems to happen when I don't read the articles attached to the OP :grimace: ).

Do you think groups like these (and individuals from these groups) would benefit from a little understanding of marketing and psychology? If Alexandra Painia had titled the essay, "My experience is as valid as yours" wouldn't the reception have been different? Similarly if "Black Lives Matters" was changed to "Black Lives Matter Too" it would answer the number 1 objection (in-valid, but an objection none the less) while adding weight to their point that they are treated as "less than"?

As a white guy, I have no business telling those who do not experience America the same way I do, how to solve their problems. But as an annoying person on a philosophy site, solving problems is what I do (hehe, poor attempts anyway).

Thanks unenlightened. I was siding with the OP, but I had missed this point — ZhouBoTong

I don't think it's a good point, though, because posing evidence to the contrary is not necessary to dismiss evidence. For example, if someone claims that aliens exist and her evidence for this claim is "My dad told me so, and he's a dentist," I don't need evidence to the contrary to dismiss it. It's clearly just an appeal to authority.

I don't think you know what "smarmy", "fallacy", or "deride" even mean. — czahar

From the web

• Smarmy - revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness
• Fallacy - a false or mistaken idea
• Deride - to laugh at or insult contemptuously

First two seem right on. "Deride" may be stronger than I should have used.

A fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. Appealing to ridicule, circular reasoning, and ad hominem attacks are examples of fallacies. Your example isn't. Saying that picking the statements of vulnerable people is not only fallacious, but "the biggest fallacy" (not even sure what it means for a fallacy to "the biggest"), makes about as much sense as saying the sound of toast is not only orange, but the most orange. — czahar

I called it a fallacy in its normal English language usage. I didn't call it a logical fallacy, which is a term with a specific meaning in philosophy. The word as I used it expresses exactly what I meant to say.

Furthermore, your entire post contributes nothing to this debate. It's really nothing more than the equivalent of hitting the Like button on Facebook (for unenlightened), and blowing raspberries at me. — czahar

I was agreeing with Unenlightened and I backed up my agreement with arguments. Just as your supporters on this thread have with you. That's the way it works and how it's supposed to work.

As for "blowing raspberries," they were well deserved.

I called it a fallacy in its normal English language usage. — T Clark

If that's what you did, it makes even less sense. Picking "statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize" is not an idea. It's an action.

I was agreeing with Unenlightened and I backed up my agreement with arguments. — T Clark

Really? Please show me how the following are arguments:

Yes. This and your original post on this thread are exactly right. It's amazing to me that you are the only one who understands how it works. You pointed out the biggest fallacy of the other posts and of racial discussions in general, one that's hard to counter - Why did the original poster and the followers pick the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize. It is a sign of their, of society's, lack of social and psychological awareness and moral courage.

Self-serving whining by the privileged against the whining of the vulnerable would be funny if it weren't so destructive. I appreciate your responses. — T Clark

As I said in my response to unenlightened's posts, and as he said, this whole discussion is wonderful, compelling evidence for exactly what the so called social justice warriors, whom you deride, are saying. Calling it ironic is inadequate. It's stomach-churning. And stating you are a Social Democrat as some sort of credential is smarmy. Thanks for the opportunity to use that word. — T Clark

Put both of these quotes in standard form -- i.e., premise 1, premise 2, premise N, conclusion -- and we'll test the soundness of these "arguments."

Put both of these quotes in standard form -- i.e., premise 1, premise 2, premise N, conclusion -- and we'll test the soundness of these "arguments." — czahar

Premises:

• The original poster and the followers picked the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize.
• This whole discussion provides for exactly what the so called social justice warriors are saying.
• The fact that these arguments are wide-spread damages our society and makes it hard to treat all people fairly.

Conclusions

• The fact that Czahar, his cohort, and much of the rest of society fail to see the corruptness of the framing of the question says much of what needs to be said about race.

The George Pell case shows the issue neatly. A well protected established white male against childhood recollections.

The issue is not that lived experience is beyond criticism, but that it must not be simply dismissed out of hand.

Premises:
The original poster and the followers picked the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize.
This whole discussion provides for exactly what the so called social justice warriors are saying.
The fact that these arguments are wide-spread damages our society and makes it hard to treat all people fairly.

Conclusions
The fact that Czahar, his cohort, and much of the rest of society fail to see the corruptness of the framing of the question says much of what needs to be said about race. — T Clark

That doesn't look valid at all. It's just a bunch of random atomic statements linked together that do nothing to force the truth of the conclusion.

Let's use O for your first premise, W for your second, F for your third, and C for your conclusion. If that's the case, your argument is essentially:

O
W
F
C

That's argument is clearly invalid. I can show you using a truth table if you don't believe me. Then again, I will concede I'm not exactly a whizz with formal logic, so I may have made a mistake.

The George Pell case shows the issue neatly. A well protected established white male against childhood recollections.

The issue is not that lived experience is beyond criticism, but that it must not be simply dismissed out of hand. — Banno

Thank you, Banno. I will have to look that case up. I agree that lived experience shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but I disagree with your claim that "the issue is not that lived experience is beyond criticism." Based on the quotes I pasted from articles in my OP, it's pretty clear that at least some people think it is.

There's a presumption that the experiences of the privileged are not to be questioned - certainly not in the way one can question the experiences of non-whites, non-males, non-CIS, or the disabled.

Are you "...looking for ways to dismantle their argument so you can remain chilling and cooling on the comfy couch of your privilege"?

You and I are not the audience for the Visibility Project item you link. It's for the invisible. It's a call for them to stand forth, and a reminder for us to listen.

You have to remember when encountering these people, no matter how long you decide to engage them for, that the issue is them and their failure to empathize not you.

That doesn't look valid at all. — czahar

Shrug. You missed the point.

Claims about the world -- whether it be about discrimination or harassment -- require evidence...

Yet those who appeal to lived experience completely ignore this well established and almost universally accepted fact. — czahar

It looks to me like you want your experience to be valued above the experience of "others".

I experience it - that's truth.
You experience it - that's evidence
They experience it - that's irrelevant.

His post is a criticism of a political movement, how in your mind is that an unstable foundation? My interpretation is that you're far more of a racially motivated person than OP, he doesn't appear to put a lot of stock into race and prefers for people to deal with the facts, I support this. Also, I said that unenlightened insinuated he is a racist, not that he directly called him one. He's willfully misrepresented OP's argument in many ways, you think it's wonderful, I don't, not going to bother having an argument about it.

While it was necessary to confront your nonsense, I don't want to get into a debate with either of you so that's my role in this over.

His post is a criticism of a political movement, how in your mind is that an unstable foundation? My interpretation is that you're far more of a racially motivated person than OP, he doesn't appear to put a lot of stock into race and prefers for people to deal with the facts, I support this. Also, I said that unenlightened insinuated he is a racist, not that he directly called him one. He's willfully misrepresented OP's argument in many ways, you think it's wonderful, I don't, not going to bother having an argument about it. — Judaka

I didn't say anything about race until you brought it up. Also, Unenlightened didn't say anything about racism either implicitly or explicitly. This is something your are reading into it. Imagining. That says more about you than it does us. I think Unenlightened described Czahar's argument fairly.

While it was necessary to confront your nonsense, I don't want to get into a debate with either of you so that's my role in this over. — Judaka

You have supported your position poorly, as has Czahar. Calling what I have said "nonsense" doesn't change that.

Sure, the "vulnerable people" and the "privileged" people have nothing to do with ethnicity. To say this while supporting someone who absolutely was bringing up race is no excuse, how poor of me to jump to conclusions.

Sure, the "vulnerable people" and the "privileged" people have nothing to do with ethnicity. To say this while supporting someone who absolutely was bringing up race is no excuse, how poor of me to jump to conclusions. — Judaka

I can't speak for Unenlightened, but as for me, I specifically wrote what I wrote the way I wrote it to keep it from being only about race. You are the one who has mischaracterized what we said. You are the one who made it about race.

Oh yeah? So what is OP guilty of? Who are the vulnerable people and who are the privileged people?

You pointed out the biggest fallacy of the other posts and of racial discussions in general, one that's hard to counter - Why did the original poster and the followers pick the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize. It is a sign of their, of society's, lack of social and psychological awareness and moral courage. — T Clark

Being a self-serving arrogant prick that I am, I was just wondering if anyone - especially the poster of the OP - had any comments to offer about my earlier post?

Thanks

(Note: address me as “Your Lowness”.)