Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM

[Tambourine]

say more, because I think "lived experience" has been taken WAY TOO FAR.

No, let's take it even further: If your doctor completely ignores your pain and doesn't listen to you when you tell them what your health problems are, then they're no good as a doctor. Therefore, if you don't think take the concerns of people actually affected by the issues you're trying to solve as authoritative, you're wrong.

Now how's that for a garbage analogy?

 

[icehorse]

No, let's take it even further: If your doctor completely ignores your pain and doesn't listen to you when you tell them what your health problems are, then they're no good as a doctor. Therefore, if you don't think take the concerns of people actually affected by the issues you're trying to solve as authoritative, you're wrong.

Now how's that for a garbage analogy?

Let's go back to the OP. Of course the doctor must listen to the patient. That's not at issue in the OP. What's at issue is when the patient claims to know more about the SOLUTION than the doctor.

 

[Tambourine]

Let's go back to the OP. Of course the doctor must listen to the patient. That's not at issue in the OP. What's at issue is when the patient claims to know more about the SOLUTION than the doctor.

No, what's at issue is that you seem to think BLM is wrong for focusing on the issues that the movement was founded to address, but then feel put out when BLM supporters react negatively to such a 'solution'.

And despite all your talks about solutions, you still haven't been able to present a more practical solution to police brutality than "abolish all wealth inequality, establish a classless society". You are dressing up in a white coat, claim to be a medical expert, and then tell everyone who suffers from a broken leg to just cut it off and learn to walk on hands - sure, it's technically a "solution", but it's so extraordinarily impractical that it makes me question the authority you assume here.

 

[icehorse]

No, what's at issue is that you seem to think BLM is wrong for focusing on the issues that the movement was founded to address, but then feel put out when BLM supporters react negatively to such a 'solution'.

And despite all your talks about solutions, you still haven't been able to present a more practical solution to police brutality than "abolish all wealth inequality, establish a classless society". You are dressing up in a white coat, claim to be a medical expert, and then tell everyone who suffers from a broken leg to just cut it off and learn to walk on hands - sure, it's technically a "solution", but it's so extraordinarily impractical that it makes me question the authority you assume here.

It's not about me or my solutions dude. How many times do I have to say that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's go back to the OP. Of course the doctor must listen to the patient. That's not at issue in the OP. What's at issue is when the patient claims to know more about the SOLUTION than the doctor.

Well, yes and no. Your OP was a single case problem. A torn ACL. It is not certain that the problem of racism is a single case problem and it is not certain that it has an objective solution like a torn ACL. Nor have you identified who the "doctor" is or given a somewhat descriptive diagnosis of what the problem of racism actually is.
So here is a quote about science and a problem you have to watch out for. Now since you are so rational and well read can you explain the relevance?

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

 

[icehorse]

Well, yes and no. Your OP was a single case problem. A torn ACL.

It was an analogy, from which you were meant to generalize

Nor have you identified who the "doctor" is or given a somewhat descriptive diagnosis of what the problem of racism actually is.

The "doctor" is expertise in general.

So here is a quote about science and a problem you have to watch out for. Now since you are so rational and well read can you explain the relevance?

Not my quote, not sure I agree with it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Not my quote, not sure I agree with it.

Have you checked. what it is about? The explanation of what is about? Have you tried to rephrase it in other words? And last and not least who wrote it?

I mean, I have seen basic lecture within different fields of science, where experts warn against not paying attention to that.
I even used it on your claim that I had to read a specific book on a narrow subject as you claim it explained something. It does, but it is a half-truth. You do know what a half-truth is and how it may relate to this subject matter.
I mean you are rational and well read in what expertise is in general, so you can tell us, what we must look out for and how come we can't listen to the BLM.

What they say here, is not even close to what is at play, right? That is your claim, this is not correct and can't be trusted
"We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe."
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-defunding-the-police-really-means/

Now pay attention to all of what she says. Of course it is politics, but behind that, if you follow, what she is saying, is psychology, sociology, criminal studies, economics and what not.
So you are argument is this. BLM can't be well read and rational, because they can't listen to and understand what the experts say. They(BLM) are biased and irrational and we all are. Well, that would then apply to you, me and the experts also.

So here is the solution. There is no solution, because we are all biased, irrational and we can't trust anybody, but you! You read one book and now you know!

 

[icehorse]

What they say here, is not even close to what is at play, right? That is your claim, this is not correct and can't be trusted
"We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe."
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-defunding-the-police-really-means/

Now pay attention to all of what she says. Of course it is politics, but behind that, if you follow, what she is saying, is psychology, sociology, criminal studies, economics and what not.
So you are argument is this. BLM can't be well read and rational, because they can't listen to and understand what the experts say. They(BLM) are biased and irrational and we all are. Well, that would then apply to you, me and the experts also.

So here is the solution. There is no solution, because we are all biased, irrational and we can't trust anybody, but you! You read one book and now you know!

I'm really happy to see their NEW post on "what defunding means", hooray! They have learned something, congrats!

==

You keep putting words in my mouth. The OP was focused on the problem with the claim that "lived experience" should count more than expertise. It's not about my expertise in social reform or anything else. It's about the nature of how we communicate with each other.

I read one book? I'm guessing that at some point in this thread the topic of bias came up, and I cited Kahneman? Well of course Kahneman NEVER says "there is no solution". The message is that we're all biased and we need to keep that in mind when we're creating our solutions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm really happy to see their NEW post on "what defunding means", hooray! They have learned something, congrats!

==

You keep putting words in my mouth. The OP was focused on the problem with the claim that "lived experience" should count more than expertise. It's not about my expertise in social reform or anything else. It's about the nature of how we communicate with each other.

I read one book? I'm guessing that at some point in this thread the topic of bias came up, and I cited Kahneman? Well of course Kahneman NEVER says "there is no solution". The message is that we're all biased and we need to keep that in mind when we're creating our solutions.

Good answer. We will leave it here, for now. But remember, if you overdo the part of biased, it becomes absurd, because then we are all biased and everything is biased. Even the claim that everything is biased.

 

[Tambourine]

It's not about me or my solutions dude. How many times do I have to say that?

So you were argueing over nothing?

 

[icehorse]

So you were argueing over nothing?

The OP is bringing up a bigger context. For years, we've seen extremists on the right devalue critical thinking. Now we're seeing extremists on the left do the same thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The OP is bringing up a bigger context. For years, we've seen extremists on the right devalue critical thinking. Now we're seeing extremists on the left do the same thing.

Such as...?

 

[icehorse]

Such as...?

such as saying that "lived experience" is more important than expertise.

 

[Tambourine]

The OP is bringing up a bigger context. For years, we've seen extremists on the right devalue critical thinking. Now we're seeing extremists on the left do the same thing.

How are BLM more "extremist" than most leftists? What is "extreme" about their opinions, and whom are you comparing them to?

such as saying that "lived experience" is more important than expertise.

Actually, I believe it is the dismissal of lived experiences that devalues critical thinking.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

such as saying that "lived experience" is more important than expertise.

Who is saying that and in what context?

 

[icehorse]

How are BLM more "extremist" than most leftists? What is "extreme" about their opinions, and whom are you comparing them to?

Again, check the title of the thread, it says "e.g. blm". In my opinion, many of the groups on the left have elevated identity politics over critical thinking. This is just one example. But it's more about a certain set of tactics than any group. So BLM is sometimes fine, and sometimes I feel their tactics are counter-productive.

I think a clearer way to describe this might be to list what I consider to be bad tactics:

- identity politics
- "stay in your lane"
- intersectionality
- de-platforming
- heckler's veto

and so on.

 

[Tambourine]

Again, check the title of the thread, it says "e.g. blm". In my opinion, many of the groups on the left have elevated identity politics over critical thinking. This is just one example. But it's more about a certain set of tactics than any group. So BLM is sometimes fine, and sometimes I feel their tactics are counter-productive.


I think a clearer way to describe this might be to list what I consider to be bad tactics:

- identity politics
- "stay in your lane"
- intersectionality
- de-platforming
- heckler's veto

and so on.

So what is it you want to debate?
Or are you just looking for people who agree with you?

 

[icehorse]

So what is it you want to debate?
Or are you just looking for people who agree with you?

for someone who clearly hasn't understood the OP, you have a habit of taking a very hostile tone. whatever.

I want to debate anyone who thinks the tactics I listed above are justified.

 

[Tambourine]

for someone who clearly hasn't understood the OP, you have a habit of taking a very hostile tone. whatever. I want to debate anyone who thinks the tactics I listed above are justified.

Well, first of all you would have to clean up your terminology, because neither "identity politics" nor "intersectionalism" (I assume you mean Intersectionality?) are "tactics".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, check the title of the thread, it says "e.g. blm". In my opinion, many of the groups on the left have elevated identity politics over critical thinking. This is just one example. But it's more about a certain set of tactics than any group. So BLM is sometimes fine, and sometimes I feel their tactics are counter-productive.

Can you give specific examples of what these tactics are and how they are counter-productive?

I think a clearer way to describe this might be to list what I consider to be bad tactics:

- identity politics
- "stay in your lane"
- intersectionality
- de-platforming
- heckler's veto

and so on.

These are just empty buzz-phrases without context. In what way are they employed by BLM and in what ways are they counter-productive when they are employed?