chasfm11 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:45 pm
I'm interested in hearing opposing points of view and try my best to find those that try to present that viewpoint that I might not agree with in some cogent way.
I got to this video by un-layering a Facebook post. I opened a link and imbedded in it was a link to this University of Georgia graduate student's description of system racism. More interesting are his solutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFuNgCI ... reload=101
Warning: if you blood pressure isn't under control, don't follow the link.
Let me be clear: I do NOT believe that those who argue systemic white racism in the U.S. follow this same line of thinking. But I do think that some are connecting dots in the same manner.
I studied syllogisms in my 2nd semester undergraduate English class. I amazes me that a graduate student in philosophy would flunk the basic concepts of syllogisms as badly as he does. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize some kernels of truth in some of the things that he says. But his "logic flows" are unfathomable.
To be as fair as possible, I find that his logic is pretty far fetched, but he also has some persuasive points. The same can be said for some commentary videos I've seen that support my thoughts on the issue too. For example, in his video, he does two things in the short snippet I watched:
1. He laid out "truths" and said because 1 and 2 are true, the third must be true, even though they follow no logical progression. As chasfm11 said, it lacks the basic tenants of syllogism. It doesn't matter if they do or not, though. The fact that all three points can be seen as true makes the argument work in a subconscious level for those not in the know of the methodology and for those who are in their own little echo chamber.
2. Many of his arguments are pointing to a negative. For example, the lack of any white supremacy media coverage. His argument is that there's no coverage because it has been suppressed. The logical counter argument would be to prove that it's not being suppressed. That would involve proving a negative or proving something really doesn't exist. Because of that, many people would subconsciously believe that he's right with the suppression, since the counterargument would not work. A different approach would need to be considered to argue against that.
Unfortunately, things like this are common everywhere. I just heard today that this last weekend was extremely violent in large, democratic controlled cities. It then cites examples, one of which is a single data point in CHAZ/CHOP. This method leaves out the big facts that we need, which is the difference between overall violent crime rate this weekend compared to last weekend, a year ago, etc. Not just three or four small data points. Although they are actually true points, just because it's true for 3 cities and a fake city doesn't mean that it's true for all 50 or so "big cities" in the US that are Minneapolis sized or larger. If it really is true, I'd like to see the evidence
Despite all that, though, the only good, cogent arguments I've heard so far are those who disagree with the notion of systemic racism. In my mind, socioeconomic success is given to those who earn and maintain it. It is blind to race, color, creed, gender, etc. There is already equality in American life. It's up to the individuals to earn and maintain it. Individuals are free to band together and help each other out altruistically, but I'm not about to kidnap individuals and force them into my camp or someone else's camp.
