The Art of the Bad Faith Argument

[Shalcker]

The former isn't a detriment, either. The only people bothered by these sentiments are exactly the people responsible for the continuation of the problem, because the status quo is to their advantage (or at least, they believe it to be).

You're saying that "embarrassed billionaires" are advantaged by having billionaires in same county?

Shouldn't you disabuse people of that notion if it isn't actually true? Just like "white supremacy" theoretically keeping blacks elsewhere down doesn't help one bit usual trailer park inhabitant.

Sure, racists don't like being pointed out for being racist. And? That's their problem.

You don't want to convince anyone not already convinced, that much is clear.

Not what's being argued. Why lie about this shit? Do you really think we're all that stupid?

I argue it. Why exactly do you think it wouldn't turn that way if you do not control for it?

[Endus]

You're saying that "embarrassed billionaires" are advantaged by having billionaires in same county?

That a lot of people feel that way, yes. They support the wealthy's lack of obligations because they dream of being among them and enjoying the same benefits, and feel that's attainable.

I'd point out that's nonsense, but we're talking about what people feel, not what is actually true.

Shouldn't you disabuse people of that notion if it isn't actually true? Just like "white supremacy" theoretically keeping blacks elsewhere down doesn't help one bit usual trailer park inhabitant.

First, it isn't my job to disabuse anyone of anything. If they insist on being self-defeating and willfully ignorant, there's not much I can do about that, and certainly not if I'm not being paid a salary to put up with that shit.

Second, yes, systemic racism benefits white trailer park residents, in a wide range of ways. You're just wrong on basic facts, there.

You don't want to convince anyone not already convinced, that much is clear.

Either the facts will convince them, or they'll refuse to listen to the facts because the facts debunk their feels.

I can talk to the former, but my talking won't be what convinces them of anything; the facts are.

I can't talk to the latter, since there is literally no argument I could ever produce that would honestly convince them of anything. So I won't waste my breath. If facts could convince them, they'd be in the first group already. I could try and craft a propaganda disinformation campaign to delude them into supporting what I feel is "right", but I don't see that crafting a second propaganda campaign to defeat the first one is an improvement.

It. Is. Not. My. Job. To. Fix. People.

I

argue it. Why exactly do you think it wouldn't turn that way if you do not control for it?

Because it's paranoid lunacy. You're not basing that position on anything, and a claim made without basis can be summarily dismissed without evidence.

What you're claiming (that those pushing for equity will in turn seek supremacy and oppression of others) is directly antithetical to its own premises. It's just fearmongering babblegook nonsense.

[Shalcker]

The only people being made 'more racist' by nonsense articles like 'the intolerable whiteness of knitting" champaign socialist navel-gazing or "pumpkin spiced lattes are a microaggression" student extremism are angry YouTubers and their audiences. No one actually takes that shit seriously.

Plenty of people seems to act like they do though.

And there are plenty of black racists as is. There is no need to make them "more racist"; they can just re-imagine existing system of oppression with them on top. Because can they believe, for whatever reason (like reparations for all those years of oppression), that they deserve it.

Almost entirely unforced law reform around policing is very unlikely to shift the existing power structure at all and even less likely to suddenly result in African american's replacing existing oligarchs.

Reddit's (former) CEO already relinquished his board spot for black person; it is technically possible, however unlikely. And just like "anyone can become billionaire", it doesn't have to be reality to be a dream.

I mean in theory that argument has merit but I'm not sure 'global protests' is really 'token'. If recent happenings don't result in meaningful change (which they already have in terms of the beginning of police reform in some states) then you aren't getting meaningful change without serious political reform.

And political reform, again, requires broad support.

...or you could just agitate in a military and eventually perform a coup. That worked for Bolsheviks.

People on the internet are almost always taking a more extreme position then they would irl. Further society, in general, tends to the middle because most people don't give a shit. I wouldn't take things you read on a forum as representative of anything.

Those who don't give a shit don't usually drive the change though.

Oligarchs will act to protect their interest in parliament no matter from whence the attack comes. The argument that you shouldn't bother attacking them because you might not succeed the first time is meritless.

Where did i say "do not attack oligarchs"? I'm fairly sure i argued exact opposite - getting those screwed by oligarchs on your side, racist or not. :/

[Elegiac]

Why don’t they deserve reparations for slavery and Jim Crow, out of curiosity?

[Saltysquidoon]

Plenty of people seems to act like they do though.

And there are plenty of black racists as is. There is no need to make them "more racist"; they can just re-imagine existing system of oppression with them on top. Because can they believe, for whatever reason (like reparations for all those years of oppression), that they deserve it.

Internet nonsense is internet nonsense.

Black people being personally racist is obviously bad because that's not the point of equality. However, a black person generally hasn't historically had the opportunity to entrench a system that oppresses others as a definable class though, which is the issue at hand.

Reddit's (former) CEO already relinquished his board spot for black person; it is technically possible, however unlikely. And just like "anyone can become billionaire", it doesn't have to be reality to be a dream.

I'll believe this is an issue when hedgefund billionaire en mass start relinquishing their wealth exclusivly to people of an identifiable class

And political reform, again, requires broad support.

I mean yes and no. It should ideally have broad support. In reality, plenty of people have historically snuck things through while no one was looking.

...or you could just agitate in a military and eventually perform a coup. That worked for Bolsheviks.

I very much doubt we'll be seeing a spontaneous people's revolution marching on the seat of power ever again. The game has simply changed too much.

Also, I don't know what that link is meant to prove?

[Endus]

Patriarchal? Did i miss something? What does pain pills have to do with the patriarchy? The opioid epidemic is partly due to shitty pain doctors (boy i got some stories) and the fact they're addictive like a SSRI. Just with worse withdrawal.

"You should be thankful we're racist, because it protects you" is what's patriarchal horseshit.

[PC2]

Why don’t they deserve reparations for slavery and Jim Crow, out of curiosity?

African slaves? Because they're dead and the judicial system operates based on individuals.

Also by default the onus is on those making a positive assertion and not on the negative.

[Elegiac]

African slaves? Because they're dead and the judicial system operates based on individuals.

Also by default the onus is on those making a positive assertion and not on the negative.

Sorry, @Breccia, but...

*LOUD, ANNOYING BUZZER*

The legal system acknowledges that the heritability of wealth is a positive and someone's personal right - this is why inheritance is a legal concept in the first place.

Enslaved people and their descendants under Jim Crow were robbed of the ability to generate wealth and pass it on to their successors as a result of codified and unofficial government and social policies.

Ergo, their estates (i.e. their surviving descendants) should be entitled to damages. It's a pretty basic legal principle, hun.

Also; no, the judicial system does not "operate based on individuals" because protected classes are a thing. Sit down.

[PC2]

Sorry, @Breccia, but...

*LOUD, ANNOYING BUZZER*

The legal system acknowledges that the heritability of wealth is a positive and someone's personal right - this is why inheritance is a legal concept in the first place.

Enslaved people and their descendants under Jim Crow were robbed of the ability to generate wealth and pass it on to their successors as a result of codified and unofficial government and social policies.

Ergo, their estates (i.e. their surviving descendants) should be entitled to damages. It's a pretty basic legal principle, hun.

Also; no, the judicial system does not "operate based on individuals" because protected classes are a thing. Sit down.

Breccia? Not sure what that means.

In any case if I'm wrong then simply take it up with the judicial system and you'll quickly figure out why racial reward/punishment is not consistent with the way the law works.

[Elegiac]

Breccia? Not sure what that means.

Stole his meme.

In any case if I'm wrong then simply take it up with the judicial system and you'll quickly figure out why racial reward/punishment is not consistent with the way the law works.

"The onus is on the person making a positive assertion" sure did morph into "well you might have substantiated your argument but the judicial system that we are fully aware is set up to protect the propertied classes disagrees with you so nyeh" real quick.

The law as it stands is unjust; if you remotely agree with the idea of inherited wealth, support for reparations should be a no-brainer. But y'all don't, because the support for inheritance is not actually based on any philosophical principle. It's just greed.

[Calfredd]

Stole his meme.



"The onus is on the person making a positive assertion" sure did morph into "well you might have substantiated your argument but the judicial system that we are fully aware is set up to protect the propertied classes disagrees with you so nyeh" real quick.

The law as it stands is unjust; if you remotely agree with the idea of inherited wealth, support for reparations should be a no-brainer. But y'all don't, because the support for inheritance is not actually based on any philosophical principle. It's just greed.

For someone who is quick to point out supposed fallacies, he sure loves to use them.

[Elegiac]

For someone who is quick to point out supposed fallacies, he sure loves to use them.

I'm aware. The "we can't extrapolate past trends to predict future ones" bullshit also falls apart pretty quickly when they're pressed for evidence of their beliefs.

The grift is real. Or, in short...a bad faith argument.

[PC2]

For someone who is quick to point out supposed fallacies, he sure loves to use them.

Specifically which fallacy is the problem here?

I'm aware. The "we can't extrapolate past trends to predict future ones" bullshit also falls apart pretty quickly when they're pressed for evidence of their beliefs.

You're going off-topic but the past has never reliably predicted the future and it can't in principle so again the onus is on you to prove that it does. Also if you truly believe that it can then I recommend that you apply it to gambling because you're going to be an incredibly rich person if you know the future ahead of time.

[Elegiac]

You're going off-topic but the past has never reliably determined the future so again the onus is on you to prove that it does. Also if you truly believe that it can then I recommend that you apply it to gambling because you're going to be an incredibly rich person if you know the future ahead of time.

I mean I'm pretty able to preempt what sort of fallacies are going to be issued by the right wing based on their past behavior so...I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, hun. You just seem to think that if there's any chance of randomness then we can't issue a statement of probability, which is frank nonsense for anyone that actually paid attention in High School mathemathics.

But hey thanks for finally joining the side supporting reparations. It is the most capitalist thing to do.

[PC2]

I mean I'm pretty able to preempt what sort of fallacies are going to be issued by the right wing based on their past behavior so...I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, hun. You just seem to think that if there's any chance of randomness then we can't issue a statement of probability, which is frank nonsense for anyone that actually paid attention in High School mathemathics.

But hey thanks for finally joining the side supporting reparations. It is the most capitalist thing to do.

Huh, how did you even got on this topic of reparations and how are you calculating reparations? You must be insane if you think there is going to be some kind of racial tax and racial revenue.

[Shalcker]

Black people being personally racist is obviously bad because that's not the point of equality. However, a black person generally hasn't historically had the opportunity to entrench a system that oppresses others as a definable class though, which is the issue at hand.

You can look at South Africa to see how entrenched power structures can be hard to dislodge if you let old powers to retain their property even when you notionally remove systems of oppression.

Why not start with disempowering oligarchs regardless of their stances? That will also make political change easier overall.

I'll believe this is an issue when hedgefund billionaire en mass start relinquishing their wealth exclusivly to people of an identifiable class

Again, that isn't issue; it is simply something that people can look up to in lieu of actual change, just like you note "embarrassed billionaire" hinders class struggle despite there being no mass of people becoming billionaires from poor background (and it can tap on the same myth, just with racial tint).

I mean yes and no. It should ideally have broad support. In reality, plenty of people have historically snuck things through while no one was looking.

If it isn't based on consensus then it can often be challenged and gains reversed.

I very much doubt we'll be seeing a spontaneous people's revolution marching on the seat of power ever again. The game has simply changed too much.

Continued decay of institutions can do wonders in that regard.

There was nothing spontaneous about October Revolution.

[Elegiac]

Huh, how did you even got on this topic of reparations and how are you calculating reparations? You must be insane if you think there is going to be some kind of racial tax and racial revenue.

Ah, so we've gone from "reparations for damages" to "a racial tax". You do know that strawman arguments are fallacious, right?

This is what is meant by a bad faith argument. Y'all aren't interested in learning, you're here to take up air by arguing against positions that you construct and assign to the opposition because you can't reckon with the actual arguments being put forward. In this case, we've got a pretty clear case of cognitive dissonance. "Inherited wealth = good, but government handouts = bad" in the view of the right wing - but reparations in the case of damages inflicted by the government restricting the ability of a community to generate and pass on wealth neatly demolish this constructed binary.

Thus, to maintain the illusion of "political objectivity" which would be ruined by having to make a declarative statement in either direction, we get bad faith arguments protesting obviously extreme and outrageous things like "racial taxes" (which were never actually mentioned in the first place) in an effort to poison the well of discussion - instead of "huh, maybe there is a case for reparations and maybe I should go and avail myself of the abundant literature on the subject" rather than "I don't understand this, therefore you must be insane. Also ad hominem arguments are bad."

- - - Updated - - -

I took no part in either the slave trade or jim crow since I was born WELLLLL after it. So why should I have to pay for shit that I had no part in? The only ones that should get reparations are the ones that were alive during jim crow.

Once again, if y'all believe in the idea of inherited wealth then it doesn't matter who is and who isn't alive because these things happen on a macro (i.e. community) level. Y'all are just being defensive because you're equating reparations with like...a fine or a tax on being white...and not actually an instance of justice for damages against an oppressed group.

You took no part in building your parents' or the country's wealth either yet benefit off both, so I'm not seeing why your hands are clean in this situation.

[PC2]

Ah, so we've gone from "reparations for damages" to "a racial tax". You do know that strawman arguments are fallacious, right?

This is what is meant by a bad faith argument. Y'all aren't interested in learning, you're here to take up air by arguing against positions that you construct and assign to the opposition because you can't reckon with the actual arguments being put forward. In this case, we've got a pretty clear case of cognitive dissonance. "Inherited wealth = good, but government handouts = bad" in the view of the right wing - but reparations in the case of damages inflicted by the government restricting the ability of a community to generate and pass on wealth neatly demolish this constructed binary.

Thus, to maintain the illusion of "political objectivity" which would be ruined by having to make a declarative statement in either direction, we get bad faith arguments protesting obviously extreme and outrageous things like "racial taxes" (which were never actually mentioned in the first place) in an effort to poison the well of discussion - instead of "huh, maybe there is a case for reparations and maybe I should go and avail myself of the abundant literature on the subject" rather than "I don't understand this, therefore you must be insane. Also ad hominem arguments are bad."

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, if y'all believe in the idea of inherited wealth then it doesn't matter who is and who isn't alive because these things happen on a macro (i.e. community) level. Y'all are just being defensive because you're equating reparations with like...a fine or a tax on being white...and not actually an instance of justice for damages against an oppressed group.

You took no part in building your parents' or the country's wealth either yet benefit off both, so I'm not seeing why your hands are clean in this situation.

I'm just trying to understand specifically how you want to implement racial reparations and all you give me is vague answers...

If you want to get rid of inheritance for all people than actually you're arguing for a *universal* policy which has nothing to do with race-based reparations.

[Elegiac]

I'm just trying to understand specifically how you want to implement racial reparations and all you give me is vague answers...

*yawns and points up*

There's a concept I've touched on a few times, what's called a "wicked problem". These are issues that originate from hundreds to thousands to countless various contributing inputs; man-made climate change is a current one. The issue with wicked problems is that you fundamentally can't boil them down to anything simplistic; you can't point to any one industry and say "you, you caused climate change". There's no one "fix", either. You can try to quantify and qualify how much a particular factor has contributed (and this is important work, for modeling and such), but any attempt to address the problem needs to be just as varied as the problem itself, to have any chance of being effective.

Inequity is a wicked problem. And I really don't see the point in trying to untangle the various aspects of inequity to identify some one "fix" that's going to solve everything forever; it's a fool's errand. Defunding the police and engaging in massive police reform in the USA? Yes, we need to do that. Will that fix racism in the USA? Noooope. It's one of a few hundred different things that all need to get done, simultaneously and concurrently.

Trying to separate them out is a lot of work for essentially zero gain. Because determining whether outcomes are more predicated on socio-economic status or ethnicity, by controlling for both factors, cannot wave away that socio-economic status is inequitable disproportionate on racial lines to begin with. Because of systemic discrimination. Yes, we should fix some of those socio-economic inequities. That does not mean we shouldn't also address other racial inequities. A thousand different things all need to get done, all at the same time.

And don't tell me that's impossible, because it's exactly how these things arose in the first place. What's lacking is motivation, not ability.

"Well you don't have a clear fix for it so you must be wrong" is also fallacious.

If you want to get rid of inheritance for all people than actually you're arguing for a *universal* policy which has nothing to do with race-based reparations.

Cool, I'm not arguing that. Please stop with the strawman arguments because y'all can't grapple with the idea of inheritance being used to benefit a disadvantaged group for once.

My position on reparations has always been based on humanitarian reasons. The whole "inheritance" angle is just a nice exposure of the logical contradictions in right wing belief. Well...I should say it's only contradictory if one believes the advertising that the goal is some vague idea of national prosperity and not a concerted attempt to buttress an oppressive and exploitative system. *sips tea*

[PC2]

*yawns and points up*

"Well you don't have a clear fix for it so you must be wrong" is also fallacious.

Cool, I'm not arguing that. Please stop with the strawman arguments because y'all can't grapple with the idea of inheritance being used to benefit a disadvantaged group for once.

lol what? There are plenty of rich black/brown people and I hope their kids benefit from that inheritance. I'm happy for them!!!