Questionable Motives

December 15, 2018

Who are today’s Social Justice Warriors and why are they batshit crazy?

Filed under: Uncategorized — tildeb @ 10:33 am

Because they believe that equity of outcomes between groups of classified people is synonymous with achieving social equality between individuals, and so are willing to support, endorse, and apply whatever policies help to achieve this ideological outcome.

The only thing standing in the way of this ideology being successfully applied is reality. Achieving equity of outcome is not an achievement of equality between individuals but in fact the opposite; it is the achievement of obtaining through imposition the lowest possible common denominator. And this can only be done by putting aside equality of opportunity, merit, and shared freedom between individuals of different abilities that produces inequity of results by engineering privilege for the least able through suppressing of those most able.

The ideology has to pretend that unequal abilities is not true, is not a reflection of reality, but that merit itself is a product not of the individual but of the environment…. as if by changing the environment in which each of us were raised, everyone of us could be, say, a Michael Jordan in basketball. Because the assumption must be held to assume equity of outcome reflects equality between the individuals being compared, reality itself must take second place to the maintenance of belief in the correctness and accuracy of the ideology.

The willingness to deny reality its role to arbitrate our beliefs about it is by definition the foundation of psychosis. Enabling psychosis is itself what I call batshit crazy. And that is exactly what today’s Social Justice Warriors are doing, causing fundamental harm to every single individual’s shared rights and freedoms.

121 Comments »

  1. Forgive me for not remembering, but where do I know you from? I recognize the handle from somewhere.

    Outta the blue today a notification shows up in my mailbox for this post. I must have subscribed at some point.

    Maybe it was Violet’s place?

    Comment by Tiribulus — December 15, 2018 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  2. Yep, it was Violet’s place 🙂

    Comment by Tiribulus — December 15, 2018 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  3. I don’t know anyone who is demanding equity of outcome. Mostly what people want is a level playing field and that is one that allows people who have not enough money to engage in sweat equity, as many of us did by working our way through school. This I could not have done at an elite private university as I could not earn enough to pay for that (even though I did get accepted). The whole idea of a meritocracy is bogus as it is the case that that what are claimed to be such, still have preferences built in for the same old privileged groups.

    Comment by Steve Ruis — December 15, 2018 @ 12:56 pm | Reply

    • Then you are either blind or refuse to look. And I’m not just saying that because you have to have your head so far up your ass that you can’t see or hear what exists outside this ideological colon.

      This equity craze is sweeping universities.Look at the astounding growth of ‘diversity and equity’ officers. You seem to have missed those hirings entirely. It is infecting the body politic. It is forcing many people who stand against the ideology and publicly states as much into constant and chronic and sustained reputation assassination. By the thousands. Employers are lobbied to fire, professional organizations to apologize and censure, massive social media vilification. The examples are almost everywhere one cares to look. But it does require looking, I guess.

      For example, earlier this week the Ontario Human Rights Commission published a study they had funded (tax payers dollars hard at its equity work) concluding that ‘racism’ in Toronto had increased by some double digit amount based on an increase in the number of deaths of ‘blacks’ versus ‘white’ by police over a certain period of (somewhat) comparable but earlier time.

      “A black person in Toronto is nearly 20 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by police, according to a new Ontario Human Rights Commission report on race and policing” says the Commission representative. “Our interim findings are disturbing and call for immediate action,” added Renu Mandhane, the OHRC’s chief commissioner.

      “Clearly, we’ve established that these gross disparities and disproportionalities exist. The next step in the analysis is going to try to explore the various explanations for these racial disparities,” Wortley said. “I don’t think we can ignore these differences and sweep them under the table.” This is said by then report’s author, a criminologist who is not going to do diddly squat about racial disparities because the assumption has already been ‘concluded’.

      Disparities and disproportion, Steve. Did you read that? That’s the metric being used. Disparity of OUTCOME is what is assumed to be evidence for bias and discrimination. I mean, in this case police shootings. That’s some serious trouble, am I right? That will require a systemic correction, doncha think?

      You say you don’t know anyone who is demanding equity of outcome; I cannot believe you could possibly think your statement as any truth value at all! It’s in play from everything between Google to governments, from Patreon banning to deplatforming invited speakers. This totalitarian assumption – that group equity equals individual equality – has been in play for a hundred years to disastrous results wherever applied. But you don’t see it even though it is unfolding with increased frequency right before your eyes.

      You probably don’t care that the number of gang related armed crime among ‘blacks’ is well over 20 times the rate for ‘whites’ in this same studied population, that the actual increase was 2… for a city of over 4 million… over a four year period but compared and contrasted with a 6 year period earlier. The intention of the study was to produce ‘evidence’ for group based racial persecution and, – Lo and Behold! – they found some. Who cares the probability of finding exactly this is 100%. That’s how kangaroo courts like the Human Rights Commission miraculously produce a 100% conviction rate that produces real victims in real life with real consequences. Either equity or guilty of discrimination. That’s the insanity of the Social Justice Warriors hard at work ‘fixing’ the world.

      But you say you don’t know anyone who is demanding equity of outcome, like the Prime Minister of Canada who insists the Federal Cabinet should be based on equal numbers of sex-based gonads or publishing houses that demand equal number of sex-based editors or programmers for Google or faculties of physics. Isn’t that what governing bodies are meant to ‘correct’: the right number of gonads in every field, the right colour of corpses by police killings? Or might this metric be along the lines of batshit crazy made real?

      Comment by tildeb — December 15, 2018 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

      • Interesting. I just had a “debate” with “journalist” Joshua Ostroff about this very subject (police shootings, crime, etc in Toronto. He kept presenting those facts (i.e. disparities in the rates at which black and white people get shot by police) that “prove” “systemic racism”. Suggestions that this is a multi-variate problem were continually handwaived away. No siree, racism is the only explanation that could possibly be correct. I just gave up after the 50th exchange.
        Definition of a fanatic: someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

        Comment by Ashley — December 18, 2018 @ 5:08 pm

  4. Tildeb, you have attacked a commenter.
    Your retort was rude and openly hostile.

    Why are you doing this? I’ve seen you engage with creationists and climate deniers of the most stubborn and thick-headed variety with far greater grace and civility. You could be sarcastic and deeply ironic many a time but it was a sliding scale of response that was measured and reasonable…and usually very funny.
    What has happened to you?

    Further, you are writing checks that you can’t cash.
    Instead of telling us what people believe, why not quote them directly?
    Your cited articles and examples do not support your claim.

    I googled and read the actual report.
    “A Collective Impact: Interim report on the inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service”

    It seems routine. What is your beef with it? I don’t get it. What have they done wrong?

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 16, 2018 @ 11:10 pm | Reply

    • I would think the title of it for starters. They’ve already formed the conclusion before they’ve even started the “investigation”. These people are not much different than creationists. Their methodology and approach is identical. Start with the conclusion and work your way backwards. Tailor your “studies” to cherry pick the required statistics to support your conclusion. Only the details of what they are arguing about have changed.

      Comment by Ashley — December 18, 2018 @ 5:12 pm | Reply

      • I think you’re exactly right; the similarity in methodology is striking.

        Comment by tildeb — December 18, 2018 @ 11:04 pm

      • “They’ve already formed the conclusion before they’ve even started the “investigation”.

        They haven’t started the investigation? Not according to the report.
        How do you know that they formed conclusions before they did the interviews?

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 18, 2018 @ 11:04 pm

      • “…the similarity in methodology is striking….”

        Do tell.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 18, 2018 @ 11:05 pm

      • I’ll take you at your word Cedric. They haven’t even started the investigation….yet they already know all about the deep pervasive problem of “systemic racism”, hence the title of the report. How could that be?
        The ideological bias is front and centre and there’s no way anyone can deny it.

        Comment by Ashley — December 19, 2018 @ 8:35 am

    • What your reading from me, Cedric is a very deep frustration that has a history. I cannot express adequately just how disappointing I find so many minds like Steve that should know better – that can think better, that has demonstrated an ability to think well, that has used this ability to see religious influence for the perniciousness it is – but who have allowed themselves to be utterly hoodwinked when the the same idiocy is used to support GroupThink but gets not just a pass but active support and defense. You bet I get openly hostile because good reasoning and what’s true is already put aside because both are treated as if a secondary and biased concern and dismissed as such.

      The title of this post includes the phrase, “Batshit Crazy” for which I was banned by Serius Bizness about a decade ago. This was one of the harbingers of PoMo totalitarianism known as Identity Politics that started to take root in the blogging community, where the language police and offence archeologists gained stature for supposedly protecting free speech by banning those deemed offensive to the possible Snowflake crowd. And all these bloggers and commentators utterly failed to stand up on principle and unfailingly went along without a peep of complaint but agreed that the potential of hurt feelings of someone suffering from a mental health issue warranted this ‘corrective’ measure. My contribution to all other areas of consideration didn’t amount to a tinker’s damn in any of these people’s minds… because the risk of offence I represented outweighed any thoughtful contribution on any topic I might ever make.

      Because what I think has been treated with such a self-righteous and cavalier attitude of exclusion because of the possibility of causing offense to delicate sensibilities by dozens and dozens of commentators who know better, who – like you – have read my comments for a long time and know I usually do so with grace and civility – I find the need to offer the same to be lacking. Fuck me, fuck you. And I’ll treat people the way they have treated me because they’ve earned it.

      Comment by tildeb — December 18, 2018 @ 11:21 pm | Reply

      • “I usually do so with grace and civility.”

        You do indeed, which is the reason why I am stunned at this change in you.
        Do you have a history with Steve that I simply don’t know about it?
        Is he a regular troll of yours? Have you had this discussion before and I am simply late to the party?
        If there’s context here that I’m unaware of then that would put a different spin on things entirely.

        “…. And all these bloggers and commentators utterly failed to stand up on principle….”

        I don’t know who these bloggers are. I can’t tell if you are standing up for a noble cause and they are in the wrong or if you have embraced something..distinctly odd that simply isn’t resonating with reasonable people. Both scenarios are possible.

        Tildeb, I don’t know. I have no wish to alienate you but…I’m genuinely concerned.
        PM me if you wish.
        I really want to get to the bottom of this without causing undue stress. I don’t know the best approach for this.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 18, 2018 @ 11:41 pm

    • “They haven’t even started the investigation….”

      What are you talking about? Have you read the report?

      “Their methodology and approach is identical.”
      Details?

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 9:27 am | Reply

  5. The methodology is faith-based. Ring any bells?

    Comment by tildeb — December 18, 2018 @ 11:30 pm | Reply

    • Yes, it does. It’s what climate deniers and creationists say. Evolution is a religion. Warmists, Darwinists, Cult of Al Gore etc, etc,etc.

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 18, 2018 @ 11:43 pm | Reply

      • Bingo!
        Political Correctness is a religion
        Identity Politics is a religion
        PoMo is a religion

        Transgress entrenched dogmas at your peril. You’ll be labelled a blasphemer and a heretic and be banished forthwith.

        Comment by Ashley — December 19, 2018 @ 8:40 am

      • “You can’t think of a single thing in the PoMo,..”

        That’s not it. Try re-reading the thread.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 10:39 am

    • “The methodology is faith-based”
      “Bingo”

      Huh?

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 9:28 am | Reply

      • You can’t think of a single thing in the PoMo, Politically Correct, Identity Politics that is faith based?
        Hunh?

        Comment by Ashley — December 19, 2018 @ 9:56 am

      • My brother taught at North Toronto Collegiate. Bloods owned the second floor, Crypts the fourth. All members at that time were ‘blacks’. Some of their armed members were shot and killed by police… police officers of various ethnicities, but let’s not allow anything to divert us from assuming racism was the cause. We must keep our premise pure from such contamination by reality.

        Racism, we are told is the report’s conclusion, has increased the chances of a ‘black’ person (see? a black person is a reference to a singular INDIVIDUAL) being shot and killed by police to be 20 times greater than ‘whites’.

        Come on, Cedric. Surely you can see the conclusion already front and center as the premise. Racism. What are the chances? (Shhh… 100%, but don’t tell anyone; it may affect the Commission’s public funding to continue doing these kinds of ‘studies’. Such a public service, donchaknow, advancing the ideology of GroupThink necessary for social justice warriors to get busy ‘fixing’ society. Evidence, you see.)

        Assume the conclusion is a true premise first. That’s the faith-based methodology hard at work and in this case being pushed into trying to force a public policy response to the premise/conclusion… which, by the greatest of coincidences, assumes the premise is correct because – Lo and Behold! – we find it as the conclusion. See? Batshit crazy thinking. The assumption is that GroupThink is a correct model for the individual, that group discrepancies reveal group disparities because of some social power imbalance, and that from this assumption we can then advance the lie that individual inequity based on group affiliation reveals individual inequality ie victimhood. You’re black and living in Toronto? Your chance to be shot and killed by police are 20 times greater, donchaknow, because it’s your race that determines this fact. And that’s the bullshit assumption – a faith-based assumption – about race as the causal factor for victimhood that is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker a priori.

        When we use faith-based methodology assuming the premise we choose to believe is true as the conclusion we hope to find, it should surpise exactly no one with two neurons to rub together that we find ‘evidence’ for it! That’s how faith works. Why, that’s how we know God is real, too: you gotta believe in order to believe. And Christianity/Islam/Judaism/et al just so happens to be the One True Faith! Evidence, baby!

        Comment by tildeb — December 19, 2018 @ 10:34 am

      • “Surely you can see the conclusion already front and center as the premise.”

        No.
        You have failed to demonstrate your case.

        “That’s the faith-based methodology hard at work”

        I read the report. They show their methodology. Looks routine. But perhaps I don’t see what you see. Quote the part where their methodology is faith-based.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 10:45 am

      • I guess you’re right Cedric. There is only one possible explanation for the reason between inequitable outcomes between races – racism.
        There’s just no other way to explain it.
        You’re right. No faith based thinking going on there.

        Comment by Ashley — December 19, 2018 @ 11:37 am

      • “I guess you’re right Cedric.”

        I usually am.

        “There is only one possible…”

        Strawman. Try re-reading the thread.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 11:50 am

      • “Clearly, we’ve established that these gross disparities and disproportionalities exist.”

        Oh really? And how did they do that? By using race as the metric. Again, the 20 time increase ‘conclusion’? 2 shootings more. Was the racism of police officers really the contributing factor? We are told that yes, racism was the contributing factor… and THEN the commission spokesperson says, “The next step in the analysis is going to try to explore the various explanations for these racial disparities.” There will ALWAYS be disparities when you compare groups with selected differences; that’s what differentiates the groups into separate categories! But the explanation has already been assumed: racism. Cart, meet the following horse. This is the faith-based method being applied: assumption and belief that racism is the cause for the increase of 2 deadly shootings by police over a 4 year period in a city of 4 million with a surrounding area of another 3.5 million. 2 shootings increased from 5 to 7. Oh look, a 20 fold increase! Sounds so dire!

        You keep saying you’ve read the report; is there cause for concern over some police rampage going on that is targeting only black people and killing them when the actual numbers are so low to begin with and the number of violent gang members (and the number of civilians being shot and injured by criminals in public) are increasing? Would the same people announce racism was dead in the multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial police force if the number decreased over 4 years by 2?

        Look, the assumption of race is being used without justification by presenting it de facto to be the reasonable metric. That’s the part that is taken on faith – race – because the evidence for it is so thin as to be almost impossible to detect. But a difference there is. Who could know… other than everyone who actually thinks about it for a minute.

        To be clear, the study’s author did not isolate racial discrimination by police and then demonstrate the case that this is the causal factor for the increase. Yet this is the ‘conclusion’ being presented by the Commission when it’s the metric itself that assumes it to be true.

        Comment by tildeb — December 19, 2018 @ 12:52 pm

      • Not a straw man at all. The conclusion of the report and it’s very title have made it clear.
        There is one cause for the disparity. Racism.

        Comment by Ashley — December 19, 2018 @ 1:14 pm

      • “Again, the 20 time increase ‘conclusion’? 2 shootings more.”

        Why are you focusing on 2 shootings? Read the report. It’s not focusing on 2 shootings.

        “But the explanation has already been assumed: racism.”

        I don’t follow. If you are going to complain about methodology then you have to actually look at the methodology of the report. It seems routine. I can’t imagine any other way of conducting the investigation any other way.
        What did they actually do that was wrong…in their methodology?
        Go back to the report and spell it out for me. You seem to be reading into it something that doesn’t seem to be there.

        I tried to find criticism of the report that would echo your position. I didn’t find anything. The reception of it seems to be positive. Is there any institution that has expertise in these kinds of investigations that has also noticed a faith-based approach?

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 7:48 pm

      • “Not a straw man at all. The conclusion…..”

        No, that won’t do.
        Re-read the thread.

        I know perfectly well what a strawman is and how it works. It’s reflects badly on you. It’s dishonest.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 7:50 pm

      • Yes that will do.

        It’s not a straw man.

        Go back and re-read the thread. Assuming that disparities in outcome is the result of racism and only racism is what’s dishonest.
        That the people who wrote the report (and you along with them) can’t think of any other explanation for disparities in outcomes other than racism doesn’t make racism the correct conclusion.
        Not by a long shot.
        There are numerous variables that can and do have an impact on disparate outcomes.. The lot of you have chosen to hand wave them away and wave the racism flag.
        That’s what dishonest.

        Comment by Ashley — January 4, 2019 @ 8:06 am

      • Go back and re-read the thread. Assuming that disparities…

        That’s not the strawman.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 5, 2019 @ 7:26 am

  6. Also, for more similarities in ideological, faith based thinking, look to the argument presented by 3rd wave feminists regarding the “gender wage gap”.
    Their argument is identical to the Outcome Equity fanatics.
    Women, on average, earn less than men, therefore sexism, misogyny.
    No further analysis required.

    Comment by Ashley — December 19, 2018 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

    • Word salad.
      But it does come as a relief that no further analysis is required.

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

      • Wow, it appears as though someone has either been living under a rock or is being deliberately obtuse.
        Have you heard of the now infamous Jordan Peterson interview by Cathy Newman?
        If you havent, I’d suggest you watch it. In her mind, sexism and misogyny is the only explanation for the differences in salary and position within the company.
        If you prefer it on a grander scale, look no further than the prime minister of my own country (Canada) who arranges his cabinet not by merit or competence or experience but by genitals.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 8:58 am

      • Have you heard of the now infamous Jordan Peterson interview by Cathy Newman?

        No.
        In her mind,…

        I’m sure that’s how you feel about her. I don’t care.

        If you prefer it on a grander scale…

        I’d prefer it in English.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 9:05 am

      • It’s not how I feel about her, it’s what she said.
        It’s all over the internet. That your too ignorant and incurious to find out about it is a you problem, not a me problem.
        I’d take the time to explain how the Prime Minister of my country selecting his cabinet on the basis of genitals rather than competence, experience or merit is a bad idea but it appears that you’d rather spend your time being a smug arrogant asshole rather than learn something so I won’t bother.
        Congratulations, you and Av8torbob have something to bond over.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 9:45 am

      • I’ll take that as a “No, I haven’t considered that there might be any other factors other than racism that might contribute to disparities between groups.”

        Comment by Ashley — January 5, 2019 @ 8:27 am

    • “…it’s what she said…”

      1) Then you should quote her.
      2) Relevance?
      3) What part of ‘I don’t care” do you not understand?

      “That your too ignorant…”

      *you’re
      *I’m ignorant of her.

      …it is a you problem, not a me problem.

      It’s not a problem at all. I didn’t bring her up. I have no idea why you did.

      <i…a smug arrogant asshole…

      I don’t care what you think of me. Heard better from climate deniers and their ilk. It’s all water off a duck’s back. I do care about you creating strawmen however.
      Shame on you.

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 10:03 am | Reply

      • You’re the one ignorant of her, not me. You have this thing called the internet. Go watch the video. For a solid hour she lays bare her ideology for all to see. At one point you can literally see the wheels fall off the bus when Peterson asks her a question. The blank stare off into space with the eyes rolled into the back of her head desperately searching for an answer that stays within the 3rd wave feminist mantra but she is unable to overcome the congnitive dissonance.
        Relevace: This methodology (assume what you want to be true and work backwards to make the facts fit the narrative) is the same as the “Systemic Racsim” mantra. The one that you are adamant doesn’t exist.
        I notice you didn’t even attempt to address the utterly ridiculous way that our moron Prime Minister decided to select his cabinet. I’m sure you have your reasons.

        Since we’re playing the grammar/spelling Nazi game
        *I (capital)
        *am (not a)

        I don’t care what you think of me either. I’ve heard much, much worse from hysterical 3rd wave feminists and their ilk too. Water off a ducks back.
        I do care about people denying reality.
        Shame on you.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 10:57 am

      • You’re the one ignorant of her, not me.

        2) Relevance?
        3) What part of ‘I don’t care” do you not understand?

        You have this thing called the internet. Go watch the video.

        2) Relevance?
        3) What part of ‘I don’t care” do you not understand?

        I don’t care what you think of me either.

        I never bothered to tell you.
        (shrug)

        I do care about people denying reality.

        Not doing it. You are lying.
        You created a strawman. Shame on you.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 11:11 am

      • Already explained the relevance. Numerous times. You don’t think it’s a big deal and have decided to ignore it.
        Good for you.
        You and av8torbob have a lot more in common than you think.
        Plugging your ears and calling other people liars is not a very good approach to determining what’s true and what’s not.
        For someone who claims not to care, seems rather bizarre that you keep coming back again and again.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 11:29 am

      • Yes, I have. At least twice now.
        You choose to ignore it and call me a liar over and over.
        Not very hard to notice that you STILL haven’t even addressed the Prime Ministers cabinet selection criteria. I suspect, like Cathy Newman, cognitive dissonance is preventing you from doing so.
        No go ahead and ask me the relevance again and call me a liar.
        Very convincing arguments.
        Maybe you can trot out the tone police argument while you’re at it.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 12:08 pm

      • Yes, I have. At least twice now.

        Then quote yourself.
        You are still a liar.

        …you STILL haven’t even addressed the…

        2) Relevance?

        ” Very convincing arguments”

        Not making one.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 12:21 pm

      • Relevance?
        Have you got Alzheimer’s or some other disease that affects brain function? Just curious because I’ve pointed out the similarities in methodology and it’s relevance several times now and you continue to question it.
        Asserting that which you wish to be true and then tailoring “solutions” to problems (ie not enough women in cabinet positions in Canada or more black people being shot by police than white people) that aren’t based on reality can have very detrimental effects. Ie unqualified ideologues and ignoramuses in positions of authority and power in the highest levels of federal government.
        Relevance.
        Have I explained that to your satisfaction? Or do you require me to dumb it down for you?
        Now go ahead and quote mine and come up with some very clever quips to demonstrate how incredibly clever you are.
        Make sure you tell me how much of a liar I am and how you don’t care about any of this.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 12:38 pm

      • Yes.
        Relevance. Learn English.

        …look to the argument presented by 3rd wave feminists…

        No.

        …for more similarities in ideological, faith based thinking…

        You haven’t established this in the first place. Going off about feminism or something is stupid.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 12:58 pm

      • Relevance:
        Their methodology is the same.
        Learn how to argue.
        Don’t ask questions that you don’t want answered.
        Tildeb and I have both established it numerous times.
        The fact that you don’t see any problem with asserting something to be true and then working backwards to make data and facts fit the narrative is a flawed methodology is again, a you problem, not a me problem.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 1:18 pm

      • Relevance: Their methodology is the same.

        Even if that’s true, so what?

        Tildeb and I have both established it…

        No, you haven’t. You just made assertions and sundry word salad and then got all shirty.

        I read the report. They show their methodology. Looks routine. But perhaps I don’t see what you see. Quote the part where their methodology is faith-based.
        You haven’t.
        If they really did release a report that was faith-based and that was glaring and batshit crazy etc. then that would be noticed.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 1:30 pm

      • Even if that’s true, so what?
        Because you asked me the relevance.
        Several times.
        That’s “so what”
        Methodology:
        Disparities in outcome are due to racsim.
        How do we know that?
        Look at the data that clearly indicates there’s a disparity in outcomes!
        This is obviously because of racism.
        There can be no other explanation.
        Racism is the only way to explain this
        If you don’t know circular reasoning when you see it, then I guess you don’t know circular reasoning.
        Again, not my problem.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 1:42 pm

      • Because you asked me the relevance.

        …after you brought it up.

        After.

        It’s the same? Even if that’s true, so what?

        Methodology:Disparities in…

        No. That’s not how you do it. The idea is to look at the methodology of the report, not give your slant on it.

        “If you don’t know circular reasoning when you see it,…

        It’s not about me. I’m just the messenger.

        It’s hard for me to imagine a report being released on such an important topic that was “batshit crazy”.
        In my world, batshit crazy reports are noticed. Because they are batshit crazy.

        If that not how they are received, then something else is going on. Something that has nothing at all to do with the report.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 1:53 pm

      • Yes that is how you do it.
        It’s not “my slant” on it. It’s their methodology.
        What is in the report? Data about the disparities in the outcomes between group a and group b
        What is the ONLY explanation offered for this disparity?
        Racism
        It’s right there in the title of the report.
        Could there be other explanations for the disparities?
        NO
        ONLY RACISM.
        Contrary to your assertion, the methodology is in fact batshit crazy.

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 2:00 pm

      • It’s not “my slant” on it. It’s their methodology.

        Then quote them. Easy fix.

        Contrary to your assertion, the methodology is in fact batshit crazy.

        I tried to find criticism of the report that would echo your position. I didn’t find anything. The reception of it seems to be positive. Is there any institution that has expertise in these kinds of investigations that has also noticed a faith-based approach?
        (…)
        No, they haven’t.

        And that’s not reasonable. That’s not how the real world works.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 2:09 pm

      • “Numerical data such as statistics may show that racialized personas are not being equally treated by or within an organization. In some instances, numerical data will suggest that there may be systemic discrimination because too few racialized people are represented, for example in positions of leadership. In other situations, it may show that too many racialized people are represented, for example in police stops.”

        There aren’t enough “racialized” people in positions of leadership
        RACISM!
        Too many “racialized” people are being stopped by police
        RACISM!

        How do we know this?
        Look at the data!
        There are disparities in outcomes!
        Racism is the only explanation that we will be exploring for purposes of this report.

        Will that do? Or will you find some other reason to hand wave this away?

        Comment by Ashley — December 20, 2018 @ 2:38 pm

      • Cedric, please don’t misquote me. You said to Ashley, It’s hard for me to imagine a report being released on such an important topic that was “batshit crazy.” This misapplication of the quotation is used by you to suggest it is I that is calling the report batshit crazy. I’m not. You are inserting words that are yours in this context and trying to disguise them as mine. One might even be tempted to call that tactic rude and dishonest but I presume your intention is good and you’ve simply made an error. The report clearly reveals disparities between the selected racial groups. What I’m calling batshit crazy is the incorrect assumption that such disparity reveals discrimination caused by racism, which is how the report’s conclusion is preordained by this broken methodology. You continue to fail to comprehend this difference between what you believe I have said and what I have said. I can’t correct that for you; you must do it… presuming as I do that you care to respect what’s true.

        Comment by tildeb — December 20, 2018 @ 4:34 pm

      • What I’m calling batshit crazy is the incorrect assumption..

        That’s fine. I don’t see how that helps though.

        ….the report’s conclusion is preordained by this broken methodology.

        Ok.
        It still doesn’t work. The same problem remains.
        You’ve made a horrible mistake.

        If a NASA report assumed a similar and glaring fallacy was also true and then presumed everyone should work with that as if it were true, then I would make the same criticism.

        And I would point out the same problem in the same manner.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 8:44 pm

      • Congrats Cedric.
        The tone police argument
        The appeal to authority
        Quote mining
        Plugging your ears.

        Proof that being an atheist is no guarantee of being able to think critically.

        Comment by Ashley — January 2, 2019 @ 7:57 pm

      • You’re lying.

        Never mentioned tone.

        Appeal to authority? Well, yes. That’s normal and very healthy. Ever been to a doctor when you were sick? Or taken legal advice from a lawyer? It’s a smart move.
        It’s a fallacious appeal to authority that’s a problem. You should look it up.
        Here’s how it works.

        SkeptiFilm Presents- Logical Fallacies- Argument from Authority

        Kinda funny that you should mention it though. One of the things I do is mention NASA in conversations with climate deniers. They make the same accusations you do. Word for word.
        It’s rather telling.

        No quote mining either. If you don’t know how it works, then look it up. But please, go ahead and quote the quote mining part. I don’t think you can make a valid argument.
        But you are welcome to try.

        Plugging ears? Hardly. The quotes, remember? It’s not the rambling explanations of whatever it is you feel you’ve discovered.
        It’s the verification of such a thing using outside sources independent of yourself.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 3, 2019 @ 1:19 am

      • No, You have alzheimers or very selective memory

        “Tildeb, you have attacked a commenter.
        Your retort was rude and openly hostile….”

        Sounds like a tone police argument to me.

        Comment by Ashley — January 3, 2019 @ 9:36 am

      • And we can add question dodger to the list as well.

        Still haven’t received an answer (after asking twice now) as to why blatantly batshit crazy things that are demonstrably false don’t get noticed or questioned by a sufficiently large enough group of people or the proper authorities. I.E. religion.
        How can this be?!?!
        How are there so many schools teaching creationism?!?!
        In the “real world” wouldn’t this be noticed as being blatantly nuts?
        http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

        Now go ahead and play (be?) stupid and ask me the relevance of this or accuse me of lying or saying that I don’t engage.
        That seems to be the sum total extent of your intellectual capacity.

        Comment by Ashley — January 3, 2019 @ 9:48 am

      • No, You have alzheimers or very selective memory

        You are lying.

        “Tildeb, you have attacked a commenter.
        Your retort was rude and openly hostile….”

        “Sounds like a tone police argument to me.”

        That was the thing? It was an observation. A fair one. It’s entirely out of character for tildeb.

        Because what I think has been treated with such a self-righteous and cavalier attitude of exclusion because of the possibility of causing offense to delicate sensibilities by dozens and dozens of commentators who know better, who – like you – have read my comments for a long time and know I usually do so with grace and civility – I find the need to offer the same to be lacking. Fuck me, fuck you. And I’ll treat people the way they have treated me because they’ve earned it.

        To which I replied…”“I usually do so with grace and civility.”

        You do indeed, which is the reason why I am stunned at this change in you.
        Do you have a history with Steve that I simply don’t know about it?
        Is he a regular troll of yours? Have you had this discussion before and I am simply late to the party?
        If there’s context here that I’m unaware of then that would put a different spin on things entirely.

        “…. And all these bloggers and commentators utterly failed to stand up on principle….”

        I don’t know who these bloggers are. I can’t tell if you are standing up for a noble cause and they are in the wrong or if you have embraced something..distinctly odd that simply isn’t resonating with reasonable people. Both scenarios are possible.

        Tildeb, I don’t know. I have no wish to alienate you but…I’m genuinely concerned.
        PM me if you wish.
        I really want to get to the bottom of this without causing undue stress. I don’t know the best approach for this.”

        I am seeing someone I regard as a friendly online acquaintance change.

        Tildeb doesn’t talk to people like that or at least, he never used to.
        It’s not just the way he reacts to strangers either.
        It’s his entire writing style not to mention the subject material.
        Plus there’s this business of being moderated and banned repeatedly.
        I tried to get details but never got an answer.

        It’s completely out of character.
        Call it tone police if you like. I call it genuine shock and concern.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 3, 2019 @ 9:56 am

      • And we can add question dodger to the list as well.

        You are lying again. Re-read the thread.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 3, 2019 @ 9:57 am

      • How are there so many schools teaching creationism?!?!
        In the “real world” wouldn’t this be noticed as being blatantly nuts?

        ??
        It is. Creationism in schools gets called out all the time. There are even court cases about it. It pops up again and again in the US.
        It’s a thing.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 3, 2019 @ 9:59 am

      • You’re lying

        The first 2 lines of your initial statement had only to do with the tone and language used in tildeb’s reply. That’s what a tone police argument is. Call it concern all you like, it’s still a tone police argument.

        That’s nice that creationism gets “called out all the time” and that “it’s a thing”

        It’s still taught in hundreds of schools to tens of thousands of students all over the US, and in many cases, with tax payer money.

        It’s pseudo-science bullshit. And yet, in the “real world” it persists. Wouldn’t it be noticed by a sufficiently large group of people, with the proper authority to do something about it? How can this be happening? Shouldn’t this have been dealt with by now??!?

        How naïve and foolish are you?

        Comment by Ashley — January 3, 2019 @ 10:50 am

      • It’s pseudo-science bullshit.

        Yes, it is. It’s easy to verify that using multiple sources. It’s not one isolated blogger.

        And yet, in the “real world” it persists.

        Indeed it does. It pops up again and again. It’s a persistent problem.

        Wouldn’t it be noticed by a sufficiently large group of people..

        It is.

        , with the proper authority to do something about it?

        They do. Again and again. There are even court cases about it where school boards get sued and lose millions of dollars because of it.

        How can this be happening? Shouldn’t this have been dealt with by now??!?

        ??

        “NCSE promotes and defends accurate and effective science education, because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence.
        Since 1981, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has worked to ensure that what is taught in science classrooms and beyond is accurate and consistent with the best current understanding of the scientific community.
        NCSE recognizes that well-established areas of science that are culturally controversial, in particular climate change and evolution, are challenging to teach. Many teachers avoid or water down their coverage of these topics out of fear of conflict. NCSE helps train teachers and community volunteers in approaches that have been proven to reduce conflict and help learners overcome even deeply held misconceptions about evolution and climate change. NCSE also helps local communities block legislation and other efforts that would result in the miseducation of students on these critical topics.”

        https://ncse.com/about

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 3, 2019 @ 8:20 pm

      • Oh yes, the NCSE policies about religious belief very much dealt with… with a message of approving and tolerating false compatibility because, hey, it’s religion and so we have to privilege it, donchaknow, and some scientists of note do so it must be okay somehow. Just like we do in the DSM-V exempting religious belief identical with delusion and psychological pathology listed elsewhere, as well as making special legal exemptions in most states for committing crimes in the name of some faith-based batshit crazy wingnuttery especially against children. If it’s religious, well then, what choice does anyone really have so we have to pretend to MAKE it compatible by fiat, you see, and put on a horse and pony show to lie and insist there’s no real conflict in the use of an incompatible methodology with the method used by science that produces results like applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time contrary to and in direct opposition with the contrary faith-based ‘alternative’ claims arrived at by very confidence using religious idiocy.

        Good grief, Cedric.

        Comment by tildeb — January 3, 2019 @ 11:02 pm

      • ….and that’s why it’s still taught to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of school children all over the US at taxpayer expense…..
        Because it’s “been called out” so effectively.

        Oh wait, you didn’t even remotely come close to explaining how it’s persisted for decades even though it’s been thoroughly demonstrated to be the pseudo scientific bullshit that it is, in court case after court case.
        You just told me a bunch of shit that I already know instead of actually explaining why it persists.
        Let me know when you figure it out.

        Comment by Ashley — January 3, 2019 @ 9:45 pm

      • Oh wait, you didn’t even remotely come close to explaining how it’s persisted for decades…

        Relevance?

        …even though it’s been thoroughly demonstrated to be the pseudo scientific bullshit that it is, in court case after court case.

        Yes, it had.
        It’s easy to find criticism of it that would echo your position. The reception of it is routinely negative.

        The relevant authorities on creationism in schools condemn it and do something about it.
        The verification is there and easily googleable.

        On the other hand, it’s not the same situation with the report.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 3, 2019 @ 10:15 pm

      • You’re right, Cedric; this report has not be roundly condemned. And its methodology to identify disparity is fine. As I have said. Yet my point is that it should be criticized because it uses the disparity fallacy to identify racism for that disparity. So why isn’t it roundly condemned for failing to do this? I have offered various suggestions but none of these hold any interest to you. The fact that this report in particular has not been widely condemned by experts in the field is the only point you remain fixated on. You seem to forget with startling ease that I raised this report to demonstrate that the disparity fallacy is a common one widely accepted without much if any concentrated criticism. Funny, that, don’t you think? Because it is a fallacy, you know. That’s the brute fact.

        The only people really criticizing this kind of batshit crazy thinking is not one lone blogger as you continue to insist is the case in spite of repeated corrections. We find the same criticism about the disparity fallacy used repeatedly to claim causation for various kinds of discrimination (that’s what Grievance Studies are all about) raised only by authors of such organizations as the Heterodox Academy, by the intellectuals who populate the Dark Web, by a diverse group of contributors to Quillette, and so on. Yet you just wave this away and insist I should focus on the report itself – me being the problem and irrational and rude to boot – and find criticism of it specifically by organized experts. Well, you do that work if it’s so vital to you. Good luck. I don’t think you will. But the point here in this comment is that you intentionally miss the central point of how the disparity fallacy is used to claim causation for discrimination without much if any correction when it is so richly deserving of it… over and over and over. If you can’t grasp the problem yet, then you’re just wasting my time.

        Comment by tildeb — January 3, 2019 @ 11:17 pm

      • Oh yes, the NCSE policies about religious belief…

        Relevance?

        Good grief, Cedric.

        The comparison is with creationism in schools.

        You’re right, Cedric; this report has not be roundly condemned.

        Bravo. I pointed this out ages and ages ago. You never engaged with the problem.

        And its methodology to identify disparity is fine.

        Oh, the methodology is fine now? Well, that would explain why there has been no pushback from the relevant authorities.

        Yet my point is that it should be criticized because it uses the disparity fallacy to identify racism for that disparity.

        I understand that that you feel this. But you should step outside your own feelings and try and verify it.

        So why isn’t it roundly condemned for failing to do this? I have offered various suggestions but none of these hold any interest to you.

        Well, I’m sorry I missed it. Maybe it got lost in the word salad. All I see is a normal report.
        This whole faith-based thing is coming from you.
        There’s no verification.

        The fact that this report in particular has not been widely condemned by experts in the field is the only point you remain fixated on.

        Yes. Very much so. It’s important. Perhaps you should engage with it.

        You seem to forget with startling ease that I raised this report to demonstrate that the disparity fallacy is a common one widely accepted without much if any concentrated criticism.

        (..facepalm…)

        “Because it is a fallacy, you know. That’s the brute fact.”</I"

        Assume that you are right. What does that look like in the real world?

        The only people really criticizing this kind of batshit crazy thinking…

        The report. Nobody is criticizing the report.

        Yet you just wave this away and insist I should focus on the report itself…

        Yes. That would be a good thing to do. It’s the example that you reached for. It’s specific. It’s checkable.

        …me being the problem and irrational and rude to boot…

        I asked you about this. I even entertained the possibility that you had some history with Steve maybe that I didn’t know about. You just blanked me. You even seemed to acknowledge your reaction was out of character.

        But the point here in this comment is that you intentionally miss the central point of how the disparity fallacy is used to claim causation for discrimination without much if any correction when it is so richly deserving of it… over and over and over. If you can’t grasp the problem yet, then you’re just wasting my time.

        The claim you state here is huge. Glaring, remember?
        How come the relevant authorities don’t see this thing?
        Can we finally discuss this honestly?

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 3, 2019 @ 11:58 pm

      • Relevance?

        Claim made by you : If something is batshit crazy enough, it will be criticized by a sufficiently large enough and powerful enough group of people such that “in the real world” it will be recognized that the relevant phenomenon is in fact batshit crazy.

        Actual manifestation in “the real world”: Creationism is taught in schools all over the world despite the fact that it is obviously unprovable and unfalsifiable. 40% of Americans believe in it.

        Clearly, the fact that it actually is batshit crazy and it’s methodology unsound is immaterial. The phenomenon continues to persist.

        Your claim is irrelevant and quite obviously contrary to manifest behaviour. It matters not if it’s wrong and unfalsifiable. People believe it anyways.
        By the 10’s of millions.

        I am assuming that at no point in this conversation has it ever occurred to you that disparities in group outcomes could be the result of anything other than racism has it?
        Not a single solitary thing that Tildeb has said in that regard has given you pause to think that maybe there might be more than 1 factor that could be taken into consideration?

        Comment by Ashley — January 4, 2019 @ 4:57 am

      • “Oh yes, the NCSE policies about religious belief…”

        Relevance?

        Claim made by you : If something is batshit crazy enough,

        It’s really easy to sum up my postion by simply quoting me.

        Actual manifestation in “the real world”: Creationism is taught in schools…

        How is that relevant?

        “Oh yes, the NCSE policies about religious belief…”

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 5, 2019 @ 7:32 am

      • I’ll take that as a “No, I haven’t considered that there may be other factors other than racism that contribute to disparities in outcomes between groups.”

        Comment by Ashley — January 5, 2019 @ 8:28 am

      • So?

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 5, 2019 @ 9:07 am

      • And there we have it.
        With a single, two letter word, we can easily sum up the ignorance, arrogance and incuriousity with which you’ve conducted this “discussion”

        “You haven’t considered anything other than ‘x’ to explain phenomenon ‘y’”

        “So?”

        Comment by Ashley — January 6, 2019 @ 2:47 pm

    • Already explained the relevance.

      No, you haven’t.
      You’re a liar.
      You created a strawman. Shame on you.

      … seems rather bizarre that you keep coming back again and again.

      You don’t know me very well.

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 11:40 am | Reply

    • “That’s fine, I don’t see how that helps though”.

      Yes, what a silly thing to do. Point out that the methodology used to arrive at conclusions in a report are completely flawed and without merit.
      Who knew that what determines a reports accuracy is whether it not its methodology is questioned by a sufficiently large enough group of people?
      I guess this is what it is to be a “skeptic” these days.

      Comment by Ashley — December 22, 2018 @ 8:04 am | Reply

      • Point out that the methodology used to arrive…

        That’s not what is happening. Try reading better.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 23, 2018 @ 5:35 am

      • ….are completely flawed and without merit.

        What does that normally look like when that happens?

        “…Who knew that what determines a reports accuracy ….”

        Nope. You’ve missed the point.

        …is questioned by a sufficiently large enough group of people?

        Closer but still no banana.

        There’s a report. You have found to your own personal satisfaction that it is completely flawed and without merit.
        Well, maybe you are correct.
        Maybe.
        Or….maybe you have it wrong.
        But let’s work on the assumption that you are correct. What does that look like in the real world?

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 23, 2018 @ 5:41 am

      • Are you, Mr Professional Skeptic, seriously trying to argue with me that since there aren’t enough people reacting to or rejecting the blatantly flawed methodology, that there isn’t enough public backlash to this blatantly biased report, that there can’t be any problem with it?!?
        I don’t think you understand how skepticism works.
        You’ve heard of this thing called religion I am assuming?
        How do you explain that approximately 80% of planet earth’s population subscribes to one form of it or another when it’s clearly false?
        How can that be?!?!?

        Comment by Ashley — December 30, 2018 @ 9:01 am

      • Are you, Mr Professional Skeptic, seriously trying to argue with me that since there aren’t enough people reacting to…

        Close but no banana.
        It’s not about “enough people”. I’m talking about the relevant authorities. The people and institutions that have the relevant expertise and interest that would very much be expected to make their ire known if there was something amiss on the scale that you are claiming.
        The NASA analogy, remember?

        “…that there can’t be any problem with it?!?”

        If there really and truly and absolutely was a problem with it, then what would you expect to happen?

        Something is very badly wrong here. How do you rationalize what’s happened? Or more precisely, what hasn’t happened.

        I’ve seen this before.
        I have interacted with people who have “discovered” that NASA fudged something something report something.
        Or that Naomi Oreskes has been caught out lying in a paper.
        Flat out lying, they declaim! Pretty damning stuff….if you are prepared to believe them.
        And maybe it’s true?

        Maybe blogger “X” has the scoop on the scandal and has made history. Some report or paper in the public eye is wrong/faked/faith-based/corrupt/glaring errors etc.
        Ok. Maybe.
        But you’d expect that there would be…a reaction, right?
        Well in the case of the supposed Oreskes “scandal”, it’s been….(checks time stamp)…April 12, 2016. So far, nothing. Bugger all.
        I think it’s safe to say that the blogger that got all worked up about it is simply wrong about her.

        But this won’t come as any surprise to you that the blogger concerned has failed to re-visited the accusation. No apology. No self-reflection. Not even a fig leaf effort at rationalization.
        The article has been left to stink on his blog.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 31, 2018 @ 3:15 am

      • Oh I get it now! There has to be a sufficient number of “relevant authorities” who object to the methodology in order for critique to have merit! Totes understandable.
        And since there aren’t enough racism authorities that have had a “reaction” to this study, its conclusions and the methodology, it’s gotta be totes legit.
        Well then, two can play that game.
        The overwhelming majority of Christian Theologians agree that there is a God who’s created the universe and presides over it. They are the relevant authorities on this subject matter. Clearly, there can’t be any problem with their approach to this subject since they’re the experts. There are an insignificant number of theologians objecting to this claim. Therefore the claim is obviously true.
        Case closed.
        I really, really don’t think you realize how much you have in common with av8torbob.

        Comment by Ashley — December 31, 2018 @ 5:59 pm

      • Oh I get it now!

        I doubt it. You have created a strawman at every turn. I’ve spelt it out for you in clear and simple English but you can’t bring yourself to engage with the actual argument.
        It seems to really have you in a tizzy.
        Focus on the words as they appear on you monitor. Argue honestly. Try.

        There has to be a sufficient number of “relevant authorities”….

        Relevant authorities exist. They really do. There’s no need for scare quotes. It doesn’t help you.
        NASA, for example, is a relevant authority if we were talking about climate change.
        Your doctor, for example, is a relevant authority with regards to your health status.
        It’s a thing.
        Really.

        Expertise exists. There are indeed people and groups with specialized knowledge that monitor and follow all sorts of issues in the public eye on legal matters, engineering, chemistry, art, forestry, geography, botany. The list is endless.
        Relevant authorities exist in all sorts of matters.

        …..who object to the methodology in order for critique to have merit!

        Close but still no banana.
        You could be dead on in your assessment of…whatever. Justify it to your hearts content with the most beautifully constructed argument ever.
        Bully for you.
        Now ask yourself what it should look like.
        (….)
        No, really. If you are correct about this whatever that is batshit crazy etc then…what would that look like?

        Naomi Oreskes has been caught out lying in a paper.
        Or NASA has fudged something.
        And some super sleuth blogger has “exposed” the horror of it all.

        Well, ok. What does that look like in the real world?

        The overwhelming majority of Christian Theologians…

        False analogy.
        Science is not the same as religion. Nor is statistical analysis. You are really bad at this.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 5:30 am

      • I’m going to adopt the Cedric method of arguing. Here goes. Let me know what you think

        “You’ve created a straw man…”

        No banana. Nice try though

        “Expertise exists…”

        Not in racism it doesn’t. There’s nothing such thing as a racism expert.

        “Science is not the same as religion…”

        Science is not the same as racism

        However, people who bang on about racism and religion have much in common. Namely, their hypothesis are unflasifiable.

        How’d you like my one liners?

        Comment by Ashley — January 1, 2019 @ 7:49 am

      • I’m going to adopt the Cedric method of arguing.

        If only you would. But that would require you to argue honestly. You seem incapable of it.

        “Expertise exists…”

        Not in racism it doesn’t.

        People study racism. They really do. There are even organizations that monitor it.
        Duh!

        In this case, there’s a report looking into allegations of racial profiling and racial discrimination in a police department.
        Are there relevant authorities for something like that?
        Yes.
        Reports like that get carefully scrutinized. If they are faulty, then there are consequences.

        I was involved in an online argument with someone about Russian artillery.
        The discussion revolved around a satellite recon photo that was front page news in the media at the time. The official description of the photo was that it showed Russian artillery positions.
        However, this one guy felt that they were combine harvesters….and he had a blog. The person I was arguing with decided to try the notion on for size.

        I told him that he was being a bit silly to do so.
        (I might have phrased it a bit harsher.)

        There was no good reason to meekly accept this blogger’s uninformed feeling that it was a photo of combine harvesters just because….the guy said so.
        Anybody can squint at a photo and take a stab at what the patterns mean. I, personally, have no training in military recon satellite photography and analysis.
        So my squinting at a photo is just as prone to amateur error as the next person on the internet.
        But as a skeptic, I factor that in and make it part of my methodology.
        I am always mindful of the fact that I could be mistaken and yet be unaware of it.

        But people do train in that kind of thing. There is expertise to be had in that field. Military personnel and civilian contractors get the relevant qualifications and then do work required.
        So, not everybody is qualified to give an opinion on a recon photo and cut through the digital fuzziness but there are lots of people and military departments who are.
        And they read the papers like anyone else.

        In the real world, if the media is going on about a recon photo and saying that it’s Russian artillery….but it’s actually just some harmless combine harvesters…then it will be noticed.
        The pushback would be scathing.

        If the only person is some blogger or other then it’s reasonable to suspect that the blogger is badly confused. There’s no need to follow him down the rabbit hole.

        If you can’t get verification on something big that you feel you have discovered or figured out then…that’s not good.
        Something’s wrong.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 8:38 am

      • The disparity fallacy being widely used (this report being but a single example) to justify social policies to address the supposedly discriminatory inequities such disparities reveal (the disparities are real; the cause for them is the fallacious assumption) is not the non-expert opinion you keep describing of a ‘single blogger’; the same criticism is being raised by many. When the criticism is raised, it is of growing concern that ad hominem is then widely accepted – especially amongst the Left – as a legitimate and adequate response. You seem fine with this, substituting NASA as analogous to those who use the assumption for their ‘scientific’ conclusions. I think what appears to me to be a decline in critical thinking (self censoring) paired with the rise of selected indifference (staying quiet, going along with the social media mob to avoid being similarly targeted as the victims who speak out) by minds like yours that know better is a problem, too. This is the real travesty. The intellectual dark web I think has risen for just this reason and it is filled with far more ‘expertise’ than you are willing to grant exists contrary to your own opinion and who growing membership similarly criticizes the anti-liberal use of such fallacious thinking used to empower the idiocy of social policies justified by GroupThink… an idiocy that you seem determined to shrug away as if it’s the product of conspiratorial thinking only by one deranged blogger. You are wrong, Cedric, and your analogy couldn’t be more skewed because it’s good science – in areas like genetics, neuroscience, and statistics – that is being vilified and sometimes suppressed as well their authors vilified and sanctioned. And the examples are always growing in number. If you’re the least bit interested, then stop shrugging and start researching. Quillette is a good starting point.

        Comment by tildeb — January 1, 2019 @ 10:55 am

      • ….the same criticism is being raised by many.

        That’s good. So where the many criticisms of the report from the relevant authorities? Citations needed.

        When the criticism is raised, it is of growing concern that ad hominem is then widely accepted – especially amongst the Left – as a legitimate and adequate response.

        I don’t do ad hominem. I point it out in others. Remember how you did it to me very recently? Shame on you.

        You seem fine with this, substituting NASA as analogous to those who use the assumption for their ‘scientific’ conclusions.

        It’s an analogy that works. It’s not an ad hominem.
        In the real world, bloggers routinely claim to have discovered NASA doing something nefarious. Yet the relevant authorities are strangely oblivious to this terrible, terrible thing.

        You have discovered something terrible, terrible about a very public report on the Toronto police. Yet the relevant authorities are strangely oblivious to this terrible, terrible thing.

        …The intellectual dark web I think has risen for just this reason…

        The what?

        …you are willing to grant exists contrary to your own opinion…

        Nothing to do with my own opinion. Seriously, how much more do I have to labour this specific point? I’ve been very clear. Why are you doing this? There is nothing that I have written that can make you think that my opinion is the issue here. That’s really not it.

        “If you’re the least bit interested, then stop shrugging and start researching.

        You just told me to “do your own research”.

        (…facepalm…)

        That’s just awful.
        What has happened to you?
        You never used to behave this way. You would have laughed yourself silly if a creationist or Troofer tried that on with you back in the day.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 11:31 am

      • …. (this report being but a single example)….

        Wait. I just re-read this.
        You mean there’s more?
        Seriously?
        This isn’t a one-off?

        Are you saying that this thing that you are on is even bigger than just one supposedly faith-based report on the Toronto police?

        Not helping, tildeb.
        This is not helping at all.
        The MORE reports you see that are supposedly faith-based and yet are not somehow spotted only makes the situation LESS tenable.
        It just makes things worse.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 11:41 am

      • Not spotted by whom? Those who point it out usually receive either indifference (at best) or vilification for their efforts. Like what you’re doing: exercising intentional obdurate behaviour for yourself on the one hand while pretending it’s some kind of dishonest behaviour for anyone to raise the issue on the other. Who exactly is the problem when it comes to spotting the disparity fallacy hard at work, Sgt Shultz? Yeah… you.

        Comment by tildeb — January 1, 2019 @ 11:59 am

      • Not spotted by whom?

        This isn’t hard.
        NASA can’t release a dodgy study or paper without the relevant authorities blowing the whistle gleefully and loudly.
        I’ve kept things deliberately simple and easy to understand.

        tildeb, it’s not possible to release a report on racism on the Toronto police that is faith-based. It doesn’t work that way.
        It’s silly.
        If there was some horrible, horrible problem with something like that then there would be pushback.
        If it was as bad as you feel it is then it wouldn’t be just you and your blog.

        It wouldn’t be just you. You wouldn’t have to handwave when I ask you for citations. Ages ago I said…

        “So, to resolve the impasse, I’d behave as if we were talking about a NASA report.
        I’d cross-reference with other sources of information.
        Or at least google it and see what reactions are out there, if any.

        The results don’t support your contention. The opposite, in fact.
        What would any reasonable person conclude from that?”

        There’s nothing.

        Those who point it out usually receive either indifference (at best) or vilification for their efforts.

        Nobody is pointing it out. It’s just you. That’s not ok. That’s not how things work.

        Like what you’re doing: exercising intentional obdurate…

        Ad hominem. Shame on you.

        ….pretending it’s some kind of dishonest behaviour for anyone to raise the issue on the other.

        Strawman. Shame on you.

        You can raise an issue to the treetops if you like. More power to you. But…maybe you are wrong.
        You can’t seem to factor this in using a skeptical methodology.

        You’ve got to try and verify stuff.
        You’ve got to remember how things work and look in the real world.

        The bigger the thing you think you have found then the more verification you’d expect to be out there.
        Preaching that you really and truly have found something may convince you personally but it’s unhealthy.
        I’ve seen this behavior before. So have you.
        You are acting irrationally.

        Take a step back and consider the possibility that you have fallen into the trap that Feynman warned about.

        That guy on that thread that one time? That guy that spat the dummy and abandoned the argument with a vapid ” Yeah well, do your own research”.?
        That guy is you.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 12:34 pm

      • Bullshit, Cedric.

        You’ve asked and I’ve explained in detail where the assumption that links disparity to racism is made. You just wave this away and go back to your trope about a magically equivalent NASA report and assume I would refuse all expert opinion in the matter. Yes, that’s a form of ad hominem you’re intentionally using and then telling me it’s ‘shameful’ that I point it out. Yes, contrary facts to your opinion are always shameful, eh?

        I’ve pointed out repeatedly that the disparity the study reveals is accurate but that the link to ‘racism’ as its cause is nowhere to be found because it’s assumed. That, too, is a fact and I’ve explained using the study itself where that assumption occurs. Now you’re calling me “irrational” for sticking to my observation based on the actual evidence. Yeah, no ad hominem there, either.

        You demand verification from external ‘expert’ sources for this criticism I raise. Who would suffice? Certainly not me. I call you obdurate because you stand firmly behind a false analogy with a fictional NASA report, but – to keep the analogy relevant – an equivalent NASA would have to include a central assumption that is itself held only by faith. Golly, gee whiz… can’t find one, can you, but that doesn’t slow you for even a second from painting me as some kind of climate change denier busy deny accrued evidence that all points in the same direction. That’s even worse than bullshit because you know perfectly well that if compelling evidence revealed my opinion in this matter to be wrong, I would have zero problem changing it. That, too is an inconvenient fact to your opinion. But that compelling evidence that disparity between racial groups is caused by discrimination is lacking. Again, and in fact, it remains an unstated assumption. If a NASA report did the same thing, I would raise the same criticism but your response would be just as ludicrous – and worthy of being shameful – if you applied it to your own analogy and then stuck by the same tactics.

        I am disappointed in you, Cedric. You can think better than this.

        Comment by tildeb — January 1, 2019 @ 1:11 pm

      • You just wave this away and go back to your trope about a magically equivalent NASA report and assume I would refuse all expert opinion in the matter.

        I didn’t assume anything. If NASA released a report that was dodgy then…what would that look like in the real world?
        If a report was released on the Toronto police that was dodgy then…what would that look like in the real world?
        This is really simple.

        Yes, that’s a form of ad hominem you’re intentionally using…

        No, it isn’t. It’s a valid comparison and you are unwilling to engage. I’ve given multiple examples.

        I’ve pointed out repeatedly that the disparity the study reveals is accurate but that the link to ‘racism’ as its cause is nowhere to be found because it’s assumed.

        Nobody asked you to. You are missing the point and wasting my time when you go on about this.
        Focus.
        I get it that you have found “something”. OK? You don’t have to rabbit on about it. I don’t care about the details. Keep it to yourself.

        Now you’re calling me “irrational” for sticking to my observation based on the actual evidence.

        Nope. Didn’t do it.

        This is what I actually wrote. Pay attention:

        “You can raise an issue to the treetops if you like. More power to you. But…maybe you are wrong.
        You can’t seem to factor this in using a skeptical methodology.

        You’ve got to try and verify stuff.
        You’ve got to remember how things work and look in the real world.

        The bigger the thing you think you have found then the more verification you’d expect to be out there.
        Preaching that you really and truly have found something may convince you personally but it’s unhealthy.
        I’ve seen this behavior before. So have you.
        You are acting irrationally.”

        You demand verification from external ‘expert’ sources for this criticism I raise.

        Well, duh.
        There would have to be. Logically, there couldn’t be otherwise if you were correct.
        It would be a normal, bog standard thing to expect.

        Who would suffice? Certainly not me.

        Yes. Thank you. Finally.
        The idea is to verify. You might be wrong. You might have waltzed up a garden path somehow.
        And maybe you wouldn’t know it. Because that does actually happen.
        Verification. Stepping outside your own bubble and asking yourself “What would this all look like if I was right? What would be reasonable to expect?”

        I call you obdurate because you stand firmly behind a false analogy with a fictional NASA report…..

        It’s not a false analogy. It’s a real-world example. Climate deniers really and for truly behave this way. I take them to task on this behavior. Because it’s not reasonable to expect that some blogger has discovered this “thing” from NASA and it has been noticed.
        The real world doesn’t work that way.

        …an equivalent NASA would have to include a central assumption that is itself held only by faith.

        NASA is a scientific community. Climate deniers claim that they are hoaxers, a religious cult, faith-based, ideologically driven, Marxist, eco-fascists etc, etc, etc.
        They are not. The relevant authorities would notice.
        Such claims are silly.

        … that doesn’t slow you for even a second from painting me as some kind of climate change denier….

        Never said it. Didn’t even hint at it. You are confused. If you want, I can switch the analogy to creationism if that will make you feel more comfortable.
        You are not a climate denier and I don’t think you are climate denier and there’s nothing that I have written that a reasonable person could surmise that I am claiming that you are a climate denier.
        Happy now?
        Grow up.

        That’s even worse than bullshit because you know perfectly well that if compelling evidence revealed my opinion in this matter to be wrong, I would have zero problem changing it.

        Any creationist could say the same thing. Any vaccine denier could too. In fact, I can produce a clip from Penn and Teller where vaccine nutters proclaim this. You’ve probably seen the episode yourself.
        My goodness. They are so thirsty for that evidence that will prove them wrong. But, goshdarnnit, no matter how much they look, they just can’t seem to find it.

        But that compelling evidence that disparity between racial groups is…

        Why are you going on about this? You’ve told me before. I get it that you believe this. I get it. You think this…thing.
        Fine. Whatever.
        (shrug)
        So….working on the assumption that you are…correct, right? That you are…correct, ok? So…if you are correct then….(deep breath now)…what would that look like in the real world?

        If a NASA report did the same thing, I would raise the same criticism…..

        Good.
        Ok.
        So what would that look like? Do you reckon you would be a lone voice?
        Or do you reckon the relevant authorities would be all over it like a mad woman’s shit?

        Focus.
        I’ve been really patient with you. Try engaging.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 1:46 pm

      • You want to see what this looks like in the real world? Well, this study is what it looks like smeared in the patina of ‘academic’ study. If you want to see what effect these kinds of assumptions based on belief in disparity-is-caused-by discrimination has in the real world, then the examples are too numerous to mention. From the fear (that is very real and present) of being labeled as part of that upper group hierarchy causing discrimination we get this. The fear of being labeled a misogynist or bigot is enough to allow entire sections of the population responsible for upholding the law to turn a blind eye to its central mandate. This doesn’t belong only to police forces but cuts across the political representation that requires support from those most willing to call others ‘racists’. It’s common on campuses with invertebrate administrations. It’s common in publishing houses and throughout journalism. This shit is beginning to cascade its pernicious effects while those who are willing to criticize how these travesties come to be are threatened with legal action, who lose jobs and careers, who are socially assassinated, who become pariahs as well as a few who weather this shit storm of such complacent and collaborative idiocy and become something akin to folk heroes. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming to anyone who gives more than a rat’s ass about the state of our devolving democracies and who, like the harbingers of human climate climate change, see the evidence piling up in only one direction. Does that ring a bell, Cedric?

        Comment by tildeb — January 1, 2019 @ 2:45 pm

      • Who are the ‘relevant authorities’ to this kind of shit? If you can find them, please let me know. All I see are people in positions of authority running scared and rolling over to these bullying pseudo-academic reports. Good grief, Cedric, we’re had Head Start for multiple decades even though the assumption is wrong, race based admissions for Ivy League schools for decades even though the assumption is wrong, rapid onset gender dysphoria even though the assumption is wrong, the Indian Act even though the assumptions bare wrong, religious wingnuttery exempted again in the DSM V even though the assumption is wrong, and so on. I mean, the relevant authorities are as absent today against these fallacious assumptions that motivate so much idiocy as the relevant authorities were during the application of then Malleus Maleficarum.

        Comment by tildeb — January 1, 2019 @ 2:56 pm

      • You want to see what this looks like in the real world?

        Yes. It’s a sensible way of making sure that…

        Well, this study is what it looks like smeared in the patina of ‘academic’ study.

        Oh shit.
        (sigh)

        If you want to see what…..

        Why are you doing this? Focus. For goodness sake!

        .. belief in disparity-is-caused-by… the fear… upper group hierarchy… misogynist or bigot … central mandate… to call others ‘racists’… invertebrate administrations… these travesties …. socially assassinated…

        You know, you never used to write like this.
        Now you can’t seem to stop. It’s tortuous. I’ve asked before on previous pages what you were alluding to and you never got round to specifics.
        I don’t know why but it’s weird that you avoid doing when I prod you on this stuff.

        Who are the ‘relevant authorities’ to this kind of shit?

        Well, now that you mention it..

        If you can find them, please let me know. All I see are people in positions of authority….

        Oh shit. Not again.
        (sigh)

        …running scared… bullying pseudo-academic reports….Head Start for multiple decades..Ivy League schools… rapid onset gender dysphoria …the Indian Act… religious wingnuttery …DSM V … the relevant authorities…fallacious assumptions..so much idiocy.. relevant authorities … application of then Malleus Maleficarum.

        Nobody writes like this.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 5:51 pm

      • “The failure (by all levels of authority) to address the abuse (Rotherham child sexual scandal) was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators’ ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council’s reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town’s reputation; and lack of training and resources.” (Source)

        To which you say my pointing out the role by charges of racism to address your request to provide relevancy of how the disparity fallacy is used to assume racism is shameful and that “nobody writes like this.” In other words, responding to you and answering your requests is just wasting my time. You have no interest in addressing or even recognizing if what I say has any truth merit. That element is worth another sigh from you. From where you sit, the problem is me. From where I sit, the problem you will not grant any merit to – the power we amplify by going along with it to wield any charge of racism by assumption successfully against any action of authorities against anyone of a darker race – causes several thousand children to be abused over a lengthy period of time while authorities protect themselves from such allegations that really do end careers by non action. One of us is being irrational here and I don’t think it’s me.

        Comment by tildeb — January 1, 2019 @ 8:14 pm

      • “People study racism. They really do. There are even organizations that monitor it.
        Duh!”

        That’s nice.

        People study theology. They really do. There are organizations that have dedicated centuries to this project.

        “In this case, there’s a report looking into allegations of racial profiling…”

        In this case, there are thousands of studies looking into the existence of god.

        “Reports like that get carefully scrutinized. If they are faulty, then there are consequences.”

        Good. I can’t wait to hear your explanation as to why 80% of the population of planet earth believes in some form of god or other.

        Comment by Ashley — January 1, 2019 @ 7:35 pm

      • The failure (by all levels of authority) to address the abuse (Rotherham child sexual scandal)

        Relevance?

        To which you say my pointing out the role by charges of…

        Nope. Never mentioned it.

        In other words, responding to you and answering your requests is just wasting my time.

        You’re not responding. I’ve asked you to repeatedly and you go off on some word salad trip.

        You have no interest in addressing or even recognizing if what I say has any truth merit.

        It’s just comes across as confused mush. You do this again and again and again. All these obscure catchphrases from who knows where.

        Besides, I’ve already pointed out that I’m prepared to entertain the possibility that you are right and work from there.
        You’ve got truth merit whatever? Fine.
        So what does that look like in the real world?
        How come it seems to be just you?

        From where you sit, the problem is me.

        Well, I asked you to do some self reflection and you just blanked me. You never engaged.

        From where I sit, the problem you will not grant any merit to – the power we amplify by going along with it to wield any charge of racism by assumption successfully against….

        Awful. Why do you make these word strings? Nobody writes like this. It’s bizzare.

        One of us is being irrational here and I don’t think it’s me.

        Well, that’s what an irrational person would probably say, right?
        You have to have be prepared to consider the possibility that you are wrong about the report given that there’s no verification from sources independent from you.

        You don’t engage. I don’t know how you rationalize that to yourself.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 1, 2019 @ 8:35 pm

      • The Tone Police Argument
        The Argument from Authority
        Ear Plugging “You don’t engage…”

        I think that’s a wrap.

        Comment by Ashley — January 3, 2019 @ 9:34 am

  7. Cedric, you say, “I don’t follow. If you are going to complain about methodology then you have to actually look at the methodology of the report. It seems routine. I can’t imagine any other way of conducting the investigation any other way.
    What did they actually do that was wrong…in their methodology?
    Go back to the report and spell it out for me. You seem to be reading into it something that doesn’t seem to be there.”

    It’s the metric being employed: that race CAUSES higher rates of police shootings. That’s the faith-based assumption that race is the determinant. And it’s throughout the comparative data where we see it employed over and over and over again. The term being used throughout the methodological portion of the report is “over-represented”. How is this comparison made? It is based on the metric of population size vs the proportion of ‘Blacks’. But not all Blacks are created equal, Cedric. Some are Jamaican, where the graduation rate is higher than ‘Whites’ as is the median income, where the incarceration rates are lower than ‘Whites’. But we don’t hear this information touted; what we here is the generic term ‘Blacks’ used to find over or under representation vs fatal police shootings.

    We know that, “While a higher proportion of Black people had a gun (8.3% of Black people vs. 3.6% of White people) or a knife (16.7% of Black people vs. 14.7% of White people) in police use of force cases, a higher proportion of White people had a gun (20% of White people vs. 11.1% of Black people) in police shootings.” How do you interpret this, Cedric? Would you find that more Blacks carried weapons because the neighbourhoods in which they lived had a much higher proportion of Blacks who other ‘Blacks’ considered much more dangerous and the police just so happen to know this? Is the problem of treating Blacks byn police with higher rates of force in black neighbourhoods actually internal to the ‘Black’ community? Is the problem the ethnicity of many ‘Blacks’ is much more violent compared to other ‘Black’ ethnicities that promoted education and academic achievement? Nope. We already know the problem is the generic term ‘race’ and that “A black person in Toronto is nearly 20 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by police, according to a new Ontario Human Rights Commission report on race and policing” says the Commission representative. “Our interim findings are disturbing and call for immediate action,” added Renu Mandhane, the OHRC’s chief commissioner.

    The assumption is about the validity of the group metric, one that compares and contrasts selected criteria. What is diversity if not aggregate differences between groups? Why aren’t the positive differences championed? Why all the attention to this kind of ‘diversity’? Again, Cedric, the assumption is that some ‘discovered’ lack of equity (aka under- or over-representation in some selected and negative aggregate number) is CAUSED by a lack of equality (aka equal representation).

    Now before you comment again that something isn’t clear to you, please try as best you can to UNDERSTAND this last statement in bold because it is definitive in the study. It is the working assumption of the study. It is the metric being applied. It is the hallmark of GroupThink, the essence of creating two groups in a hierarchy necessary to create the ‘evidence’ for victimhood for the lower one. And this can be done for any selected group you want. You can create victims this way at the drop of a hat. It is batshit crazy because it does not reflect reality and has no regard for what’s true and is entirely dependent on believing it must be true before empowering it with the virtue of being true… just like any other faith-based belief. It is methodological failure if you actually wish to respect what’s true first. In this case, it’s not true that a black person is 20 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by police; it is entirely dependent on the situation. The situation is not as simple as ‘race’ but has much to do with police encountering higher rates of violence in the communities in which these fatal shootings take place… regardless of race. But the Ontario Human Rights Commission doesn’t give a rat’s ass about this real life problem because it doesn’t create the kind of headline they want, one that from 2 fatal shootings creates an ‘evidence-based’ result of some fictitious widespread victimization of police killing blacks due to racism.

    Comment by tildeb — December 19, 2018 @ 8:55 pm | Reply

    • “What did they actually do that was wrong…in their methodology?”

      “It’s the metric being employed: that race CAUSES higher rates of police shootings. That’s the faith-based assumption that race is the determinant.”

      Go back to the report and spell it out for me. Quote them. Take the time to look at their methodology.

      “…please try as best you can to UNDERSTAND this last statement in bold because it is definitive in the study.”

      Which makes it faith-based, right?

      No. I can’t just take your word on this. You really do have to go back to the report.

      I never heard of this report before you mentioned it. I have no dog in this hunt. I am not seeing what has pushed your buttons. I look at the report and I see a…report. It’s mundane.
      I freely admit to being a non-expert in how reports of this nature are made so, if someone is going to claim that there is a flaw in the methodology then it’s entirely possible I could miss it.
      I don’t have legal training or statistical training.

      But I can’t take your word on things.

      “The methodology is faith-based. Ring any bells?”

      I replied to this. You never got back to me on it. This accusation does ring bells. Loud and clear. It’s the rhetorical claim of a climate denier or a creationist. It’s a worthless statement without supporting evidence.
      For you to copy their language is appalling. How many times have I pinged climate deniers over this? I’ve lost count.
      So yes, it rings bells.
      I just find it creepy that you are ringing that particularly odious bell. Please put it back where it came from.

      Imagine that NASA creates a report on climate change. Then some wally comes along and claims that the NASA report is using a faith-based methodology.
      Oh really?
      NASA is now in the faith-based business.
      Really?
      Ok.
      (shrug)

      My response is going to be the same. Because it’s fair and reasonable.

      If NASA really did release a report that was faith-based then I’d expect the world to know about it. People and institutions that have the relevant expertise (NOAA, the European Space Agency, NAS, CSIRO etc.) would read the report along with the rest of us and point out the obvious flaw.
      Could NASA hoodwink me? Sure. I’m not a climate scientist.
      But if a blogger is going to beg me to believe them that NASA is now producing faith-based reports then…no. That’s not enough.
      I’m going to need supporting evidence.

      It is batshit crazy because it does not reflect reality…

      It’s hard for me to imagine a report being released on such an important topic that was batshit crazy.
      In my world, batshit crazy reports are noticed. Because they are batshit crazy.

      If that not how they are received, then something else is going on. Something that has nothing at all to do with the report.

      I googled the report. Where are all the relevant authorities that are shocked by a batshit crazy report.
      (…)
      Or is it just you?

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 9:34 pm | Reply

  8. I say the assumption being made is faith-based, meaning the belief that lack of group equity (aka under- or over-representation in some selected and negative aggregate number as the study’s author says throughout the report time and time again) is assumed to be CAUSED by a lack of individual equality (aka the lack of equal representation between selected groups and selected criteria of comparison means discrimination, which is used here to say that blacks are 20 times more likely to be killed by police than whites). This method of collecting group data as if to demonstrate individual inequality is an assumption of belief. It is not an assumption based on what’s actually true. Again, the belief is what empowers the assumption that a lack of group equity demonstrates a lack of individual equality. My point is that this incorrect assumption underlies the entire report, that is to say, the report relies on this assumption to be true.

    It’s not true.

    To prove my criticism has merit, I point out that the author relies on the assumption by constantly referencing the lack of equity between the selected groups using fatal shootings as the comparison within the racial metric. I demonstrate this point’s validity by pointing out the constant use by the author throughout the study using the over- and under-representation metric where the author actually says “over representation” and actually says “under representation” to demonstrate inequity. Group inequity does not prove individual inequality. Assuming otherwise as this author does is a mistake in methodology.

    I don’t know why you’re having such difficulty grasping that this method of comparison, which is then used as if evidence for racial discrimination against individuals by the study’s author and the Commissioner, is the fallacy of disparity in action (that disparate group results are ASSUMED to cause individual inequality of treatment as shown by the quotations made by the Commissioner AND the study’s author, which I have quoted for you), nor why you suggest that these quotes from the study itself isn’t relative or hasn’t been ‘found’ anywhere in the study when it obviously is to the central point I am raising about the assumption itself, that the metric for group inequity means – as the Commissioner states – individuals then suffer from inequality.

    This isn’t the conclusion, Cedric: it’s ASSUMING the conclusion by introducing the assumption as a necessary ingredient of the methodology, that group disparity causes individual inequality and so the author has collected all kinds of statistics demonstrating inequity between the racial groups.

    Holding on to the assumption as if true when it is shown to be a fallacy is not rational. But it is understandable when we view it through the lens of the assumption being used as a faith-based belief, when the study itself is an example of how this fallacy of disparity is used as if true to affect public policy.

    Comment by tildeb — December 19, 2018 @ 10:43 pm | Reply

    • I say the assumption being made is faith-based.

      You mentioned methodology. I took you at your word.
      You were talking about the report. It’s methodology. So I went with that.

      Nobody seems to think that the methodology of the report is in question. It’s not looking like a “batshit crazy” report at all.
      That seems to be just you.
      And that doesn’t make sense. That’s not how the real world works.

      Logically, you can’t be the only one to notice a batshit crazy report. We are not talking about something obscure here.
      A batshit crazy comment on a blog? Sure.
      A batshit crazy article in some newspaper? Maybe.
      A batshit crazy report…on theToronto Police Service…by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
      No.
      That’s not something that I would just casually accept. As a claim goes, it’s a tad exotic.

      I don’t know why you’re having such difficulty grasping…

      Because I’m looking at the report and to my untrained eye it seems they’ve done a fair job. It’s nothing out of the ordinary. I get it that you personally are fuming about this but that’s just you so far.
      I can’t share your outrage just to pander to you and stroke your ego.

      I still don’t understand what they are supposed to have done differently.
      Again, the methodology looks boring and entirely reasonable.

      “…this method of comparison…”
      Well, perhaps I don’t see the problem. Or…you are seeing a problem that isn’t really there.
      Either could be true.

      So, to resolve the impasse, I’d behave as if we were talking about a NASA report.
      I’d cross-reference with other sources of information.
      Or at least google it and see what reactions are out there, if any.

      The results don’t support your contention. The opposite, in fact.
      What would any reasonable person conclude from that?

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 19, 2018 @ 11:18 pm | Reply

  9. Belief in the assumption that disparity in equity means discrimination against individuals is what’s batshit crazy. I’ve said this many times. If you haven’t understood even this, then I can’t help you understand my criticism that the assumption is faith-based. If a NASA report assumed a similar and glaring fallacy was also true and then presumed everyone should work with that as if it were true, then I would make the same criticism. That’s as far as the analogy works and you’re not even addressing why I would raise it. You just pretend you’re mystified why anyone would think this is a significant problem – believing something is true when it is not – when everyone else seems good with it so therefore the problem must be with me. How is that any different than the religious person presuming the problems and fallacies of belief raised by atheists indicate the problem must be with atheists?

    Comment by tildeb — December 20, 2018 @ 7:06 am | Reply

    • If you haven’t understood even this, then I can’t help you understand my criticism that the assumption is faith-based.

      Then that’s a serious problem. You should be able to. I know that I could.

      That’s as far as the analogy works and…

      Nope.
      Think about it. You have discovered that a NASA report has a glaring fallacy. That’s sounds really bad.
      Either for NASA or….for you.

      You just pretend you’re mystified…

      Ad hominem. Shame on you.

      If NASA produced a report that genuinely had a glaring fallacy, then how come only you see it?
      (Never mind about me. I’m just the messenger.)
      If you can spot a glaring fallacy from a NASA report, then how come the NAS can’t? Or the Royal Society? Or the APS? Or the American Geological Society? etc, etc.

      In the real world, glaring fallacies are…well…glaring. The hint is in the adjective. And we’re talking about NASA here. Think of the level of scrutiny.
      But….nothing.
      Not a sausage.
      That is not reasonable. That is not rational. That’s not how things work. And the bigger and more dramatic you make this, the worse the flaw becomes.

      “… when everyone else seems good with it so therefore the problem must be with me.”

      Well, pretend for a moment that the problem really is with you. Just for a bit. As a hypothetical, let’s say. Ok?
      So, you are looking at NASA and they release a report. And you see this batshit crazy fallacy that…isn’t there.
      (Because, unfortunately, it’s you.)

      In the real world, what would be the inevitable warning signs of that?
      Think about it. I’m being perfectly serious here.

      I have seen this before. You too.
      Ever encountered a creationist that has figured out that ‘the scientists’ have it ‘all wrong’ over something or other?
      Try and remember how they rationalize their position.
      Imagine their frame of mind.
      Imagine them getting worked up enough that they accuse you of just pretending to be mystified…even after you have pointed out that if an armchair expert like themselves has been able to figure out this fatal flaw, then how come the biologists of the world over the past hundred years or so don’t see it.

      I gave you the comparison for a reason. Use it fairly.
      You have made a horrible mistake.

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 7:57 am | Reply

  10. If the analogy with NASA were aligned, then we’d see the physical problems caused in systemic failures no matter what we believed. But the analogy is not aligned, Cedric, because the problems created from not recognizing the disparity fallacy (“The disparity fallacy holds that unequal outcomes between two groups must be caused primarily by discrimination, whether overt or systemic”) in action are hidden behind a moral excuse for the repeated failures we have in social policies that supposedly addresses it. First, the method creates a category for comparison. Check. Then, the method creates a statistical disparity. Check. Them the method claims the disparity is evidence for discrimination. Check. (There’s the assumption at work) The, call to create equity by social engineering is made. Check. The failure to create equity by social engineering is then blamed on the power imbalance by the created upper group in the created hierarchy within the created framework using the disparity fallacy. Check. The moral excuse then used by social justice warriors blames the upper hierarchy for the lower hierarchy’s continued ‘victimization’ (because, hey look, we still have statistical disparity between these created groups). The failure of the social polices to create equity, to eliminate the selected disparity, are paid for by the equivalent loss of individual rights and freedoms in the name of the collective… all done, supposedly to correct the identified group disparity discrimination problem. Check.

    The actual reason for the failed policies is that the problem itself – framed as a victim/victimizer problem – has been misunderstood using what I call GroupThink. The metric relying on disparity between groups to create a hierarchy is wrong. You can’t ‘fix’ group disparity problems when you don’t first correctly identify what the problem actually is. The ‘problem’ with fatal police shootings in my example is assumed to be racial because there is a statistical disparity when race is used as the determinant. That’s why I keep saying – to zero effect so far – that the method is broken, that the belief in the correctness of the metric using group disparity to demonstrate discrimination is misplaced. My criticism is that using race to find a racial disparity, and then claim the disparity proves racism, is the wrong framing. This is a failed methodology. That’s why social policies aimed at ‘correcting’ this racial disparity are doomed to failure and real world evidence backs this up. In fact, when this metric is used, we will always find disparity. Guaranteed. We will find – and do find – that even after all kinds of ‘corrective’ social policies are implemented we still have disparity between groups. And the reason for that ongoing failure to correct racial disparities in real life is not because of some power imbalance between the selected groups but because the assumption made about the cause of discrimination – group disparity – is flat out wrong. The assumption that there is no fallacy regarding disparity equals discrimination is wrong. But it is still believed to be true in the same way religious belief is assumed to be true by the believers. I can’t say this any clearer.

    Your suggestion – that perhaps the problem isn’t about misplaced faith that group disparity causes discrimination but that I am misguided pointing it out – is the same argument put forth by religious believers challenged by contrary real world evidence that does not support their belief: as commonly said by believers and accommodationists and I’m-an-atheist Butters, pointing it out is the real problem and not the misplaced cherished belief itself, that those who point this contrary evidence out must do so for subjective reasons rather than independent merit, that non belief in the fundamental claims can be fixed by believing and going along with it rather than by evidence-based reasons contrary to it, that yer-doin-it-rong and tone is the problem, that causing offense is the bigger problem, and so on and so forth. No. The disparity fallacy will remain a fallacy no matter how you or anyone else wish to classify me for pointing out its ongoing and pernicious use by social justice warriors and the idiocy of the public that supports them imposing their faith-based beliefs about discrimination through public social policy on the rest of us.

    Comment by tildeb — December 20, 2018 @ 9:52 am | Reply

    • If the analogy with NASA were aligned, then we’d see the physical problems caused in systemic failures no matter what we believed.

      I never mentioned it.

      “because the problems created from not recognizing the…

      Tildeb?
      This is not healthy. Focus on my analogy honestly.

      Your suggestion – that perhaps the problem isn’t about misplaced faith that group disparity causes discrimination but that I am misguided pointing it out –

      Didn’t say it.
      Do you need me to re-iterate?

      You believe that you see a flaw in a NASA report.
      That is a big thing.
      The bigger the thing (glaring/batshit crazy) the more likely it is to be noticed by others. NASA can’t create batshit crazy report without the relevant authorities noticing.
      It would be news.

      But there is no news. The Royal Society is strangely comfortable with the released report. No scientific community anywhere is raising any sort of alarm.
      That doesn’t happen.
      The world doesn’t work like that.

      The bigger and more obvious the fallacy, the greater the reaction to it would be.

      So, if Evolution is not really a scientific theory but a fraud then…you wouldn’t have to go to the ICR website to find out.
      If global warming was a cult, you wouldn’t have to rely on a blog somewhere.

      I get it that you feel certain that you have found something and that it’s huge and glaring and all that.
      Yet you don’t seem to be able to consider what that should look like if you are spot on.

      Comment by Cedric Katesby — December 20, 2018 @ 10:15 am | Reply

      • For you, Cedric, to explain why disparity of outcome is not evidence for discrimination as today’s PoMo ideologues assume, and how widespread is the problem of this kind of GroupThink in all its facets – as evidenced by the similarity with the ‘report’ indicating Toronto Police systemic racism according to the number of fatal police shootings.

        Comment by tildeb — January 31, 2019 @ 1:11 pm

  11. Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron has become the political guidebook of today’s social democrats. Whodathunk that would happen?

    Comment by Ron — December 29, 2018 @ 11:48 am | Reply

    • That one’s new to me; thanks, Ron.

      But isn’t this world of 2081 the inevitable goal? After all, that’s what equity of results is all about: eliminating any diversity of results between individuals in the name of seeking ‘justice’ because diversity between groups is believed as a matter of faith to ‘reveal’ systemic discrimination!

      But I’m quite interested in this term ‘today’s social democrats’ you use because I think it’s a very handy shield for those advocating their totalitarian bent. If one is a social democrat, which of the following is supported… because one is night and one is day:

      Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.

      Social democracy is the idea that the state needs to provide security and equality for its people and should actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments, but that such changes should be brought about gradually, legitimated by a democratically-elected majority.

      Comment by tildeb — December 29, 2018 @ 12:17 pm | Reply

      • Like it or not, the distinction between “democratic socialism” and “social democracy” has become blurred (at least in the U.S.) as exemplified by the following speech:

        Senator Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism in the United States, Georgetown University, 19 Nov 2015

        Especially noteworthy is the following remark:

        “So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist — like tomorrow — remember this:

        I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street, or own the means of production. But I do believe that the middle class and the working families of this country who produce the wealth of this country deserve a decent standard of living, and that their incomes should go up — not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America. Companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low wage labour abroad.” (47:28 – 48:34)

        {NB: I’ve provided a verbatim transcription because the notes provided in the link differ sightly from what he actually said.}

        To avoid confusion, I eschew all political labels and base my decisions on what is actually being advanced. The proponents of ‘equality of outcome’ argue that ‘equality of opportunity’ is unattainable for those whose life options are limited due to socioeconomic circumstances beyond their control — a view I’m somewhat sympathetic to based on having had personal experience tutoring children who live in dysfunctional families (though I disagree with the methods proposed for leveling the playing field).

        Comment by Ron — December 30, 2018 @ 11:53 am

      • Bernie – like many populist social engineers – is not famous enough for blithely switching between the two when it is convenient to do so. This tells me that his political principles are just as slippery. He sounds great and can advocate passionately for social stuff I may agree with, but then is just as likely to act contrary to them with the same great sounding advocacy cheered on by the same supporters. This is yet another typical inversion common to the confused and naive Left polity… more so I find than the Right… where such inversions (often captured and executed by the Right’s spokespeople) seem to go unnoticed and unchallenged by those who have a voice within its Leftist ranks. And when such Leftist voices are raised, I find a growing common response: accuse the voice – no matter how demonstrably Left the voice actually is – of being an agent of the ‘alt-Right’, of being a bigot, a racist, a fascist, a deplorable, a hater. Note the raised criticism almost invariably disappears and goes without response in the kicked up dust among the rank and file.

        Comment by tildeb — December 30, 2018 @ 12:32 pm

  12. Tildeb,
    Here’s a friend’s take on the same topic, in reaction to the Catholic boys’ fiasco of late.

    google: I Stand With Liberalism Against the Critical Theory Dominations of the Social Justice Movement. (Daniel Fincke, who has a blog called ‘Camels with Hammers’ on Patheos.) He’s an American Professor of Philosophy currently living in France.

    Comment by Carmen — January 22, 2019 @ 7:25 am | Reply

    • Thank you for this, Carmen. I know it’s easy to be portrayed by ‘skeptics’ as a lone voice, and therefore easy prey to those who claim such a voice can be easily dismissed because it is ‘fringe’. I see the same charge brought against hundreds I’ve read and heard who have enunciated my concerns. These so-called ‘skeptics’ wave them all away. What they are is the New Apologists.

      But all these ‘fringe’ voices share the same deep concern I do about the fundamental and ongoing successful attack against liberal values by those who presume the title of social justice means real justice for all and not what it actually is: group-based retribution at the expense of liberal values. That’s what China’s Red Guard did; they went after the ‘impure’. That’s what today’s social justice warriors of the ctrl Left do, too. I cannot see much of a difference between the two labels but I sure as hell think more people should stand against it.

      Most people simply do not see or hear the increasing assault or, if they do, rationalize the anti-liberal behaviours as a more ‘progressive’ kind of liberal. They pay little if any mind to a deplorable person like a Linda Sarsour, for example… a person who stands for the anti-feminine and totalitarian ideals of Islam directly opposed to all liberal values of equality and will not respect the dignity of all, leading the Women’s March Inc.. People don’t see or hear the obvious hypocrisy she represents in today’s ‘progressive’ Left nor appreciate their part in sustaining this ridiculous sham in the name of social justice. of course, they don’t see what should be there but is absent, either; where is the sustained and EQUIVALENT criticism of, say, Iran’s ruling junta and the vast crimes they’ve committed against real Iranians, government actions motivated by Sarsour’s version of Islamism – especially against women – while she continues to pretend her version of feminism she represents under Islam is not anti-liberal or anti-feminist? Our press is just as guilty by omission of accurately and equivalently describing Sarsour’s anti-liberal, anti-feminist beliefs as Sarsour is herself for her bullying and dismissive anti-liberal actions.

      From your link: “Liberals must stick up for true liberalism and stop letting anti-liberalism co-opt the name “liberalism”. That’s exactly right. Sarsour is an excellent example of ideas she expresses that requires real liberals to call bullshit when they encounter such blatant bullshit and criticize the press and the government agencies that go along with her bullshit.

      And my claims about this version of social justice under the banner of Identity Politics being believed to be liberal, believed to be progressive, believed to be the ‘right thing to do’, is very much just like a religion that has enabled people to badly fool themselves and excuse and/or disregard the role reality should play in our claims made about it. Sarsour acts like a leader of Mao’s Red Guard and calls it liberal. So, too, do hundreds of thousands if not millions of followers of this anti-liberal social justice belief who call themselves ‘Left’ on the political spectrum. Hence, my call for the importance of New Atheist Liberals to step up and speak out. This ain’t the ‘Left and these warriors sure as hell ain’t liberal: it’s totalitarian and Red Guard to the core and deeply anti-Left if one thinks liberal values means the equality empowerment of all individuals.

      “A renewed Maoism is assaulting freedom of conscience and dissent. There’s a new default defensiveness of any incivility or violence that can achieve leftist results, and a new contempt for the social norms of free expression that John Stuart Mill recognized must supplement merely legal protections if we are to have genuine freedom. By contrast, the social justice left is happy to petition any institution with any leverage, be it a corporation or a university or a government, to punish heretics and blasphemers on its behalf.”

      I am not a lone voice.

      Comment by tildeb — January 22, 2019 @ 11:36 am | Reply

      • It will come as no surprise to know that Dan used to be an evangelical Christian; I first became acquainted with him through his blog (before he moved to Patheos) and am now FB friends with him. He speaks to the parallels of religious fundamentalism, as you’ve pointed out before.

        Comment by carmen — January 22, 2019 @ 1:28 pm

      • I know it’s easy to be portrayed by ‘skeptics’ as a lone voice..

        Yes. Very easy.

        …and therefore easy prey to those who claim such a voice can be easily dismissed because it is ‘fringe’.

        Your sources so far seem to be…Quillete. (??)

        I see the same charge brought against hundreds I’ve read and heard who have enunciated my concerns.

        Hundreds, eh? Over time that will build up and before you know it, it will be over the thousand mark.
        Tildeb, yours really is a fringe position.
        I asked you for sources. You had nothing.
        I asked you for verification. Again, you had nothing but handwaving. That’s pretty fringe. That’s what it looks like. Really.

        Completely unforced, you have copied catch phrases from other fringe groups. You even name drop a climate denier. It’s bizzare.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 23, 2019 @ 5:26 pm

      • How very strange, Cedric… you never used to lie so blatantly. Brain tumor? Medication?

        Yes, I use Quillette for many articles written by many different people about this subject. It’s not just one source when there are many dozens of contributors. You should know that. Why try to misrepresent it as if it’s only one source? Even if you wish to quibble that such publications are single sources, then I accuse you of lying because I have specifically mentioned many of the participants in the Heterodox Academy who have written about this subject. There are dozens and dozens opf well to lesser known experts in all kinds of areas targeted by the illiberal social justice people. I have mentioned some of the people who are categorized as belonging to the intellectual dark web who have spoken and written about this subject. I have mentioned several very well known academics, journalists, and writers across the political spectrum like Steven Pinker and Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss. I have mentioned some of the more popular YouTube interviewers like Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, and Sam Harris. For you to continue to claim that I have not provided sources or that I am alone spokesperson is simply lying. Blatant lying. Dedicated lying. Rejecting reality and substituting your preferences lying. That’s why I think you must have a neurological condition rather than a pathological dedication to lying. And your smear about climate change denial by Peterson – as if that denial automatically eliminates anything he has to say in his area of expertise – psychology – he was arguing that waging a war against capitalism is no way to foment an ecological revolution to tackle climate change, that this isn’t how you motivate people to get involved. But then, I bother to really try to actually LISTEN to what people say and interpret it if I am in doubt inside a body of opinion rather than cherry pick whatever data best supports my a priori position. You used to do the same. Now your comments are just the quality of garbage.

        Comment by tildeb — January 23, 2019 @ 7:49 pm

      • It’s not just one source when there are many dozens of contributors.

        That’s not the way it works. You know that. You can’t even name the specific articles.

        then I accuse you of lying because I have specifically mentioned many of the participants in the Heterodox Academy who have written about this subject.

        Many, eh? Such as?

        There are dozens and dozens opf….

        Dozens and dozens? Perhaps dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens? This is silly.

        I have mentioned some of the people who are categorized as belonging to the intellectual dark web who have spoken and written about this subject.

        It’s not a thing. Did you google the term? It’s more of a tongue-in-cheek joke than anything.

        I have mentioned several…

        You’ve name dropped. Entirely unhelpful. Support your position. Don’t just wave your hands in the air and tell me to go fish. That’s silly.

        Steven Pinker and Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss…

        If you think they can help you then provide the specifics.
        You know that Ben Shapiro is yet another climate denier, right? They keep popping up. How does that happen?

        I have mentioned some of the more popular YouTube interviewers…

        Why exactly? What’s the point if you are not actually going to use them in a meaningful manner?
        “Oh, I’m not fringe. There are youtubers out there that I agree with”
        (…facepalm…)
        Hardly a ringing endorsement.

        That’s why I think you must have a neurological condition rather than a pathological dedication to lying.

        I doubt it. It’s probably more to do with you being upset which is why you are resorting to ad hominem and playing coy.
        But who knows, eh?
        Maybe this business of me demanding details of where you are getting this stuff from and insisting on verification is a new-fangled neurological disorder.
        Maybe.

        And your smear about climate change denial by Peterson…

        I googled it. It popped right up. It’s hardly a smear if it’s true.

        …as if that denial automatically eliminates…

        They’re nutters. You know that perfectly well. Their thinking routinely comes in clusters. Someone’s a vaccine denier? Oooookey, that’s one to avoid. Ah, a YEC? Yes…um, not today thank you very much.
        A climate denier? They can fuck right off with the rest of ’em. If you have to go to a climate denier because you’ve only got a narrow band of people to work with then that’s fringe.

        Me? Everything I accept from economics to history to science is filled with experts and organizations I could use as a resource. One of them is tainted? No biggie. I’ll never mention them again. I’ll still have plenty left. You don’t seem to have that luxury.
        It’s not like I brought him up. You did. I’d never even heard of him before.

        Now your comments are just the quality of garbage.

        Nonsense. I’m doing what I have always done. You used to approve. You are the one that has mysteriously changed. It’s not just the oddball subject matter. it’s the wordsalad and the obsession with buzzwords.
        Try to engage. Really try this time.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 23, 2019 @ 8:28 pm

      • Lol.
        Cedric questioning your sources (Quillette) (and ignoring others like Heterodox academy) while clinging to Rationalwiki!
        The other side of the Conservapedia coin!
        Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

        Comment by Ashley — January 26, 2019 @ 3:54 pm

      • The whole reason for the Heterodox Academy is because of a perceived need to be able to speak freely and with real diversity of viewpoint without the ideological straitjacket now commonly employed against academics by their employers and students. oh, but that’s not compelling evidence to Cedric. Nor does it matter in the least that there are 2600 ‘fringe’ academics who feel threatened enough to belong to it. That Cedric won’t even recognize this fact yet claims no evidence supports my position speaks to his intransigence to face reality and allow it to arbitrate his beliefs about it. Or maybe membership alone ‘taints’ those who work in this toxic atmosphere every day of their professional lives so they can be dismissed, too, as ‘nutters’. It’s just such a glaring thinking error he’s making. So this is why I say his comments now are just garbage. They have no quality of truth merit.

        Comment by tildeb — January 26, 2019 @ 5:05 pm

      • Cedric is a perfect example of too many people that I have noticed in the “atheist community” that, having rejected traditional religion, are all too happy to embrace the new secular religion that is regressive leftism.
        He knows on the subject of intersectionality, identity politics, etc, doesnt care to know and doesn’t even seem remotely interested in even discussing it, except to dispute its existence. When sources are given as requested, they are dismissed. Evidence and explanations are ignored when offered while the assertion of the absurdity of your position is continued….because apparently, you’re “alone”. He knows this because Rationalwiki tells him. It appears that Rationalwiki is the lone source from which to obtain opinions on topics and/or individuals.
        Living, breathing proof that just because one is an atheist, it by no means insures that one knows how to think critically.

        Comment by Ashley — January 26, 2019 @ 11:48 pm

    • What a small world. I’m friends with Dan Finke on Facebook as well!
      He just had a post on his wall encouraging his friends to friend one another and get to know more people who may have similar and opposing views.
      I just met 4 or 5 new people the other day.

      Comment by Ashley — January 26, 2019 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  13. Here’s one of the largest YouTube subscribed commentators PhilosophyInsights explaining how SJWs of Google and YouTube are killing free speech and why he won’t (can’t) produce more videos capturing the rise and spread of this toxic ideology. Of course, according to Cedric and Violet and other ctrl Left apologists, the expansion of censoring and banning for their rationalized ideological reasons isn’t much of a concern because the number is so small and fringe. According to apologists like Pink, the problem is that these censored people are all bad people promoting racist and bigoted ideas so censoring and deplatforming and disinviting such cretins is just fine and dandy and perhaps long overdue. We must champion the victims, after all.

    I have tried to argue that it is the principle of censoring and banning and deplatforming and disinviting that is by far the greater threat to all of us because it is the tool of totalitarianism, the main power by which their ideological fascism is exercised and nurtured and promoted under the guise of ‘protecting’ free speech. Of course, it’s not free speech; it is is the opposite. It is controlled speech that is filtered for approval by the cultural Red Guards who think they are helping to bring about social justice. The inversion of the reason (protecting victims from victimizers) – from the action (creating very real victims) is all the evidence any rational person needs to understand that something is truly rotten here. The imposition by well meaning people of their regressive ideology of GroupThink is the source of this stench. And it is growing by leaps and bounds attacking the roots of our civilization while far too many people stand by and go along with it. For shame, people. For shame.

    So listen to how underhanded is the imposition of the ctrl Left ideology on those like philosophyinsight who champion real free speech. This is happening all around us.

    Comment by tildeb — February 18, 2019 @ 10:33 am | Reply

  14. And just for those who think I’m overblowing this problem of shutting down free speech, here’s FIRE’s (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) database.

    Comment by tildeb — October 9, 2019 @ 5:38 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: