Threads discussing racial issues

nesf

Hobbes wrote:

Someone going off about how a friend once heard of this woman who got free prams and cars and then left them at bus-stops because she had to get her free 5,000 euros from the government then mug someone at the ATM because they are [insert demographic]. Which is followed up how all [insert demographic] are alike.[

That isn't debating. The only difference is in Humanities you would be asked to back some of the crap up and second-hand friend of a friend "I once heard" doesn't fly.

I never called it debating, I called it ranting. Not every discussion has to be a debate.

Hobbes wrote:

You seem to be equating liberal outlook as "wanting people to back up rants with facts".

I'm not. The scare marks/quotation marks were meant to imply that what I'm speaking of are positions that are taken to imply that they are informed and backed up by facts because they are popular or generally held to be true or backed by certain portions of the media. They are appeals to "sensibilities" rather than arguments premised on "facts".

nesf

Sorry I had quoted your post before you edited this part in.

Hobbes wrote:

Or to put it another way. I was mugged once. It was an Irish lad that did it. I know a friend of mine who also knew someone who got mugged by an Irish person. Clearly Irish people are scum that they have to go around mugging people. I even heard some Irish people get free handouts from the government and lie to get money. Why can't Irish people get a proper job like the rest of us normal humans? But I have Irish friends so I am not a racist and it is ok for me to say this.

That's just a poorly supported argument with plenty of fallacious reasoning in it that draws faulty inferences from small poorly selected samples. It's not necessarily racist, just very poorly reasoned and generally will get shot down for it.

Posts like the above aren't the problem when you get down to it. People suck at reasoning and draw inferences far far too quickly. The problem is when posts like the above when combined with other posts from the user show a racially motivated agenda or when someone takes the above and advocates violence etc from it as a premise. We watch for this and remove this but for vast majority of the time people are just ranting and their statements are literally able to taken at face value and aren't pushing some more sinister agenda behind them. In most cases the above would be benign, if not terribly well informed and reasoned out.

Hobbes

nesf wrote:

that are taken to imply that they are informed and backed up by facts because they are popular or generally held to be true or backed by certain portions of the media.

Which isn't the case in Humanities. Well until Corinthian can point out some instances.

Also remember backing up your sources (which you believe to be facts) is perfectly acceptable. You might not get people agreeing with you but it at least allows them to do a bit more reading to see if you are correct or not.

It also shows that people don't take BS at face value and bother to look into it.

nesf

Hobbes wrote:

Which isn't the case in Humanities. Well until Corinthian can point out some instances.

Well, consider it an opinion of mine that you can take or leave at face value. Again, you can do the same for some stuff I've seen on AH and newsprint.

Hobbes wrote:

It also shows that people don't take BS at face value and bother to look into it.

Ah, yes, but my question is why we should force everyone to back up their opinions with "facts" when the topic just happens to be something that is "not PC"? Why not force them to back up their opinions on something like the price of food thread atm in AH as well? Or is anecdotal evidence suddenly sufficient when it's not "controversial" to certain people? Is there some unwritten rule that you can't offer an opinion on anything until you've studied the subject? AH is closer to chatting in the pub, while humanities is closer to secondary school debating. Both are valid within their own contexts imho.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Which isn't the case in Humanities. Well until Corinthian can point out some instances.

As you well know there was a discussion on Roma gypsies and their connection to crime over a year ago. Anecdotal evidence on this was rejected, however anecdotal evidence against was perfectly acceptable. Additionally, even though the discussion was about the Roma 'culture', this was taken as 'race' despite numerous explanations that the argument was looking at the environmental and not the genetic. Bans on the basis of racism there then handed out.

If you'd like to dig up the thread in question, feel free. I've better things to be doing than feeding your attempts at obfuscation.