Quad: 3rd Party Commentary

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Gustav, Nov 30, 2011.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Or it could be described as an attempt to delimit what perspectives are brought to a discussion. A lot of criticism at sciforums seems to embrace the view that thinking "this way" is better than thinking "that way" which to my mind seems to embrace a very narrow kind of intellectualism.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And yet you yourself are right now employing "this way is better than thinking that way" kind of thinking.


    What is the point of simply hearing all voices, but not deciding which one is better than others??
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    You have to hear all voices to be able to make that judgment. If you silence all the voices except the ones that think only "this way", what is the criteria for making any distinction?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    No.


    Your values and beliefs are the criteria for any judgment, and they preexist the act of "hearing all the voices."
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825

    Is that your opinion or is that a fact? I usually try to approach such candid assertions of opinion as fact by putting them to the test and the results rarely stand up to the assertions. But for you, I will just say that no one asks questions when they think they already have the answers. And only because you've proven in the past that you can see through my methods as easily as I can see past your words
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    This and That

    I would certainly agree with the basic axiom, but its application is not so simple. That is, we have never figured out how to implement a policy that says one must have a clue about reality before posting their opinion thereof.

    • • •​

    Generally, I would agree, though it's not a universal truism.

    For instance, many here are critical of various aspects of "Islamic" civilization. And that makes a useful example, I think. One of the most frequently criticized aspects of such cultures is the abaya, and it is not difficult to find a local imam, or even Muslim man on the street, who suggests that the custom of women covering themselves is a measure against sexual harassment.

    We might then juxtapose that proposition with the contentious issue of blaming rape survivors for their rapes. I would suggest that, in general, there is a better way, and a worse way, to look at the situation. That is, as you might suspect, I reject thinking that would assign the burden of a rapist's culpability to the victim.

    And, yes, this is a phenomenon that exists in other cultures. The abaya, of course, is an acute symptom of what I consider the lesser way of thinking. While other cultures have yet to erase their own versions of the blame-the-victim trope, well ... at least a woman can walk around in skimpy clothes without being arrested for tempting potential rapists.

    I am reminded of a dervish tale in which local gadflies argue about whether a Sufi was right or wrong to leave his shoes outside the mosque. To the one, it was custom. To the other, he might have tempted a thief. The locals asked the Sufi, when he emerged from the mosque, his opinion. He reminded them that while they were arguing about abstractions, there were plenty in their community who had no shoes.

    It seems to me, then, that yes, there are better and worse ways of thinking in general. To the other, though, beating our chests about whose perspective is more righteous ignores the fact that some people simply aren't capable of critical thought.

    If I must prescribe a fabulous moral to the story, then, I would suggest that the problem abates somewhat if we encourage intelligent critical thinking.

    Of course, that can be viewed as its own issue, so I cannot be definitive in my advocacy of thinking.
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    tiassa

    i have no problem with the valid and standard arguments against this particular version of reverse discrimination. reading quad was like reading james in many episodes spanning close to a decade. there are few distinctions tho.

    i think comparisons b/w the degree of inequity black populations labored under in both apartheid and jim crow are misplaced, exploitative and insensitive. to then use that as a basis for an exclusion of particular opinions is a "cheap ploy"


    i suppose both you guys can expand on those offerings by establishing the validity of your distinctions if you care to. it could very well be that i am not privy to same the facts that y'all are. its not as if i am some scholar in either situation. for instance a response to quad would go like this......

    yet despite that... americans (or is it just "some" americans?) are not qualified to comment because........the infrastructure for blacks residences in sa is worse than it is for blacks in the us and we are ignorant of that fact?? this is the "fundamental error" that some are alleged to have made?

    what am i missing here? i just see a bogus conflation here. sure the lack of both infrastructure and educational opportunities for blacks are consequences of apartheid but what does the lack of running water have to do with this alleged instance of racial discrimination in the present day?

    establish the relevance of the alleged distinctions. feel free to do a body count as well and tell me my ancestors had it good
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The general for the particular, maybe?

    Not certain, but perhaps one thing is my exploitation of the particular in order to establish a route toward the general.

    I'm fully of the opinion that the trope you've noted should be taken to the ditch and shot, but that's just me. I don't see the point in piling onto Quad as if he's the first or only person guilty of this particular evasion.

    Compared to the history of this fallacy, it would seem unfair to suddenly smack Quad for a slightly better expression of poorly-expressed cultural protectionism. If the larger goal is to castrate the trope, I see no reason to castrate Quadraphonics specifically.

    In the broader picture, our neighbor is intelligent enough to play a constructive role in the subsequent assessment of fallacy. Attempting to crucify him will only discourage him from taking that role.

    So he's the latest messenger. Big deal. We can put the message itself in the crosshairs, or lead Quadraphonics in the horsecart as the first up in an intellectual auto da fé. The former seems more productive.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Yes I agree with this. Its why I skipped over those observations in the thread in question instead of arguing about <screeches to a halt>; safe to say that there was a lot of comparison of inequity involved none of which would have contributed to an understanding of why its precipitate to expect instant resolution of the PTSD consequent to centuries of apartheid
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    the particular is the general

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    what constitutes "speaking for them"? how is this distinct from having an "opinion"?

    sam? quad?
     
  14. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    You want us to have a clue about reality, now??? Jeebus.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I observe that even a troll may have something useful to say...maybe, possibly, if you take their trolls and look at them carefully, rather than chomping on the bait with an emotive reaction.

    Hmm, do I get to speak for Americans? How about Texans? Southerners? Rednecks?
    Trailer-Park People? Poor white trash?
    Except I don't think generally like they do.
    Who gets to decide one's ability to speak for anyone or anything?

    How about this:
    We just ought to state what perspective we're coming from, then make our point.
    That way, the reader can take the point in broader context.
    Workable?

    OTOH, we do kind of know each other at this point...
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The curious consideration

    Well, you would think so. I mean, it doesn't seem too unrealistic an expectation.

    But somehow the war of words doesn't work out that way. For instance, with Quadraphonics, I can even accept a context in which he is sarcastically making the point. You know, like throwing perceived exclusionism back in someone's face.

    But I can't say for certain. And Gustav doesn't seem to find that outlook credible. Nor is he alone in that. 'Tis a curious consideration. But the end result is a reminder that, by cynicism or the mystical workings of the internet or fate itself, this community has some certain trouble interpreting itself. The value of the whole, unfortunately, may well be less than the sum of its parts.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825

    You don't need to worry. I have seen people here speak with authority from everything beginning with the pollution in the Ganges to the lifestyle of Prophet Mohammed.

    I'm the only one not expected to have my perspective on anything which is outside "my" people, said "my people" embracing anything from Indians 5000 years ago to Arabs from Yemen and possibly, American Muslims who want to build a mosque on ground zero or Swiss Muslims who protest the minaret. Everyone else on this forum is free make derogatory comments about anyone anywhere in the world regardless of "their" people

    In fact, I can't think of ANY discussion in this forum, where Arabs/Muslims are not a fruit salad where geography and timeline is concerned. In fact, some have even accused me of being a Pakistani supporter because of my religion, when my entry into this forum was to berate a Pakistani for his uninformed comments on Hindus.

    If you pay close attention, you'll see that on this forum that when people talk about limiting narratives, there is only a section of people who are continually advised to do that. And when people talk about me speaking for this Asian or that Muslim, they tend to forget the exhaustive debates we have had on Maoris or native Americans or the Dalits. Its easier to understand my perspective if you remember two things: one, I support the underdog and two, I am an anti-colonialist. But its much easier to frame my discussions in other terms becuase these terms embrace a perspective which is perhaps outside the experience of many people here. I've compared colonialism to rape, so maybe you can grasp the difficulty of trying to make someone without that experience comprehend how deep the roots of such abuse are. And to give you a concrete example of the way I think, I've wondered if the civil rights movement for blacks in the US had anything to do with Irish immigrants, because it takes people with an experience of hunger and oppression to recognise its significance in another.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2011
  17. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    I don't think so, or at least not significantly...
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here.

    By the time the black civil rights movement came along, the Irish were the white establishment. I think it was more of a regional and class thing...outside the historic slave states and in more educated and liberal circles there was support for equality.

    I think equality was less supported in the working class. Equality there meant that black people were suddenly in direct competition for jobs that would have been whites-only.

    I have heard you described as a "conservative Muslim," and I thought of that poster:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    (I think this one will come in handy,you-all can feel free to use it, it's in my album "BS")
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2011
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    You may be right, but I haven't looked at the early supporters of black civil right activists so I am also clueless here. It was just something that occured to me when I realised the timeline of Irish immigration preceded the civil rights movement by just a few years especially the immigrants who fled the famine
    There is an interesting story behind that. I once quoted a very right wing conservative Islamic scholar on tolerance in religion. It was my intention to illustrate that even right wing Islamic scholars who speak complete rubbish on many other issues can be coherent when it comes to freedom of religion. This of course was used to illustrate how I was a fervent supporter of rabid conservative scholars [whose worst crimes btw were to write loads of books which other right wing conservatives thought were the cats whiskers] thus immediately portraying me as someone dressed head to toe in niqab, the third party commentator doing a quick math where Indian quoting Pakistani equals Wahabi
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2011
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It is a common truism that standards need to exist before we can conduct an evaluation.


    It is also possible to develop one's standards on the go, of course.
    The downside of this approach is that:
    1. other people will likely be confused and will consider such a person to be inconsistent and intellectually dishonest,
    2. one will possibly be confused oneself by one's ever-changing, ever-adapting evaluation strategies.


    Lol.

    There is at least the Socratic method, the rhetorical question, and the question meant to stimulate discussion.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    True, but the aim of the Socratic method is not to ask questions to elicit responses. In my case, for example, I use it to test a theory I have been offered. The results, by and large, have been illuminating

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Forgetting, of course, that the 'eminent' scholar really wasn't so free about such things. I might add that even Hitler got the trains to run on time; but why would this concept need to be restated?

    One rarely describes one's political opponents as 'eminent', I find: and your standards on such standards have already been well-versed. There's really no wiggle room on this, Sam.

    An odd sort of semi-alliteration that, again, distracts alone. Difficult to express one's support for such a stance, confirm it obliquely in other threads, and then deny it. I mean, if it were really an experiment, you could have simply so indicated via PM, instead of squirming away from a definition of which Mawdudi you were talking about. This is a new level, mind, pretending that your own intolerances really were part of a grander scheme. Yet, I'm sure it will play in the appropriate quarters.

    To quote Bells: who do you think you're foolin'?

    Good luck with the 'theory': but keep in mind perspective while your formulate your excuses, won't you?
     
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Oh good, our resident third party commentator is here for review. Perhaps we can hear some perspectives on how third party commentary should be conducted from the experts
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    ???

    The Great Potato Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration between 1845 and 1852

    By 1854, between 1.5 and 2 million Irish left their country due to evictions, starvation, and harsh living conditions. In America, most Irish became city-dwellers: with little money, many had to settle in the cities that the ships they came on landed in. By 1850, the Irish made up a quarter of the population in Boston, Massachusetts; New York City; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Baltimore, Maryland. In addition, Irish populations became prevalent in some American mining communities.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

    The US Civil Rights movement started a century later, in the late 1950s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968)

    So my guess is you are confusing the term Civil Rights movement with the much earlier Abolishionist movement.

    But even that movement started well before the Potato famine hit Ireland.

    http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/brief.htm
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2011

Share This Page