|
The question seems to be "if race realism was correct, and you knew it was correct, would you believe in it?"Cingulate posted:Okay. From this exercise, have we learned anything about "Race Realists"? Nothing new. "Race realists" have an extremely low bar for evidence supporting "race realism," because it's something they really want to be true. Asking us to imagine a world where they have better evidence does not change this world in the slightest.
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
What Bob is talking about is the standard internal struggle that happens when someone believes in the liberal ideal of "all men are created equal" and the Just World Fallacy simultaneously, both of which are strongly ingrained in most people from a young age. Then they run into the facts of life, like "convicts are disproportionately black" and "high-level executives and politicians are disproportionately white dudes," and cognitive dissonance kicks in. Either the world is just and everyone gets what they deserve based on merit, in which case you have to conclude that white dudes are just better than everyone else; or all men are created equal, in which case you have to conclude the world is profoundly unjust. Accepting the former is a path to various reactionary ideologies, while the latter pulls you in the direction of the various ideologies I'll just clump together as SJW because that's apparently what we do now. Or you could go the third path, ignore the cognitive dissonance, and just carry on believing both things. The fact that the third path is the most popular lets people in the other two groups get all smug about how they've seen through society's lies / taken the red pill / whatever. The rest of his post is just dousing that basic idea in some standard  jargon, like the weird claim that the Just World Fallacy is somehow unique to capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:"Machiavellian analyses of liberal democracy" Best guess? Machiavelli was clever and amoral (in the public consciousness), therefore if their critique is clever and amoral, they're being Machiavellian. How actual writings don't really factor into it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Perhaps Heidegger would be up your alley. How sincere he was in his Actual Literal Nazism is debated, so you'd have a thin veneer of plausible deniability.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 20:01
|
|