|
My argument would be that those positions aren't credited in the first place. My question would be, how does one self-identify into a genetic grouping? Is your assertion here the largely rejected but occasionally popular notion that nature plays little to no role in human behavior such that there are genes for e.g. laziness and homelessness and that there is no social aspect of these things despite them varying enormously from culture to culture?Elephant Ambush posted:I'll just bow out and lurk then because this is just another iteration of the same problem we have where certain people just flat out refuse to concede anything and resort to all the usual suspect "debate tactics" that cause endless circular arguments I'm aware of the phenomena so I get where you're coming from, the thread just wasn't to that point yet if it was going to end up there eventually is all
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on the question of whether the issues caused by racism justifies the racism. I think it's pretty clearly an issue with the racists themselves. Do you have any rebutting evidence, OP? Did any of those studies of diversity attempt to account for racist attitudes to see if there was correlation of racist attitudes to diversity outcomes? I'd bet donuts to dollars that the racism itself is a more impactful Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Aug 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
toterunner posted:"Some average behavioral differences between self identified racial groups are partly explained by genetics" is a far right position that hasn't been discredited." From my perspective, this is a discredited view in the social sciences, but I get that on a wider cultural level it might have more purchase. Could you give some examples of what you mean by positions that have been discredited? From whatever part of the political spectrum / country?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Does it matter that those social scientists holding those positions makes it impossible to approach the question objectively? What does this even mean? quote:It doesn't seem like you're leaving any room for anyone to debate or discuss anything. Conservative positions are unfalsifiable. It might be hard to falsify the resurrection of Jesus (there is ordinary historical evidence for this extraordinary claim so it just come down to how prohibitive your priors are). There are studies that purport to disprove the most common claim about a genetic origin for average behavioral differences between races. If these studies had a larger sample size, used different existing tests to measure those differences, and followed up on the subjects when they were adults, I would indeed take them to have falsified the "hereditarian" position. I don't see how the studies on diversity mentioned in this article are more unfalsifiable than any other statistical analyses in the social sciences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
It might be hard to falsify the story of the Minotaur. Or the story of Narcissus and Echo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
I would like to see this ordinary historical evidence for Jesus coming back from the dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
There's a few problems here. First, what are conservative positions? Positions espoused by conservatives? Positions core to conservatism as a philosophy? Positions common among the conservative masses? None of the things you've mentioned so far seem to be any of those things. You keep bringing up things that are more like conservative supporting argument than conservative positions. They aren't things conservatives believe or defend, they are things conservative use when its convenient. That's not what I would consider a position. You also bring up some conservative rhetoric, like tough on crime, but that's general rhetoric. It's not a position conservatives hold. It's not even a policy. Conservatives are not, in general, tough on crime. They hold specific policy positions about supporting extreme punishments in specific ways on specific crimes done by specific people, but they hold far more policy positions that involve being incredibly lenient on other crimes committed by other people. You can't discredit "tough on crime" because it's not a real thing - it's a soundbite. You also seem to act as if conservatism is some sort of monolith and that there are singular conservative positions so the ones people bring up that some specific conservatives believe in don't count but I'm not sure what you're using to determine what counts. Finally, there's the problem with the term "discredited". You're aware that word just means something that is not respected by a specific audience, right? It has nothing to do with whether or not something proven factually true or false, and in a lot of your examples even that would take honestly discussing the purpose of holding a specific position, since they are policies and policies can only be effective or ineffective in relation to their actual goals. But, obviously, no mainstream conservative position is discredited among the conservative audience. If it were, it wouldn't be a mainstream conservative position. Pretty much every single conservative position is discredited among liberal audiences though. Because "discredited" is about how much an argument is embraced by the audience, its always audience relative. I'm not sure if this is what you're actually looking for. If you want a solidly conservative position that has been solidly discredited and seems to meet your definitions of what all those words mean as best as I can tell, I can give you one though: "Slavery should be legal." That's one that's so discredited it doesn't even get support among conservative audiences anymore, outside a few niche corner cases. toterunner posted:Yes, its an inaccurate portrayal of the conservative position. The inherent superiority of both whites and Christianity are certainly common conservative positions though - I know people personally who have argued them, and it is not at all an inaccurate way to describe that position. If a lot of positions can be discredited by putting inherent superiority in front of them, that doesn't bode well for conservative positions. A lot of conservative positions are about inherent places in the hierarchy. Like, conservative philosophy was literally and explicitly founded with that in mind, it's the entire foundation on which conservatism is built - that people have a natural place in the social hierarchy, and that said place is inherent to who they are and that interventions to change those people's place in the social hierarchy are unnatural and must be opposed in an attempt to restore the natural order. Remember that conservatism, as a philosophy, was created explicitly as an attempt to restore the power of the aristocracy after the enlightenment. That's the pillar on which it is built. To the extent there is a singular conservative position, that's the closest you're going to come. Edit: Note that I think there are several conservative supporting arguments that are actually probably true. They are all used in ways that make it clear that those who use them don't give a poo poo if they are true or not, and they are used in conjunction with other supporting arguments that are not, and they are used to build larger arguments that are quite fallacious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
OP, things like tenants of faith and studies you wish were better designed so that any conclusion could be drawn from them at all are not things that can be discredited because they are not credited in the sense that you are pitching them to be in the first place. If you have any questions about that article from the Economics Detective you should ask them directly. As you are the OP of this thread it is not the duty of anybody responding to do your homework and make your pitch for you which is why as you see they are not. Please be more rigorous with your methodology going forward or withdraw until you have put together an argument based on sources you yourself have analyzed in support of a falsifiable assertion in defense of conservative beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
I think your initial question is flawed because conservative is just far too big of a label. Which conservatives? As an example, you mention global warming in the OP. "Climate change isn't real" is a conservative belief but so is "Climate change is real and we should solve it by killing off all non-whites and returning to isolationist societies, abandoning global markets and returning to a more feudalist society" and those two people wouldn't agree at all. And while you can discredit the first person you can't really credit or discredit the second, they just have an idea about what to do. A lovely one that a lot of people would have a problem with but it can't really be credited or discredited.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
None of them. If they were, there would not be a real threat of an overwhelming conservative triumph at the polls this November.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:None of them. If they were, there would not be a real threat of an overwhelming conservative triumph at the polls this November. It doesn't seem as though none of the ideas being discredited is a necessary condition for a decisive conservative victory, since voters could find only the majority of them plausible and still vote for conservatives. It also may be useful to define clearly what we mean by discredited. An idea can be credited by one group and discredited by another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:It doesn't seem as though none of the ideas being discredited is a necessary condition for a decisive conservative victory, since voters could find only the majority of them plausible and still vote for conservatives. The green and libertarian party’s beliefs are discredited, because they have no potential of affecting the current power structure: the republican party’s ideas, and the trump movement’s ideas, are decidedly not discredited and anyone ignores that fact at their peril.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
The lack of a consensus concept of reality among political opponents does make the entire concept of things being "discredited" rather nonsensical yes. In addition to the idea that people don't believe things because they are correct as much as they believe them because they experience emotional validation via the practice of believing them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
If "discredited" means "what conservative positions do conservatives not believe " then it's even more tautological than I initially thought. Things they don't believe would be no longer considered their position. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
The point is that it’s extremely arrogant to believe a position you don’t agree with is “discredited.” Do a significant amount of people agree with and act on that belief? Then it hasn’t been discredited, and you need to do work if you want to change that. Get out of your ivory tower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Still doesn't seem like a good debate topic for this forum when you phrase it that way. A bunch of people will always be idiots  Evolution is thoroughly credited and yet a lot of people dismiss it. Doesn't mean we have to give them the time of day
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:None of the things you've mentioned so far seem to be any of those things. You keep bringing up things that are more like conservative supporting argument than conservative positions. They aren't things conservatives believe or defend, they are things conservative use when its convenient. That's not what I would consider a position. You also bring up some conservative rhetoric, like tough on crime, but that's general rhetoric. It's not a position conservatives hold. It's not even a policy. Conservatives are not, in general, tough on crime. They hold specific policy positions about supporting extreme punishments in specific ways on specific crimes done by specific people, but they hold far more policy positions that involve being incredibly lenient on other crimes committed by other people. You can't discredit "tough on crime" because it's not a real thing - it's a soundbite. I would quibble with this. Even if a belief is hypocritical or has no clear or universal policy translation, it would still be a position, and that goes for "we should be tougher on crime." ellasmith posted:The point is that it’s extremely arrogant to believe a position you don’t agree with is “discredited.” To be more precise, it would be arrogant to believe a position is discredited because you don't agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:The point is that it’s extremely arrogant to believe a position you don’t agree with is “discredited.” Do a significant amount of people agree with and act on that belief? Then it hasn’t been discredited, and you need to do work if you want to change that. Get out of your ivory tower. Well the OP specifically requested that people do exactly that, so if you'd like to make a thread about the merits of the power justifies itself/might makes right viewpoint you're welcome to, but imho it's not something that really lends itself to discussion as it represents the farthest fringe of the absolutist ideological viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
I'll make the thread and take that position but only if you make me the ik of it
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Well the OP specifically requested that people do exactly that, so if you'd like to make a thread about the merits of the power justifies itself/might makes right viewpoint you're welcome to, but imho it's not something that really lends itself to discussion as it represents the farthest fringe of the absolutist ideological viewpoints. Do you genuinely believe that viewpoints representing close to 50% of the US are the farthest fringe? I don’t. They’re here and they’re real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Do you genuinely believe that viewpoints representing close to 50% of the US are the farthest fringe? I don’t. They’re here and they’re real. You do not believe that merit or grounding in reality matters when it comes to wielding political power in service of an ideological goal. I agree with you. But that's not what this thread is. I disagree that "thing happened therefore most people agree with it" is true but that's not a matter for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:The green and libertarian party’s beliefs are discredited, because they have no potential of affecting the current power structure: the republican party’s ideas, and the trump movement’s ideas, are decidedly not discredited and anyone ignores that fact at their peril. There's some ambiguity in the clause "because they have the potential of affecting the current power structure." Does this mean their lack of potential power has discredited them, or that the lack of potential power implies they fit the definition? If the latter, I would disagree. One could argue that the power dynamics should be considered in the definition, or that whether something becomes discredited arises out of them, but to say they imply something falls within the definition is idiosyncratic. To wit, there have likely been ideas that were widely discredited but still affected power structures, and the inverse, ideas which were nominally accepted by a society but had no actual effect on power structures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:My argument would be that those positions aren't credited in the first place. My question would be, how does one self-identify into a genetic grouping? Are you really befuddled by how self identified race could correlate with genetic differences? plogo posted:Could you give some examples of what you mean by positions that have been discredited? From whatever part of the political spectrum / country? I'd say a conservative position that seems discredited based on what I know is that immigration increases crime or reduces wages. A liberal position that has been discredited is that racial differences in SAT scores are explained by economic differences. This isn't to say that other explanations based on racism or bias are discredited, but the economic one is popular. socialsecurity posted:I would like to see this ordinary historical evidence for Jesus coming back from the dead. The apostles maintained they had witnessed him rise from the dead while facing severe persecution for their beliefs. The AskHistorians reddit thinks that the idea that they didn't say this or didn't sincerely believe it is unserious. That seems like it would be sufficient evidence for ordinary historical claims. Epic High Five posted:studies you wish were better designed so that any conclusion could be drawn from them at all are not things that can be discredited because they are not credited in the sense that you are pitching them to be in the first place. I was responding to someone who said the positions I referred to were unfalsifiable. I'm saying some of the studies purporting to refute the hereditarian position on racial differences were better designed in some simple, attainable ways, and reached the same conclusion, that the hereditarian position would be falsified. So its hard to say its unfalsifiable. quote:Please be more rigorous with your methodology going forward or withdraw until you have put together an argument based on sources you yourself have analyzed in support of a falsifiable assertion in defense of conservative beliefs. Ok. The ratio of white to black cop killers is 3/2 while the ratio of white to black police shooting victims is 2/1 (The page is taking a while to load but I have a spreadsheet on my computer based on it that says from 2016 to 2019 cops killed 1806 whites and 937 blacks). I contend on these grounds that the racial disparity in police shootings is caused by the disparity in the rate at which black and white people engage in behaviors that make cops think their life is in danger (which is well reflected by the disparity in the rate at which they ultimately kill a police officer). toterunner fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Aug 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:There's some ambiguity in the clause "because they have the potential of affecting the current power structure." Does this mean their lack of potential power has discredited them, or that the lack of potential power implies they fit the definition? If the latter, I would disagree. One could argue that the power dynamics should be considered in the definition, or that whether something becomes discredited arises out of them, but to say they imply something falls within the definition is idiosyncratic. To wit, there have likely been ideas that were widely discredited but still affected power structures, and the inverse, ideas which were nominally accepted by a society but had no actual effect on power structures. I don’t mean to be flippant, but no one cares about them or their ideas, therefore their ideas are worthless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:You do not believe that merit or grounding in reality matters when it comes to wielding political power in service of an ideological goal. I agree with you. But that's not what this thread is. I disagree that "thing happened therefore most people agree with it" is true but that's not a matter for this thread. I don’t. I genuinely believe that power is what drives the world. I want left wing goals to happen, and nearly everything else seems like a huge distraction. The Republican Party seems to have realized this, and I think it’s a huge flaw that the Democratic Party is lagging behind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:I don’t mean to be flippant, but no one cares about them or their ideas, therefore their ideas are worthless. I'm not saying anything about the Greens or Libertarians in particular. But if no one cares about an idea, that would mean it has no repute at all, good or ill, and can't really be called discredited. In addition, whether this factor discredits them to you in particular isn't relevant to the definition of the word itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
If we are arguing the semantics of discredited vs disproven then every position anyone has ever taken has been discredited
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
toterunner posted:The AskHistorians reddit thinks that the idea that they didn't say this or didn't sincerely believe it is unserious. That seems like it would be sufficient evidence for ordinary historical claims. i've never found 'appeal to authority' a particularly compelling logical fallacy- plenty of authorities are worth appealing to as evidence supporting a theory. but argumentum ad subreddit is a new one on me. are there any other subreddits that serve as proof for conservative (?) ideas, or is it limited to AskHistorians
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I would quibble with this. Even if a belief is hypocritical or has no clear or universal policy translation, it would still be a position, and that goes for "we should be tougher on crime." Sure, but they dont have that belief is my contention. They have that slogan. A slogan is not a position. They have a position (well, several positions) they use those words to *reference*, but if you want to talk about the position you have to actually discuss the position itself - which one you mean and what it actually is - before you can meaningfully discuss anything else about it like the extent to which it is credited. You cant meaningfully discuss a slogan. "compassionate conservatism", "fiscal responsibility", "families first", "making america great again", all of them are slogans, not positions. Some of them refer to positions, but they're usually positions that have very little to do with the words and theres usually more than one. More importantly, the conservative movement often uses these slogans to *obfuscate* what the actual position is, because they know the position itself is unpopular but the slogan sounds good to a wider number of people. If you want to discuss conservative positions and whether they are credible you need to clearly state the actual position being discussed, not the slogan. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Aug 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
toterunner posted:
I think researchers of various types on both the left and the right have skepticism towards immigration and wages. I think centrist liberals and the center right tend to take the view that overall immigration is welfare improving for society, but there's a pretty involved debate with no clear resolution. The idea that racial differences in SAT scores are explained by economic differences has never been discredited to any degree of satisfaction, to my standards. I think I am going to bow out of this because I am struggling to think of political positions that are discredited at these wide levels of generality, even if I disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
toterunner posted:
So you are arguing that black people are inherently more criminal than white people? I am so confused about what you want out of this thread and these questions. How does one define discredited to you? And just as important, do alternative schools of thought mean something is discredited? For instance, I would argue the conservative position of making abortion illegal means there will be less abortions is a conservative position. Yet, we know the abortion rate doesn't change. So that argument is discredited. We know that lowering taxes doesn't axiomatically mean jobs and wages increase. That is a conservative position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
toterunner posted:I'd say a conservative position that seems discredited based on what I know is that immigration increases crime or reduces wages. A liberal position that has been discredited is that racial differences in SAT scores are explained by economic differences. This isn't to say that other explanations based on racism or bias are discredited, but the economic one is popular. Im honestly confused, it sounds a lot like you are using discredited to mean "things you dont personally believe".
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
I feel like this might do better as a series of more focused discussions. At first, the thread seemed more like a question about the place of science and fact within conservative ideology, in which case a general unfocused approach makes sense. But the OP has demonstrated that they strongly believe in these conservative ideologies and intends to defend them against any claim that they're debunked, which turns this into a general "debate and discuss all of conservative ideology". The unfocused, broad subject doesn't make sense there, it'll inevitably devolve into a chaotic thunderdome. And in fact, the OP is currently trying to argue positions on racial differences, immigration policy, the impacts of unions, the legitimacy of police shootings, and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus - all at the same time. It's going to be quite difficult to treat any of those subjects with any sort of depth when they're all happening simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I feel like this might do better as a series of more focused discussions. At first, the thread seemed more like a question about the place of science and fact within conservative ideology, in which case a general unfocused approach makes sense. Yup. Please try to be as specific as possible, OP, as this will lead to more productive discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
I think the use of the term "discredited" is ultimately going to lead this thread in a circular direction (despite some solid posts). So, to clarify OP, are you asking which conservative positions have been *disproven* by facts/evidence/science? I don't want to assume but given the way you have engaged so far it would appear that that's what you were asking. If this is the case I'd say it outright to eliminate confusion. As other posters have noted, "discrediting" is a little more vague, meaning "having lost respect or credibility/the quality of being trusted or believed in". Obviously this is trickier to nail down because there are plenty of outright false positions conservatives nonetheless believe are credible (see climate change debates or covid denialism). If this is indeed what you were after I would think that the answers you seek would be found in the past, in positions conservatives have mostly abandoned for one reason or another. Im not a historian or anything but the old conservative position on chattel slavery might fit that. For now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
I've read every post in this thread and I have no idea what this thread is meant to be about then ban op for posting that tucker carlson was right about something
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
plogo posted:The idea that racial differences in SAT scores are explained by economic differences has never been discredited to any degree of satisfaction, to my standards. I guess some small part of it could be, but it clearly can't explain much of it since poor white kids outscore rich black kids. I was only able to find this article from 2003 from a few minutes of googling, so it could've changed but I doubt it. Table 2 on page 15 shows that black test takers with a family income of $80,000 to $100,000 do worse than white test takers with a family income of less than $10,000. Mooseontheloose posted:So you are arguing that black people are inherently more criminal than white people? Where did you get that from? The cause of the higher black crime rate has nothing to do with whether it explains the disparity in police shootings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
But it's something the black people are doing, and not any thing about the police?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
toterunner posted:
So is that the standard of evidence that the Apostles said they saw him raise from the dead? I could get a hundred people together that say they've seen a sasquatch or been abducted by aliens does that mean those are true to? "Followers of this religion said these extraordinary thing happened" cannot be used as the sole evidence of extraordinary thing happening or else every single religion and fringe belief is true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
OP do you have any research on genetic predisposition towards furtive movement?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2022 21:57
|
|