|
gaan kak posted:How do you open someone's eyes to white privilege? I've shown them the Wise article, cited countless statistics about discrimination in hiring practices, sentencing, schooling, etc., but they keep repeating 'personal responsibility!' ad nauseum. How do you best show someone that someone's upbringings can lead them to a life where, no matter their character, they can't elevate about crime? Ask him how he knows your dick is cheesy.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
gaan kak posted:Here's a quote from the person to show you the kind of nonsense I'm dealing with. Censoring is left as-is. This person appears to not be your friend, and this doesn't appear to be taking place on a moderated forum like SA. My suggestion in this case is walk away, this kind of person in an unmoderated environment isn't worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Golbez posted:This person appears to not be your friend, and this doesn't appear to be taking place on a moderated forum like SA. My suggestion in this case is walk away, this kind of person in an unmoderated environment isn't worth it. It's a libertarian echo-chamber on another forum I frequent... Just trying to do my best to spread the gospel of liberalism :-(
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
gaan kak posted:How do you open someone's eyes to white privilege? I've shown them the Wise article, cited countless statistics about discrimination in hiring practices, sentencing, schooling, etc., but they keep repeating 'personal responsibility!' ad nauseum. How do you best show someone that someone's upbringings can lead them to a life where, no matter their character, they can't elevate about crime? If you want to keep trying, you might emphasize the factors that oppressed minorities don't control. He's only focusing on imprisonment (if he continues to ignore all other subjects, maybe show him [more] articles/evidence about blacks being given longer sentencing for the same crime, imprisoned even when innocent, and refused release when DNA evidence exonerates them), but factors such as employers discriminating and where they went to school certainly aren't in the control of each individual. To add to that, maybe a graph or two about how poor people are statistically less likely to become rich (and, of course, how non-whites are much more likely to be poor). You also might try anecdotal evidence. Even though stories are largely irrelevant, people fallaciously value anecdotes over statistics. At the very least, you might change the minds of people reading the debate who aren't participating in it. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
I can't find the post anymore, but someone with a frankenstein head between a set of boobs as their avatar, posted a chart comparing the recovery of jobs in the US compared to other major catastrophes in other nations (spain, finland, japan, etc). It was alongside the classic graph comparing this recovery to other US recoveries in the past. Many people posted that it was an unfair comparison because of U3 vs U6 and other reasons (labor pool participation drops). I agree completely with all those points, but my question is that what should these charts look like if dropping labor participation was taken into account? Would the recovery line still be going down? Or would it just be coming up at a much more gradual angle? Are charts like these just worthless because of these apples to oranges comparison and the obfuscation of the US's measuring of this kind of thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
 What in the hell is this and how do I kill it? BenghaziGate? Really? I probably shouldn't even bother, this dude is off the deep end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:
Even if it were Obama's fault, what kind of lunatic asserts that Nixon and Reagan accepted responsibility for Watergate and Iran-Contra respectively  ? I mean it literally makes more sense to just say they never really happened if you're going to lie, since that's probably an easier lie to bog down in circumlocution than claiming a President said something he didn't, since it's fairly easy to look up a President's public statements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Remember how all of two weeks ago the TV wouldn't shut up about Movie protests and every conservative was foaming at the mouth about savage arabs over-reacting to a stupid video? NO AMERICAN CASUALTY - because the only lives that matter are American ones.  How do Watergate (The President spying on his enemies), Iran-Contra (the President approving an illegal arms deal) and Benghazi (an attack on a US consulate) have anything in common?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:
Nixon "accepted" responsibility only when it was clear he would be impeached. And he still didn't admit any wrongdoing. An early victim of the "gotcha" media. Yeah, no AMERICAN casualties from Iran-Contra. Just a bunch of dead Nicaraguans. But they aren't really people, dispute ludicrous assertions to the contrary. You might want to point out there is a small Republican omission in 2001-2009 where plenty of Americans were killed because of the incompetence of the CIC. Anyway, the best strategy is always: ask for evidence. What did Obama do/not do that caused this? Ask for sources, which usually turn out to be TheBlaze, Breitbart, or some other rag so they literally don't have a leg to stand on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:If you want to keep trying, you might emphasize the factors that oppressed minorities don't control. He's only focusing on imprisonment (if he continues to ignore all other subjects, maybe show him [more] articles/evidence about blacks being given longer sentencing for the same crime, imprisoned even when innocent, and refused release when DNA evidence exonerates them), but factors such as employers discriminating and where they went to school certainly aren't in the control of each individual. To add to that, maybe a graph or two about how poor people are statistically less likely to become rich (and, of course, how non-whites are much more likely to be poor). I've essentially shown that differences in environment lead to invariable differences in life outcomes (i.e. poverty and racism lead to crime and more poverty) but they still can't get over the 'personal responsibility' hump. quote:True that environment is linked to life outcome. But environment isn't the cause. If you believe that it is, you will never be able to truly help the people raised in these environments. Our entire justice system is founded upon the principle that individuals are responsible for their choices, and either everyone is responsible for their own choices or no one is (of course with rare exceptions like the insane). Sure some people grow up in bad environments beyond their control and are statistically more likely to make poor decisions/commit crimes, but environments don’t make choices. People do. And unless you appreciate that individuals are responsible for the decisions and actions they make, you can’t possibly help them in any enduring, meaningful way. My thinking here is that this is a false dichotomy: it's not 'absolve everyone of all personal responsibility and give them free money' vs. 'people are responsible for the decisions and actions they make', but I'm not entirely sure how to articulate this clearly and meaningfully.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
That's one hell of a hand wave after "Sure some people grow up in bad environments beyond their control and are statistically more likely to make poor decisions/commit crimes" Granted, institutional poverty exists, but *bunch of bullshit platitude*
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
gaan kak posted:My thinking here is that this is a false dichotomy: it's not 'absolve everyone of all personal responsibility and give them free money' vs. 'people are responsible for the decisions and actions they make', but I'm not entirely sure how to articulate this clearly and meaningfully. I'm working on this one right now. I have a 'friend' on Facebook who is heavily into the Personal Responsibility argument, and he's successful and rich, which makes it about how if he can do it, anyone can. Essentially any argument of hard times on people's part amounts to them playing "victim" and not accepting responsibility for their own life. He argues that he shouldn't be responsible for other people's mistakes or poor decisions. I have backed him into a corner and asked him why there was such a sudden upturn in personal irresponsibility in 2008, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I have backed him into a corner and asked him why there was such a sudden upturn in personal irresponsibility in 2008, though. This seems like a fair tack. If only lousy people wind up poor, then where'd all this "Greatest Generation" stuff come from? By all rights, the people coming up during the Great Depression should be considered a bunch of lowlifes; they ruined the economy with their poor work ethic and unseemly personal virtue, and had to be forcibly drafted to do anything of note. Compare incarceration rates in America with basically any other nation and then ask why he thinks Americans have such weak moral fiber compared to citizens of said other nation. Bonus: Pick a diverse country with a large state so answers like "race" and "government" are inadmissible. Stray thought: Ever see folks who deny a role for social/institutional factors in the rate of crime lock their car doors while driving through a wealthy neighborhood, suggesting that it's a "bad area"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:This seems like a fair tack. If only lousy people wind up poor, then where'd all this "Greatest Generation" stuff come from? By all rights, the people coming up during the Great Depression should be considered a bunch of lowlifes; they ruined the economy with their poor work ethic and unseemly personal virtue, and had to be forcibly drafted to do anything of note. Basically his thought is that you should be prepared for pretty every eventuality. Lost your job? Should have had some savings. Single mother? Should have thought of that before you had a kid. Breadwinner died? Should have had life insurance. Can't afford healthcare? Should have got a better job that gave you god coverage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Basically his thought is that you should be prepared for pretty every eventuality. Rapists are victims of the system and should be treated with compassion, kindness, and forgiveness, because they really had no free will in deciding to rape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Let him know he will receive 0 sympathy if he ever has a problem in life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Rapists are victims of the system and should be treated with compassion, kindness, and forgiveness, because they really had no free will in deciding to rape. Should have thought about that before you [drank so much/wore that skirt/acted that way in public/hung around with THOSE people/went out that late at night/moved to that city/did some unspecified deed which I'm pretty sure God is punishing you for now/did no such unspecified deed but it's a character-building experience]. There is nothing that assholes cannot excuse as the victim's fault given enough time and imagination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Should have thought about that before you [drank so much/wore that skirt/acted that way in public/hung around with THOSE people/went out that late at night/moved to that city/did some unspecified deed which I'm pretty sure God is punishing you for now/did no such unspecified deed but it's a character-building experience]. Basically it's the Just World fallacy in action; bad things don't happen to good people, bad things only happen to bad people. It's a fundamental thought process that we utilize to allow us to view the world as one in which our actions have consequences so that we can plan for the future and act in a goal-driven manner; however we know that in reality this isn't always the case. Sometimes bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own; a contradiction of the just world fallacy that can either be accepted rationally or reinterpreted irrationally. Typically by shifting the blame for whatever situation occurred from the situation to the victim. It's one of those things that being born with a disability or any sort of condition really just pretty quickly brings up the inconsistency. It's hard to hold onto a just world fallacy when you're born with a problem not of your doing whatsoever. Unless you believe in reincarnation and your last life you were a total loving prick. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Basically his thought is that you should be prepared for pretty every eventuality. So why is it people don't seem to do this? Bad genes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Basically it's the Just World fallacy in action; bad things don't happen to good people, bad things only happen to bad people. It's a fundamental thought process that we utilize to allow us to view the world as one in which our actions have consequences so that we can plan for the future and act in a goal-driven manner; however we know that in reality this isn't always the case. Sometimes bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own; a contradiction of the just world fallacy that can either be accepted rationally or reinterpreted irrationally. Typically by shifting the blame for whatever situation occurred from the situation to the victim. Y'know, this almost seems like D&D consensus and yet I don't buy it. Like, if you actually listen to the right you'll hear mostly that this stuff isn't because the world has some magical property of distributing rewards and punishments exactly congruent to people's Goodness/Badness but the exact opposite: it's because the world is such a sewer of capricious violence and so on that they make these comments. The justness of the world is predicated on its unjustness. It's as if to say 'the world is radically unjust -- for that reason, if you do not prepare for the arbitrary misfortune that might stricken you then you deserve that misfortune.' If you tell a right-winger they believe in a 'just world' they'll laugh in your face, and claim that it's in fact the left who believe in a 'just world' in that they actually believe in the childish illusion that you can tame this brutal and capricious world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I can't find the post anymore, but someone with a frankenstein head between a set of boobs as their avatar, posted a chart comparing the recovery of jobs in the US compared to other major catastrophes in other nations (spain, finland, japan, etc). It was alongside the classic graph comparing this recovery to other US recoveries in the past. Many people posted that it was an unfair comparison because of U3 vs U6 and other reasons (labor pool participation drops). No one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Basically his thought is that you should be prepared for pretty every eventuality. If he needs a more familiar way to think of it: the division of labor is supposed to make life easier, yes? Whereas everyone used to farm and hunt on their own, build their own shelters, fetch their own water, etc., now people specialize. Some people build housing, other people farm, etc. Being aware of every contingency is a big job; why can't people specialize for that, too, rather than having everyone build their own safety net? Obviously, we do have systems of private insurance, but this just takes it a step further, acknowledging another dimension of risk. Even Hayek wrote in favor of social insurance. Then hit him with materials on job guarantee programs as your favored form of social insurance; no sense spending the whole discussion catering exclusively to his sensibilities. Kieselguhr Kid posted:if you actually listen to the right you'll hear mostly that this stuff isn't because the world has some magical property of distributing rewards and punishments exactly congruent to people's Goodness/Badness but the exact opposite: it's because the world is such a sewer of capricious violence and so on that they make these comments. The justness of the world is predicated on its unjustness. It's as if to say 'the world is radically unjust -- for that reason, if you do not prepare for the arbitrary misfortune that might stricken you then you deserve that misfortune.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:No one? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3486371&pagenumber=74&perpage=40#post407875628 ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
I recall seeing an angrily incisive refutation of equivocating Obama to Bush/Romney/Republicans in D&D recently and I could make use of its information, but I can't find it! I recall the main mass of the post being a list of 'Obama did this, Republicans would not have' but I haven't been able to find it in search so I'm not sure how accurate that is. Alternatively, anyone have an incisive refutation of such an equivocation? I'm talking to someone who needs something sharper than what I can muster to be gotten through to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Radd McCool posted:I recall seeing an angrily incisive refutation of equivocating Obama to Bush/Romney/Republicans in D&D recently and I could make use of its information, but I can't find it! I too would like to see this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Radd McCool posted:I recall seeing an angrily incisive refutation of equivocating Obama to Bush/Romney/Republicans in D&D recently and I could make use of its information, but I can't find it! I remembered this, it was posted in one of the general election threads and reposted in the Obama Toxx thread. No-one in either thread seemed to have much of a response to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Manyorcas posted:I remembered this, it was posted in one of the general election threads and reposted in the Obama Toxx thread. No-one in either thread seemed to have much of a response to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Manyorcas posted:No-one in either thread seemed to have much of a response to it. Allow me: quote:Is President Obama the best President? Nope. Is President Obama arguably mediocre thus far? Sure, maybe. No, going with actively bad. quote:Are his policies even close to what we would see under George Bush (or, for that matter, any other modern Republican)? Umm.. are you really asking this goddamn question? If you honestly believe things are "identical" or that there is "literally no difference" you are ignorant. Please pay some loving attention. He's actually worse on some points, close to the same on others, and slightly better on others. Unfortunately the "literally no difference" is a rarely seen strawman that allows this post to even happen, since it's going to be about making a big deal out of stuff that's just not as bad as it could be, and inflating increasingly marginal differences. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have signed Dodd-Frank or the Consumer Protection Act? No. Obama did. Probably yes, since both of those were shockingly toothless laws and almost the bare-minimum of what should have been done in reaction to 2008. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? No. Obama did. Dunno about this one, maybe a fair point here. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have ended the ban on stem cell research? No. Obama did. Yes, they would. Many republicans supported lifting the ban, as does Romney. They differe slightly on embryonic stem cell cloning, I believe. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have doubled funding for renewable fuels? No. Obama did. Hard to say. There's corporations making money on it, and Obama sure loves him some oil drilling as well...which is pretty republican. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have appointed two young Supreme Court Justices who oppose Citizens United, and be willing to appoint however many more in the years to come? No. Obama did, and Obama will. Only Sotomayor was in the Court for that decisions, though I get the argument on Kagan. However the latter part of this point attempts to predict the future. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have aggressively enacted a wide variety of pro-LGBT initiatives, including the repeal of DADT and the eventually support of same-sex marriage, something no sitting President has ever done? No. Obama did. Obama did jack squat regarding DADT until the issue was forced(by Republicans no less), and only changed his stance on marriage from being identical to that of Republican candidates in an election year. Yet another example of the slight differences without strong stances. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have continued to aggressively pursue conservation programs? No. Obama did. Debatable. Obama's environment record is about even with Bush, in terms of the EPA. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have pushed for and signed the largest reform to student aid in almost fifty years, or expanded pell grants? No. Obama did. Hard to say, I might give you this one. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have continued to doggedly track and pursue Osama Bin Laden, 10 years after the events of September 11th? Nope. Obama did. This one is quite frankly bizarre, as YES, they probably would have, and it's not really an accomplishment to be proud of. It honestly sounds like a GOP talking point. Not to mention that Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, and increased wars to Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, along with massively increasing drone attacks, and assassinated American citizens without a trial. Also apparently talking up military action in Iran, as of last week. quote:Would a modern Republican administration carry out an aggressive deportation policy while at the same time working towards a meaningful reform of the system that goes beyond "eh, ship them out"? No. Obama did. Once again, we have liberals actually supporting conservative policy as an argument for Obama. Increasing deportations is not something to be proud of. Additionally, the DREAM act is the brainchild of a guy who may actually be a Republican Presidential candidate in the future, and Obama has actively worked with Republicans on his immigration policy, both before and after attaining the presidency. quote:Would a modern Republican administration sign any form of universal health care bill even approaching what was in the Affordable Care Act? No. Yet Obama did. Obama did NOT sign any form of universal care, and it was literally a GOP plan. Of course I guess the use of "modern" can be used to weasel out here, but given that his opponent supported essentially the same plan, I'm comfortable saying Yes on this one as well. quote:Would a modern Republican administration have mandated that the Department of Defense record its interrogations? No. Obama did. This is loving insulting given how lovely Obama has been on domestic and foreign oversight, and it actually makes me so angry that I'm not even typing a response. quote:Basically you're full of it, dude. Did Obama walk back his view on the drug war? Sure. Is he more willing to use force than some people on the left would prefer? Yep. Did he sign the NDAA bill even though it had some indefinite detention language? Unfortunately, yeah. This is a bad post and the person writing is part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Manyorcas posted:I remembered this, it was posted in one of the general election threads and reposted in the Obama Toxx thread. No-one in either thread seemed to have much of a response to it. Basically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:Y'know, this almost seems like D&D consensus and yet I don't buy it. Like, if you actually listen to the right you'll hear mostly that this stuff isn't because the world has some magical property of distributing rewards and punishments exactly congruent to people's Goodness/Badness but the exact opposite: it's because the world is such a sewer of capricious violence and so on that they make these comments. The justness of the world is predicated on its unjustness. It's as if to say 'the world is radically unjust -- for that reason, if you do not prepare for the arbitrary misfortune that might stricken you then you deserve that misfortune.' If you tell a right-winger they believe in a 'just world' they'll laugh in your face, and claim that it's in fact the left who believe in a 'just world' in that they actually believe in the childish illusion that you can tame this brutal and capricious world. The belief I often see brought forth from Conservatives (though not in so many words) is that we live in a just world in the sense that they view our society as primarily meritocratic: if you work hard, you will succeed. Consequently, people who are poor are not putting forward the requisite effort. If pressed, most people will make a distinction in my experience: the "truly misfortunate" clearly should be helped (i.e. people born with disabilities would be a primary example); at a point where it's so blatantly obviously out of the individuals control, the view of a just world falls apart readily. But by and large the view I've seen and heard expressed is that if someone is rich they more than likely earned it and if they are poor they more than likely deserve it through lack of effort or moral value. I don't want to oversimplify the subject; there's a lot more that goes into such decision making beyond the just world fallacy, but it is a factor. I've had a conservative say to my face that he thinks life is fair, which boggled my mind because there are so many factors totally outside ones' own control. Then again I have a very Rawlsian view of things like moral desert and societal responsibilities, so that might factor into why I notice this issue a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
I need some good resources on 9/11, whether online or book. A friend of mine has gotten quite a bit into the conspiracy side of things, and is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. My basic knowledge of 9/11 is horribly out of date, and the bunch of research and fact-checking that I did like 7 years ago is all fuzzy (and, again, probably out of date). So for all intents and purposes I'm starting from scratch with the popular narrative - planes flown by terrorists hit the WTC, the Pentagon, and one was brought down (permanently) by the passengers upon learning of what had happened (or alternatively was blown out of the sky by one of our planes/missiles/etc...). Unfortunately, it seems most Googled 9/11 sites, whether asserting some version of this storyline or the inside job variety, all generally look the same and seem to have the same level of uncertain credibility. Thus I'm looking for assistance in getting familiar with and figuring out what the general most-likely-to-be-the-real-story of 9/11 currently is. Thanks in advance for any help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Habibi posted:\. Thus I'm looking for assistance in getting familiar with and figuring out what the general most-likely-to-be-the-real-story of 9/11 currently is. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf Done!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Habibi posted:I need some good resources on 9/11, whether online or book. A friend of mine has gotten quite a bit into the conspiracy side of things, and is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Well, to assert that 9/11 was the responsibility of the US government requires one to deny a number of important premises, perhaps most importantly al-Qaeda's long history of violent militarism. Osama bin Laden and most of his associates including the 9/11 hijackers are now known to have been involved with militant Islamic groups for years prior to the attacks, for some dating as far back as the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Those histories are well known and it's pretty much beyond the pale of rationality to suggest that the American government is responsible for making up all of those stories leading up to and past 9/11. Any peer reviewed history of al-Qaeda or Islamic militarism in general would show you that bin Laden and his followers were very much capable of attacks such as those that occurred on 9/11. I also agree with Install Gentoo in recommending the 9/11 commission report, but it sounds as though your friend would be wary of that source for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
One of the things that gets people going on 9/11 conspiracies is that the buildings 'look like they dropped from a controlled demolition' which is to say they've never seen a building collapse that wasn't a nice pretty controlled collapse on TV. The thing is, those particular drops are so complex that they're all essentially done by the same company, and it requires the building be gutted and wired up for weeks beforehand, in such a way that you simply couldn't do it in an occupied building at all. If you're assuming that the government knew that putting planes into those buildings would cause such a collapse, it's also fairly unlikely since nobody could really have predicted the chain of events that happened, and most of the time when a plane crashes into an office building the damage is far, far less. I don't even think the terrorists planning the attacks thought they'd bring both towers down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Appreciate the link, but unfortunately it seems that experts of all kinds have come out of the woodwork since then to claim one thing or the other. Have their been any other credible studied into this since 2004?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Appreciate the link, but unfortunately it seems that experts of all kinds have come out of the woodwork since then to claim one thing or the other. Have their been any other credible studied into this since 2004? No since the only people who disagree with it substantially are crazy wackaloons. There's no new information possible to learn about it, we know what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. We knew that stuff by September 18th, 2001.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:No since the only people who disagree with it substantially are crazy wackaloons. There's no new information possible to learn about it, we know what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. We knew that stuff by September 18th, 2001. A friend of mine says the fact that many engineers putting their careers on the line to challenge the "official story" means that maybe they're right, since why would they risk their career over nothing that involves them? Referring to ae911Truth. What's a good way to counter that reasoning?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Golbez posted:A friend of mine says the fact that many engineers putting their careers on the line to challenge the "official story" means that maybe they're right, since why would they risk their career over nothing that involves them? Referring to ae911Truth. What's a good way to counter that reasoning? Presumably in the same way you'd counter someone who was a creationist claiming that "scientists support creation". Because... that's basically what it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Golbez posted:A friend of mine says the fact that many engineers putting their careers on the line to challenge the "official story" means that maybe they're right, since why would they risk their career over nothing that involves them? Referring to ae911Truth. What's a good way to counter that reasoning? This is sort of the thing I'm dealing with as well. Along with stuff about FEMA "conveniently" being there the night before (they were - reportedly for training exercises, although I guess there's some controversy regarding what the then-director said about them being there); claims about FEMA generally preparing for some disaster that the government is going to cause; and so on. Also, what are some good sources on the history of Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, US involvement, etc...?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Golbez posted:A friend of mine says the fact that many engineers putting their careers on the line to challenge the "official story" means that maybe they're right, since why would they risk their career over nothing that involves them? Referring to ae911Truth. What's a good way to counter that reasoning? It's the "rational actor" fallacy. It assumes that, somehow, these engineers have access to perfect information and therefore must be risking their careers for something that's truthful. In fact, it is entirely possible for someone to be completely, horribly wrong and still put their careers on the line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 04:49
|
|
