The political bubble and how it affects your opinion

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 02:22 PM)Dill Wrote: The author is a political scientist.

Remember my approach is to study the argument first. That's where one should be looking for "ideological leaning," not prejudging from sources, heard of or not.

It doesn't look like you are following the author's argument, which regards not "racism" in itself in some abstract sense, or whether white people can actually be discriminated against, but how various groups might respond to a question about "whether racism exists" with very different perceptions of who is discriminated against. So answers to a general question like "Is racism still a problem?" cannot sort out whether different group's perceptions of each other's perceptions are accurate or inaccurate. In any bubble affirming standards of scientific polling, that would be the case regardless of politics.

If my "views" on whites as victims of racism affect my acceptance of this article, then that should be demonstrable. Not simply expressed as a guess or a hope. That's how it works in my bubble, at least.

These kind of statements illustrate why discussing anything subjective with you is an exercise in both futility and frustration.  Choose either subjective or demonstrable, you can't have both and be correct.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 01:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've literally never heard of this site.  I wonder if they have an ideological leaning that may color the conclusions reached in the article you posted?

I knew a guy in college who never heard of breaded pork chops. Had never had one. To this day we tease him that if he didn't hear of them they can't have existed.

That is unrelated to the thread but your post made me remember that.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These kind of statements illustrate why discussing anything subjective with you is an exercise in both futility and frustration.  Choose either subjective or demonstrable, you can't have both and be correct.

???  Wha . . .???

Here, as usual, I’ve clearly chosen “demonstrable.” What is so futile and frustrating about that—other than its reminder that impressions cannot substitute for argument?  What in the world makes you think I haven’t? Do you know what “demonstrable” means in the context of argument?

To recap: Post #79 you write, addressing me: “I wonder if they have an ideological leaning that may color the conclusions reached in the article you posted?”

To which I respond that I study an argument as argument first, before worrying about “ideological leanings.”  This is a methodological point I have already made on this and other threads. The goal is to avoid or minimize pre-judgment. You are consciously doing the opposite

And then the same style of speculation about my selection: “Perhaps your own views, or bubble as it where, are affecting your acceptance of this article?”

And in response to your wondering about “influences” on my response, I assert that if “views” influence my acceptance of an argument, then that ought to be demonstrable—i.e., demonstrable by anyone claiming/hoping that is somehow the case. That would be you, in this instance. Lacking demonstration, your impressions/reminisces about my “aversion” to admitting white people can be affected by racism and the “bubble” affecting my judgment are just wishful thinking. You are not demonstrating anything substantial about my argument or Grossman’s any more than Trump is substantially adding to a legal argument he does not follow by claiming an American-born judge has a Mexican surname.

Finally, you have not clearly related your claim that “racism is racism” to Grossman’s article or it’s critique of More in Common’s survey. Neither are trying to decide whether "whites are victims too." The question addressed by Grossman is to what More in Common assumes, namely that people are seeing/calling the same thing “racism.”  It has already been established by surveys and polls of responses to Trump’s tweets that people are not. If they are not, then “racism is racism” means different things to different people/groups, and cannot function as a common measure. Two people could agree “racism is racism,” yet one could “see” racism in a Trump tweet when another could not.  If they are not talking about the same thing, then polls asking them to predict what the “other side” says about racism cannot effectively measure anything. They cannot ground a claim that if 79% of Republicans claim racism is a problem and Dems predict only 50% will, then the Dems have misjudged.  Even if one could grant/prove the reverse racism thesis, that would still not make the claim accurate if each group is looking for something different in the other.

All this is the case no matter what site the critique is published on, or how averse I am to acknowledging reverse racism, or even if Grossman’s mother is a socialist.

On this message board I have nowhere showed an "aversion to admitting white people can be victims of racism."  I have everywhere shown aversion for bad arguments. Confusions on that score cannot ground any counter critique of positions I've taken on this thread.