NYT: Can my Children be friends with white people

[Dill]

(11-15-2017, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahaha, I wonder if you know just how painfully transparent you are here.  This type of post is why, despite your attempts at erudition, you're largely considered a joke.

I believe people have articulated, quite well I might add, how this article is obviously racist.  Specific examples have been cited and dissected.  It's telling that rather than try to refute those argument you revert to claims of group think and "echo chamber".

I'm sure not to your faux intellectual standards.  Arguments have been given.  Refute them with what passes for your intellect or kindly shut up with your condescending insults.  I'll reiterate, you're transparent and you'd be funny as well if you didn't actually believe all the tripe you spout.

Well I just reviewed all the responses on this thread.  I see only two people have actually quoted a passage from the article--Bfine and  myself. (And now I see one brief snippet from Vlad too.) I have asked Bfine to clarify how his claim Yankah "blames doctors" for not producing a black opioid epidemic can be inferred from an argument that the white community ignores drug epidemics in the black community.

That is the only "dissection" that has occurred so far. 

Michaelsean did not like the OpEd either, but his responses have been civil and cautious. No problem there. In response to him I also reconstructed a part of Yankah's argument. He will agree or disagree with that reconstruction. Or simply remain silent. But he will not turn to personal abuse.

And I have offered counter arguments to Lucy as well.  So I did not "revert" to my echo chamber claims "rather than try to refute arguments," as you claim.  I have been "refuting" all along.

What you, Lucy and Vlad have "articulated" so far are your impressions and reactions, as I said above.  You have not quoted or reconstructed any part of the argument to support those impressions. That is why you remain at the level of impressions. Adding yet another claim the article is "obviously racist" is only adding another impression, a claim at best and not an argument. 

One of my "faux standards" has been around for some 2400 years now. It is the requirement that one demonstrate an understanding of the argument one presumes to refute.  One accomplishes that by reconstructing the other's argument, identifying the premises and the pattern of inference from them to the conclusion. A more recent "faux standard" which has been around for about 500 years--One quotes the argument so readers can measure one's interpretation against the actual words, as I was doing with Bfine.

One doesn't refute anyone or anything by simply calling people "a joke," "transparent," their arguments "tripe," telling them to "shut up"--and then accusing THEM of condescension.   So I reject that "standard."

You could be explaining why an author who desires that we "stand beside one another against cheap attack and devaluation" and "live together and not simply beside one another" is a "blatant racist."  Whatever the quality of your argument, you would at least be walking the walk.

So far, you've chosen not to do that.