[ExI] very informative

[F. C. Moulton]

Since I am trying to be more positive this month I will start off by 
saying something positive about the video: I did not notice any spelling 
errors.

I was very disappointed in the content of the video however not 
surprised.  I am not going to waste my time going through the video 
point by point however I will offer one example from the beginning.  
Near the beginning of the video is the assertion that the Liberal 
Position concerning "The color of a person's skin" is "Insignificant" 
about 44 seconds in  the video.  Of course as a blanket statement this 
is misleading in large part because it does not provide context for that 
assertion. Consider the context of finding a job or renting an 
apartment, certainly many people apply for jobs or apartments and are 
not selected however if (all other things being equal) persons with dark 
skin are proportionately less likely to get the job or apartment then 
skin color is significant; in fact skin color has an observational 
significance which is necessary before one can even consider explanatory 
significance.

Now I suspect that at this point there are fingers poised over keyboards 
about to explain how this is obviously not what was meant.  I am not 
going to say that I know the inner thoughts of the the person in the 
video nor will I say that the person is necessarily deliberately being 
dishonest however I will urge great caution before signing on too 
quickly to their rhetoric.  For example I would not be surprised if some 
are about ready to write something about the "Liberal Position" being 
that skin color is insignificant as relates to the "Rule of Law" and 
that "Rule of Law" is a "Good Thing" or something similar.  So consider 
the example of a fine for speeding with nothing in the law relating to 
skin color in relation to the amount of the fine. At first glance one 
might say skin color is not significant since it is not mentioned in the 
law however consider how it plays out for very poor people who might not 
have the money to pay the fine and might wind up with a suspended 
driving license and then get caught driving to work on a suspended 
license and are jailed and then lose their job whereas the relatively 
financially well of pull out their American Express card and problem 
goes away with much lower impact on their daily life.  Now if poor 
people are disproportionately of a particular skin color or ethnicity or 
religion or whatever would that be significant?  What about right 
dominant hand versus left dominant  hand? If some law does not mention 
dominant hand however if persons with a left dominant hand are getting 
fined more often in proportion to their level in the population would 
not you say the dominant hand might maybe perhaps be significant and at 
least worth considering.

One reason I am taking the time to write this is that I have seen well 
meaning people fall into the trap of uncritically accepting "skin color 
is not significant" or "color blind to race" when they mean that they do 
their best not to prejudge someone based on skin color.  However things 
get sticky when these same well meaning people start to try to talk 
about some phenomena where skin color might be an important 
consideration and persons who do not want the conversation to take place 
or who want to steer it in a different direction say "Wait why are you 
bringing up skin color, did not we all agree that skin color was 
insignificant. Only racists want to talk about race all of the time" and 
the conversation either gets derailed or never gets started.  So to 
avoid this I strongly suggest we all developed nuanced and sophisticated 
views on race, gender, etc.  And as for the video I suggest those who 
initially thought it a good video put on your Popperian hats and look at 
every statement in the video and think of examples which contradict what 
is said as well as what is implied. Seriously.  This is an extropian 
email list.

I wrote at the beginning of my remarks that I was disappointed in the 
content of the video but not surprised.  So to continue that thought I 
will note that I have not seen very many prageru.com videos however each 
that I have seen appears to be intellectually shallow.  So I will end 
these comments by noting that this video is consistent in that tradition.

Fred

On 12/27/2020 11:10 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> > *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
> *Subject:* [ExI] very informative
>
> https://www.prageru.com/video/left-or-liberal/ 
> <https://www.prageru.com/video/left-or-liberal/>
>
> >…I simply did not know.  When liberals have been attacked I have 
> defended them.  But what I did not know was that it is not the 
> ultraliberals who came up with the ideas I fought - it was the Leftists.
>
> >…Very clear differences.  I am most definitely a liberal and not a 
> Leftist.  bill w
>
> Thanks for that billw.  What Prager describes as liberal is something 
> I have always thought of as libertarian.  I agree with everything he 
> said in that video.  You and I are liberals.
>
> spike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-- 
F. C. Moulton
moulton at moulton.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20201227/d2eaf4bb/attachment-0001.htm>