[thethirdone]

> Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC").

Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either. In many places, he does not respond to the probing questions asked of him at all (this is assuming the poster didn't add them in afterwards) instead opting to insult the poster.

Poster:

    1: By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today?
    2: For example, how is white supremacy responsible for single-parent families in the American black community? Allegedly single-parent rates have skyrocketed since the Civil Rights Movement.

Chomsky:

    Racism is quite extreme today, and by many measures increasing. I don’t know what cocoon you live in.
    Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with racism and its impact, in particular, the extreme racism experienced constantly by African-Americans. If so, I would suggest that you learn something about the world, and then you will understand the mechanisms very well. If you don’t want to have direct experience – which is not that hard –then at least look at the literature.
    Again, try following your own logic. It’s not genes, so it is circumstances. Do you perceive any circumstances beyond the extreme white racism that it takes real effort to be oblivious to?

> He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times too.

Hinting at ignorance is not helpful unless you show a path away from ignorance. Saying that something is obvious or trivial (as Mathematicians say) is not helpful. If it is truly obvious, just provide evidence.

Now this is not to criticize Chomsky, he is still replying rather than remaining silent. And with his limited time, it doesn't necessarily make sense for him to give a solid argument in that case, but his argument in that link wasn't convincing.

[Stratoscope]

Readable version...

Poster:

> 1: By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today?

> 2: For example, how is white supremacy responsible for single-parent families in the American black community? Allegedly single-parent rates have skyrocketed since the Civil Rights Movement.

Chomsky:

> Racism is quite extreme today, and by many measures increasing. I don’t know what cocoon you live in.

> Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with racism and its impact, in particular, the extreme racism experienced constantly by African-Americans. If so, I would suggest that you learn something about the world, and then you will understand the mechanisms very well. If you don’t want to have direct experience – which is not that hard –then at least look at the literature.

> Again, try following your own logic. It’s not genes, so it is circumstances. Do you perceive any circumstances beyond the extreme white racism that it takes real effort to be oblivious to?

[chillwaves]

More from Chomsky.

> Why were you and your friends raised in a different non-ghetto culture? Agreed, it has absolutely nothing to do with genes. Rather, it has everything to do with extreme white racism, which includes refusal to acknowledge what has been created by a history of 400 years of vicious slave labor camps which were the source of a large part of our wealth and privilege, a culture of white supremacy that is the most extreme in the world, beyond South Africa, as comparative studies have shown, and very powerful effects right to the present moment. Including what is sometimes called “intentional ignorance”.

[taw55]

Worth noting that the questioner was pretty much stonewalling him by asking the same question over and over. That's not how to have a constructive dialogue.

[kenjackson]

Chomsky had stated earlier that there are experts to read who cover such things. The kid kept asking variations of the same question. If I were Chomsky I would have been done after a couple of responses.

[reader5000]

"These 'experts' agree with me" is not an argument. Indeed, clearly Chomsky did not want to engage the argument so ceasing responding would have been logical.

[kenjackson]

That's a pretty good argument to me. I defer to Wiles and other mathematicians on FLT. Full stop, that's sufficient to me.

[reader5000]

The purpose of an argument is to show why something is true. Saying an 'expert' believes something is true does not show why it is true nor that it is true. Deferring to Wiles is just ceasing to argue.

[brewdad]

I see it as being more along the lines of there have been entire books written on the subject by people with more expertise than me that can cover the matter in far greater detail than a mere email. If the questioner is truly curious, then he has a resource to indulge his curiousity. If the questioner is acting in bad faith, then all of the information in the world isn't going to change his mind.

[1024core]

I know I should be "deferring to Wiles" here too, since you are oblivious to what's being said in response. There are certain things that we take for granted: like gravity. Or a round Earth. If some flat-earther comes over and starts asking you to prove that the Earth is flat, or that gravity is not just little gremlins pulling on your jeans, then I think it's safe to "defer to an expert".

[reader5000]

"Why some people are poor" is not as conclusively understood as the curvature of the earth.

[mindcrime]

"These 'experts' agree with me" is not an argument.

What's your point in saying so? I would guess that Chomsky could care less about winning an Internet "argument" with some random dude. From his point of view, it's entirely reasonably to say "go read the literature and come back when you're more informed". If the other party doesn't want to do that, they have no moral claim to Chomsky's continued participation in the discussion.

[reader5000]

Simply that it was odd that Chomsky continued the conversation when he didnt want to actually explain his point of view. His point that "why some people are poor" is well settled science answerable with a literature review is not being honest either.

[jnordwick]

Its called Appeal to Authority, and it is considered a logical fallacy - basically the opposite of Argument Ad Hominen.

[mindcrime]

You're only committing a "appeal to authority" fallacy if you contend that something is true because the person saying it is "an authority." Pointing out that someone is clueless on a topic and suggesting they read the literature and gain some baseline knowledge is not the same thing at all.

As to whether it is, as someone said above, "simply ceasing to argue" one can rightly say "so what?" None of us owe some random person on the Internet our participation in their argument. Time is valuable and it's entirely reasonable to check out of an argument or discussion and say "here, go read these books" if you don't stand to gain anything from continuing the dialog.

[sidlls]

The example questions you included are just not even wrong and are themselves loaded with racism. It would take hours or days of remedial education just to get the person asking them up to speed on the history and circumstances around black Americans' experiences to the point where the racism in his questions could be addressed. And that assumes he's honestly curious and not just spouting racism disguised as a question on purpose.

In such a forum there just isn't a point to treat the poster as coming from a place of honest discussion.

[thethirdone]

> The example questions you included are just not even wrong and are themselves loaded with racism.

What about the first question, "By what mechanism do white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today?", is loaded with racism? It is asking for how white supremacy directly affects black culture. I do not see how even the assertion "There is not a mechanism by which white supremacist elements impose American black culture on the American black community today." instead is racist. It may not be an educated viewpoint, but I do not see it as racist.

Besides whether the question is racist, a good answer to the question could be very illuminating. You could probably fill a book responding to that question.

[PeterisP]

There's immense difference between ignorance and intentional ignorance - for intentional ignorance showing a path isn't helpful, since the problem is taking a step on the obvious path.

[abalone]

That's not really accurate. Chomsky's "key statement" at the very beginning of the thread refers to studies that have demonstrated "white supremacy that is more rampant here even than it was in apartheid South Africa." That, despite the experience of racism being a naked fact that anyone with eyes can see should they make a modicum of effort to break out of their "white racist cocoon". But these studies would presumably detail how white supremacy works, for those that need it explained.

He implies that these studies are readily available, alongside "a huge literature of professional criminology," for anyone willing to look. What he's facing here is an interlocutor that isn't interested in doing the research or following logic, just citing right-wing op-eds.

[geezerjay]

> Chomsky was not prepared to cede any points either.

That was patently clear from the thread. His followers also showed a complete lack of intellectual honesty, by trying to avoid any of the points made in the thread and instead trying to dismiss with paternalistic non-sequiturs such as "Why should Chomsky waste time shoring up your self-imposed ignorance?"

When a cult-like following forms, they do behave like a cult.

[reader5000]

I mean if you're just going to give non-argumentative question-begging, why even respond? I think Chomsky was wasting Chomsky's time more than the kid.