[chalst]

I am not going to explain your error to you if you have a track record of not admitting problems in your argumentation when they are pointed out to you.

Seriously, you wrote the above just after I wrote the following:

> To be clear, the problem kordlessagain is referring to is that if you make the effort to make explicit what the X and Y are, the response will rarely include the slightest explicit acknowledgement of any incoherence.

> Generally, if a fallacy is found in one's arguments and one values intellectual honesty, the best response is to apologise for the error first and only then attempt to restart the argument. If you don't do this, but try to act as if there was no error, you do avoid loss of face in the eyes of the unthinking that comes from admitting error, but you lose the respect of readers who understood the error and saw the evasion.

> It is a sad fact that today most people have little awareness of this risk of losing respect in heated arguments, let alone place high importance to it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785685

[asabjorn]

The way to show I am in error with you (or the parent) agreeing with the radical Bailey of critical social justice, such as the DEI initiatives true position in its Bailey, would be to say "I do not believe that people are defined by group identity" and "I think redistributing resources and position based upon group identity is wrong". Neither of you have done that.

Do you (or the parent) believe that "people are not defined by group identity" and that "redistributing resources and position based upon group identity is wrong"?

A way to show that I am in error about the whistleblower proposing Critical Social Justice activism would be to show that the links I provided showing the whistleblower calling for censoring "hate speech", her call for a ministry of truth, her association with CSJ, and the suspicious political ties of her whistleblowing being wrong. These are not moderate positions.

[chalst]

Are you aware that your posts in the last few days strike other people as hypocritical?

You draw attention to what you regard as logical errors in the arguments of others, but you do not observe the formalities that norms of logical argument require when problems are pointed out with your arguments.

If you do not accept the requirement that your own arguments be coherent, then the more that you learn about logic, the less rational you will become.

[asabjorn]

I asked you a simple question about your position, since you claimed I was in error about it. This is not a complex logical argument:

Do you believe or not believe that "people are not defined by group identity" and that "redistributing resources and position based upon group identity is wrong"?

If you do not want to answer that is fine, but treating people differently based upon unchosen identities is not “making sure everyone is treated equally”.

[chalst]

I'm inclined to think that people do not have a consistent group identity, and I strongly believe there is more to what we are than our social relations. Nonetheless, social motivations are very powerful, and I respect some people who have attempted to understand selfhood from a sociological point of view. So with respect to your first question, I don't believe it, but I don't insist that my way of looking at the matter is right.

With respect to the second, I think far too little effort is made to resolve the lasting wounds of historical injustices, but I don't think that the attempt to tackle these wounds primarily through redistribution is politically wise. In fact, the attempt to tacle something like the aftermath of slavery in this way is certain to create massive political counterreation and is quite likely to result in new injustices.

Do you understand what the problem is with your approach to argument that I have criticised you for repeatedly?

[asabjorn]

So considering that "people are not defined by group identity", how do you justify "redistributing resources and position based upon group identity" as right?

Sounds a bit unfair and unequal to redistribute someone’s assets and resources due to an equity group identity marker that makes no sense.

> Do you understand what the problem is with your approach to argument that I have criticised you for repeatedly?

I can definitely be less complex in my explanations and less verbose. The line of thought here seem more effective, I’ll probably repeat that in the future to get past the critical social justice habit of using a Motte and Bailey tactic deceptively.

I don’t know if you did it consciously or in error, but the Motte is supposed to be compatible with the Bailey and not something entirely different.

I think you fell into the trap of CSJ apologists to rely on redefined common terms that sound more moderate to non-believers, but isn’t. If I redefine “apple” to mean “lemon” that doesn’t make it any less bitter.

Do you see this problem in the argument you have been making?

[chalst]

You have entirely misread what I wrote. I have answered two questions of yours and made no argument, so the problem lies entirely with the fantasy argument you claim I made but is based on massive extrapolation from what I wrote. The problem in the argument is yours.

You have not answered my question.

[chalst]

> So considering that "people are not defined by group identity", how do you justify "redistributing resources and position based upon group identity" as right?

I doubt it is possible, but I don't discourage people who understand the problems facing a democratic redistribution-intense solution that goes along ethnic lines. However, a requirement for success in a healthy democracy is the acquiescence of the group who lose out. The attempt to end slavery resulted in a war, and Reconstruction gave many blacks a system that was actually worse than what they had before. (Another injustice caused by a political elite too keen to achieve peace).

Generally, as I understood Bernie Sanders pointed out, the attempt to rectify racial injustices by redistribution risks creating racial hatred and new injustices. I am, as I said before, against attempts to impose this kind of solution top-down.

However, something like a wealth tax is far simpler and as it happens, quite a bit of old wealth does derive from slavery and, for instance, if the US were to improve and expand its social programs for the poor to, say, the level here in Germany, that would make a massive difference for the poor communities that have least been able to recover from the effects of slavery.

Such a form of redistribution could be formulated in colour-blind, wealth-based terms. It's still difficult to impose top-down, it's not enough to heal the wounds of slavery, but this measure is much less socially divisive than what you, ignoring things I have previously told you, wrongly guessed I had in mind.

> I think you fell into the trap of CSJ apologists to rely on redefined common terms that sound more moderate to non-believers, but isn’t.

I didn't manage to come up with a plausible guess as to what you might have meant by the motte and bailey in the paragraph before the sentence I highlighted, but I wonder if you still believe that sentence after reading what I wrote above.

My general impression is that you are a devoted foot soldier in the culture wars and have no intention of looking inside yourself and becoming more honest. A shame, since you seem to be not dumb and have a certain persistence. You've learned a few argumentative techniques that have a good chance of improving your effectiveness in the fights you choose to pick, which will do it's bit to make the culture wars even less rational. I think this state of affairs is actually a threat to democracy. However, while I did not enjoy our exchange and have low expectations of what you will go on to do, I do have a certain hope in the redemptive power of logic, and I do not regret the effort I have put into this conversation.