Oh, I've read that piece. It's entirely believable that he's an undergrad. Half the first section explodes when you realize the South didn't flourish *because* of its poor choice of economic system (capitalism+slavery). They fell behind at the industrial revolution because of it!
-
-
-
And while the north was industrializing and inventing whole new industries (and massive wealth), the southern economy kept pumping capital into agrarian human suffering. Northern wealth begat more wealth. And the south still lags behind today *because* of this.
-
Capital didn't just magically flow southward and even out when the Civil War was over. They fixed the railroads and manufactured northern goods flowed in to compete with local hand-made goods. Money flowed north.
-
And let's not underestimate the amount of "capital" that vanished from the southern states with the Emancipation Proclamation. Ill-conceived rebellion aside, their economy changed a lot when they weren't allowed to count *actual human beings* as farm equipment.
-
And let's not pretend Jim Crow didn't face-fist the southern economy, too. City governments literally built twice as many water fountains as necessary. The best guy for the job couldn't contribute to the economy because his skin was the wrong color.
-
I can't believe I have to tell supposed denizens of liberalism and market economics, but chattel slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, and most forms of discrimination are both immoral and market inefficiencies.
-
And this is still true today. And it flows to the individuals, too. The "best guy for the job" with dark skin doesn't ever realize his true economic value. Not because of anything he did, but entirely because of a shortcoming of self-awareness about bias by a hiring manager.
-
What is even going on in the skeptic/atheist community? What happened to expertise? Why would anyone go listen to an undergrad talk to a neurologist about the economics of racism? There are actual *academic* experts in this stuff!
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I generally agree that culture plays a role. However, there is a logical failure in the pedestrian parable argument. The person with the broken spine will likely never have the same mobility as a healthy person & in that scenario the person who caused it likely would have to pay
-
No. He mentioned that the driver would have to pay. But no matter how much money you give the pedestrian the only person that can heal that pedestrian is themselves. That's the goal of the parable. That people can't solve problems that you have to fix yourself.
-
I agree he mentioned driver may pay but even if the person hit does put forth the effort, they will likely not be the same again (if you know much about serious spine injuries). Maybe could come up with a better analogy.
-
The analogy is as it stands. The parable is to teach the importance of agency for ones own decisions. That the solution of people outside yourself are temporary at best. That in the end you are the one that decides your fate.
-
I get that but It's still flawed because even if the person with the broken spine puts the effort in - they won't be equal in ability and he's trying to say that other groups changed their culture and even surpassed native ones.
-
What you would be looking for is equality of outcome in that situation which is an unobtainable goal along side a fair and just system. Unless you're advocating we create a system of special treatment based on arbitrary traits unchoosable at birth.
-
I'm not looking for equality of outcome. The author was saying that other minority cultures have exceeded native ones but he picked a bad analogy to represent that b/c someone w/a broken spine isn't going to recover to his former ability, let alone surpass other healthier people
-
I can see that maybe looking at the parable in a literal sense we see that the pedestrian will never be healed back to 100%. But would you not grant that the parable explains that in the absence of the own pedestrians actions that he will never heal at all?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hi
@SamHarrisOrg. I wrote one of the books featured in this article. I’d love to talk to you about it if you’re open to hearing another perspective -
Sam does not want another perspective. ‘Black people are lazy. It’s all on them.’ Nothing to see here.pic.twitter.com/QIUvFO6Ruj
-
Excuse me but Sam is definitely not a racist. Thinking that reflexively is a clear sign that you haven't honestly engaged with his views at all.
-
You have zero credibility to determine who is a racist. lol. Everyone over the age of ten is racist. Some are just slightly racist other are card carrying racist. Sam is somewhere in between. Children are the only ones not infected.
-
Excuse me? No reason was given for this statement. What makes you an expert on what is/isn't racism? Jesus the cognitive dissonance of you folks in this thread is alarming.
-
"you folks"
-
Really man? Are we doing that now? You know that isn't what was meant in this context.... Come on...
-
yes, in a conversation about astoundingly blinkered white men saying exquisitely stupid things about race, yes, we are going to go ahead and do that.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.