“Whenever a white social justician suggests you "talk to a black person" (about "social justice"), please understand that what they really mean is, "find a black person who concurs with me so that my virtue signaling can be validated and I can feel better about my white guilt."”
“"If the skin color of the victim of perceived injustice is actually what triggers your supposed righteous indignation, you my brother or sister have a bigger problem than that perceived injustice"
Darrell Harrison
“Good for Black docs, and all that- but results like this are ~always the result of dubiously honest "backwards margin reporting." For example, a 99.9% survival rate under Black doctors and 99.6% SR under white ones CAN technically be spun as a "300% difference in survival rates." It's worth noting that the numbers given in this tweet are just examples of how this happens. The actual numbers from the study are almost identical - 99.71% survival for white babies with white doctors, 99.11% for Black babies w white doctors, and 99.37% or so for BB with BD.“
"Another way of putting this is that the survival rate is 99.71% for white babies with white doctors, 99.11% for Black babies w white doctors, and 99.37% or so for BB with BD."
“ACTUAL significance is more important than stat. significance. A
-well-done- paper just received global coverage for finding what media
billed a "significant 300%" difference in survival rates for babies with
white v Black doctors.
The actual gap was .26% - 99.37% to 99.11%.”"
Samuel Sey
31 comments:
I rather doubt that he could prove that. It's not the case for me nor anyone I know. When we say listen to black voices, we mean all black voices, not just a few who might agree with you. A good starting place, however, will be listening to 80% of black voices if 80% are all saying something like they regularly experienced racism at the hands of police.
It may well be the case that this is true for some white people, but it's not true for anyone I know. And, as noted, the gentleman can't prove his hunch. It's just an unsupported hunch from what appears to be a very conservative black man.
... before you erroneously suggest I'm making an appeal to numbers, I will make it clear that this is an appeal to expert opinion. Black people are the experts when it comes to the lives of black people. And when 8 out of 10 experts tell you something, you have good reason to believe those experts.
Part of the problem that conservatives have when they dismiss the vast majority of black opinion, is it becomes racist in nature, suggesting that black people are not able to accurately report on the status of their own experience.
It can be seen as akin to the slave owners in the past saying, "look at this slave, he's happy!" when the happy slave, if he existed at all, was an extreme minority or, more likely, was just a myth.
1. The minute you pull out your 80% stats it becomes an appeal to numbers because your assuming that your unidentified majority is correct. Assumed not proven.
2. If black people are the “experts” and it’s vital that they be listened to, then by what standard can you state that the black people you prefer are objectively right, while other black people are objectively wrong?
In this case it’s more like two intelligent, educated black people have looked at the data and come to a different conclusion than you have and the only strategy you have is to compare them to “happy slaves”. Further, these two are loudly speaking for themselves, they don’t need white people to put words in their mouths, they do just fine on all by themselves. You just (essentially) called two black peoples “Uncle Tom”.
I’ll close by repeating that just because you assert that your “majority” is automatically objectively right (without proof other than an appeal to numbers), and that the “extreme minority” is automatically objectively wrong.
Finally, the quote isn’t about black people, it’s about white “social justiciable” trying to control the conversation and to validate which black people should be listened to.
Essentially your entire argument is based on the notion that the experiences of black people ate sacrosanct and must be uncritically believed. Yet your first response is to definitely state that the authors experience can’t be “proven” and therefore has no value to you.
I’d suggest that you’d do better by not automatically diminishing the experiences and voices of black people who don’t fit your preconceived notions of what constitutes a worthy black voice.
I’ll close with the fact that you literally haven’t put forth anything that demonstrates that the claim is factually incorrect, just “majority=right”, “extreme minority=wrong”. Yep, just one more logical fallacy.
The gentleman in question is all over social media, perhaps you should pick a platform, look him up, and set him straight. That is, if you’ve actually got the courage and motivation. I’m sure he’d be happy to have you tell him how things really are.
You appear to simultaneously read everything I write AND understand nothing of what I wrote.
I’ll close with the fact that you literally haven’t put forth anything that demonstrates that the claim is factually incorrect, just “majority=right”, “extreme minority=wrong”.
Where did I say that he was wrong? It didn't happen, did it? What I SAID was that he can't prove this claim and it's certainly not factually correct for the people I know. The fact is, it's not a provable point, as there is no data (that I'm aware of) where people have ascertained the motives of "white social justician." However, inasmuch as he made a sweeping claim ("WHENEVER a white social justician...") then all it takes is one to disprove the claim and I am one of many who make the sweeping claim false and non-factual.
Do you understand now what I DID say and how he IS simply factually wrong (which is what I'm saying now, but didn't at first)?
Do you realize that he offered NO data to support the claim, that it's just an empty sweeping claim and that generalities of this sort are almost always false?
As to everything else you said I think and do, you're just factually not correctly understanding my words and meaning.
The irony...and we all know how much Dan loves irony...is that his response is the perfect example of what Harrison said right at the top of your post:
"...find a black person who concurs with me so that my virtue signaling can be validated and I can feel better about my white guilt."
It's pretty much Dan in a nutshell. He pretends he listens to all black voices, but all we see from him are those with whom he agrees...or rather, those to whom he is emotionally drawn. Empathy is a good thing. But Dan demonstrates that empathy can be falsely drawn yet be intoxicating to his corrupted sensibilities...corrupted because he listens to those who have not proven anything on which he believes they are expert.
Conversely, we present those black voices who deal in facts, stats that can be researched, verified or debunked if one has the desire and means to do so.
What one claims to experience does not make one an expert because experience can include perceptions that are not based on reality, but on biases and preconceptions. And how can we, listening to such voices Dan finds so appealing, know that those voices are giving us the full story with all the pertinent details so that we can assess what we're being told. And that's not even to insist that anyone is lying, or intentionally leaving out those pertinent details. But without firsthand knowledge, we must take their word for it, and weigh that against what WE know from OUR experience, which includes those facts and stats we've learned from the black voices Dan rejects out of hand without a rational reason. Dan just simply believes.
I set aside the emotional aspect screaming at my own empathetic side because emotion is not a reliable basis for analyzing claims of another person's personal experience. More accurately, I feel a greater need for facts rather than just testimony so that my response...should I be in a position to respond at all...is most appropriate. When emotion rises, intelligence falls. Only coldly collecting the facts and assessing them can bring one to that appropriate response. The voices to which Dan insists we listen have not been providing facts. They've been providing their perceptions of what they claim to have experienced. It's an important distinction.
Dan,
Then perhaps you need to clarify your argument from numbers. You appear to be saying that we need to listen (and believe, and act on) what we hear from the "majority" or black people. You also appear to be saying that we shouldn't be taking seriously the views of the "extreme minority". In effect you appear to be saying that the "majority" is right, while the minority is wrong. Further, you offer anecdotal evidence as proof of your claim.
These are some questions that would help clear up your position.
Are you saying that the majority is objectively right and the minority is objectively wrong?
If you are, then what proof can you offer of the objective rightness of the majority?
Are you suggesting that we should be more concerned with placating the majority than in what's objectively right or wrong?
Are you really suggesting that you are claiming that your experience as a white man, is more valid and significant than his as a black man?
Are your suggesting that the most important standard in all of these sorts of discussion is that we determine what is "false and non-factual" or true and factual?
"Do you understand now what I DID say and how he IS simply factually wrong (which is what I'm saying now, but didn't at first)?"
Do you realize that saying "he can't prove..." is the functional equivalent of saying that his claim is false? All you've done is to say plainly now, what you intimated earlier. Of course, you haven't proven either of your claims. Usually broad, sweeping, statements of this type are meant to express a generality rather than specificity. So your unproven claim that you are an exception to his generalization, is merely a specific unproven claim, while his is a generalization based on his experience. Again, I'm going to choose to listen to the black voice rather than the white.
"Do you realize that he offered NO data to support the claim, that it's just an empty sweeping claim and that generalities of this sort are almost always false?"
Are they almost always false when you make them? Mr Harrison is widely available in multiple social media outlets. I know he's available on Facebook and Twitter. My experience is that he's open to responding to comments on either. My suggestion is that you connect with him on social media and then you can tell him how wrong he is and how you are a much better judge of "false/non-factual", "true/factual" than he is.
Dan,
You claimed multiple times that things were "false". Are you suggesting that there is a singular standard that objectively defines "false", that false is objectively singular?
Art,
I agree that your analysis appears to be correct. Dan hasn't provided anything factual that demonstrates that his claims are not "false" or that Harrison's generalization is "false and non-factual". It seems like you'd need more than "80% of black voices", or "It's not the case for me nor anyone I know" to demonstrate that something is "false".
The problem is that Dan has the opportunity to take this up with Mr Harrison himself as well as the opportunity to listen to the podcast this quote was taken from, if he chooses to avail himself of these opportunities it will tell us quite a bit about how willing he is to follow his own standard.
Dan makes this claim, "When we say listen to black voices, we mean all black voices, not just a few who might agree with you.", even though it's "an empty sweeping claim and that generalities of this sort are almost always false". It's painfully clear that he doesn't "listen to all black voices", or that he doesn't pay attention to those he deems to be part of an "extreme minority".
Dan claims that "80% are all saying something like they regularly experienced racism at the hands of police." as if it's unassailable that the police (as a sweeping generalization) are racist.
Yet, 81% of black voices say that DON'T want less police presence in their communities. Doesn't it seem strange that if the (sweeping generalization) police or "system" is inherently racist, that 81% of blacks don't want less of the police or "system"?
https://www.newsweek.com/81-black-americans-dont-want-less-police-presence-despite-protestssome-want-more-cops-poll-1523093
When people like Dan make sweeping generalizations about "the police" or "systemic racism", one wonders of those empty sweeping claims are the types of generalities of this sort are almost always false.
'They've been providing their perceptions of what they claim to have experienced. It's an important distinction."
Yes it is. The problem is that it ignores the fact that things like attitude and intent play a role in defining racism. It presumes that the perceptions of one side of an interaction are more valid and more factually correct than the intentions of the other side. It's almost like if a person was accused of a crime, the story of the accuser was accepted without question, the judge and the jury were predisposed to believe the accuser and disbelieve the accused, and the accused was denied the ability to speak or present evidence in their defense.
In all of the high profile (George Floyd, Michael Brown, etc) cases racism is assumed, but hasn't been proven, and even if racism isn't proven or the facts disagree with the narrative, too many believe the narrative.
Go back and listen to what Eric Holder (black) AG during the period of the Michael Brown shooting, who worked for P-BO (black), regarding the results of the 7 month federal Justice Dept/FBI investigation said when the final report was released. He was clear that the "facts" didn't support the narrative, and that those who believed the narrative should look at the "facts".
The question then becomes, "Should I listen to and believe the "majority" of black voices who believe the "hands up don't shoot" narrative, or the one expert black voice who asserts that the "facts" don't support the narrative.
It seems like that's the problem with presuming that the majority is always more important than the facts.
It's probably absurd to point this out, but it seems strange to base one acceptance of any given premise on the majority of a group defined by skin color, rather than on whether or not the premise is factual or True.
Dan,
https://www.facebook.com/darrell.b.harrison
@d_b_Harrison
justthinking.me
Here are the links that would allow you to listen to Mr. Harrison more thoroughly, and that would allow you the most direct access to tell him where he's wrong. FYI, my blog probably won't help him learn much about his errors.
"It's probably absurd to point this out, but it seems strange to base one acceptance of any given premise on the majority of a group defined by skin color..."
It's probably absurd to point this out, but asking black people if racism has harmed their lives, or if Trump's policies have harmed their lives, then of course, those people are the experts on their lives. And if 80, 85, 90% of black people state that racism has harmed their lives or the trumps policies and actions have harmed their lives, then reasonable people would listen to their expert opinion about their own lives. Most people would recognize it to be narcissistic and arrogant and condescending as hell for a white man to presume to tell them they are mistaken.
That’s quite a substitute for offering proof, answering questions and saying thinks for finding you the specific opportunities you have to inform me Harrison of his mistakes.
The problem with your last is that it assumes that people’s perceptions of experiences they’ve had are objectively true and completely unaffected by factors outside themselves.
You’re right that it’s a mistake for white men to tell “them” they are mistaken. Unfortunately I’ve not done so, while you have. Apparently the notion of questions really confuses you. You won’t answer them when you’re asked, and you insist that questions are statements when you find it convenient.
And, of course, the problem with your last comment is that it presumes that you, a white man, are in a better position to know about the lived reality of 90% of black people. Again, it is a condescending arrogance , and the arrogance crosses over into racism.
In absolutely no way does it even approach your unprovable claim. But it’s a great dodge to avoid you doing so, ignoring questions, and your double standards.
Dan,
The difference here is that I’m simply quoting actual black voices. I may offer opinions, ask questions, agree or disagree, but I’m not in any way speaking for anyone. In this entire thread, you’ve not quoted or referenced any specific or identifiable group of black voices that can be identified. You’ve substitute anecdote and argument from numbers for specific, individual black voices. You’ve made broad sweeping claims that you haven’t proven, while insinuating that I only listen to the “few black voices” that agree with me. First, it’s not true and you can’t prove your claim, so stop making it. Second, as I listen to more and more black voices, I’m surprised by the increasing number who don’t simply conform to what you and Joe day is a “real black”. Yes, I’m drawn to black voices who run counter to the herd, who are the target of all sorts of hate because they don’t toe the line. But, to find the voices who stand out, I listen to a lot who don’t.
By all means, criticize me for giving a tiny bit of amplification to those you write off as the “extreme minority”. You’d have a lot more credibility if you started actually putting the actual words black voices are saying on your blog, and if you stopped simply assuming that the majority is always right. Maybe follow up on some of the resources I’ve given you. But it’s unlikely that you’ll actually do what you demand that I do.
Craig... "n to those you write off as the “extreme minority”."
1. I have, in no way, written anyone off. Look at my words, not your imagination.
2. When you, on the other hand, pretend to not recognize or acknowledge that some 80-90% of black people think the evidence is that Trump is racist, that Trump has made things worse for the US and for race relations or that they favor BLM... when you pretend like the minority voices in the black community are the only ones you regularly quote, you come across like the racist types who only have a use for black people when you can use and twist them to your own agenda. You come across as if you are speaking in a patronizing manner, as the great majority of black folk are not able to make rational, fact-based conclusions based upon the data.
Not that you will acknowledge or understand this. Just pointing it out.
1. Then please show some evidence that you pay those you call the “extreme minority” heed. That you interact with their views and take them seriously.
2. If you’re going to keep making this claim, you’re going to have to provide proof. Actual proof, quotes, links, you know objective proof. If you can’t, then you have 2 choices. 1. Stop making claims you can’t prove, 2 stop demanding that others do what you won’t.
Of course I’ll acknowledge that you’re full of bullshit with this sort of claim you can’t prove. But it’s an effective way to dodge questions and run from those you call the “extreme minority”.
I’m shocked that you find giving space to the “extreme minority”, so offensive. It’s almost like you think these folks are objectively wrong, can’t prove it, and need some other way to try to silence them.
1. Then please show some evidence that you pay those you call the “extreme minority” heed. That you interact with their views and take them seriously.
I have interacted with conservative black Christians in my community organizing work with my church. Look up Cloutky.org, if you want. I served on the board for a few years. The more progressive churches in CLOUT - a faith based community organizing group - would have liked to have included other faith groups beyond Christians, including Muslim congregations. But our more conservative churches (black and white).
That would be one instance of me regularly listening to conservative black people.
But that is hardly the point. 9 out of 10 doctors say that smoking cigarettes causes harm. I don't talk about that one in ten doctors and I don't talk much about the minority position in black communities about issues of racism. I don't deny them their view point - at all - their experience is their experience. But I have much greater concern for the nine in ten who ARE reporting oppression and racism.
I find this reasonable.
2. If you’re going to keep making this claim, you’re going to have to provide proof.
1. I HAVE provided links in the past.
2. That you continue to act as if I'm offering some wild conspiracy theory ("Can you imagine?? Dan is reporting that most black people think Trump is racist!! He probably believes the moon landing was fake!")
It's well known that most black people report experiencing racism, most believe that Trump is racist, most support BLM. Are you saying you are so ignorant of concerns in the black community that you find these claims hard to believe and think that they are actually made up?
That ignorance, if it's what it is, borders on a criminal indifference to the lives of black people as they live them in the real world in the US. Look it up yourself, it's not that hard and it's no secret.
Just go visit a black church and ask people there. They'll tell you (unless you come off as a fragile white hater who they can't trust with their opinions). If that's the case, read. Read White Fragility. Read Anti-Racism. Read Maya Angelou.
Listen to ALL black voices, not just the ones that ease your white ego.
I'm not as impressed or moved by what people think is true as much as I am by what they can prove is true. So if it can be proven that 100% of those referred to as "African-Americans" believe that Trump is a racist, I would still demand they prove it with some substantive evidence...something that can be checked, verified and not explained with other evidence that puts the claim in doubt.
As such, the claim that either Craig or myself don't recognize or acknowledge this assumed majority (yet unproven without any polling Dan has yet to provide) is patently idiotic because it ignores the real point: opinion is meaningless without evidence to back it up. Dan worded it as "black people think the evidence is that Trump is racist" (italics obviously mine), but it leaves two very important problems to resolve:
1. "Thinking" it is so doesn't make it so.
2. WHAT evidence?
So again, I don't care how many black people say whatever. I care about how they can prove it. I would point to stories of black people insisting cops treated them poorly, only to find that police body cam video shows the cops acted with complete professionalism.
Too many blacks respond to interactions with white people based on their own biases, preconceived notions and how their upbringing informed their world view. If one is raised to believe they will be treated unjustly because of their race, they will naturally be inclined to wonder if their treatment was the result of racism. Many will assume it to be the case and as stated above, will not even concern themselves with the true intentions of those they accuse as having been racist in their actions. These people will then relate their tales of woe to idiots like Dan, who will buy the tale like a chump at a carnival buying snake oil. This is not to say the black person doesn't believe what they're saying. But believing is not proof what they say is true or accurate.
1. You can’t/won’t provide proof.
2. You’re confused. I’m referring to your claims about me. If you’re going to make claims about me, you’ll need to prove them.
It’s not that hard, but it’s all about avoiding questions etc at this point.
"1. I HAVE provided links in the past."
Then do it again. I don't recall any compelling evidence provided by you that prove what those you listen to are actually relating facts more than their perceptions.
"It's well known that most black people report experiencing racism, most believe that Trump is racist, most support BLM. "
Hardly as important or compelling as actual facts and evidence. What's more, I've experienced racism as well. Yeah. From blacks and Hispanics. Racist attitudes prevail and unfortunately always will. But that's not what's at issue here. There's no legitimate reason to support BLM, who doesn't give a flying rat's backside about black lives or they would spend their time dealing with where black lives are most at risk...in the black communities at the hands of other black people. THAT is not only the fact of the matter, it's documented exhaustively. And belief that Trump is racist is worthless without proof that he's acted in a racist manner...not merely ascribing racism to his actions because one doesn't like the action.
In some cases, the claims are indeed made up, as police video of traffic stops have proven. In other cases, the claims are not based on real evidence of racism, but on perceptions and personal biases that serve as convenient excuses for a given black person's bad choices. Being cognizant of concerns of the black community doesn't require buying into the concerns themselves. We listen. We weigh what we hear against what data and evidence shows about the validity of those concerns. Truly honest people won't ignore that evidence in favor of appearing compassionate and caring, while in the end solving nothing by acting on false perceptions. THAT'S ignorance, and you're loaded with it.
And how do you want us to get the message? By listening to the very voices that speak from a biased perspective. By reading that which lends credibility to that which facts and data have proven false. The problem isn't the black voices. The problem is the lack of desire to get beyond the narrative to which too many blacks cling (especially the race-hustlers who indoctrinate and incite) and to which too many "progressive" asshats are too willing to believe in order to appear compassionate. There's no compassion or caring in enabling bullshit.
Cmon Art, Jussie Smolett, Sabrina Belcher, Bubba Wallace, they all experience racism. Hell the SF mayor decreed that exercise ropes hung by black guys were racist. We just need to assume that if anyone ever even slightly suspects racism then the other party is automatically guilty, regardless of the evidence.
We’re dealing with people who are convinced that George Floyd was killed because of racism, with zero actual evidence up to this point. People who buy the Michael Brown fiction rather that the facts as ascertained by a black AG in the administration of a black president.
Get real.
Are you talking about people who invent a term like "white hispanic" in order to indicate racism?
No, I’m talking about people who assume that racism is the only factor in things without actually having any proof of racism.
Exactly. The invention of the term "white hispanic" went further than merely just assuming racism, but insisting an hispanic person is white enough to validate the assumption to explain the death of a black person.
“They key words here are regardless of race. In fact, Hispanics can be white, black, Asian, or multiracial. That's because the term "Hispanic," like "Latino," refers to an ethnicity, not a race. And a majority of Hispanics actually self-identify as white. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 53 percent of Hispanics chose "white " as their race, while 36 percent chose "some other race."”
I’m not sure what your issue with white hispanic is. Hispanic describes a culture. I think your making an issue out of nothing.
Not at all. I'm reminding you of the issue the leftists were making out of the Trayvon Martin case, wherein they felt it necessary to refer to George Zimmerman by that term. They couldn't possibly let the kid die without making it a "white guy killed a black guy" story, so in order to prevent any contradiction, they used that term to describe Zimmerman. I'm referring to this:
https://www-latimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2012-mar-27-la-oe-goldberg-trayvon-martin-race-20120327-story.html?_amp=true&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D&_js_v=0.1#aoh=15982144128554&_ct=1598214501998&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnation%2Fla-xpm-2012-mar-27-la-oe-goldberg-trayvon-martin-race-20120327-story.html
I was just making sure. I think the thing with Zimmerman is that his name didn’t necessarily indicate his ethnicity. But the white hispanic thing is something that goes beyond Zimmerman.
Ultimately my point is that Dan sounds like he’d give Smolette a high degree of credence simply because he said he’d been affected by racism. Unfortunately what it, and other incidents, demonstrate is that accepting someone’s experience at face value isn’t necessarily the most accurate indicator of reality.
No doubt.
Post a Comment