Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Black lives matter, if you ignore the facts

The NY Times philosopher column argues:
The correspondence theory of truth no longer reigns supreme in philosophical circles when it comes to the study of knowledge and judgment. But it remains handy for everyday people, especially citizens. That theory says, simply, a proposal is true if it corresponds to an observation in the world. Not a bad way to go when people are trying to figure out the stuff of democratic living. After a week in which we have seen the unwarranted killing by police of two black men — Philando Castile in Minnesota and Alton Sterling in Louisiana — I’d like to think the correspondence theory of truth would get all Americans on the same page. But this has consistently failed to be the case. Maybe we can figure out why together.

So, I say: In America, black lives don’t matter. You say: That is false. I respond, implicitly invoking the correspondence theory of truth: Just look at the rate at which blacks are killed by the police and the rate at which police officers are exculpated. ...

Chris Lebron is an assistant professor of African-American studies and philosophy at Yale University and the author of “The Color Of Our Shame: Race and Justice in Our Time.” He is at work on a book on the history of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Yale students deserve better than this.

First, there is not enuf public info to determine whether those killings were warranted or not. Previous killings were widely reported to be unwarranted, such as Trayvon, Ferguson, and Freddie Gray having had narrative collapses, and the killers were not to blame.

Second, the rate of black killings says little if not compared to black crime and other black misbehavior.

Third, he is rejecting the idea that facts can illuminate the matter. If blacks feel aggrieved, then whites must do something, regardless of the facts.

Lots of people believe that they are unfairly treated, based on paranoia and subjective impressions. I post this because even Yale students are taught to disregard facts when concluding that blacks are unfairly treated.

The NY Times is run by (((Trump haters))), of course, and here is their latest attack:
But Tony Schwartz, the book’s ghostwriter, who spent 18 months in the 1980s interviewing and shadowing Mr. Trump, says that it is really a work of fiction. ...

“I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is,” Mr. Schwartz said. “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes, there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If the guy is willing to lie in a book for money, and if he thinks that Trump will end civilization, then I assume that he will tell any lies he can to damage Trump.

Is anyone going to believe this hysterical paranoia?

Hillary Clinton is the biggest warmonger Presidential candidate in many decades. If Schwartz is really worried about war, then he would vote for anyone who might defeat her.

Since he is not rational, I assume that Schwartz has some sort of emotional ethnic hatred for Trump.


Anonymous said...

Since Schwartz is, "not rational" then there'd be a million possible reasons for his hatred of Trump. What makes you assume that it's an ethnic hatred in particular ? Is it rational to make assumptions about someone you consider irrational ? Schwartz didn't say that Trump will end civilization. He also didn't say that he would vote for Clinton or that Clinton might not end civilization or it was a possibility under a Clinton administration.

Roger said...

There could be a lot of reasons, but when a largely Jewish newspaper publishes a lot of irrational Trump-hating articles quoting Jews or having Jewish bylines, then it is not a coincidence.

Anonymous said...

You can't definitively conclude that it's not a coincidence. You can't even come close to saying it's not a coincidence. there's over 1,000,000 Jews in N.Y.C.. Of course, the Times is going to have a lot of Jews on their staff. Look at the demographic pool from who they hire. A lot of people don't think that the articles in the Times about Trump are, "irrational Trump hating articles". Trump is from N.Y. and they know very well his history and what sort of person he is. Trump has had more than his fair share of problems in N.Y.. There's plenty of reasons for a reporter in N.Y. to write negative stories about him.

What you're saying just doesn't add up. About 2% of the U.S. is Jewish and about 40% of the U.S. hates Trump.