Zone1 Black Favoritism is a Hoax. Pt.2

[Hector12]

Wow... what a white person attitude.

The Romans conducted outright genocide on the Celts, it's nothing to be proud of.


Have you taken a drive through an American city lately, you want to talk about "Decay". Or a Rural area?

The Romans stopped the Celts from fighting each other and from giving human sacrifices after spring planting to ensure a good harvest.

Parts of cities are in decay. Parts are thriving. The difference depends on the kind of people who live there.

 

[JoeB131]

The Romans stopped the Celts from fighting each other and from giving human sacrifices after spring planting to ensure a good harvest.

Parts of cities are in decay. Parts are thriving. The difference depends on the kind of people who live there.

Uh, yeah, we are in decline because of 50 years of Republicans rolling back the New Deal.

 

[Hector12]

Uh, yeah, we are in decline because of 50 years of Republicans rolling back the New Deal.

I agree with you about Republicans overturning the New Deal. Actually it started 42 years ago, when Reagan was inaugurated.

Nevertheless, the New Deal Coalition began to decline in 1968 with the election of Richard Nixon. This happened because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the declaration of the War on Poverty were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in black crime and illegitimacy.

White racial moderates thought that by supporting the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty they were buying racial peace. What happened instead made them feel betrayed, so they began to vote Republican.

 

[LibertyKid]

When Obtaining Tenure, Black Women Have Never Been Underqualified, But Have Always Been Overlooked​

MSN

Did you even read this? This story has so much bias, it's not even credible. The title of the article sets the premise. The the author uses a quote from a significant Black Poet and author, but the quote, coming from its original context, has technically nothing to do with the actual premise (but the original work where the quote is from is quite good).

The article then goes on to explain (at a high level) the tenure process.

Then this is stated:
A little less than half of all full-time faculty at colleges and universities in the U.S. – 45.1%, or 375,286 according to 2019 data — have tenure. Of those 45.1%, a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article reported that as of the fall of 2019, only 2.1% of tenured associate and full professors at U.S. universities and colleges were Black women.

Okay, that doesn't mean they were overlooked. Nothing in the stats above explain how long these black women have been professors, if they applied and were turned down. The author provides no evidence at all.

Here is another illogical premise:
Born March 31, 1865, the same year slavery was abolished, Georgiana Rose Simpson is the first Black women to earn her Ph.D. Dr. Simpson earned her Doctorate in Philosophy, on June 14, 1921 from the University of Chicago. Fast forward to present-day and “among Black students in higher education, women are more likely than men to earn degrees.” Given this information, how is it that Black women are still fighting to obtain tenure and they are the most educated amongst the Black population? The answer is simple. When Black people were allowed to attend college, Black women were last to be afforded the opportunity. Furthermore, it makes sense as to why they are last to be chosen for tenure, despite their qualifications.

The above paragraph, the premise and conclusion are completely illogical fallacy. The author presents an example of the First black woman to receive her PHD. Then illogically states that black women are more likely to get degrees than their male counter parts. Then she asks how is it that black women are still not tenured? (I'm beginning to think the author doesn't know what tenured means). Just because you get a degree doesn't equate to tenure at a university. Tenure are for professors teaching at a university or college. I have a degree, I don't teach. I won't be tenured. Period. The author is equating degree with being tenured. Illogical.

This article is a poor, poor example of an argumentative narrative. She presents no facts that support her premise, only a very racially biased opinion.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree with you about Republicans overturning the New Deal. Actually it started 42 years ago, when Reagan was inaugurated.

Nevertheless, the New Deal Coalition began to decline in 1968 with the election of Richard Nixon. This happened because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the declaration of the War on Poverty were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in black crime and illegitimacy.

White racial moderates thought that by supporting the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty they were buying racial peace. What happened instead made them feel betrayed, so they began to vote Republican.

OH, so close

White conservatives went the GOP because a lot of them are racists and easily manipulated.

They've been playing on the racial fears of white people ever since.

 

[Hector12]

OH, so close

White conservatives went the GOP because a lot of them are racists and easily manipulated.

They've been playing on the racial fears of white people ever since.

Blacks have a crime rate that is about eight times the white crime rate.

A certain amount of fear is rational.

If the civil rights legislation passed during the 1960's, and the War on Poverty had been followed by declines in black crime and illegitimacy, I am confident that racial problems in the United States would be minimal. There would not have been a white backlash. The Democratic Party, which I vote for, would still dominate the United States. It would have an easy time addressing and relieving the growing income gap.

 

[JoeB131]

Blacks have a crime rate that is about eight times the white crime rate.

A certain amount of fear is rational.

No, it really isn't.

If the civil rights legislation passed during the 1960's, and the War on Poverty had been followed by declines in black crime and illegitimacy, I am confident that racial problems in the United States would be minimal. There would not have been a white backlash. The Democratic Party, which I vote for, would still dominate the United States. It would have an easy time addressing and relieving the growing income gap.

Why would there be a decline in "illegitimacy" (a word we need to get rid of) when the out of wedlock birth rate also went up among whites as well as blacks.

Crime went up until the 1990, then it went sharply down. White people are still scared.

 

[Hector12]

Why would there be a decline in "illegitimacy" (a word we need to get rid of) when the out of wedlock birth rate also went up among whites as well as blacks.

Crime went up until the 1990, then it went sharply down. White people are still scared.

At the beginning of the civil rights movement it was quietly acknowledged by advocates of the movement, and loudly pointed out by enemies of the movement that blacks had higher rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites.

Advocates of the civil rights movement - which I supported as a child, a teenager, and a young adult, by the way - confidently predicted that when blacks were no longer discriminated against they would behave as well as whites. In other words, they would emulate whites.

What happened instead was that whites emulated blacks, and black rates of crime and illegitimacy rose.

Now it is true that the crime rate, which doubled during the 1960's, began to decline after 1980. I attribute this decline to the increase in the prison population, and to the rise in the abortion rate that followed the Roe vs Wade decision in 1973. The authors of the book Freakonomics pointed out that the same kind of females most likely to have abortions are most likely to give birth to boy babies that grow up to become violent criminals.

Nevertheless, when the crime rate declined blacks still had a much higher crime rate than whites. The crime rate seems to have been rising in recent years. When the overall crime rate was low, blacks still had a much higher crime rate than whites. When it rose for both groups blacks had a higher crime rate. When it declined, the race gap remained.

The rise in illegitimacy is a social problem and a personal tragedy. For whites and blacks, children raised by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to have many fewer problems in life, even when family income is held constant.

 

[JoeB131]

Advocates of the civil rights movement - which I supported as a child, a teenager, and a young adult, by the way - confidently predicted that when blacks were no longer discriminated against they would behave as well as whites. In other words, they would emulate whites.

Why is it that racists like and Fake Hippy Doug1943 try to polish the turd of your racism by claiming you supported the civil rights movement right before you devolve into the same tired racist stereotypes about blacks?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Hector12]

Why is it that racists like and Fake Hippy Doug1943 try to polish the turd of your racism by claiming you supported the civil rights movement right before you devolve into the same tired racist stereotypes about blacks?

Asking for a friend.

Let's keep the insults out of this, and have a polite conversation about what needs to be discussed.

Stereotypes are over generalizations of what is really true. There is no stereotype of a fat Chinese woman with five illegitimate children by five different men. There is no stereotype of a stupid, lazy Jewish man with several felony convictions and several illegitimate children he does nothing to support.

Those who dislike Chinese Americans and Jews resent them because most are intelligent, successful and prosperous.

I do not believe that blacks should be discriminated against. I do not believe that blacks should be discriminated in favor of. I evaluate blacks as individuals using the same criteria I use in evaluating whites.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's keep the insults out of this, and have a polite conversation about what needs to be discussed.

Stereotypes are over generalizations of what is really true. There is no stereotype of a fat Chinese woman with five illegitimate children by five different men. There is no stereotype of a stupid, lazy Jewish man with several felony convictions and several illegitimate children he does nothing to support.

Those who dislike Chinese Americans and Jews resent them because most are intelligent, successful and prosperous.

I do not believe that blacks should be discriminated against. I do not believe that blacks should be discriminated in favor of. I evaluate blacks as individuals using the same criteria I use in evaluating whites.

Yeah, this is polite for me when dealing with bigots.

No, stereotypes are not "accurate" or "true".

People who dislike Jews are those who had the one Jewish boss who cheated them on a regular basis, not because that boss was "smarter". Nor are the Chinese more "prosperous". If anything, they are more likely to live in poverty and do marginal work compared to Indians or Japanese.

The reality is, Jews can easily assimilate and be just like any other group of white people. And there is racism against Chinese, thanks to Trump blaming them for Covid. But neither group has had to put up with slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, police misconduct, etc.

 

[Hector12]

Yeah, this is polite for me when dealing with bigots.

No, stereotypes are not "accurate" or "true".

People who dislike Jews are those who had the one Jewish boss who cheated them on a regular basis, not because that boss was "smarter". Nor are the Chinese more "prosperous". If anything, they are more likely to live in poverty and do marginal work compared to Indians or Japanese.

The reality is, Jews can easily assimilate and be just like any other group of white people. And there is racism against Chinese, thanks to Trump blaming them for Covid. But neither group has had to put up with slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, police misconduct, etc.

Pew Research Center, JULY 12, 2018

The median income of Asians in 2016 – $51,288 – was higher than the median income of whites ($47,958)

Income Inequality in the U.S. Is Rising Most Rapidly Among Asians

The gap in the standard of living between Asians near the top and the bottom of the income ladder nearly doubled from 1970 to 2016. Amid rising inequality overall, Asians displaced blacks as the most economically divided major U.S. racial or ethnic group.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Lisa558]

Pew Research Center, JULY 12, 2018

The median income of Asians in 2016 – $51,288 – was higher than the median income of whites ($47,958)

Income Inequality in the U.S. Is Rising Most Rapidly Among Asians

The gap in the standard of living between Asians near the top and the bottom of the income ladder nearly doubled from 1970 to 2016. Amid rising inequality overall, Asians displaced blacks as the most economically divided major U.S. racial or ethnic group.

www.pewresearch.org

Joe probably doesn’t know what median means. Just saying.

 

[Hector12]

Joe probably doesn’t know what median means. Just saying.

Nevertheless, his skill at insults greatly surpasses mine.

 

[Lisa558]

Nevertheless, his skill at insults greatly surpasses mine.

Mine too. I never really honed them - I spent my formative years honing my career skills and working hard. The goal to become a “winning insult-launcher” was not on my list.

 

[Hector12]

Mine too. I never really honed them - I spent my formative years honing my career skills and working hard. The goal to become a “winning insult-launcher” was not on my list.

Insults and name calling are the lowest form of discord. They are the resorts of those who cannot win arguments with knowledge, insight, and rational reasoning.

-----------

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

How to Disagree

www.paulgraham.com

I try to keep my arguments at the top of Paul Graham's pyramid. I try to ignore insults and name calling. At least I do not respond in kind.

 

[LibertyKid]

Insults and name calling are the lowest form of discord. They are the resorts of those who cannot win arguments with knowledge, insight, and rational reasoning.

-----------

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

How to Disagree

www.paulgraham.com

I try to keep my arguments at the top of Paul Graham's pyramid. I try to ignore insults and name calling. At least I do not respond in kind.

View attachment 766009

I'm fairly new to this forum, and it doesn't take long to see that emotional intelligence is few and far between. Most dialogues that continue are the ones where you have an antagonist, whose only premise to antagonize and troll the one user that continues to take the bait. Users that provide intellectual content and actual conversation, whether in disagreement or agreement, don't get as much attention or responses, especially from those that would disagree with them.

The one liner gotchas are so prevalent from certain users add nothing. All they are doing is providing a blanket, intellectually empty fallacy.

 

[Lisa558]

Insults and name calling are the lowest form of discord. They are the resorts of those who cannot win arguments with knowledge, insight, and rational reasoning.

-----------

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

How to Disagree

www.paulgraham.com

I try to keep my arguments at the top of Paul Graham's pyramid. I try to ignore insults and name calling. At least I do not respond in kind.

View attachment 766009

Yeah, well is that so? You’re a pony-faced dog soldier!

 

[JoeB131]

Pew Research Center, JULY 12, 2018

The median income of Asians in 2016 – $51,288 – was higher than the median income of whites ($47,958)

Meaningless... The only way you get to that number is if you include all the people from India who are doctors and IT specialists. Take them out of the mix and just count Chinese and South East Asian immigrants, and you get people who are a lot poorer than whites.

Insults and name calling are the lowest form of discord. They are the resorts of those who cannot win arguments with knowledge, insight, and rational reasoning.

Your cutting and pasting psuedo-intellectual garbage because someone called you on your racism isn't a pass, buddy.

I asked a simple question. Why is it you racists need to pretend you were on the side of the angels on race relations before you engage in a lot of victim blaming?

Mine too. I never really honed them - I spent my formative years honing my career skills and working hard. The goal to become a “winning insult-launcher” was not on my list.

NO, but you perfected the art of being a racist Karen.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It’s not AEI. It’s data from the AAMC, and it gives a broad and sweeping picture of how biased medical schools are in favor of blacks.

And data doesn’t have a “racial bias.”

Sure it does, we see it everyday.