Keep what in mind? The author asks us to do all the work for him.
The comments to that post do a pretty good job pointing out the shortcomings of the author's noncommittal point. Check them out before you decide on what to "keep in mind."
Facts aren't racist. The author didn't even try to claim it, just said that claim could be hand-waved somehow (and tasks that leap for us, the reader) out of an example of selective coverage.
Sure, let's keep the whole discussion (i.e. "this") in mind then, rather than any one specific claim that may or may not be in there. There is room for nuance here, and that's exactly what we'll need, rather than a binary of "facts can/can't be racist."
I've read the thread (thanks for insinuating I didn't!) and many commenters concede that while facts may not be racist, the context and motivations behind presenting them can be racist. And there never really is a pure "fact" isolated from a context, is there?
So to attempt to apply the claim that a fact can't be racist (or ask "why bring race into this?") to a real-world situation is to take the fact in isolation, which is a mistake. Keep that in mind.
> 99.99% of religious people have never committed a violent crime
At least in the US, the rate of "violent crime" (murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and "gang violence") is 383 per 100,000, or ~0.38% (2017). The numerator isn't people, so this isn't exactly right, but the order of magnitude is larger than 0.01%. Most Americans are religious, and there's no reason to believe religious people commit crimes at different rates from atheists. (In fact, criminals in prison are more religious than non-prisoners[0].)
Something like 99.62% of religious people have not committed a violent crime this year. Lifetime figure ("never") would be lower.
What a silly, poorly thought out article. Top comment from 2013 already explains why
> The content of a true fact is irrelevant to the motivation behind someone focusing on that true fact to the exclusion of others. You seem to confuse a true fact being ‘racist’ with the potential racial bias behind a motivation to share it.
I agree with the gist of it. Facts aren't racist, but their application certainly can be. They can be presented without context, or in such a way to push a negative narrative. Unfortunately it's much easier to make a bad argument this way than it is to deconstruct it.
If you follow the Woke cult on Twitter you'll quickly find these dangerous idiots in positions of power are also claiming "math is racist" [1] and "merit is racist" [2]
Why are you slandering people that you have never met based on some cherrypicked out of context tweets? The way Dawkins picked a random fact about Muslims out of a hat and broadcast it to his followers adds nothing to academic discourse and puts them in a bad light. Its application is discriminatory and demeaning. He deserves to be called out. While woke culture and political correctness on Twitter have their own problems, the whole point is to counteract blatant racism like this. Facts, math, and merit are not racist, but using them as a bludgeon to degrade and discriminate on racial grounds is.
Because these bad ideas are more widespread than you know.
If a video of the San Francisco School Board Commissioner saying "merit is racist" is not enough for you to recognize a growing problem, then good luck.
You are focused on the wrong set of 'bad ideas'. Lack of civil liberties for certain groups in this country is what you should really be worried about. Meritocracy and the idea of an 'even playing field' is a myth. If you fail to recognize that the consequences of racial discrimination in all of its forms in America (Jim Crow, immigration quotas, reservations, over-policing of minorities, the war on drugs) affect us
today, you might be the one not seeing things. Focus on uplifting people, not kicking them when they try to bring a voice to important issues. Here's a very good article about the subject:
The post is about a scientist, Richard Dawkins, tweeting that the world's Muslims earned less Nobel prizes than Trinity College Cambridge. While the fact itself may be true, what is the point of broadcasting it to your Twitter followers? It isn't relevant to any academic discourse, and the way Dawkins cherrypicked and amplified it puts Muslims in a bad light ("they don't contribute to society"). That in itself is discriminatory.
Twitter isn’t generally the place for academic discourse. Saying something you don’t like doesn’t have to be followed up with research every single time.
Contributing to society and winning Nobel prizes aren’t even close. That would imply only a few dozen people in all history have contributed to society.
Dawkins' and Tyson's remarks show their bigotry, and frankly, ignorance. Not only are they zealous and condescending, but it's honestly embarrassing for them when they step out of their field to talk about religion, especially Islam. Their arguments are laughable and shows that they lack the most basic knowledge to back their incorrect claims, and they expose their severe ignorance.
On a side note, I want to see Tyson's response when asked how many Black people have won the Nobel prize.[1]
Facts are things that can be tested and proven over and over again in reality. A pen is dropped, it falls to the ground today as it has fallen to the ground in the past, 1000s of times.
When establishment media outlets have to substantiate or provide "evidence", that's usually a belief more than a fact. Facts are binary, it's either a fact or it's not.
No. Abuse of facts can definitely be racist. But facts are simply facts. E.g. if someone claimed that police are sexist and pointed out that 90% of police killings are against men, and another responded that this matches the rate at which men commit violent crime that's a perfectly reasonable use of facts. Pointing to the fact that men commit crime at higher rates and saying they cannot be trusted in public society and that civil rights should be curbed is an abuse of facts.
We can, and should, criticize the abuse of facts. But we should be sure we are criticizing the abuse not trying to deny the fact itself. I think many who do the latter are well-intentioned, but ultimately it's trying to deny reality.
25 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 65.1 ms ] threadThe comments to that post do a pretty good job pointing out the shortcomings of the author's noncommittal point. Check them out before you decide on what to "keep in mind."
Facts aren't racist. The author didn't even try to claim it, just said that claim could be hand-waved somehow (and tasks that leap for us, the reader) out of an example of selective coverage.
I've read the thread (thanks for insinuating I didn't!) and many commenters concede that while facts may not be racist, the context and motivations behind presenting them can be racist. And there never really is a pure "fact" isolated from a context, is there?
So to attempt to apply the claim that a fact can't be racist (or ask "why bring race into this?") to a real-world situation is to take the fact in isolation, which is a mistake. Keep that in mind.
I would turn the rhetorical question into a real one though.
At least in the US, the rate of "violent crime" (murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and "gang violence") is 383 per 100,000, or ~0.38% (2017). The numerator isn't people, so this isn't exactly right, but the order of magnitude is larger than 0.01%. Most Americans are religious, and there's no reason to believe religious people commit crimes at different rates from atheists. (In fact, criminals in prison are more religious than non-prisoners[0].)
Something like 99.62% of religious people have not committed a violent crime this year. Lifetime figure ("never") would be lower.
All that said, Dawkins is a miserable asshole.
[0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-like....
> The content of a true fact is irrelevant to the motivation behind someone focusing on that true fact to the exclusion of others. You seem to confuse a true fact being ‘racist’ with the potential racial bias behind a motivation to share it.
In addition motivation is a nonsequitor that is mainly used as distraction from the real discussion.
If you're first response to these facts is to question the motives of the person presenting them then you are the problem.
[1] https://twitter.com/aliveness_ape/status/1358159194524852226
[2] https://twitter.com/stbearman/status/1356649178026233857
If a video of the San Francisco School Board Commissioner saying "merit is racist" is not enough for you to recognize a growing problem, then good luck.
https://aeon.co/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-fa...
Example: Black men make up the largest group of prisoners in the US.
If you are discussing criminal justice reform it's probably not racist to bring it up, if you are discussing the superiority of the white race it is.
Context is key and for the life of me I can't understand why everyone seems to be pretending it isn't these days.
The problem is not what is being reported, but how opinions are selected and presented.
Neil Tyson said something similar a while back.
Twitter isn’t generally the place for academic discourse. Saying something you don’t like doesn’t have to be followed up with research every single time.
Contributing to society and winning Nobel prizes aren’t even close. That would imply only a few dozen people in all history have contributed to society.
On a side note, I want to see Tyson's response when asked how many Black people have won the Nobel prize.[1]
[1] Courtesy of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfRnYNig9jU
Inconvenient “facts” are hidden and censored from platforms.
News people don’t tell the news and truth tellers don’t tell the truth.
When establishment media outlets have to substantiate or provide "evidence", that's usually a belief more than a fact. Facts are binary, it's either a fact or it's not.
We can, and should, criticize the abuse of facts. But we should be sure we are criticizing the abuse not trying to deny the fact itself. I think many who do the latter are well-intentioned, but ultimately it's trying to deny reality.