Nas wrote:
Nas wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Nas wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Nas wrote:
It's not pointless. What's pointless is trying to determine the percentage of them. "Some" should cover it for both.
It is pointless. You could literally say it about any statement.
Black people are criminals.
Mexicans are rapists.
Muslims are terrorists.
CFMB members are racist.
Gay people are sexual predators.
All of the above statements you could apply your logic of "It's true for some and not true for others" to. Any time you make blanket statements you're gonna come off bad. Saying suburbanites are racist qualifies.
If you put the word "some" in front of all of those statements I'm not sure how anyone could argue against it any of them.
So what? Little Billy in second grade could easily make that kind of observation ... nobody is going to drive him over to a DC think-tank to expand on his considered opinion.
So, you're correct in that nobody (of any value in talking to) is going to argue against the obvious statement of "some people are 'x'". There's just simply zero value to making that obvious assertion ... it's on par with stating "the sun rises in the East".
What other way could I say it that would satisfy you? Today 4% of whites move to certain suburbs so they won't have to be around minorities? In 1956 a staggering 41.7% of whites fled to the suburbs? I can't prove either of those things to be true.
Don Tiny wrote:
My satisfaction, as you put it, would come from using that statement only as a segue to a more informative or interesting point (rather than just saying it as a standalone "point"). My dissatisfaction stems only from that 'some are x' statement being left out there on its own as though it has any real meaning insofar as addressing issue x. If that's not what your purpose was in saying it, than I might ask that you consider rephrasing or re-framing it with respect to whatever the actual point was supposed to be.
My point was everyone was in agreement but they were arguing about a value that can't be proven. None of us know if it was 1% or 99% of white people fled to the suburbs because they didn't want to be around minorities. That's why defaulting to "some" seemed like the most reasonable thing to do.
It's still a 'so what' statement. We all know it. And I would suggest that there can be some considerable benefit derived from trying to determine an estimate of that percentage ... let's say the percentage of actively racist white folk is about 20% nationwide ... I think there's value in knowing that insofar as it relates to knowing, in an extreme example, that the number is close to 70% - it would change the calculus of your daily life entirely.
Suggesting that it's silly to try to quantify something b/c you can't determine it to at least a near-certainty, which seems to be your 1%/99% point, is probably not the best way to view MANY things, not the least of which is the pervasiveness (or not) of racists in society ... on top of that, one might then be well served to go about trying to determine who in that 'racist' subset is just an old racist of no actual consequence (an 8 year old woman on her way out of Earth's door who says she enjoyed talking to some of the negroes she met during her time) vs the cross-burning, lynching type, as well as other types the likes of which are unnecessary to try to come up given the actual discussion.
I get what your point is and I get why you made it. I counter only that just going with 'some' is lazy not to mention way, way too open to re-interpretation or editorializing by a someone who thinks they have an axe to grind.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
in Orlando on Saturday.
