Leftists seem to just believe they're correct by default as a virtue of their leftism. That makes sense in sense of the evidence, and also why there's this steering towards absolutism. If you're always in the right, then of course people should always follow your rules and any violation of those rules is evil.
Guys like me didn't like it when George W. Bush painted the entire world as feedom vs. terror because that was overly simplistic and lacked nuance. It's internally consistent to then oppose painting the world as racist vs. non racist because it too is overly simplistic and lacks nuance, particularly when the definition of "racist" and "non-racist" are completely arbitrary.
Problem is that if you view things through the lens of race by default (and the point of critical race theory is to view everything through the lens of race) then of course you're going to come up with bad data, because most things aren't related to race.
In buddhism, there is a parable where someone asks a monk if a dog has a buddhist nature. The monk replies "Mu". This is interpreted a saying "the question is wrong". In the book Zen and the book of motorcycle repair, this is mentioned because in digital logic there are two states that are commonly known, high or low, but there is in fact a third state as indeterminate or high Z. In this case the answer is that there is no answer because the device isn't sending a meaningful signal.
In digital logic design this comes up as well. "What do you do if the value of an integer is 1 and the third bit of the integer is 1?" the answer is "don't worry about it, that's axiomatically impossible". Any hypothetical behavior under such a condition is irrelevant and a waste of thought considering.
This last point is important to consider because of another thing that happened to me. When I worked in retail, you were always supposed to ask about a bunch of the deals of the week or buying lottery tickets or a bunch of other things when someone was checking out. None of them were things anyone needed, but they were all things that benefitted the company. The reason we ask is because if you ask a bunch of people about something, some people will choose wrong. In considering the wrong questions, you could sometimes get bad answers, and from those bad answers you might get further bad questions that lead to further bad questions, and eventually you get an entire body of knowledge based on bad questions leading to bad answers.
Phlogestin theory, or the theory of 4-elements. These things were once considered to be correct, and people put a lot of thought into them, but the data they supplied was often garbage. If you ask "What is the buddhist nature of a dog?" or "What is the digital nature of a dog?" or "What is the racist nature of a dog?" you won't get meaningful data out of the question, but if you take that answer as true then you could be lead down an absurd path.
Guys like me didn't like it when George W. Bush painted the entire world as feedom vs. terror because that was overly simplistic and lacked nuance. It's internally consistent to then oppose painting the world as racist vs. non racist because it too is overly simplistic and lacks nuance, particularly when the definition of "racist" and "non-racist" are completely arbitrary.
Problem is that if you view things through the lens of race by default (and the point of critical race theory is to view everything through the lens of race) then of course you're going to come up with bad data, because most things aren't related to race.
In buddhism, there is a parable where someone asks a monk if a dog has a buddhist nature. The monk replies "Mu". This is interpreted a saying "the question is wrong". In the book Zen and the book of motorcycle repair, this is mentioned because in digital logic there are two states that are commonly known, high or low, but there is in fact a third state as indeterminate or high Z. In this case the answer is that there is no answer because the device isn't sending a meaningful signal.
In digital logic design this comes up as well. "What do you do if the value of an integer is 1 and the third bit of the integer is 1?" the answer is "don't worry about it, that's axiomatically impossible". Any hypothetical behavior under such a condition is irrelevant and a waste of thought considering.
This last point is important to consider because of another thing that happened to me. When I worked in retail, you were always supposed to ask about a bunch of the deals of the week or buying lottery tickets or a bunch of other things when someone was checking out. None of them were things anyone needed, but they were all things that benefitted the company. The reason we ask is because if you ask a bunch of people about something, some people will choose wrong. In considering the wrong questions, you could sometimes get bad answers, and from those bad answers you might get further bad questions that lead to further bad questions, and eventually you get an entire body of knowledge based on bad questions leading to bad answers.
Phlogestin theory, or the theory of 4-elements. These things were once considered to be correct, and people put a lot of thought into them, but the data they supplied was often garbage. If you ask "What is the buddhist nature of a dog?" or "What is the digital nature of a dog?" or "What is the racist nature of a dog?" you won't get meaningful data out of the question, but if you take that answer as true then you could be lead down an absurd path.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1