- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
No, it wouldn't.
Temporal evidence absolutely would be necessary, though as you point out not sufficient, to establish causation. If a massive movement to check other were followed by a significant increase in the “other” statistical designation, people would have to look closer. On closer observation, they may find the increase in “other” correlates with a roughly equal decline in various race designation. Regardless, if there were a movement to check “other” followed by an increase in people checking “other”, it would have to be considered a possible or likely explanation.
You're more optimistic about people's inclination to reason than I am.
Likely. I may be more optimistic than you in general.
Which still doesn't amount to anything if it's not enough people to cause substantive change. Minute changes don't seem worth the resource investment required to mount a successful campaign to me, for that reason.
I don’t think a huge percentage is required to cause disruption. Admittedly, I won’t be funding a campaign. The success of such an endeavor would rely on social viral phenomenon.
How are they meant to get from a lack of faith in a data pool corrupted by subversion to a lack of faith in what they've been told about classes in general?
Given the idea catches on, any data tossed around to support some racial narrative will begin to be met with skepticism. That skepticism undermines the narrative itself.
It seems more likely they'd just be angry at the people who subverted the data than question what they've been told about classes.
No doubt. However many people are angry about it, there will appear to be even more when watching evening news.
He plays the “in real life” game. It’s a trap if you fall into the “in real life” counter to online posturing.
If a guy online says “I’ll beat your ass”, we all know it’s bullshit keyboard warriorism. But if you counter with “no, ill beat your ass first”, you’re playing the internet-tough guy game.
Let them be what they are without becoming them.
That would only establish correlation
Temporal occurrence would be evidence of causation.
I don't think the data's reliability would factor too heavily into how it's generally received anyways
If there were a known effort to disrupt data, and evidence that disruption is occurring, it would be noted.
There are already numerous reasons to doubt data collection like this
True, but people don’t know that. There’s nothing like a hashtag viral phenomenon to let the average Twitter consumer know.
I suppose it might undermine confidence in the results for some people
That’s some more than none.
I don't see how this would undermine peoples' faith in social identity classes, which seems to be the objective
It wouldn’t undermine their faith in classes. It would undermine their faith in what they are told about classes.
But it would impact federal funding, which actually does impact local activities which receive federal funding based on demographic reporting (not to mention broader programming and organizations). That seems like a cost to me with no tangible gain.
There are plenty of local causes who do much with local money. Federal money is the carrot the politicians beat us with. When that carrot beats a racial drum, no one actually wins. The gain of getting rid of racial demographic stats is admittedly long term, as are the benefits.
So I don't mark 'other' out of a broader sense of justice or resistance; it's just more accurate and self-respecting on my view.
If I actually saw this movement begin, I wouldn’t care if you marked “other” because you’re a racist, so long as “other” is marked. The means are just, as are the ends. (We don’t have to go into the vicissitudes of Justice, that’s another debate).