If people are not offended then there’s no offense (and other terrible reasoning)
Now for the next piece of Paul Manata’s reasoning. He begins:
“American Indians in general are not offended. It’s only Activists. Liberal, leftist activists. It’s a voting block. The point is to make them feel attacked and under the gun. Then claim your political party will stick up for them.”
This leaves me deeply puzzled. Paul is supposedly critiquing what I wrote. So presumably his criticism would have relevance to me. But then he politicizes the whole discussion by saying that claims to offense are being cynically used by people who are seeking to further the agenda of a particular political party. But I have never held membership in any political party and in the last two national elections I voted for two different parties. I am not trying to further any political agenda, so this is completely irrelevant.
However, I think Paul’s cynical comments are really unfortunate for those individuals who are “liberal leftist activists”. I don’t think that Martin Luther King Jr. for example was solely interested in furthering the interests of a particular political party. And the same is true for the “liberal leftist activists” I know. Paul’s language here is simply an attempt to demonize other people and undermine their motives.
Now for Paul’s really terrible reasoning. He writes:
“As the Sports Illustrated article on the subject pointed out about the extreme minority of Indians actually claiming to be offended, “Such indifference implies a near total disconnect between Native American activists and the general Native American population on this issue.” The poll “Asked [Native Americans if they] were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI’s poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren’t offended.””
What is Paul attempting to establish here? Presumably something like this: if the majority of a particular population is not offended by a representation then there is no offense against that population.
Sorry Paul, but that is to confuse subjective perception of offense with the objective reality of an offense.
Consider this example. A majority of Americans support gay marriage (53% according to one poll). Thus, they do not think gay marriage is an offense to the human institution of marriage. I assume Paul doesn’t think that is relevant to the question of whether gay marriage is in fact an offense to the human institution of marriage.
In fact Paul might do well to read Romans 1-3 in light of his argument. He will then discover that the subjective perception of an offense is not a particularly reliable guide for the objective existence of an offense.
Tags: Paul Manata, racism, Sports Illustrated
5 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
PM says:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 12:31am
I could do similar slicing and dicing with this one, but why bother. I trust most rational people can see that your arguments are bad, very bad.
But we can do a judo reversal. My point about percentages of those who disagree was not to claim “therefore you’re wrong,” but to point out that most people, even most Indians, aren’t offended like you are. I was pointing out an empirical fact. They’re the best judge of these things. But, (2), more importantly is that I was pulling the Rauser-intuition card. You frequently appeal to “the masses’” intuitions, and act as if being on the side of the majority counts *for* your view. Indeed, you claimed that intuitions yielded the positive epistemic status of “truth.” So, I’m just pointing out that all of our “intuitions” go against yours, and they all point toward “truth.” In fact, I find it hilarious that you now claim intuitions aren’t “reliable guides.” You jus defeated the epistemic value of intuitions! Now, no getting all “skeptical” about intuitions.
So, no, I didn’t claim that “if a majority of a population isn’t offended, then there is no offense against the population.” In any case, you’re “analogy” is simplistic. For example, when a black man says “nigga” to another black man, that’s not offensive, for they all report to me that they do not take offense to this term. But given your holy roller activist and agitator status, you should tell all the black people that they should be offended at that term. I don’t agree, and the reason is because they have told me that they don’t take offense. I think this is more analogous than your marriage example. Quit being so simple minded, Randal.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 3:30am
“They’re the best judge of these things.”
Are you saying that the percentage of first nations people who aren’t offended are better judges than the percentage who are offended? How would you know that? Wouldn’t you have to know something about the educational background, degree of reflection and rationale that each had given for their position?
As for your talk about intuitions, that’s simply misapplied. I don’t have an “intuition” that the image in question is problematic. I reasoned to that conclusion based on the fact that the image appealed to certain stereotypes of an ethnic group against a history of oppression and even genocide of that group. As for people who responded to the survey, you have absolutely no idea how they reasoned. You don’t know whether they appealed to intuitions or not. So your whole discussion about intuitions is simply irrelevant.
What do you mean by “holy roller activist”? You have an endless list of categories and labels to go with your psychologizing and politicizing, I’ll give you that.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 3:48am
I’d like to be a high roller activist.
PM says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 3:26pm
“Are you saying that the percentage of first nations people who aren’t offended are better judges than the percentage who are offended? How would you know that? Wouldn’t you have to know something about the educational background, degree of reflection and rationale that each had given for their position?”
Yeah, it usually happens that those offended are leftist agitators trying to earn political votes and drum up charges of racism, either to gain political power or get free money or some other handout.
Growing up, my best friend was Dean Standing-warrior. I spend my entire life in San Diego, surrounded by Indian Reservations. I actually worked on an Indian Reservation off and on for about 8 years. Now, I’ll try to control myself about the damages leftist policies have done to the Indian people, and just note that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re too disconnected from real people. It’s funny to hear you speak about “our” intuitions and also “defend” all those who you *think* are offended but just don’t have a voice so they need Randal from Canada to blog about it. You and your arguments actually embarrass them. I know this based on my far superior interaction with and knowledge of Indians—who want to be called Indians.
Anyway, I’ve spend enough time shredding your argument. With my Italian complaint, your argument is dead and buried and now smelling.
randal says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 4:31pm
I grew up beside an Indian reservation. I teach native students at my seminary. I just read through a book manuscript one of those students wrote on theology and the native community. And one of my good friends is Terry LeBlanc, the Director of My People International. Terry is, in my opinion, one of the leading First Nations theologians in the world today. That is why he spends most of his time flying around the world lecturing on issues pertinent to indigenous communities around the world. When he is in town we have some great conversations.
Perhaps you should spend less time judging what it is you think people know and more time engaging their arguments.