Evaluating the Accuracy of Competing Narratives About the Black Lives Matter Organization

9/14/2020

My (Ben's) propositions:

(A) Black Lives Matter is a militant neo-Marxist organization whose real agenda is to replace constitutional democracy & our market-based, mixed economy with intersectional socialism.

(B) The central narrative of the Black Lives Matter organization is based on sweeping generalizations about and indictments of systems and groups of people that are in direct contradiction to the findings of the most rigorous quantitative studies.

(C) Directly relevant, verifiable facts about propositions (A & B) are directly relevant verifiable facts about propositions (A & B) regardless of who brings them to one's attention.

(D) People who disagree about competing claims should be able to agree on consistent standards of evidence by which to evaluate them.

(E) If proposition (D) is impossible, then constructive engagement across different perceptions of BLM is probably also impossible and not worth our time and energy.

4 Comments

Jennifer Job

9/14/2020 09:33:57 am

Start with D)

1) No politically-motivated think tanks. No People for the American Way, no Brookings, no Center for American Progress, but also no Gateson, Heritage Foundation, or Cato.
2) Rigorous qualitative research will be just as valued as quantitative.
3) Quotes must be sourced, and overt acts and quotes from BLM will be considered, not just quotes about BLM.
4) I don't think systemic racism should be up for discussion. Systemic racism has been proven over and over, and there are some things we just have to agree exist. We can talk to the extent it affects BIPOC or whether BLM is an effective response, but I can't argue that it exists at all. I've seen too many people suffer.

Ben

9/14/2020 04:01:31 pm

Thanks, Jennifer. Good idea. Let's start with (D) Having an unshakable commitment to equal rights for all human beings, I assume both of us would engage only in consensual interactions with our fellow citizens. Open deliberations about issues of this level of social significance are badly needed and could model the sort of human freedom and conditions of equality I assume we would both like to extend to the world beyond this virtual platform.

I’m confident you would agree that it wouldn’t make sense for either of us to voluntarily consent to unreciprocated terms of cooperation in such an important discussion. Specifically, arguments presented by morally and politically equal adult citizens in the context of a constitutional democracy should, like the people making them, be judged according to the same “consistent standards” or ethical and epistemic criteria. If we both have such assurances at the outset, this would do a great deal to help us avoid any unconstructive or unpleasant situation in which either of us were made by the other to feel unsafe.

(1) I can’t consent to your proposed terms on this one. As the Left overwhelmingly dominates public discourse on anything having to do with identity and justice in the academy, fairness would permit us to extend the walls of inclusion to use whatever sources we want, as long as we both recognize the mutual obligation to justify to the other why we the source, data, arguments, etc. are credible.

As committed egalitarians, neither of us would ever discriminate against someone because of their identity categories. Therefore, I think it would be right, at the outset, for us to agree that any knowledge claims whose validity we would expect the other to accept (particularly when such claims purportedly function as justification for social policy or when they make huge generalizations about large scale social phenomena, systems, and structures) should require justification in the form of publicly accessible and assessable reasons and evidence, correct? Otherwise, if we both make the same sort of subjective appeals to only privately available justifications for our beliefs and assertions, we might just get stuck in circular reasoning about things no two reasonable people could be accepted to agree about.

I assume we share a commitment to the principle of non-discrimination and non-repression. If this is the case, I imagine such a commitment would not allow either of us to demand the other to accept or reject a claim's validity on the morally and epistemologically arbitrary basis of the claimant’s immutable identity categories (I certainly wouldn’t want to give anyone the false perception that I endorse any unwarranted, essentialist views about anyone’s identity invalidating their basic human right to know about and weigh in on such important issues that would inevitably affect all of our lives and our country’s future). Therefore, I propose that any admissible claims and their purported public reasons and evidence should be allowed to stand on their own if we are to have constructive engagement across difference in a society with as much diversity as ours. What do you think?

9/14/2020 04:03:54 pm

#2 I cannot predict whether I will value something I haven’t seen yet. But yes, in general, I believe qualitative studies can be just as rigorous and should be valued just as much as quantitative studies in certain contexts (i.e., not when making sweeping generalizations about entire systems, structures or populations, but when discussing particular cases or as illuminating examples of some social phenomenon we can discuss together). However, I don’t imagine it would be very helpful in our effort to resolve our differences if we attempt to make empirical generalizations about large-scale social phenomena on the basis of appeals to a handful of confirming cases, practical wisdom derived from lived experience, or “received” cultural beliefs. In that case, I think we would both compile a ton of confirming cases but not resolve the problem of what large-scale conclusions to draw from them. Does that sound about right?

Of course, as equals in a democratic society, neither of us should be granted unfair epistemic or ethical privileges on the basis of our identity group. That doesn’t seem like it would give the other discussant good reasons to consent to such an arrangement. Thus, I certainly wouldn’t dream of asking you to forfeit your equal right to use any of the same types of sources or methodologies I would claim a right to use in my own contributions to our discussion. I would certainly not expect you to uncritically affirm or elevate any of my subjective beliefs, values, interests, or commitments above your own.

#3 I agree that any claim needs to be justified by more than somebody’s interpretation, alone, but if they provide appropriate warrants to justify their claims, I would reserve the right to quote them and discuss the evidence, reasons, possible implications, etc. I think, as a general rule, we should both be permitted to use whatever type of source we want and/or the same kind used by the other, but whatever proposed evaluative criteria or other terms of engagement would require mutual consent and consistent application.

#4 I’m not sure I would be willing to take any general assumptions about any large-scale empirical phenomena off of the table, as I believe in any good faith, open-minded pursuit of truth, directly relevant factors should be up for discussion. If systemic racism has been proven over and over, as you claim, I’m sure that it should be pretty easy, applying rules 1-4, to critically evaluate the methods and arguments presented by those studies, as well as those of any other studies about the same and directly related phenomena that might contradict the others.

9/14/2020 04:42:29 pm

Note: I should have been more careful making the distinction between the BLM organization and its leadership and many of the people who participate in the movement. I believe the leadership are dangerous people with a disastrous political philosophy. I think many of the people who support the movement did so on the basis of "critical theory" rather than "critical thinking."

Evaluating the Accuracy of Competing Narratives About the Black Lives Matter Organization

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories