> Providing facts should never require justification
Facts don't require justification. Which and where and when one chooses to provide them might well require justification. Just as you are questioning the above poster's selection of facts to present, I often question when someone chooses to say "but what about X" whenever an issue is brought up, as if X changes the issue actually under discussion.
> Regardless of the above, I'll indulge you
Quite generous of you. Without sarcasm, I will truly try to understand you, though I do not agree that we cannot/should judge events, because our actions are all we can control, and without judging their quality how can we evaluate future ones?
> many people in society are starting to view things as caricaturizations of reality
You believe this is a new and/or increasing trend? I won't deny over-simplistic viewpoints and even that there are areas that are having more of an issue with this than in recent history, but I'm not willing to declare this to be out of historical norms. For all that, say, US politics is more bitter than in recent decades, we can't ignore politicians committing violence upon each other (including in the US) or even such dramatic incidents such as the Great Defenestration, all of which I assume involved a great amount of hero/villain perspectives. Per my previous concern these examples do not make such over-simplifications suddenly complex, but it does stand to show this is not new.
> [ a great deal of material supporting the concept that modern slavery exists and that psychic/statistical numbing and compassion fatigue exist]
> The point of this all is that I think if people were more aware of reality, and understood that the line between good and evil is far closer than any of us would like to admit, that we'd be much more inclined to concern ourselves with actual events and happenings - instead of taking faux offense at somebody using the word 'just' in a way you find offensive.
So your point was solely to argue that we should think that 5 years of slavery is NOT a big deal? Your rationale appears to be in your previous post:
> These individuals were doomed to enslavement for their entire life, one way or the other
I understood the article's use of "just" to be a relative term, but I also understand that 5 years of slavery is a big deal, EVEN IF they would have been slaves anyway. Because while I do indeed practice a great deal of selfishness, doing so does not mean I should deny charity to anyone. A wrong does not justify a wrong, and a wrong certainly does not justify that we stop trying for right at all.
The facts you have chosen to present seem cherry-picked to distract from the actual point of the discussion. You've expended a great deal of effort to only say that the phrase "just 5 years" is apt. If we acknowledge that good/evil (however we define it) is a spectrum and not a fine line as you claim is your desire and that 5 years as a slave is unarguably better than a lifetime as a slave, you've not addressed either the (presumed) actual reason behind the above poster's reaction (that being that a slave for 5 years should not be minimized), nor have you addressed my points about how the timing and choice of facts you present serve to convey the message that US slavery was fine.
Take, for example, how you carefully select statistics to argue that relatively few US citizens owned slaves. But you don't address the large population of citizens that supported it, that elected politicians that made it a large national division from literally the founding of the country through the civil war and it's aftermath, then through Jim Crow, redlining, all the way to All Lives Matter. If slavery was merely a rich man's issue, why did non-slave owning people accept it on it's face as opposed to requiring the distance and plausible deniability we (mostly) do today? Was it Lee that captured and conscripted free black people, or was it his non-rich troops? (Plenty of problems in the North - I'm not trying to deny that, I'm addressing your choice of facts)
Absolutely it is inaccurate to think in black or white, and it's wrong to feel we are morally superior and/or without error. It is likewise wrong to use our own flaws as an excuse to have more flaws, and it is wrong to ignore the results of our actions. In this case, I'm seeing your actions as downplaying and distracting from the problems of slavery, the historical brutality of these particular incidence, and as placing a reaction to a potential downplay as more important than other aspects of the issue, all under a guise of warning of the perils of over-simplifying.
That's my impression, with no opinion on whether you are doing so intentionally or innocently. I can be mistaken - it would be ironic of me to over-simplify either your intentions or the effects of your choices. If I am mistaken, please grant me a little more indulgence and explain how. At the moment, regardless of the accuracy of my conclusions, I am not getting the message you say you are trying to send, for I fully acknowledge our many moral failings and the messy complicated details of human interactions, particularly when it comes to those who are being victimized by multiple nations, and yet agreeing that life is not as simple as good or evil has not modified my opinion of the above poster's reaction to "just 5 years" as reasonable, if likely not reflecting the intention of the author. Considering 5 years of slavery to still be bad is not "faux offense", that is attempting to acknowledge a fact.
If I've "cherry picked" data feel free to provide the precise, in context, data you feel I'm leaving out. I've gone out of my way to try to provide as much context as possible, while also simultaneously providing substantial further reading on the topic as well - all from online accessible 'objective' third party sources, as opposed to for instance a news article / opinion piece / blog. I'd strongly recommend that series from PBS. It is phenomenally informative, well researched, and interesting.
From my perspective you seem to be trying to rebuke data by yourself ironically playing quite fast and loose with sourceless data and conclusions. For instance you imply that because people elected politicians that supported slavery, people must therefore have liked or supported slavery. I take it you support, or think it's justified, killing hundreds of thousands in the Mideast in wars waged primarily over oil and geopolitical control? What, how could you not? Every single politician America has elected for the past several decades has been all about this, so surely most Americans must support it? Again if you can provide objective data and facts, with so much context as possible, I'd love to discuss these - but I have little interest in facile speculation.
I think our entire worldview should be shaped by facts. To do otherwise would be to appeal to misconceptions, bias, and prejudice. As a consequence of this there is literally no scenario in which I would consider the submission of facts and data to be unacceptable. Language policing is one of the first step towards moving into a world where facts themselves begin to be unacceptable. In all of the worst examples of fascism and oppression in the past one of the first things to go is the ability for people to speak freely. Consequently, any time I see somebody attempting to police language - I am certain to go sharply in the opposite direction regardless of my personal views on the issue at hand. As for what that makes you think of me? Well let's put it this way, on a scale of 0 to 100, how much do you care about what I think of you? Now why would you expect it to be any different for me?
> If I've "cherry picked" data
...
> trying to rebuke data
What data did I rebuke? I'm addressing that you chose to not only distract from the actual issue at hand, but also chose to bring up specific true-but-200-years-afterwards facts. Your selection of those outside facts is the cherry-picking. You claimed to do this to prevent over-simplification but instead commit it yourself by raising what is at best nihilism and has the effect of promoting racism.
> For instance you imply that because people elected politicians that supported slavery, people must therefore have liked or supported slavery
Supported, certainly. Slavery wasn't a small issue, it was forefront, as demonstrated by the many high-profile compromises and conflicts, and that it ultimately led to a civil war, as seen in the very declarations of succession and surrounding language. Such views and actions at such a scale don't just happen, they are either accepted or resisted.
> I take it you support, or think it's justified, killing hundreds of thousands
I do not, but I believe the country as a whole de facto declared that they did. And yes, while I was against that particular topic and spoke up and voted accordingly, there are many actions I take that support and sustain actions that I vocally claim to be opposed to. That my actions belie my words and conclusions does not make may words and conclusions incorrect - it points out a level of hypocrisy. Rather than declaring that because I'm sometimes a hypocrite there is no point in judging my actions or those of others, I'm saying that we must continue to push to improve. Wrong does not become Right just because I've done it.
But I don't want to lose the topic: your original post which spent 50% of it's content talking about slavery in Africa today. This is no more relevant to if "just 5 years" was appropriate than the mating habits of the fruit fly, but unlike such trivia you chose matters that would place a negative connotation on Africa and Africans.
> I think our entire worldview should be shaped by facts.
This is a misleading statement - where did I say otherwise? The issue is not what facts exist, but why you chose to raise these particular facts in this particular context.
> Language policing is one of the first step towards moving into a world where facts themselves begin to be unacceptable.
How are you not performing an equal amount of "language policing"? Your reasoning applies equally to the language you were objecting to. I doubt you believe that 5 years of slavery is inconsequential, you're saying it's much less than a lifetime. The above poster was implying that 5 years of slavery is very consequential compared to a a lifetime without slavery. He/she objected to the implication of word choice, you objected to the implication that the word choice was inaccurate.
> Well let's put it this way, on a scale of 0 to 100, how much do you care about what I think of you? Now why would you expect it to be any different for me?
What is the point of defending free speech if you don't care how your words are taken? On scale of 0 to 100, if a total stranger pointed out that my words promote racism, my concern is much closer to 100 than not. Is it different for you?
In summary:
1) Author said "just 5 years" of slavery
2) A poster expressed disagreement with the implication that 5 years of slavery should be dismissed as not a big deal, obviously comparing it to not being a slave ever
3) You expressed disagreement with the idea that the victims wouldn't have been slaves of some sort anyway, and thus the author's language was accurate. You also brought up that slavery exists in Africa today.
4) I expressed that your choice to bring up that second point promotes the feeling that because slavery happens we should not be upset by it
5) You defended your choice because facts are involved and because free speech is important
This is not an issue of if facts are valid - MANY facts are valid but not relevant to the topic at hand. This is not an issue of free speech - both sides are arguing over what language was appropriate, and I have no objection to discussing modern slavery when we're discussing modern slavery.
This is an issue that you made a choice to bring up certain facts _outside the topic_ and I questioned the purpose of doing so. The negative results from your actions come not from knowing any particular facts, but from attaching those facts-outside-the-topic to the topic, which is very misleading.
Expressing dismay out at the audacity of somebody to even dare state something, as opposed to stating why either it's wrong in the case of a fact or why you disagree in case of an opinion, is language policing. In other words it is attacking the choice of language, instead of discussing or debating the view itself. Note the person who started this line of discussion chose to immediately go ad hominem on the author instead of provide rationale for why their personal opinion was that 'just' understates the issues in play.
I have no concern for what people think facts "promote." Give the same information to different people and they will come to different conclusions. Ultimately facts are what inform our opinions. When you believe something may promote some opinion or another, you should consider the fact that you may likely be projecting. People interpret things differently. For instance let's take another controversial example, but one that also brings the issue down to its most fundamental level. Imagine somebody states that blacks make up 38% of the prison population, yet only 13% of the US population. This is very true. However, it's also true that that same 13% of the population also commits more than 52% of all the murders in the nation, along with similar over representation in most forms of crime.
Rather than trying to cherry pick data to lead people in one direction or the other, I think it is important that all facts are considered - even when we might consider those facts as less than pleasant. In my example here, both facts are very likely to mislead without the context of the other. And if either fact were presented without the context of the other, I would fully agree with you about 'cherry picking' facts. When I asked you to provide any relevant facts I may have omitted after you claimed I was 'cherry picking data', you failed to be able to provide a single one.
--
As a sort of meta comment. Line by line quoting tends to create somewhat scattered and disparate logic, made even worse with paraphrasings. Try to think of things holistically and I think you might be able to express yourself more clearly if you're perhaps expressing some nuanced view I'm still too dense to perceive.
Facts don't require justification. Which and where and when one chooses to provide them might well require justification. Just as you are questioning the above poster's selection of facts to present, I often question when someone chooses to say "but what about X" whenever an issue is brought up, as if X changes the issue actually under discussion.
> Regardless of the above, I'll indulge you
Quite generous of you. Without sarcasm, I will truly try to understand you, though I do not agree that we cannot/should judge events, because our actions are all we can control, and without judging their quality how can we evaluate future ones?
> many people in society are starting to view things as caricaturizations of reality
You believe this is a new and/or increasing trend? I won't deny over-simplistic viewpoints and even that there are areas that are having more of an issue with this than in recent history, but I'm not willing to declare this to be out of historical norms. For all that, say, US politics is more bitter than in recent decades, we can't ignore politicians committing violence upon each other (including in the US) or even such dramatic incidents such as the Great Defenestration, all of which I assume involved a great amount of hero/villain perspectives. Per my previous concern these examples do not make such over-simplifications suddenly complex, but it does stand to show this is not new.
> [ a great deal of material supporting the concept that modern slavery exists and that psychic/statistical numbing and compassion fatigue exist]
> The point of this all is that I think if people were more aware of reality, and understood that the line between good and evil is far closer than any of us would like to admit, that we'd be much more inclined to concern ourselves with actual events and happenings - instead of taking faux offense at somebody using the word 'just' in a way you find offensive.
So your point was solely to argue that we should think that 5 years of slavery is NOT a big deal? Your rationale appears to be in your previous post:
> These individuals were doomed to enslavement for their entire life, one way or the other
I understood the article's use of "just" to be a relative term, but I also understand that 5 years of slavery is a big deal, EVEN IF they would have been slaves anyway. Because while I do indeed practice a great deal of selfishness, doing so does not mean I should deny charity to anyone. A wrong does not justify a wrong, and a wrong certainly does not justify that we stop trying for right at all.
The facts you have chosen to present seem cherry-picked to distract from the actual point of the discussion. You've expended a great deal of effort to only say that the phrase "just 5 years" is apt. If we acknowledge that good/evil (however we define it) is a spectrum and not a fine line as you claim is your desire and that 5 years as a slave is unarguably better than a lifetime as a slave, you've not addressed either the (presumed) actual reason behind the above poster's reaction (that being that a slave for 5 years should not be minimized), nor have you addressed my points about how the timing and choice of facts you present serve to convey the message that US slavery was fine.
Take, for example, how you carefully select statistics to argue that relatively few US citizens owned slaves. But you don't address the large population of citizens that supported it, that elected politicians that made it a large national division from literally the founding of the country through the civil war and it's aftermath, then through Jim Crow, redlining, all the way to All Lives Matter. If slavery was merely a rich man's issue, why did non-slave owning people accept it on it's face as opposed to requiring the distance and plausible deniability we (mostly) do today? Was it Lee that captured and conscripted free black people, or was it his non-rich troops? (Plenty of problems in the North - I'm not trying to deny that, I'm addressing your choice of facts)
Absolutely it is inaccurate to think in black or white, and it's wrong to feel we are morally superior and/or without error. It is likewise wrong to use our own flaws as an excuse to have more flaws, and it is wrong to ignore the results of our actions. In this case, I'm seeing your actions as downplaying and distracting from the problems of slavery, the historical brutality of these particular incidence, and as placing a reaction to a potential downplay as more important than other aspects of the issue, all under a guise of warning of the perils of over-simplifying.
That's my impression, with no opinion on whether you are doing so intentionally or innocently. I can be mistaken - it would be ironic of me to over-simplify either your intentions or the effects of your choices. If I am mistaken, please grant me a little more indulgence and explain how. At the moment, regardless of the accuracy of my conclusions, I am not getting the message you say you are trying to send, for I fully acknowledge our many moral failings and the messy complicated details of human interactions, particularly when it comes to those who are being victimized by multiple nations, and yet agreeing that life is not as simple as good or evil has not modified my opinion of the above poster's reaction to "just 5 years" as reasonable, if likely not reflecting the intention of the author. Considering 5 years of slavery to still be bad is not "faux offense", that is attempting to acknowledge a fact.