rphilos

TakeruK, there is a moral dimension to this that isn't captured by the fear of flying analogy. We are talking about whether someone is justified in fearing 63 million people (the people who voted for Trump) based on incorrect information. As I suggested to someone else in this thread, suppose someone claims to fear Jewish control of the government. In saying that he fears Jewish control, the person is painting a group of people (Jews) in a negative light. I think it would be fair to ask him to explain why he has this fear, to justify smearing a group of people. If he cites facts that I think are false, I would present him with information that I believe is correct. There may be some cases where "being logical and correct is not mutually exclusive with being presumptuous and arrogant," as you say, but this does not seem to be such a case.

TakeruK, your case 2 is not analogous to my exchange with DBear. The following would be analogous: Person A: I'm afraid of flying on airplanes. Person B: Why are you afraid of flying on airplanes? Person A: I am afraid because I believe that airplanes are more dangerous than driving. Person B: If that's why you don't like flying on airplanes, your fear is unjustified because airplanes are safer than cars. TakeruK to Person B: "It's a little presumptuous to go around telling strangers to not worry about X....So, why don't we let each person decide for themselves what to worry about?"

stereopticons: (1) A blog is an empirical source if it has empirical information on it. (2) It is a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument because of it's source (or because it is a "blog"). (3) Reason is a print newspaper, not a blog. (4) If you read the article, you would see that it discusses what's wrong with the SPLC report.

TakeruK, I don't understand--are you saying that I'm not supposed to disagree with someone who is a stranger? If I disagree with a stranger then I am guilty of presuming that they didn't consider what I'm saying? Can't I say exactly the same thing when you disagree with me? Suppose someone says that he is afraid of flying on airplanes, and because of this fear he travels by car whenever possible. Then I would point out that, per mile, flying on an airplane is much safer than driving in a car. I would say this even though I am not "living [his] life" or experiencing his irrational fear.

stereopticons: (1) When I claimed that there was no uptick in hate crimes, I linked to a source with empirical data. (2) DBear did not say that she had experienced racism in the US after Trump's election--she is currently in Korea. So I did not deny her experience. (3) Clearly, certain concerns are not valid. If someone says that he is concerned (e.g.) that Jews are controlling the government, he needs to provide evidence to justify this. Otherwise, we would say that his "concern" is morally unjustified. Similarly, if someone claims to have "fears" or "concerns" about 63 million Trump voters, they should provide evidence to justify those feelings.

@TakeruK, please read the thread more carefully. I did not presume to know what a stranger has to worry about. I asked DBear what she was worried about--why she would feel she would need to be more vigilant of her surroundings in the light of Trump's election. She responded by saying that there has been an uptick in hate crimes against people of color, and she feels that she would be an easy target as an Asian female. I pointed out that (1) there has not been an uptick in hate crimes and (2) hate crimes against Asians are overwhelmingly not committed by Trump voters. I would encourage you, as an Asian, to reconsider whether liberals or conservatives care more about your "basic human rights." I went to one of the most liberal colleges in arguably the most liberal city in the US. Hate crimes were regularly committed by blacks against Asians. The liberals on campus always refused to recognize these as "hate crimes" no matter how obvious it was that race was a factor. When an Asian student was chased into the street and killed (by a black person), there was an article in the student newspaper saying that we shouldn't judge the perpetrator harshly, and he didn't really mean to do what he did. One night a group of blacks walked down the street attacking every Asian they came across, and the liberals refused to call it a hate crime.

@mushkratsam, according to police the University of Washington shooter was an Asian man who said he fired in self-defense. According to some sources the shooter said he thought the guy he shot was a white supremacist. Do you know any details about this that haven't been reported?

Hi @DBear I think it's very questionable that there has been an uptick in hate crimes since Trump's election. See here. I grew up and went to college in a very liberal city in a very liberal state in the US. I know of dozens of anti-Asian hate crimes committed at or around my college, including one that led to a death (several years ago a young Asian student was chased into the street and hit by a car). 100% of these crimes were committed by black people, 0% by conservative Republicans. I don't think you need to worry about the typical Trump voters.

DBear, 대전에서 인사드립니다. If you don't mind me asking, why would you "be more vigilant and aware of [your] surroundings" in light of Trump's election?

andrewlavignio, describing Trump as a "living rape whistle" implies that he is a rapist. There are no credible accusations of rape against him. As an aspiring philosopher you should recognize that it is wrong to make unsupported accusations against someone just because you don't like him.

Hi DharmaBum25, I have a BA and MA in philosophy and was accepted to a decent PhD program. My undergraduate GPA was similar to yours and my verbal GRE was 170. Over several years I've known many people who went through the application process, I've interacted with faculty members involved in admissions at multiple schools, and (to help with my own applications) I studied all the relevant information that's publicly available. With all due respect to Square49, I think he/she does not know the situation in philosophy. (Square49's field is criminal justice.) He/she refers you to the stats for Duke's PhD program (ranked 24 in the US). For the last three years, the average verbal GRE scores of matriculating PhD students were 164, 168, and 168. But note that these are the averages, not the medians. It's quite possible that almost everyone scores in the 167-170 range. There were 6 matriculating students last year when the average was 164. 1 of these was an underrepresented racial minority and 1 was an international student, so possibly not a native English speaker. A possible distribution of scores could have been 170, 168, 168, 166, 158, 156. Of course I don't know if that was the distribution. My point is that the statistics published by Duke don't disprove the claim (not invented by me) that many programs have a cutoff of ~166 for white/Asian native English speakers. The fact that your grades got better over time will definitely help you. I remember a few schools asked only for my GPA the last 2 years at college, although most just wanted overall/major GPA. Still you will face some discrimination because of your freshman grades--it's unfair, but that's the way it is. I still disagree with Square49 that you would get into somewhere like UC Davis (ranked 42 in the US) "without much doubt," but with very good letters of recommendation and writing sample I believe you have a shot. Whether going to a place like UC Davis is a good idea depends on what your ambitions in philosophy are.

Six years ago there was a discussion on Leiter Reports about whether schools have an unofficial verbal GRE cutoff ~700, which would correspond to 166 on the current scoring system. Whether or not some places have a true cutoff, even low-ranking MA programs definitely expect native English speakers to get a high verbal score. A GPA in philosophy of 3.7 (is your overall GPA lower?) will also work against you. It would help your application if you get all A's this and next semester. Frankly, unless there's something extraordinary about your application that you didn't mention, or unless you're a member of an underrepresented racial minority (not including Asian), I think you are unlikely to get into any PhD program with these stats. Probably you should retake the GRE. Getting a masters before applying for a PhD might be a good idea.