SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

Wow. Just, wow.
NDD hasn't really been on my radar before this thread, but I've never seen anybody walk into his own pit thread and so thoroughly confirm the reasons for the pitting. What a fucking racist asshole. Go back to 1960, moron.

In 1960 it was still possible to believe that inferior black intellectual performance and higher rates of crime and illegitimacy were due to racial discrimination. Two generations after the civil rights legislation was signed, and after vast sums of tax money have been spent on anti poverty programs and efforts like No Child Left Behind to bridge the race gap it is much more difficult for one to really believe this.

That is why so much anger is directed at me and at any one who tells the truth. We are like the boy who shouts, "The Emperor has not clothes!"

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by jlzania

And I have evidence that white males have crashed the economy and started
wars.

It takes more intelligence to have enough economic power to crash the economy to have the political power to start wars than it does to turn a thriving white working class neighborhood into an asphalt jungle of crime and moral depravity.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

How was Professor Rushton discredited? Where is the evidence that he is mistaken?

Every publication he's ever put out was systematically dismantled in its turn; he then waits a few years and puts out another. It's how he makes his living, by getting money from people like you.

Even a cursory Google search will turns up scores of academic papers that tear Rushton's work apart; I find it impossible to believe you are not aware of this.

http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.ca...blog-post.html
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...on-rushton.pdf

Hell, just follow the links from the Wikipedia entry.

For that matter, I find it impossible to believe an intelligent person reading "Race, Evolution and Human Behaviour" cannot see in it a wide swath of methodological problems.

[orcenio]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

That is why so much anger is directed at me and at any one who tells the truth. We are like the boy who shouts, "The Emperor has not clothes!"

It's actually more like a dog howling at the moon. The dog doesn't know any better (cuz it's just a stupid dog), but it still annoys those around him.

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

What liberals cannot do is prove that blacks on the average are as intelligent as whites.

As a good scientist I am always willing to engage.

Why do yo think this is genetic difference and not a result of socioeconomic circumstance and/or cultural differences especially in regard to the value of education?

It seems to me, even if there was a true genetic difference, which I acknowledge is a possibility, there exists no sufficiently homogeneous group across 'race boundaries' re: socioeconomics, culture, and values that would allow for such a genetic difference to be reliably teased out by peer-reviewed science.

I think you might be confusing the confounding factors as something you want to believe. (a true genetic difference). I don't think the science is there, but may be wrong. Cite me some papers, i'll read them.


for the pit: Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

[jlzania]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

It takes more intelligence to have enough economic power to crash the economy to have the political power to start wars than it does to turn a thriving white working class neighborhood into an asphalt jungle of crime and moral depravity.

That's supposed to be a justification? Wouldn't the assumption be that if you have the intelligence to rise to a position of power you would also have the economic acumen not to sell toxic mortgages?
Do you think these men staggeringly incompetent or just immoral?

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

What liberals cannot do is prove that blacks on the average are as intelligent as whites.

Certainly not without clear definitions of 1) "intelligence" and 2) "black" and "white".

Surely someone relying on such scientifically rigorous research will be able to do so, no?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by typoink

the yucky etymology of the term

Simply for the record, there is no 'yucky etymology'. It comes from the categorical split between the Orient and the Occident. It really just means "eastern". We don't use it because people find it offensive, but the idea that there's anything actually wrong with the term is just dumb.

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by orcenio

It's actually more like a dog howling at the moon. The dog doesn't know any better (cuz it's just a stupid dog), but it still annoys those around him.

A dog with a bone.

NDD really is in the realm of conspiracy theory. Similar to the "Moon Landing is a Hoax" crowd, some nutter wrote a book and it all made sense to their soft squishy brains. Once infected, they vigorously defend their nonsense as the one true faith. All of the external invalidation only makes them hold on tighter.

They never take a moment to consider that their theory:

1. May actually be not exactly correct and all these other folks might have a point
2. Is really not getting traction externally and maybe they should keep it to themselves
3. Is frankly a non-starter - Why does the theory deserve such intense advocacy? What do they win if they do "win the argument" after all?

Honestly, NDD, move on. I'm sure it makes you feel superior and is tied up in your self esteem to think that those people are lower than you, and those other people are lower than them. But wisdom comes from realizing every human has value and strengths and weaknesses, that is part of what makes us human. Take a look in the mirror and make an inventory of where you fit in next to everyone else, likely it is smack dab in the middle - just like everyone else.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

That is why so much anger is directed at me and at any one who tells the truth. We are like the boy who shouts, "The Emperor has not clothes!"

You're misunderstanding the reason why so many people are saying "wow, what a dick."

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Even a cursory Google search will turns up scores of academic papers that tear Rushton's work apart; I find it impossible to believe you are not aware of this.

http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.ca...blog-post.html

I wonder if you read this article yourself, or if you found it and threw it at me.

------------

The idea that the average intelligence of Africans is severely decreased relative to that of people in other parts of the world simply does not accord with the experience of people who have worked on or even visited that continent...

Africanist archaeology itself for a long time shared many of those assumptions, particularly expressed by an unwillingness to accept evidence for indigenous African cultural advance...

African history is entirely comparable to that of other regions and other continents in terms of the human capabilities that it evokes...

This implies African domestication of millet, sorghum and cowpea during the fifth millennium BP. This is certainly later than was the case in many other areas of the world...

The picture provided by African archaeological data is entirely incommensurate with claims by Rushton and his colleagues that African populations suffer severe cognitive deficits or other behavioural disadvantages when compared with human populations from Europe and Asia...

Examination of archaeological data on the culture history of African populations, and comparison of those data with data from other parts of the world, yields no evidence for the behavioural and cognitive disparities claimed by Rushton. African cultural history is entirely comparable with that of other regions of the world.
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.ca...blog-post.html

------------

The author maintains that the performance of blacks in Africa in the economy belies the assertion that their average IQ is 70. Most businesses in Africa, even small businesses are operated by people form outside the area. This is also true in the United States. Small shops, grocery stores, and so on are usually owned and operated by immigrants.

The author also maintains that the archaeological record of sub Saharan Africa does not indicate intelligence differences with other races. Agriculture began ten thousand years ago in the Near East. Whites began it. Civilization began five thousand years ago in the Near East. Whites began it. The Bantu may have begun agriculture four thousand years ago, but they never created a civilization in any way equivalent to those in Mesopotamian and Egypt, or even in the New World.

The Bantu did build towns with brick and stone buildings, but they never developed their own systems of writing and mathematics the way the Mayans did in the New World. They adopted iron age technology about two and a half thousand years ago, but they learned if from the Nubians, who learned it from the Egyptians.

Professor Rushton does seem to give too much importance to living in a cold climate. The Neanderthals lived in Europe during several ice ages, but they were less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

The 10,000 Year Explosion, which I reviewed here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=605733

Attributes the superior intelligence of whites and Orientals to many more thousands of years of experience with agriculture than Negroes have, and to several thousand years of urban civilization.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You're misunderstanding the reason why so many people are saying "wow, what a dick."

That is all they can say. They cannot demonstrate that blacks behave and perform as well as whites. Nor can they explain why, over four decades after the civil rights legislation was signed, there has not been more of a racial convergence in rates of crime, illegitimacy, and academic performance. The argument that it is the fault of whites that blacks are what they are is becoming less plausible. Optimistic assessments of black potential have had to be postponed.

[Harmonix]

Everything you just quoted speaks nothing to genetic differences.

Stop using circumstantial 'evidence' and cite some peer reviewed articles.

Preferably ones on genetics or genomics.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Harmonix

Everything you just quoted speaks nothing to genetic differences.

Stop using circumstantial 'evidence' and cite some peer reviewed articles.

Preferably ones on genetics or genomics.

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

That statement is not verifiable by hard science.

Try again.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

You are a moron.

[orcenio]

That is why so much anger is directed at me and at any one who tells the truth. We are like the boy who shouts, "The Emperor has not clothes!"

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

You stomp your feet and make non-stop racist declarative statements in every thread you post. AND you call us close minded?

*sigh* What to do with the shrill, deaf, and blind preachers of truth™? Honestly. What?

[Harmonix]

Originally Posted by new deal democrat

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

again, this statement is not verifiable by hard science.

Try something like,

Originally Posted by fake paper abstract that would prove your point

We conducted whole genome sequencing studies of of each putatitve race and stratified the results by 3 socioeconomic class and controlled using surveys to assess the groups value system on education, on intellectual discourse, on criminal behavior, on morality.

What we found are biomarkers with predictive power which correlate across race groups as well as INTRA-race with regard to socioeconomic class and criminal behavior without regard correlation to culture and value systems

[Harmonix]

You have repeatedly made a genetics claim.

It's only fair that you provide genetics based proof.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by LavenderBlue

I approve of this pitting. Of course I'm lavender and blue so I wonder what race New Deal Democrat believes me to be?

Smurf subvariant?

[Sattua]

I applaud this pitting and encourage olives to start more threads about other Dopers in the future.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

What liberals cannot do is prove that blacks on the average are as intelligent as whites.

That's because we don't have to. Black people do test lower than white people on IQ tests. Thing is, that's not your argument. You have to prove that the difference is genetic in origin. We very much have proven that this is highly unlikely.

Also, way to use liberal as an insult. You are supposedly a New Deal Democrat. The New Deal was liberal.

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

This is as perfect an example of begging the question as one is likely to find. It's like it came straight out of the common fallacies chapter of a logic textbook.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's because we don't have to. Black people do test lower than white people on IQ tests. Thing is, that's not your argument. You have to prove that the difference is genetic in origin. We very much have proven that this is highly unlikely.

Also, way to use liberal as an insult. You are supposedly a New Deal Democrat. The New Deal was liberal.

Spoken just like a liberal.

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

Speaking as an actual scientist-in-training, who is even now reading this nonsense when I should be scoring microscope slides I made to collect data for a real scientific paper, I can say without reserve that no it fucking well is NOT.

What you describe is a collection of anecdotal accounts, collected by unscientific methods, reflecting - like ALL such collections, regardless of topic - a massive amount of inbuilt biased. Data collection is important, and it must be done correctly, scientifically, as carefully as possible in order to get meaningful results. There's not a scientist alive that wouldn't laugh you off the stage if you made this statement at a conference, even if you were talking about, say, the color of the sky rather than race.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

For too long the word "racist" has been used to inhibit a candid, public discussion of black social pathology and the durability of the race gap in academic performance.

It also comes in incredibly handy for identifying racists.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

In 1960 it was still possible to believe that inferior black intellectual performance and higher rates of crime and illegitimacy were due to racial discrimination. Two generations after the civil rights legislation was signed, and after vast sums of tax money have been spent on anti poverty programs and efforts like No Child Left Behind to bridge the race gap it is much more difficult for one to really believe this.

In March it was still possible to believe that New Deal Democrat's inferior debate performance and higher rates of error and illogicality were due to forum mockery. Two months after repeated reiterations of refuted arguments, it is much more difficult to believe this.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I've heard the etymology of the term given as referring to "the Latin word oriens meaning "east", and as a reference to the archaic custom of hanging maps east side up, so that east was where the map was "oriented". Neither strikes me as especially "yucky".

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Simply for the record, there is no 'yucky etymology'. It comes from the categorical split between the Orient and the Occident. It really just means "eastern". We don't use it because people find it offensive, but the idea that there's anything actually wrong with the term is just dumb.

Eymologically speaking, "Asian" is the same as "Oriental" -- Anatolia is east of Greece, so they called it Asia, "the East."

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

So there's a universal belief throughout history that black people are inferior?

Then why are you in the middle of a thread where everyone is telling you you're wrong?

All you have is a consensus of you and your fellow racists.

Here's what I said in the previous pit thread and it's still true:

If I can get serious for a minute, you're still missing the essential flaw of your whole line of reasoning. You're assuming that any feelings you or anyone else has must have a valid cause. You're assuming that because you're scared of black people, black people must be dangerous; that because you don't trust black people, they must be deceitful; that because you don't respect black people, they must be inferior.

The reality is that it's you who is the problem. Your feelings are irrational and do not say anything about black people in general, even though you can certainly find some individuals who match your stereotypes.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

In 1960 it was still possible to believe that inferior black intellectual performance and higher rates of crime and illegitimacy were due to racial discrimination. Two generations after the civil rights legislation was signed, and after vast sums of tax money have been spent on anti poverty programs and efforts like No Child Left Behind to bridge the race gap it is much more difficult for one to really believe this.

That is why so much anger is directed at me and at any one who tells the truth. We are like the boy who shouts, "The Emperor has not clothes!"

Liberals call for a "dialogue on race," but they have done everything possible to inhibit an honest dialogue. What they want is a monologue, with them doing the talking, and whites listening shame faced like children who have done what they know is wrong.

All true, but you're like a guy who wanders into a Church picnic and points out that there really isn't much evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

The main differences are that (1) modern Christians tend to be a lot less nasty than Leftists when it comes to those who question their dogma; and (2) most modern Christians are reasonable enough to admit that their beliefs are a matter of faith -- they don't insist that their beliefs have been scientifically proven or that anyone who doesn't accept their beliefs is stupid or evil or both.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Originally Posted by LavenderBlue

Of course I'm lavender and blue so I wonder what race New Deal Democrat believes me to be?

Dilly-Dilly?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

For too long the word "racist" has been used to inhibit a candid, public discussion of black social pathology and the durability of the race gap in academic performance.

What word would you prefer?

[orcenio]

Originally Posted by brazil84

All true, but you're like a guy who wanders into a Church picnic and points out that there really isn't much evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

The main differences are that (1) modern Christians tend to be a lot less nasty than Leftists when it comes to those who question their dogma; and (2) most modern Christians are reasonable enough to admit that their beliefs are a matter of faith -- they don't insist that their beliefs have been scientifically proven or that anyone who doesn't accept their beliefs is stupid or evil or both.

But...racists are stupid. Quite stupid.

They also do a REALLY bad job promoting their views.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by brazil84

All true, but you're like a guy who wanders into a Church picnic and points out that there really isn't much evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

The main differences are that (1) modern Christians tend to be a lot less nasty than Leftists when it comes to those who question their dogma; and (2) most modern Christians are reasonable enough to admit that their beliefs are a matter of faith -- they don't insist that their beliefs have been scientifically proven or that anyone who doesn't accept their beliefs is stupid or evil or both.

However, as you know:

1) Non-racists != "Leftists." Few leftists are racists, but most non-racists are not leftists.

2) Racism is only the belief-system under discussion here depending on "faith". The burden of proof is properly on the racists.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

However, as you know:

1) Non-racists != "Leftists." Few leftists are racists, but most non-racists are not leftists.

I'm not sure what you mean by "racists," "non-racists," and "Leftists." For me, one of the basic principles of Leftism is the "egalitarian hypothesis," i.e. the claim that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups.

You are of course free to offer your own definition.

2) Racism is only the belief-system under discussion here depending on "faith". The burden of proof is properly on the racists.

Given that the overwhelming evidence shows the Leftist position to be false, it's the Leftist position which relies upon faith at this point.

[fumster]

I think what NDD says should be self evident: when Europeans peacefully sailed into non-white territories to lay claim to the natural resources that God had provided for them, they encountered people that were much more prone to criminal activity than white people were.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by brazil84

All true, but you're like a guy who wanders into a Church picnic and points out that there really isn't much evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

The main differences are that (1) modern Christians tend to be a lot less nasty than Leftists when it comes to those who question their dogma; and (2) most modern Christians are reasonable enough to admit that their beliefs are a matter of faith -- they don't insist that their beliefs have been scientifically proven or that anyone who doesn't accept their beliefs is stupid or evil or both.

Bullshit.
Death threats directed toward 16 year old atheist.
Thread on same

And this is no isolated incident.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I'm not sure what you mean by "racists," "non-racists," and "Leftists." For me, one of the basic principles of Leftism is the "egalitarian hypothesis," i.e. the claim that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups.

You are of course free to offer your own definition.

Waitaminnit, first thing, where the fuck are you getting that definition?! LW politics and thought had its origins in the practically monoracial environment of 18th- and 19th-Century Europe. It has nothing to do with race essentially, except that its moral and political premises are all about socioeconomic equality in general, and therefore mandate racial equality by most interpretations. (Most. Even without getting into "National Socialism" or the debate over whether it even deserves the s-word, I recall that in Australia in the 19th Century, the Socialist Party ran on a xenophobic Chinese-exclusion platform.) In any case, even WRT individuals or social classes within a racially homogeneous society, leftist thought does not depend on any presumption of equal genetic endowments, it never has.

Originally Posted by brazil84

Given that the overwhelming evidence shows the Leftist position to be false, it's the Leftist position which relies upon faith at this point.

Are you making an economic/political or a racial argument here? The first could perhaps still be maintained, but there is no "overwhelming evidence" of any genetically-determined differences between "racial" groups however defined.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Eymologically speaking, "Asian" is the same as "Oriental" -- Anatolia is east of Greece, so they called it Asia, "the East."

Yep.
For the record, I completely understand that Asian people find the term "oriental" to be very offensive, and I believe that it shouldn't be used for that reason. But I also think they're being damn silly to insist on that in the first place. Ah well.

[drew870mitchell]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I'm not sure what you mean by "racists," "non-racists," and "Leftists." For me, one of the basic principles of Leftism is the "egalitarian hypothesis," i.e. the claim that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups.

You are of course free to offer your own definition.



Given that the overwhelming evidence shows the Leftist position to be false, it's the Leftist position which relies upon faith at this point.

brazil84, or New Deal Democrat if you're so inclined as well, I have a question for you:

What was the journey of discovery for you to learn that certain races are inferior? Why did you get started reading racialist theories? Did you used to believe differently? What hypothesis did you set out with, and what facts convinced you your currently-held theory is true?

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by drew870mitchell

brazil84, or New Deal Democrat if you're so inclined as well, I have a question for you:

What was the journey of discovery for you to learn that certain races are inferior? Why did you get started reading racialist theories? Did you used to believe differently? What hypothesis did you set out with, and what facts convinced you your currently-held theory is true?

It all began one terrible night after an ill-fated trip to Red Lobster.

[olivesmarch4th]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

People do not get angry when beliefs they are confident of are questioned. People get angry when opinions they want to believe in, but privately doubt are exposed as prejudices with nothing behind them but hot air.

People also get angry when they see your archaic, delusional viewpoint and how it systematically oppresses others. You are actively harmful to people. Why wouldn't that piss me off?

Originally Posted by Sattua

I applaud this pitting and encourage olives to start more threads about other Dopers in the future.

I expected to feel guilty for starting this. Incidentally, I don't feel guilty at all.

[kidchameleon]

New Deal Democrat sure likes to wallow in the ignorance.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

My mind cannot be changed by yelling silly insults at me. Instead, prove that most blacks behave and perform as well as most whites.

I'm not sure what your point is. Why is it so important to point out that median black IQ is lower than median white IQ? Are you saying that we have so thoroughly eliminated racism that we no longer need affirmative action and that all the existing disparity between blakcs and whites is the result of disparities in IQ? Are you saying that the IQ gap means that there will be a persistent socioeconomic gap that cannot be bridged by government programs over the long run so we might as well let them wallow in poverty?

I don't for one second believe that we have eliminated racism to the point that even SOME academic affirmative action is no longer warranted. Frankly I would be perfectly fine with leaving the small number of affirmative action minority students in place and getting rid of the massive numbers of white students who underperform asian students.

I don't think our society is ready to revert bay to 19th century solutions for poverty. Perhaps you could convince me that the better policy for combatting poverty is 1996 style welfare reform in other areas but I simply have not been convinced that blacks are so dumb that they cannot aspire to self sufficient American mediocrity.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

That is why so much anger is directed at me and at any one who tells the truth. We are like the boy who shouts, "The Emperor has not clothes!"

The boy who shouted that the emperor has no clothes shouted something so obviously true that everyone immediately agreed. I don't know that your statements are quite as obviously true. Especially all that stuff about accelerated evolution over the last 10,000 years.

Originally Posted by jlzania

Do you think these men staggeringly incompetent or just immoral?

Some of these men are my best friends and they are not immoral so much as they are amoral. They do not really care that they are causing the destruction of $10 for every $5 they make so long as they make the $5. Their role in the marketplace does not demand that they consider the cost to society, only the cost to themselves. As a matter of fact I don't know that they would turn away from $5 profit even at the cost of $100 to society. The free market doesn not naturally internalize those costs.

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Yep.
For the record, I completely understand that Asian people find the term "oriental" to be very offensive, and I believe that it shouldn't be used for that reason. But I also think they're being damn silly to insist on that in the first place. Ah well.

I'm not sure why people are offended by the use of the term either except that it is so frequently used by people who mean offense.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In the et al. category, I offer a friendly amendment to include the more genteelly and less blatantly/honestly racist Chen019.

And now the not-so-genteel and very blatantly dishonest brazil84. I knew it was gonna show up here sooner or later.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I'm not sure what your point is. Why is it so important to point out that median black IQ is lower than median white IQ? Are you saying that we have so thoroughly eliminated racism that we no longer need affirmative action and that all the existing disparity between blakcs and whites is the result of disparities in IQ? Are you saying that the IQ gap means that there will be a persistent socioeconomic gap that cannot be bridged by government programs over the long run so we might as well let them wallow in poverty?

Of course that's what he's saying. That was the whole political point of The Bell Curve, remember? "Stop wasting time and money to improve those who cannot be improved," that's all it came down to.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Of course that's what he's saying. That was the whole political point of The Bell Curve, remember? "Stop wasting time and money to improve those who cannot be improved," that's all it came down to.

Genes matter.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Genes matter.

But race doesn't, not scientifically; it isn't real.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Waitaminnit, first thing, where the fuck are you getting that definition?! LW politics and thought had its origins in the practically monoracial environment of 18th- and 19th-Century Europe. It has nothing to do with race essentially,

I'm not going to waste time arguing semantics with you. I'm using the term "Leftist" in a certain way -- to mean a certain group of people on the political Left in the West today. One of the core beliefs of this group is the egalitarian hypothesis. If you want to refer to this group in some other way, feel free.

Are you making an economic/political or a racial argument here? The first could perhaps still be maintained, but there is no "overwhelming evidence" of any genetically-determined differences between "racial" groups however defined.

The overwhelming evidence indicates that the egalitarian hypothesis is wrong. I've outlined much of the evidence on a blog post elsewhere.

[Kolga]

Whenever I read nonsense like this, these two comics always come to mind. How people can ignore centuries of social differences and hinge everything on unproven genetics is beyond me.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by drew870mitchell

brazil84, or New Deal Democrat if you're so inclined as well, I have a question for you:

What was the journey of discovery for you to learn that certain races are inferior?

I'm not sure what you mean by "inferior," but assuming you mean differences in intelligence, for the most part it was my learning how to think critically, i.e. learning how to think rationally about issues without letting my own wishes and emotions color my judgment.

As I learned how to think critically, it became clear that the ridiculous explanations I had been taught for the various racial gaps were just that -- ridiculous.

Now I have a couple questions for you:

First, do you believe in the egalitarian hypothesis?

Second, if the egalitarian hypothesis were false to a small but significant extent, how would the world be different from the way it is today?

Third, would you rather live in a world where the egalitarian hypothesis were true or false?