It might be hard to remember, but there was a time when the SDMB was struggling with a racism problem. Perhaps it is better to say, a “race-realist” problem.
From about late 2008-2010 there existed a consistent weekly stream of postings touting the genetic intellectual inferiority of Black people, the careful misrepresentation/abuse of scientific writings by leading geneticists, the confident advocating of speculative 18th century racialism as the accepted consensus of the scientific community, coupled with wholesale historic revisionism in regards to any/all African countries (and other Black majority countries such as Haiti).
In retrospect, these posts were done in a classic white nationalist tradition that had previously dominated the political and societal musings of western countries for centuries, and continue to serve as the ideological meat of today’s Alt-right movement. Not all of the deeply committed posters who were pleading for a racial hierarchy of intelligence and a racial essentialist interpretation of modern genetics here would identify as white nationalists, but they never failed to advocate the ideas, adopt the terminology, take the historical perspective, and make the speculative forecasts of the most fringe of white nationalist sentiment.
This thread is a tribute to one such apocalyptic prediction, imploring the adoption of such views out of the 12 month inevitability of its arrival. I made a similar thread nine years ago demanding an update to what was supposed to be the “much feared revelations on human evolution and inequality between the classes/ethnicities/races” but was unironically met with more wait-n-see predictions (pull the other one, eh?). It’s important to look back and take stock on these tactics, because the core strategies of racialists never changes. Of course some people and posters move on, there’s always greener pastures to preach, but the same racialist theories always emerges reinvented as newly discovered, alarming, airtight, and imperative. Charles Murray, to-this-day, still unshamingly predicts a racialist scientific unveiling “within a few years”.
Haven’t you heard ? :rolleyes: It’s all about that Great Replacement now, which is totally happening any day now and/or if you project the highest immigration numbers into infinity, and anyway it’s really about culture and identity politics (and Them Jews) not race even if I call it white genocide.
Checkmate, antiracist smug.
Pedant hasn’t posted in over a year, Chen in two (although I think it was the exposure of his Holocaust denialist views that precipitated his ongoing abscence, not his views on race). A lot of the other “race realists” have joined the Banned. So I doubt you’ll get any defense of the idea here.
I was going to suggest an alternative, namely a poster who predicted circa 2009 that gay marriage would have vaguely negative effects on society some forty years after being legalized because the generation who grew up with it as normalized would view marriage as less “special” or something. He was vague on this point. Serious, but vague. Was never able to describe what warning signs we might see, but he was damn serious. And vague.
I was a little surprised to see he’s gone inactive, too, since March of 2019, his final post about how migrant labor wasn’t necessary to the American economy.
I like that by post #8 someone is calling BS on climate change while proclaiming a consensus on racist genetics. Let’s explore how close the climate scientists were after the hottest decade on record.
I can tell you what the real crisis is: If the geneticists do find something which is politically “hot” has a genetic component, absolutely none of them will be able to say a goddamned word about it because they’ll be harassed from now until the end of time. They might be murdered or, worse, lose all of their their grants and be forced into an early emeritus status.
Thinking genetics plays no role in human existence is idiotic.
Thinking genetics will validate 19th Century pseudoscience is idiotic.
Thinking some people are willing to hold both of those ideas in their heads simultaneously is the most idiotic thing of all.
Perhaps they’ll actually need to find ‘it’ instead of claiming that they did, or that ‘it’ is simply obvious and above proof, or that ‘it’ will be found in the near future, or that everyone needs to conform to their views of ‘it,’ or that pre-acceptance of ‘it’ is required in preparation to ‘its’ discovery, or that the reasons that ‘it’ isn’t apart of the current scientific discourse is political suppression of ‘it’ and ‘its’ proponents, or that the ethical issues surrounding advocating ‘it’ without proof are non-existent and unimportant, or that there doesn’t exist a long documented tradition of support for ‘it’ which was the ideological basis of most of the widely accepted horrors of western slavery/colonialism/genocide/oppression until a couple of decades ago (from which we continue to feel ‘its’ harmful effects -although not all of “us” equally).
However, the above haven’t (as of yet) caused any of the academic race-realist proponents to lose their tenured status. So perhaps it just might be a red herring.
First: The sensationalism doesn’t come from the scientists themselves. It comes from the science communicators, a bunch of people who take academic papers (which are written to be defensible on the basis of logic and evidence) and turn them into something the people who run media organizations think will get attention from other people who have training in media and very little else. In short, if the scientists find an interesting result in the energy levels observed in a particle accelerator, the media communicators will shout to the high heavens that they’ve just discovered a fifth fundamental force and will it cure cancer? We won’t say yes right now, but isn’t that a provocative question?
Second: I’m not talking about the “race realist” professors (should any exist) I’m talking about legitimate geneticists who happen to do work which could be spun by aforesaid media communicators into “IS RACE REAL? WAS HITLER LITERALLY RIGHT? CLICK THE FUCKING LINK! DO IT NOW!” kinds of measured, responsible communications with the mass public.
Sam Harris touched on this when discussing the recent discovery that modern humans are actually an admixture and typically have 1-2% of Neanderthal DNA from ancient crossbreeding except for humans whose lineage is all or virtually-all limited to Africa itself and thus have no ancestral contact with Neanderthals. Harris described how it could just have easily gone the other way and *Africans *might be the ones who are part Neanderthal. He described a hypothetical genetics researcher who discovers this and has to seriously consider whether or not to publish findings that would be seized upon by white supremacists as “proof” of black genetic inferiority and the researcher himself or herself subjected to accusations of racism by people who reject the concept not out of any scientific challenge but because the result is not politically correct.
As it is, it’s looking like the assumption that Neanderthals were relatively stupid or primitive compared to homo sapiens is misplaced or overblown - they might have been out-competed by sapiens (still unclear at best, though) but they were tool-using and had things gone just a little differently, this would be their planet now.
Harris is nevertheless wrong, since Neanderthal admixture doesoccur in Africa-limited lineages. Not as much, but that’s to be expected given locuses of H. sapiens/Neanderthal interaction. The notion of pre-colonial genetic separation of Africa from the rest of the world doesn’t hold up.
The irony in #9 is huge! Don’t get me involved though: Life is short; if I decide to go down another pointless rabbit-hole I certainly won’t ask SDMB for assistance.
Yes, and decaf coffee contains a fair amount of caffeine. Still, 0.5% is less than 2%, so “Harris is wrong” may be an extrapolation based on a non-standard view of arithmetic.
I wouldn’t characterise 0.1-0.3 % as “a fair amount” of anything.
As to Harris, no, he’s wrong - his whole point is that Out-of-Africa vs Africa is a bright line and if you reverse the situation you’ll get called a racist (and attract racists). That doesn’t really work as well if the amount of admixture is clinal.
And 0.5 vs 2% isn’t that huge a discrepancy. Less than one order of magnitude.
Well it is in the interests of writers to sell attention getting articles and the promise of big, upcoming, or earth shattering news does sells. However, I wouldn’t put all the blame on them. Often it benefits academics to overblow the importance or significance of their work in the hope of fortune, fame, and funding. Claims made before a reporter need not suffer the same scrutiny that a journal edited by their peers would, reporters can also reach a wider audience.
I can think of cases on both sides of that coin. JP Rushton would go to great lengths to popularize his racialist views to the media. While Nicholas Wade was infamously known to use his pulpit as a NY times science writer to racialize all scientific findings for years before an organized effort was made to publicly challenge his views.
Decaf coffee has about 5% or 10% the caffeine of regular coffee, according to Google.
I have no plan to read Harris’ writing. But I stand by my arithmetical claim: The only scenario in which 2% isn’t significantly more than 0.5% is one where it seems appropriate to approximate both numbers as Zero.
I’ve heard some racists claim that it’s the admixture of Neanderthal genes that makes white people superior. No matter what the facts are, racists are going to find some way to spin them to match their preconceived notions. Might as well publish the true facts, rather than letting them make up their own.
Certainly Harris is aware that the Neanderthal finding has been used by alt-right racialiststo support ideas of African inferiority. Despite this, the finding itself has been widely accepted and no credible voices have accused the primary researchers of racism. I wonder what he makes of this.
The “blacks are dumber” crowd have always relied on pseudoscience and dishonesty, on this board and elsewhere. Good thread to remind us of this, with the receipts!
ETA: And I bring that up only because it seems to fit with the general theme of the thread. Creating a sort of record of these posts, and how the board has trended over time.
