You are dehumanizing those of us who agree with The Bell Curve, and similar books.
Also, it is happening again. The policy implications of The Bell Curve are that we should de emphasize anti poverty programs, and put more criminals in prison. That is the direction we have been moving in since 1980. As a result, the crime rate has declined since 1980. From 1960 to 1970 the prison population declined, and the crime rate more than doubled.
Wow, really? That is some serious… I don’t even know what. Yes, being told that your pseudoscientific viewpoints are stupid is exactly the same as the blood libel or comparing black people to apes.
NDD, assuming that you are right and black people are less intelligent, does this not mean they should be given even more of a helping hand?
You say you’re a democrat; surely you should be arguing in favour of massively increased funding for anti-poverty programs and schools in poor, black-dominated areas?
Unless, of course, is your nature-nurture dial so far over to nature that you think no matter how much help they get on the nurture side, their situation is so hopeless so we should just give up on them entirely. Is this your position?
As a navel gazing philosophy major, I think you’ll find this paper on race by a philosopher interesting.
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=POS-2000.pdf
I’d also recommend this paper.
Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science: Race, IQ and Heritability, Philosophy of Science 67 (2000), pp.580-602.
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=POS-2000.pdf
If what Charles Murray says is “pseudo scientific” why is it such an accurate description of the real world?
Well, if you happen to choose to lower your intelligence by believing stuff that has been demonstrated to rely on false equivalencies, bad logic, and corrupt statistics because it makes you feel good, I would suggest that you are actually dehumanizing yourself.
The crime rate began to fall as the 18 - 35 year old male population in the U.S. fell and had nothing to do with putting more people in overcrowded jails, (generally for violations of drug laws that were worthless to society).
From 1980 to 2000 the prison population in the United States grew from 315,974 to 1,428,187. During this time the crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants declined from 5,950.0 to 4,124.8. By 2009 the crime rate declined even more to 3,465.5.
http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/lawenforcement/punishment.pdf
An additional factor reducing the crime rate was the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973. Females who have abortions are disproportionately poor, unmarried, and have low IQs. These are the same kind who give birth to boy babies who grow up to become criminals. The crime rate really began to decline in the early 1990s. A potential violent street criminal who was aborted in 1974 would have 18 in 1992.
Oops, here is the paper on race that I referred to above.
Those who advocate renewed efforts by the government to help blacks need to demonstrate how previous efforts succeeded. I do not think they can. Regardless of what they say in public most whites gave up on blacks a long time ago. The tax revolt was a draft riot against the war on poverty.
You’re a Tea Party guy?
I see no value in the Tea Party at all.
You’re despicable.
That post is what’s known as projection.
Just to clarify, you with the face, I’d be curious to hear your input on how we should deal with racism on the board. Although it might be more of an ATMB discussion.
One may smile and smile and be a villain. At least I’m sure it may be so on the SDMB.
This is the problem with a simple focus on a list of words as the basis for deciding what is objectionable. The most offensive things I’ve read on this board had nary a profanity, no direct epithets, and were not obviously “jerk”-ish.
It’s forbidden to call me a cunt, but suggest that as a white person I am in my heart racist (I’ve “written off black people”) and there’s nothing wrong with that.
I don’t want to censor speech - I like that someone like New Deal Democrat shows us what shit we may still get in our boot-treads these days. But I don’t like censoring any speech, including calling someone a cunt, because it then gives the impression of tacit endorsement to the lowest, most offensive and most despicable communications, as long as they don’t step over a simplistic content line.
Side note: Speaking of offensive, I saw Tropic Thunder on television over the weekend. “You went full-SPECIAL”? WTF? If you’re going to hack the humor out of something entirely, why not just cut the scene altogether?
I think it would help if we didn’t do what I’m complaining about in this thread: treating the word “racism” as if it’s a naughty word that only big fat meanies use, and scolding each other even in the Pit when someone calls a poster racist when they have a known history of calling blacks retarded (in so many words). Not only does this only encourage these idiots to be in denial, but it also helps make their views look much more socially acceptable to those on the fence.
It would also help if people could wise up and recognize anti-black bias when it’s bald-faced staring them in the face. Not trying to be mean, but there are a lot of supposedly smart people on this board who have no problems detecting prejudice when it’s directed toward gays, Jews, Latinos, white men, or women. But suddenly have someone create a thread that subtly (or even not so subtly) slams blacks, and if there’s enough pseudo-scientific words used or the OP is polite, that’s enough to fool people into thinking it’s a legit starting point for intellectual discussion. Rather than a platform for preaching prejudice and discrimination.
I’m not in the mood to go back and pull of every example of anti-black bias that is given wide berth on this board, and it’s not appropriate for this forum anyway. But the problem I’m talking about revolves around the culture of the board itself. And as with anything, there won’t be solutions if it’s only me and few others who sees that this problem exists. If you’re under the impression that anti-black bias is limited to the 3 posters being talked about the most in this thread, then you probably don’t see the problems I see.
This from a moderator? I call an outspoken, unapologetic racist despicable and you turn it back on me? Are you serious? You can’t be serious.
I think he was talking about the post to which you were responding. I did a double-take, too.
Oh thank God. I was about to lose my shit. But that does make sense.
Correlation is not causation. The bulk of your “evidence” is correlation.
There are other factors to consider.
http://www.precaution.org/lib/crime_trends_and_preschool_lead_exposure.070501.pdf
Just an example.
Chen, I fully plan to read that paper (by the way, … did you just send me the same paper three times? Seriously, I realize that it was published two different times, but it looks like that thing where they just barely rewrite the damn thing and then I have to read it twice because they didn’t think I’d notice). However, I just have to say: dude quotes Rushton? Are you fucking kidding me? He is a psychology professor who moved into evolutionary psychology, because you can say all sorts of stupid bullshit in that field and not even do real science! I have read that man’s r/K hypothesis paper, and the complete lack of actual scientific method in it is appalling. He horribly abuses statistics and his own casual observations to decide that things are just innate! without even considering other reasons why something may be so (like, say, CULTURE!).
Sigh, I used to think that ev psych could be an interesting field, and then I realized that they were mostly interested in reaffirming the status quo (at least, the loudest ones. I’m sure there are at least a few who do decent work). For example: it is popular in ev psych to claim that men have always been attracted to young, skinny women with big tits. This directly contradicts the finding that most societies where fat is a rarity tend to prize that in the ladies, plus tits are highly sexualized in the west in a way that borders on creepy, frankly, and it is certainly not a universal. I don’t know why I bother arguing, frankly, especially since most people on that side are very good at the whole projection thing (“you don’t believe me because you’re stuck on the status quo! you are blinded by your prejudices!”). But I am compelled, mostly because I don’t want to read about intensive agriculture anymore, and this is a way to procrastinate while feeling smart.