# Are you a racist? Warning signs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519 "2014-07-07T08:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/841 "2014-07-25T15:06:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You’re entitled to make that point of course, but you mixed into a discussion with someone else about the meaning of that particular survey. So your post was misleading, because from the context one might have thought that it too was about the meaning of that particular survey, while you’re now saying it was not. Just giving that survey the value it deserves, just about zero in a discussion like this. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t agree that experts in studying intelligence are the wrong people to use in an assessment of intelligence. And that is not what I’m saying, the survey, besides being flawed in other areas, is flawed like many other surveys (that use the same flaws as other psudoscientists out there) by not focusing on the ones that have to declare in the end if their opinion has a real basis, namely the biologists and genetic experts. It was good to see what the opinion the ones studying intelligence have regarding genes. Might as well do a survey requesting the opinion of meteorologists regarding climate science. And indeed that was done (meteorologists are not climate scientists and a good chunk of them got the climate science wrong), like with the current example the result is IMHO misleading and tailor-made to the ones opposing the current scientific consensus. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This cite shows the exact opposite of what you cited it for. What it shows is someone who objects to race differences on moral grounds getting nervous that perhaps inconvenient scientific facts will show up and be misused. Grasping at straws, do you really mean to say that we have the evidence? It shows precisely the current understanding among the experts, there may be some genetic component, but that is not here yet, and it would be reckless to apply any solutions based on that. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If anything, it’s a reason to distrust scientists who disavow genetic differences. > > This is about whether races are meaningful scientific concepts, which is not what we’re discussing here. Translation: You rather continue to wilfully ignore that you were wrong in assuming the current levels of agreement among the experts, they are not as divergent as you reported. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/842 "2014-07-25T15:06:45Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There is no “cause over all other possible causes” and no “the cause”. What’s significant - both in that survey and in these threads - is whether genetics might be a cause, not the cause, or cause above all other causes. And this doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said. There’s no evidence that points to genetics as more likely to be “a cause” than all the other causes. > [@](#): > > 1. Your bias is a lot more apparent. For one thing, your position is further from reality. This is complete nonsense, but you’re welcome to expand on this. You’ve been wrong about most of the other things you’ve assumed I’m claiming and arguing, so I’m not surprised at all that you’re probably way off here too. > [@](#): > > As noted, I don’t share CP’s conclusion that non-genetic factors can be ruled out as accounting for the entire difference, but I think that’s more of a judgment call, and is not as detached from reality as are the claims by you and others that there is zero basis for such a notion. You think there’s actual basis for the belief that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have _absolutely nothing_ to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap? Are you serious? > [@](#): > > In addition, I’ve not seen any indication that CP is a racist other than this one sole issue, while your objections to “racism” are far broader than this one issue. I’m quite certain I’ve never called him a racist either. And you say my objections to “racism” are broad as if this is somehow a bad thing. > [@](#): > > And there have been many many comments by you and others which indicate clearly that your position about the facts of this issue is intermingled with your moral concerns about its implications (e.g. post #780). It’s possible to claim a position on both the facts and the moral concerns of an issue. I think I’ve state pretty clearly my position on both in discussions in with both approaches have come up. > [@](#): > > In sum, while it’s possible that CP is motivated by racism, it’s completely certain that you are motivated by anti-racism. I won’t deny that a big part of my motivation on this topic is opposing racist claims (in addition to opposing poor science). Why is this interesting at all? Would this be surprising to anyone? > [@](#): > > By contrast, the idea that maybe some of these fine anti-racists might themselves be a bit motivated by something other than a rational assessment of the facts is something that has not been nearly as noted. By consistently only noting the ‘errors’ of one side of this argument, you certainly make yourself appear biased. You certainly don’t come across as a fair arbiter of the facts when you only criticize one side. Maybe you don’t care about this. > [@](#): > > As I’ve said before, I don’t relate to questions about whether things are “racist”. It depends on how you define “racist”, so you need to look in a dictionary or something. (If you really mean “do they prove that the claimant is a bigot?” or something like that, then you need to be more specific.) I _do_ relate to questions about whether things are “racist” because the massive role racism has played in our society. It’s both correct to criticize **CP** ’s claims (and similar claims) because they’re bad science _and_ because they’re racist claims. Do you have any feelings about the morality of making any claims at all? Is it immoral to try to convince people that the Holocaust didn’t happen? That white people should unite against people of color? Or are such concerns uninteresting to you? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/843 "2014-07-25T15:13:21Z")
Maybe I need to expand for **F-P** on what I mean by ‘no evidence that points to genetics as more likely to be “a cause” than all the other causes’, since he continually seem to misunderstand me. There are nigh-infinite possible causes for the ‘test-score gap’ – discrimination, poor nutrition, parasites, test-bias, genes, economics, etc. Through correcting for some small number of these causes, like economics, they can be eliminated as the cause for the remaining part of the gap. I suppose this strengthens all the other possible causes, including genetics (though, of course, studies like the Scarr study weaken the genetic explanation as a possible cause), but there isn’t a piece of evidence that points to “genetics” as _more likely_ than other explanations, except for the one(s) (like economics) which have already been corrected for. And most of these nigh-infinite number of causes _have not_ been corrected for. So there’s still no piece of evidence that points to “genes” that doesn’t also point to lots and lots of other causes with the same level of ‘strength’. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/844 "2014-07-25T15:50:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And this doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said. There’s no evidence that points to genetics as more likely to be “a cause” than all the other causes. I don’t know why you insist in tying yourself position in knots. Your “best explanation” has merely morphed here into “more likely”. The question is, “is there evidence that it is A cause”. You acknowledged before that there was. Do you stand by that assertion? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is complete nonsense, but you’re welcome to expand on this. You’ve been wrong about most of the other things you’ve assumed I’m claiming and arguing, so I’m not surprised at all that you’re probably way off here too. As someone who is reading the exchange, your position is not easily understood. You keep erecting straw men and couching statements in qualifiers like “best explanation”. While that can be important information, you use it to shroud your position when answering even direct questions in which an answer without such qualifiers would provide clearer insight into your position. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You think there’s actual basis for the belief that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have _absolutely nothing_ to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap? Are you serious? Can you point to where he said or implied this? This is yet another example of your straw manning. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And you say my objections to “racism” are broad as if this is somehow a bad thing. It is if it is _too_ broad. No? I realize you don’t think it is. But could someone be so concerned about racism that he saw it when it really wasn’t there? And if so, wouldn’t that be a bad thing? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s possible to claim a position on both the facts and the moral concerns of an issue. I think I’ve state pretty clearly my position on both in discussions in with both approaches have come up. I think **Fotheringay-Phipps’s** critique of your debate here was right on. You are too concerned with the moral implications to allow for genuine non-racist scientific inquiry. This is clear in every thread you’ve posted in about this topic. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > By consistently only noting the ‘errors’ of one side of this argument, you certainly make yourself appear biased. You certainly don’t come across as a fair arbiter of the facts when you only criticize one side. He does to me. Keep in mind that neither he nor I are agreeing with CP’s position. We merely think that you overstate the case for racism. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I _do_ relate to questions about whether things are “racist” because the massive role racism has played in our society. It’s both correct to criticize **CP** ’s claims (and similar claims) because they’re bad science _and_ because they’re racist claims. There you go again. If they’re bad science, do you really need any other route of attack? Attack the science and allow it to fall or stand on its own veracity. You’re insisting that such positions are necessarily racist puts you on shaky ground. very shaky, as it advertises that you are not as concerned with science or facts as your are about morality or motives. When your focus is on the latter two, as yours most definitely is, you can’t expect people to accept your critiques as detached and fair. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/845 "2014-07-25T16:06:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t know why you insist in tying yourself position in knots. Your “best explanation” has merely morphed here into “more likely”. They mean the same thing as I’m using them (the “best explanation” is also “more/most likely”). It’s true I’m using nuance… nuance is sometimes okay. > [@](#): > > The question is, “is there evidence that it is A cause”. You acknowledged before that there was. Do you stand by that assertion? If I acknowledged it (and I’d like to see what you mean), it was only in the sense that “there is evidence that there is a cause beyone economics, and genes are included as one possibility”. There is no evidence that points to genes as more likely than the other possibilities (i.e. no evidence that it is the “best explanation”). > [@](#): > > As someone who is reading the exchange, your position is not easily understood. You keep erecting straw men and couching statements in qualifiers like “best explanation”. While that can be important information, you use it to shroud your position when answering even direct questions in which an answer without such qualifiers would provide clearer insight into your position. I use these phrases to explain my position. The phrases have only changed as I’ve found different ways to better state what I mean. There is no genetic evidence at all that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, and no non-genetic evidence at all that points to this conclusion over other possible explanations. Further (and this is, of course, ignored by you and **F-P** ) there is evidence that explicitly refutes genetics as a part of the cause. > [@](#): > > Can you point to where he said or implied this? This is yet another example of your straw manning. No it’s not. In post #835 **F-P** says “As noted, I don’t share CP’s conclusion that non-genetic factors can be ruled out as accounting for the entire difference, but I think that’s more of a judgment call, and is not as detached from reality as are the claims by you and others that there is zero basis for such a notion.” So **F-P** is saying that there is _not_ zero basis for **CP** ’s notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have absolutely nothing to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for. I disagree. This is an utterly ridiculous claim by **CP**. Do you think there’s basis to this notion? > [@](#): > > It is if it is _too_ broad. No? I realize you don’t think it is. But could someone be so concerned about racism that he saw it when it really wasn’t there? And if so, wouldn’t that be a bad thing? Sure… but I find it ridiculous that anyone can claim with a straight face that the following claim (and variations) “black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average” is _not_ a racist claim. > [@](#): > > I think **Fotheringay-Phipps’s** critique of your debate here was right on. You are too concerned with the moral implications to allow for genuine non-racist scientific inquiry. This is clear in every thread you’ve posted in about this topic. I’m fine with any sort of scientific inquiry, as long as it’s done ethically and with good science. So far, there has been no science done that’s been _good science_ and has supported these sorts of racist assertions. > [@](#): > > He does to me. Keep in mind that neither he nor I are agreeing with CP’s position. We merely think that you overstate the case for racism. I’m aware that you think it’s not racist to say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average”, or variations. I disagree. Somehow, IIRC, you _do_ think it would be racist to say “Jews have greater inclination to greed due to genes, on average”, or something similar, and I don’t at all understand how this is consistent. > [@](#): > > There you go again. If they’re bad science, do you really need any other route of attack? Of course. Holocaust deniers are wrong because of bad science, bad history, and _bad morals_. It’s perfectly fine to point all of this out when arguing with Holocaust deniers. And so it goes with this topic. > [@](#): > > Attack the science and allow it to fall or stand on its own veracity. I’ve done this. I’ve also used different ‘lines of attack’. > [@](#): > > You’re insisting that such positions are necessarily racist puts you on shaky ground. very shaky, as it advertises that you are not as concerned with science or facts as your are about morality or motives. I don’t see how… and I don’t see how such claims can possibly be described as _not racist_. I don’t see how pointing this out puts me on ‘shaky ground’ at all. > [@](#): > > When your focus is on the latter two, as yours most definitely is, you can’t expect people to accept your critiques as detached and fair. As far as I can tell, the only people who don’t accept my critiques as “detached and fair” are folks who believe that it’s not racist to say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence on average”. I’m not as concerned what such folks think about me, because they clearly have a very different, and even alien, understanding of the world as compared to mine. ---
**Author:** ![common\_good](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@common\_good](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/common_good)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/846 "2014-07-25T18:56:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, it isn’t. A vague sense of xenophobia, maybe, but stop blaming evolution for everything that’s wrong with your personality. That’s what I meant. What if that vague sense of xenophobia becomes an acute one ? Then it becomes racism. Blaming evolution ? I don’t even know what that means. How is it you know so much about what’s “wrong” with my personality ? Oh, you’re the one who bans. I get ya’. It’s the authority you hold. I like when people speak as if they know me. It’s usually laughable. But not this time. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/847 "2014-07-25T19:02:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In addition, I’ve not seen any indication that CP is a racist other than this one sole issue… So, other than the issue where he says that black people are genetically inferior, he may not have any racist thoughts? Have you asked Mrs. Lincoln about the play recently? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/848 "2014-07-25T19:17:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In post #835 **F-P** says “As noted, I don’t share CP’s conclusion that non-genetic factors can be ruled out as accounting for the entire difference, but I think that’s more of a judgment call, and is not as detached from reality as are the claims by you and others that there is zero basis for such a notion.” > > So **F-P** is saying that there is _not_ zero basis for **CP** ’s notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have absolutely nothing to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for. I don’t know that I have the interest and time to keep going round and round with you as you play your game at this time. But as you’re egregiously misrepresenting what I’ve said here I thought I’d point it out. I completely agree that there is zero basis for anyone’s “_notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have absolutely nothing to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for_”, and have never said anything that would imply otherwise to a reasonably intelligent person who was arguing in good faith. However, I am not aware of anyone who has made this claim, including CP, so my quote about CP not being nearly as detached from reality as you are does not relate to this statement. The only one who is hung up with this strict division of all factors into 1) genetic 2) economic and 3) all other, is you yourself. But if you insist on structuring it this way, you can say that the “notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors cannot completely account for the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for” which would leave genetic factors as the remainder, is more reasonable and not as detached from reality as is your position here. Or, more generally, the “notion that economic factors, discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors cannot completely account for current differences in test scores and other gaps of this sort” is less detached from reality than your positions on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/849 "2014-07-25T19:34:35Z")
> [@common\_good](#): > > That’s what I meant. What if that vague sense of xenophobia becomes an acute one ? Then it becomes racism. Blaming evolution ? I don’t even know what that means. How is it you know so much about what’s “wrong” with my personality ? Oh, you’re the one who bans. I get ya’. It’s the authority you hold. I like when people speak as if they know me. It’s usually laughable. But not this time. Lighten up, Francis. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/850 "2014-07-25T19:38:18Z")
> [@common\_good](#): > > That’s what I meant. What if that vague sense of xenophobia becomes an acute one ? Then it becomes racism. Sometimes. But racism is not the same thing as xenophobia. They’re different words for different ideas. > [@](#): > > Blaming evolution ? I don’t even know what that means. It’s what you were doing. > [@](#): > > How is it you know so much about what’s “wrong” with my personality ? I’ve had the misfortune to read some of your posts. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/851 "2014-07-26T00:25:08Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know that I have the interest and time to keep going round and round with you as you play your game at this time. But as you’re egregiously misrepresenting what I’ve said here I thought I’d point it out. > > I completely agree that there is zero basis for anyone’s “_notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors have absolutely nothing to do with the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for_”, and have never said anything that would imply otherwise to a reasonably intelligent person who was arguing in good faith. > > However, I am not aware of anyone who has made this claim, including CP, so my quote about CP not being nearly as detached from reality as you are does not relate to this statement. The only misunderstanding, then, is on what **CP** said, which you defended (in a roundabout way, sometimes). I have been arguing on this topic with him for years, and he’s absolutely made statements dismissing past oppression, discrimination, and other societal factors as having _anything_ to do with the test-score gap (after economics are corrected for). > [@](#): > > The only one who is hung up with this strict division of all factors into 1) genetic 2) economic and 3) all other, is you yourself. But if you insist on structuring it this way, you can say that the “notion that discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors cannot completely account for the remaining parts of the test score gap after economics have been accounted for” which would leave genetic factors as the remainder, is more reasonable and not as detached from reality as is your position here. > > Or, more generally, the “notion that economic factors, discrimination, past oppression, and other societal factors cannot completely account for current differences in test scores and other gaps of this sort” is less detached from reality than your positions on this issue. I don’t hold a position here. I’m just criticizing the position of those who say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence”. For the millionth time. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/852 "2014-07-26T07:18:20Z")
This convo seems to be going in circles, so I’m out of the thread. **iiandiii** have the last word if you want. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/853 "2014-07-26T09:09:45Z")
18 pages? Seriously? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/854 "2014-07-26T09:11:40Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > 18 pages? > > Seriously? Mate, this is the SDMB. If that “c” had been a “p”, it’d go into 3 digits of pages. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/855 "2014-07-26T12:33:54Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > This convo seems to be going in circles, so I’m out of the thread. **iiandiii** have the last word if you want. Just when I had you wriggling in the crushing grip of reason. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![chicagowhitesox1173](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/46a35a/32.png) [@chicagowhitesox1173](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chicagowhitesox1173)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/856 "2014-07-26T21:12:34Z")
This thread started to suck after around page 7 or 8. It turned into a bunch of nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/857 "2014-07-27T12:53:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t hold a position here. I’m just criticizing the position of those who say “black people have inferior genes for intelligence”. For the millionth time. The position which you generally summarize by your statement above is closer to the following: Observed average skillset differences among human populations–including groupings such as self-identified races–for certain physical skills such as power sprinting, psychometric exams for intelligence, and standardized academic scores, are driven by average differences in gene pools as well as average differences in nurture. By insisting that position be distilled to “black people have inferior genes for intelligence” you: 1. Use a pejorative for ranking where nature does not. Every source population for genetic traits is evolved to successfully propagate in it source environment, and nature does not recognize “superior” or “inferior.” It only recognizes “successful reproduction.” By introducing “inferior” you add a personal editorial not part of a scientific position. 2. Limit a much broader discussion of genetically driven differences to the only one that is apparently a personal hot-button for you–the efforts of our dominant culture to quantify intelligence. I don’t expect a dumbass like you to do other than cling to your personal distortions in the hope that you can obfuscate an obvious explanation for a stubbornly persistent and ubiquitous pattern among every collection of humans in every system in the world. Regardless of public positions, I’m pretty sure every thinking human understands the obvious fact that our intelligence–individual or average of individual–is driven by genes. To date, no amount of nurturing to the maximum possible extent has closed intelligence gaps among source population gene pools. No genetic studies between populations ever come to the conclusion that at a self-identified race level, populations have identical gene pools. But given your passion for defending an egalitarian mother nature, perhaps it’s best the obvious remains beyond your ability to grasp. It lets you live in a little pollyanna world content with promoting mantras like “zero evidence” and libelous drivel like “hey, you compare blacks with cockroaches!” instead of having to cope with reality. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/858 "2014-07-27T13:09:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > When listing reasons for the testing gap, did you include generations of systemic racism backed by laws and violence, much of which was intended to deny black people education and economic opportunity, segregate them from white people, and keep them from having a say in government, followed by widespread poverty and persistently unequal treatment from the judicial system? I’m just saying that might’ve had some persistent effects. Maybe I’m nuts. You’re nuts, or at least mistaken. “Generations of systemic racism” for ancestors is a pitifully inadequate explanation for why children of wealthy black and educated parents perform so abysmally on standardized tests compared with a cohort of whites or asians whose parents are poor and uneducated. First, why does this explanation only have value when applied to blacks? We don’t look for that explanation when looking at the scores of whites asians whose ancestors had a crappy history. More importantly, what are you postulating here? That the black parents (perhaps with a leg up from race-based preferences) managed to make it to the middle and upper classes, but now their kids are so deeply affected by what happened to their ancestors that they crap out in school? “Oh Mom; I wanted to learn Geometry, but I kept thinking about how oppressed we have been in the past, and I just couldn’t think straight…” What’s less persuasive than a strawman? Grasping at straws, that’s what. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/859 "2014-07-27T13:29:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Pointing out that the Nazis embraced and championed your views is not an ad hominem. It’s the truth. Given the heritage of your argument and the shit data that you’ve trotted out again and again and again and again, the other side doesn’t need to provide anything. Your posts are a mix of lies, invented data, trivia taken out of context, and plain old nonsense. Since your views are firmly in the tradition of bodily humor, spirit mediums, phrenologym phlogiston and flat out racism (from slavery justifications to Nazism and beyond), it’s viewed with extreme skepticism by people with functioning brains. > > My views about you as an individual are supported by some pretty strong data: having read a lot of your posts I know you’re a bigot and an unbearable pompous ignoramus and I’ve a sneaking suspicion your momma dresses you funny. However I’m also not claiming that’s a substitute for an argument. It’s just a bonus. Anyway, if you’re going to be a chief, man up and admit you’re on the same side as the Nazis. If not, stop calling yourself Fuhrer. I mean, Chief. I thought the Nazis were more “on the side” of promoting their own group as the In Charge group. I think they would be at odds with my position to promote race-based preferences so that society can be as broadly represented as possible for the different races. As to genetics, I don’t know much about the Nazi position, but if they held that genes drive skillsets, and that average gene pools differ among populations of humans, they were correct. Let me help you with what an ad hominem attack is, since in your role as a moderator, you’ll need to recognize it. An ad hominem attack seeks to cast doubt on a position by attacking the individual promoting the position. For example, if I hold that genes drive differences among self-identified racial groups, associating me with Nazis would be an ad hominen attack on that argument. It may be true–I could even be an actual Nazi–but it would be a fallacy that my Nazi-hood had any bearing on the strength of the argument itself. In general, application of “racist” is an ad hominen attack on the debate around genetically driven differences. Because “racist” is generally accepted as a pejorative, calling an individual a “racist” is often an attempt to leave an implication that their position less scientifically tenable. But of course whether or not a Nazi holds a position of fact, or a position can be described as “racist” has no bearing whatsoever on scientific truth. Mother Nature herself appears to hold that in the competition for reproduction, it’s perfectly acceptable to evolve new genes, and there’s no rule that an entire population cannot evolve a new gene pool should circumstances permit it. Nor is there any rule that a population must only evolve “fairly,” whatever that is. But reminding Mother Nature that Nazis also thought gene pools differences could drive average skillset differences carries no weight around what actually is. It would be an ad hominen fallacy to assume it does. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/860 "2014-07-27T15:13:34Z")
Yanno, I assume most user names are exaggerations. I’m pretty sure that **#1BieberFan96** , f’rinstance, is not _literally_ the number one Bieber fan in the world. However, you might well be the very chiefest of pedants. I salute your dedication, sir. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=44)