The key question is not whether you think sexual orientation is genetic. The question is what’s the standard for declaring something to be evidence of a genetic difference.
The general question is: if we do not know a specific gene that causes X and which varies between 2 populations, does that imply that there is “no evidence” of a genetic cause for the apparent variation.
In the case of race/intelligence, you’ve repeatedly and forcefully argued one way. In the case of orientation, you’ve said the other way.
Well you are a very clever boy.
Not clever enough to tell me apart from Shodan. But still very clever.
I agree with the first part. Conveniently for you. Very conveniently for you.
Doesn’t get you anywhere, as above. But very convenient anyway.
Because if the fact that we do not know a specific gene that causes X and which varies between 2 populations does imply that there is “no evidence” of a genetic cause for the apparent variation, then you should not have answered “I don’t know” when asked if there was “no evidence” in the case of sexual orientation. Because we were stipulating that no gene for orientation was known.
By expressing some continued uncertainty over whether evidence might exist, you were acknowledging that there could theoretically be evidence of a genetic cause of variation, even if the actual gene was unknown.
This is diametrically at odds with your position in these race/intelligence threads.
The characteristic being described matters – intelligence is different than sexual orientation.
Plus, I’m quite knowledgeable about the supposed non-genetic “evidence” (which is uniformly bad and based on bad science) that is cited to support the assertion that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, while I’m not knowledgeable at all about any non-genetic evidence for the assertion that homosexuality is based on genes.
If you want to stipulate that the non-genetic evidence for the assertion that homosexuality is based on genes is as weak as the non-genetic “evidence” for the assertion that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, then I’m happy to agree that both assertions have no supporting evidence.
I’ve said this even with the question of black genes for intelligence: I even proposed an experiment (in another thread) that would provide solid evidence one way or another on the question of whether genetics is the best explanation for disparate outcomes in test scores, even without any genetic data at all!
Everything is different than everything else at some level. For purposes of this question they are the same.
But that’s not the same thing you’ve been arguing in these threads. You’ve been saying that the only thing that counts as evidence is knowedge of the gene, and that since we don’t have this, we therefore have “no evidence”.
I have no problem with you saying there is other evidence but it’s not convincing. In fact that happens to be my own position. But that’s not the same thing as saying there is no other evidence.
I wouldn’t want to say that because I don’t think it’s true. The evidence for orientation is a lot stronger.
But again, that’s not the same thing as saying there is “no evidence” in the case of race/intelligence.
You didn’t stipulate that for the purposes of this question they are the same. If so, then obviously my answer is the same. I was treating them as real-world characterstics of humans, which involves nuance.
I’ve been arguing that on the question of whether the explanation for disparate outcomes is that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, the only way to answer the question is with genetic data. But I’ve also suggested an experiment in an older thread (albeit a very difficult and unethical one) that would at least provide some non-genetic information that might be helpful in answering the question.
In the case of the question about black genes for intelligence being inferior as the explanation for disparate outcomes, there is no other evidence at this time.
So fine, you don’t agree with me on “no evidence”. I’m, of course, curious what evidence there is that supports the assertion that disparate test scores are explained by inferior genes for intelligence among black people – because I haven’t seen any from CP, certainly.
I guess that’s one for the list: If you’re more concerned with whether someone will call you a racist than with whether you are one, you might be a racist.
This makes me think of another one, that might be kind of controversial – if you’re absolutely positive that you’re not a racist, then you might be a racist.
In my view, people who really understand racism understand that racists generally don’t know that they’re racists, and they understand that there’s a possibility that they might be racists too.
So I might be a racist. I hope not, and I strive every day to not say or do racist things, but I can’t know for sure.
And if I say or do something racist, I strongly hope someone calls me out on it so I can fix myself.
I agree with you. If we are self-aware, we recognize at least our potential for bias even if we don’t see every bias. I know I have sexist thinking. I know I have heteronormative thinking. I know I have racist thinking. I try to catch it and I try not to act on it, but I know that it’s there.
If you are absolutely obsessed out of your mind with who is or who isn’t a racist, and constantly coming up with new nuanced ways to sniff out hidden racists, you might be a politically correct witch-hunting heresy-fighting neo-McCarthyite.
And what if you’re obsessed out of your mind with defending weak arguments based on bad science from “mobs” of people with facts and science (and occasional errors)?
I probably am obsessed with it on this board. People like you shrug and smug your way through any discussion, always exempting yourself from actually thinking about your own motivations. You get called a racist and then you complain about being called a racist rather than thinking about what you’re doing that might actually be racist.
CP’s entire existence on this board revolves around demonstrating that black people are stupid. You defend that and say his motivations are a complete cipher to you. You embrace that sort of implausible deniability because that prevents you from ever having to think about your own motives.
My motives are incredibly clear. I want an end of racism. I won’t get it, but that’s what I want. If you don’t want to talk to people like me, why the fuck are you in a thread about racism?
I’ve not complained about being called racist. I’m indifferent to this, as long as it’s clear what is meant. I believe I observed this in my first post to this thread.
As a general rule, though, I think people who obsess over who is or is not a racist are not honest people, and their motives are not straightforward. What these people are generally doing is playing a semantic game. The term “racist” conjures up images of guys dragging black guys to their deaths, tied to the back of their pickup trucks, and so on. So if you define someone as “racist”, then you get to suggest without saying outright that this guy is really a secret lyncher or at least sympathizer.
That’s the game. You talk up the horrors of “racism” on the one side using the most extreme evil examples of racism you can find. And then you turn around and use a much more expansive definition of the term to tar people whose opinions you don’t like. This - and only this - is where I would object to being called a “racist”. [FTR, I’m not accusing any specific person of having this intention.]
But if someone is not trying to convey that I hold views that I don’t actually hold, and merely discussing whether my actual views constitute racism, that is a matter of complete indifference to me. That seems like a purely semantic matter that would be of interest to grammarians and lexicographers. I may or may not be a racist, depending on the definition used, but I’m certainly not a grammarian or lexicographer.
I am comfortable with my views and actions WRT racial matters on moral and logical grounds, and they’re racist then that’s fine and if they’re not racist then that’s fine too. Whether my positions fit into some definition of a Bad Word or not is not part of my calculus in considering them.
D’you think Shoah survivors would be happy regularly reading completely unmoderated posts by Holocaust deniers every time they open a thread about Germany?
So think how I feel every time I open a thread about Africa, or colonialism, or anything else, and your racist cohort are spewing all this filth about the supposed genetic intellectual inferiority of me and every non-White on my continent. And the admins do nothing.
At least the Apartheid government never pretended they had Science on their side. They were honest racists. Unlike the race realists here, who hide behind frauds like Rushton and Lynn.
And here it is again. You will judge the motives and declare anti-racists dishonest, but you cannot for the life of you bear the thought of judging CP as dishonest.
The idea that “racism” has to mean lynchings is a gambit by the side trying to defend their actions as non-racist. “Well, I don’t kill people or want anyone to be lynched, so I must not be a racist.”
My interpretation of racism is much different. I believe there is such a thing as small racism, that such small racism is both prevalent and dangerous, and that it is often unconscious. I point it out when I feel it/think it in an attempt to see myself and also to get others to notice their own thought patterns, because you can’t treat a disease you don’t know you have. (Well, I guess you can, but it would be weird.)
Little children show racial biases. Most of us have them (probably all, but there may be exceptions). It’s like a low-grade fever. We don’t say a low-grade fever isn’t a fever, it’s just not as dangerous for the moment. Low-grade racism is still racism. It’s not all lynchings and slavery.
But that’s not the same thing as saying there is no other evidence.