Are you a racist? Warning signs

[Hippy_Hollow]

Shit, this thread is still going?

[levdrakon]

Fuck, shit. Puke. People are still saying that?

[Velocity]

@orangeapples

That is so completely not what I said, or meant. But the fault is my own if my meaning was not clear. If you are wrong on that issue, then anyone that agrees with you on that issue is as wrong as you are and if someone else is right on that same issue, then they remain right no matter how dumb you find them to be. That was my intent, plain and simple, and certainly does not extend to any and all issues under the sun.

It might seem I’ve conflated wrongness with racist asshole-ness, and by extension that I am claiming that they’re wrong no matter what because they’re wrong on that issue. I am not in fact doing so. I have known racist assholes and I know for certain they are right on occasion. I fully accept I’ve been wrong before even though I’m not a racist asshole.

I regret the confusion my poorly constructed remarks might have caused.

Sorry, I misunderstood you then. My bad.

[MrDibble]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=11230550

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. "

[JKellyMap]

@furt

Inability to accurately quote is also less than impressive.

You suggested that the pointing out of certain facts – those stated in this thread by Ascenray, iiandiii, Marley23, myself, and several others – would not be advisable, because stating them so frankly might fail to persuade people who are uncertain about whether to side with the genetic-determinists-of-“intelligence”-who-throw-“race”-into-the-mix, or to side against such folks.

I suggested that, by softening the facts with soothing words (or whatever exactly it is you were proposing), we would not in fact be helping such undecideds to learn. That is my opinion.

While I did not quote you word for word, I understood your point clearly, and clearly responded to it.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@MrDibble

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. "

Worked yesterday

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17406178&highlight=biologist#post17406178

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17562061&highlight=biologist#post17562061

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17572424&highlight=biologist#post17572424

[MrDibble]

That’s better.

Well, I guess I was wrong all along, and I must now take the word of this one message-board biologist over all the published papers and scientific organizations that tell me there’s no biological reality to race.

Or not.

[Marley23]

@Acsenray

You think there’s a “middle” on scientific racism?

Are we in “teach the controversy” territory?

And that’s how science gets fucked.

[Evil_Economist]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t think that’s true - at least not per this thread. My understanding is that no one is claiming there is a definitive answer. The only claim being made is that there’s no evidence of it. That’s not the same thing.

Has anyone done this science?

Yes

[Evil_Economist]

@furt

Oh you have A study? Well that settles it, then. I’m sure every one of the zillions of other studies done on race and achievement all say the exact same thing. No need to look any further! Thread finished! No more books on the topic need ever be written!

There has only been one study ever done that I am aware of. Unsurprisingly, it found that there was no genetic basis to the differences in test scores between whites and blacks. Our racist posters are all fully aware of this study because we bring it up every time they start their shit again.

[magellan01]

@Acsenray

You think there’s a “middle” on scientific racism?

As far as this discussion goes, I think there is. On the one side you have people who hold that Blacks are not as intelligent as other races, and the Asians are more intelligent. They point to some evidence for this, weak as it might be.

On the other end you have people who cannot entertain the thought that anyone would even look at the racial disparities and not be a racist. The people have faith that any and all disparities would be erased of all nurturing factors were equalized.

The middle is defined by the assumption that there is not an intelligence gap between the races. But there could very well be. The same way genes that follow race lines can account for physical differences, they could very well manifest themselves in differences that would result in one race being more intelligent than the other. Thus, a scientific inquiry into race and intelligence is NOT necessarily racist.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

On the other end you have people who cannot entertain the thought that anyone would even look at the racial disparities and not be a racist. The people have faith that any and all disparities would be erased of all nurturing factors were equalized.

Who is in this category? I’m not sure if I’ve seen anyone in this thread that would fall in this camp.

The middle is defined by the assumption that there is not an intelligence gap between the races. But there could very well be. The same way genes that follow race lines can account for physical differences, they could very well manifest themselves in differences that would result in one race being more intelligent than the other. Thus, a scientific inquiry into race and intelligence is NOT necessarily racist.

I guess I’m in the middle, then, by this accounting, because the only part of this I disagree with is the assumption that genes follow “race lines” in accounting for “physical differences”.

[Evil_Economist]

@magellan01

As far as this discussion goes, I think there is. On the one side you have people who hold that Blacks are not as intelligent as other races, and the Asians are more intelligent. They point to some evidence for this, weak as it might be.

On the other end you have people who cannot entertain the thought that anyone would even look at the racial disparities and not be a racist. The people have faith that any and all disparities would be erased of all nurturing factors were equalized.

The middle is defined by the assumption that there is not an intelligence gap between the races. But there could very well be. The same way genes that follow race lines can account for physical differences, they could very well manifest themselves in differences that would result in one race being more intelligent than the other. Thus, a scientific inquiry into race and intelligence is NOT necessarily racist.

The middle might be better defined as those who are aware that there’s no such thing as a black race, scientifically speaking, and that we have actual scientific evidence that there’s no genetic basis for the differences in test scores between blacks and whites. This is not secret information, it’s available to anyone who cares enough to look, which is why we suspect those who refuse to acknowledge it of being racists.

[Marley23]

@Evil_Economist

The middle might be better defined as those who are aware that there’s no such thing as a black race, scientifically speaking, and that we have actual scientific evidence that there’s no genetic basis for the differences in test scores between blacks and whites. This is not secret information, it’s available to anyone who cares enough to look, which is why we suspect those who refuse to acknowledge it of being racists.

So brief, so well put. So sad that it’s on page 21 (and it won’t work).

[Velocity]

@Evil_Economist

The middle might be better defined as those who are aware that **there’s no such thing as a black race, **scientifically speaking, and that we have actual scientific evidence that there’s no genetic basis for the differences in test scores between blacks and whites. This is not secret information, it’s available to anyone who cares enough to look, which is why we suspect those who refuse to acknowledge it of being racists.

Okay…

[andros]

@Velocity

Okay…

:rolleyes:

Is this really a surprise to you?

[Marley23]

@andros

:rolleyes:

Is this really a surprise to you?

I can’t wait to see what happens when he reads the rest of the sentence.

[Great_Antibob]

@Velocity

Okay…

For somebody who jumped pretty quickly to genetics as a partial explanation for the low BMI of the Japanese - and was subsequently shown to be pretty fucking wrong about that - maybe you should think about your own biases more carefully.

[common_good]

I have a simple test that is pretty good at determining the degree of racism a person has. I simply ask “are you racist ?”. ‘Yes’ means he is racist and is at least honest about being so (and probably has some senseless justification to offer in support of his reasoning). ‘No’ means, possibly, no; but not likely to be as simple as that. ‘No’ can mean “yes, but with certain conditions, such as the effort to adapt to changing attitudes or for more personal reasons like business interests, the spirit of social propriety, etc.”, but is tainted by inner doubt about race. To some, most, probably, the question is more complex than at first apparent. I admit to being a little racist. I think everyone should. No one is without bias; the only way to counter this is with learning, with knowledge, with experience. These are the teachers. A person who has never seriously examined his or her attitude toward race, or toward any other form of bias, has not gone thru the process of over-riding the human inclination toward mistrust to “others” that natural selection has equiped us with. We “feel” suspicion regarding out-groups. We “reason” that this feeling is unreliable; that our Senses often misinform us. The Sun doesn’t really rise and set; but damned if it doesn’t “seem” to. Those who vehemently deny any trace of racism are hopelessly trapped in the paradox and will progress no further in ridding themselves of their bias because they can see no need in it.

[Acsenray]

How is that simple?