Not “have it easy” - not by any means. I’m just talking in general, and relatively speaking. And this was in the context of a conversation Harris was having about the supposed inherent intellectual inferiority of black people, and he said something counteractual and incredibly stupid, specifically about race.
I’m far from sure that Harris’s whiteness had nothing to do with him making such a stupid comment on that specific topic.
You just did it again. Why would whiteness have anything to do with it?
It looks like the comment that you find objectionable that is attribute to Harris is that race is a biological construct.
Why is this stupid? In the context of medicine there are apparently some diseases and predilections that are contingent or partially contingent upon race, and certainly the physical differences by which we identify race Tend to be real biological differences expressed to different degrees rather than imaginary constructs. I’m thinking that the epicanthic fold typical in Asians, is not a sociological construct.
Why is this statement stupid? Why is it a white thing?
Well, now we see why is that many Republicans in power with the idiot ball find many targets.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21136497&postcount=1670
A short podcast from the University of Alabama Anthropologists and genetics experts/professors. Where Murray, Sam Harris and even David Reich are criticized:
Sorry, I was skimming, did Scylla just seriously compare accusations of white privilege to antisemitic propaganda in the 20s and 30s?
GIGO:
Well it seems obvious that different populations with vast genetic disimilarities may evolve the same trait. Bats have wings, butterflies have wings. They are not closely related. I am an hour into the podcast right now, and the podcast is focusing on race and IQ.
The claims Murray is making are;
My reactions:
A. The math between #2and #4 do not actually add up. This is such a basic and fundamental blunder that I would guess there is a subtlety here that did not get explained in the podcast such as that it takes a 1.5x times difference in environment to equate to a 1x difference in standard deviation of intelligence, but is somewhere covered in the book. This however is a big blunder and a big explanatory gap and you just can’t throw it out there as if it isn’t, and ignore it in a discussion. A careful person making a careful argument should know to address it.
B. #4 is presented as if it is a huge number that could not possibly be real, and therefore trying to explain this difference away environmentally is a similar improbably large stretchstretch. However, when I look at it and translate it, what this actually comes out to is this: to explain the measure difference in IQ between blacks and whites in America as measured by Murray (I make no warranty on the validity of his statistics) one would need to say that the environmental disadvantage suffered by blacks is 21%. Or in other words, the average black kid is raised in an environment which is 21% worse than the average white kid.
Again, I make no warranty as to the quality of the statistics being put out by Murray, I am simply accepting them at face value as if they are true so that I am looking at Murray’s arguments in their own terms. My gut reaction is that I do not see 21% as being the stretch that Murray seems to think it is. In fact, if I were just to take a WAG at the systemic environmental inequality between blacks and whites in America based on socioeconomic factors I would say 20% and feel that I was being especially conservative (I, always conservative in WAGs,) I would guess the real number is higher. This seems like he is refuting his argument in his own terms. Feel free to place whatever number you want in here to decide if you think Murray is making a good argument.
C. In his insistence that he was norming properly he raised several factors as evidence to suggest that he did so comprehensively. He did not norm against several issues that I mentioned in a previous post, which are quite obvious, imo, and has also failed to mention several others that I did not mention simply because they were complex and not easy to describe in a sentence or two but that any idiot who spends any time fucking around with statistics should be aware of.
D. My expectation and prejudice going into this podcast was that the reaction against it was going to be a histrionic moral panic over something that is actually not controversial, and is rather mild.
This expectation and prejudice appears to be incorrect.
E. Sam Harriss does not appear to know enough about this subject to be aware of what is going on, and should probably stick to philosophy. This is the most charitable possible interpretation that I could extend him.
Seems that Scylla is jumping over the repeated rebuttals to that too.
Because we’re human, not robots, and our own biases, characteristics, circumstances, and experiences are likely to affect our point of view on various subjects. And it’s not “would”, but “could”. Just maybe.
What repeated rebuttals to my comparison were made?
Posts #626 and #810. Again, for the third time, working to make a fairer society or dealing with a racist society does not necessarily lead to the extermination of the oppressors or the people that had the advantage while the injustice prevailed.
Your comparison is more like a close relative to the “white genocide” talking point that percolates from the extreme right to the president and then reused, sometimes ignorantly, by more regular conservatives.
[ul]
[li] Some Democrat politicians are money-corrupt or engage in sexual misconduct. This won’t count against the D’s since R’s are at least as bad.[/li][li] Some complain that Hillary and other D’s are too militaristic, supporting violence against Libya or violence with drones. Again, the R’s are at least as bad if this is bad at all. (I’m not fully informed on on-going wars and wouldn’t feel properly informed without briefings from the NatSec Advisor. The idea that drone attacks are cowardly is silly. If we’re going to kill bad guys at all, we should kill them with minimal loss of American lives.)[/li][li] Some D politicians put more emphasis on social issues, like gay rights, than I would. But, wrong or not, this is hardly evil or despicable. Instead it is driven by popular sentiment. “As of 2016, 83% of Americans aged 18–29 support same-sex marriage.”[/li][li] D’s support women’s right to have control over their bodies. I also support that right. I mention it here only because I have huge trouble trying to imagine what “evil” or “despicable” things the D’s do that lead you to support the R’s. Abortion is the ONLY thing I can think of that might fit the bill. Is that what you’re talking about? 
[/li][li] Some D’s support gun control. I think for many Americans, denying someone a gun permit would be like kidnapping their child. Is that what you’re talking about?[/li][li] The U.S. has, by far, the highest inequality of income and wealth distribution of any developed country. If the D’s had their way, the U.S. would still have by far the highest GINI, but slightly less so. The Walton family gets about $2.5 billion annually, after taxes, in WalMart dividends. If the D’s had their way, the Waltons would be struggling to get by on just $2.3 billion annually. Is that the “despicable evil” you’re talking about?[/li][li] The D’s want health care for all Americans. Is that the “despicable evil” you’re talking about?[/li][/ul]
I’d better stop “putting words in your mouth.” I could easily rattle off a dozen examples of despicable Republican evil, but what is the D’s despicable evil you have in mind? I’m lost.
Ok. It’s good to know that this kind of thinking doesn’t always automatically lead to genocide or extermination.
Did you know that shooting oneself in the head doesn’t always automatically lead to death.
You should make an advertisement for your political philosophy
“New improved racism! Now with 10% less genocide and virtually extermination free.”
Do you want to rethink this argument, or are you going to come up with another way to justify racist attitudes towards perceived offender groups as a mechanism for social change.
As pointed, it is you and the conservatives that need to rethink yours. Yours here is another variant of the excluded middle fallacy. With strawman added.
You really did ignore that I was not in favor of the CNN tweeter twits huh?
I don’t think it will have value coming from me, as I don’t think people on this board are generally willing to accept criticism of their political philosophy, particularly from someone they see as an antagonist.
I will be general though, I think there are signs that the left is in the very early stages of attempting a violent revolution and the more reasonable elements are doing little to stop it.
That racist violent and hateful element on the left is growing and unchecked and taking power.
White supremacists on the far right are still marginalized and anemic, and really not a serious concern by comparison.
I’m sure your right. I’m being unfairly harsh towards racism.
Indeed /s
You also continue to ignore that what you point out are tempests in teapots compared to the hurricane of lies and racism from the Republican leadership.
Piffle.
And you seem to miss that in the thread where Sam Harris is criticized the OP also claims to be a Democrat, he is continuously criticized too by following “scientific” racism.
So me and many from the left are dealing with the racist elements on our side, and the violent ones like asahi. I can still count with single digits the better conservatives that bother to tell the racists and violent fellows from the right to take a hike.
Can you be even slightly specific about what signs you are seeing? I mean, you can look at anything, and say that it is in the “very early stages” of anything, as that is as ambiguous to define as you want it to be.
Can you use your same metrics to look at your own party, and at least admit that it is in much later stages?
The racist and hateful element on the right has already taken power. Have you seen the campaign ads that Kemp puts out? They put anything you can find of some blogger on the left to shame. And he actually has power.
You marginalize them by putting them into office? Ummm, that doesn’t work.
The leaders of the GOP are blatantly despicable and evil, but you find them morally superior to the Democratic Party because a few fringe “antifas” might advocate violence.
Got it. I guess. (Timothy McVeigh, Clive Bundy — are they among the Democratic revolutionaries you’re worried about?)
And who are the “reasonable elements” not doing enough to stop the “revolutionaries” you lump with “Democrats”? Beto O’Rourke? Is he a Maoist? Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — are they among the revolutionaries you’re concerned about?
My mind boggles. If I wrote up-thread that you might be a reasonable man, let me retract that now.
This strikes me as totally insane alternative-universe stuff. The chief spreader of a racist conspiracy theory (birtherism) for many years, who praised white supremacists, said a judge couldn’t do his job because he was Mexican, and much, much more, is now President, from the right. There are no prominent Democrats who spread any racist bullshit that comes close at all to any of this.