I’ve told you on more than one occasion that I do not agree with CP on everything he believes. To be honest, I’m not even clear on all of it. I can say, that to the degree that he is “certain” of his theory is in direct correlation with the degree that I’d like to disassociate myself from him. But I’m not sure that he’s all that certain, just that the evidence points to that as the best explanation. As he said, “employing Occam’s Razor…”
I complimented MaxTheVool’s post because it is the exact same thing I’ve said at least dozen times, and probably a half off those in response to you.
I’ve also said, numerous times that:
I don’t think there is a genetic difference in intelligences between “races” (easy, clairobscur). And IF there is, that the differences it presents is probably dwarfed by environmental/cultural factors.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that intelligence does, in fact, have a genetic component and intellectual ability is not evenly dispersed across the “races”, the same way that skin color, height, weight, eye shape, etc, are not equally distributed. But intelligence is a tough thing to pin down.
I don’t really care about this one way or the other. The only reason I comment in these threads is to combat the charge of “racist”, which IS used on a cudgel to shut down the while debate. Hell, in the ATMB thread we have posters advocating banning the subject altogether. On a a debate board! That leans left!!!
I’m not going to look it up right now (maybe later), but I have a pretty clear recollection of him posting directly that he’s quite certain that black people have inherently inferior genes for intelligence, on average.
He missed a pretty clear and important word in my post (“inherently”), which makes it quite different, at least to me. I’m unaware of any evidence that black people have inherently inferior genes for intelligence, on average.
This is all fine, and I usually avoid calling any posters racist (though I’m happy to call certain assertions racist). I don’t see what any of these 3 things lead you to challenge me so frequently when I criticize CP’s assertions – when I has anything I’ve ever said been a “cudgel to shut down” debate?
Look, yes, we know that something is going on with things like college graduation rates. But making a leap from that to genetics, and only genetics (which is what the racists do) is pseudo-science.
Take IQ tests. Parts of the world have been showing a steady increase in IQ tests for awhile now. If IQ tests only measured a genetic component, then that would mean that parts of the world have been undergoing a rapid genetic shift. And you would need to come up with a theory or model that explains why some parts of the world are undergoing that shift and some parts aren’t. And then you’d need to find empirical evidence to support that model.
The racists want to skip all of that. They just want to shout “IQ” and then wave jazz-hands, as if that’s an argument. It’s not an argument, and the people actually doing science are trying to figure out what IQ measures. Is it a reflection of genetics? Nutrition? Environmental exposure? Early socialization? Some combination of these? Is it influenced by test-taking instruction and practice?
If someone comes in spouting off about IQ without even knowing any of this stuff, then yes, I’m going to call them out on their crap. Because all we know right now is that IQ is measuring something related to what we defined as “intelligence,” but we aren’t sure of what exactly it’s measuring, let alone how that relates to genetic factors.
There is a set of tests that measure how-greedy-you-are in a fashion. We routinely conduct tests measuring altruism and cooperative behavior, both in animals and in humans. It’s just almost nobody is looking at those tests and claiming that this means that some specific racial group is inherently greedier than others, because when it comes to humans, these tests are usually done with a psychological or sociological framework in mind.
Well, I think I’m usually pretty clear on what I may be objecting to. Naturally, if there’s any confusion, a follow up can be very helpful. I don’t feel like going back and searching through old threads, but if you—or anyone else—is working to characterize CPs posts, as I remember them, as “racist”, you’re using the word as a cudgel and working to make the discussion verboten. That is true even if it is not your intent. Maybe you underestimate the strength of the word.
Sure enough Captain Amalgam, in any case others need to know that besides being a woo woo pusher you have been declared a Jerk and Troll even by the mods, so no, I did not lie at all.
What is happening here is that just like I told many before you only make it worse for you for coming to the tread in an attempt to ignore that more than a few of the ones you saw before supporting you in climate change threads are indeed racists and even holocaust deniers.
If you go to bed with dogs don’t complain that you get fleas.
I think you’re overestimating the strength of the word. Being a racist or saying something racist isn’t the end of the world. My grandparents had racist beliefs and said racist things sometimes. They were still good people, but flawed. Racism is a flaw, and saying racist things is a flaw, but it’s not the end of the world. I’ve said racist things in my life, and I want them to be identified so I can improve myself. That’s part of the reason I make a point to identify racist assertions – because I genuinely would want to know if I said something that might be racist, and I want to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Some people genuinely don’t think that the racist things they believe or say are (or might be) racist. I’m not calling a post “racist” to shut down the poster – I’m saying it to point out that I believe they just said something racist, and they might want to re-evaluate that.
Only to a racist dumbfuck thinks that calling out racism is worse than actual racism.
Nobody’s shutting down debate. There have been plenty of threads in GD where everyone debated this topic with all the civility you could want.
This tactic of yours is a bog standard one used by bigots everywhere. Always crying about the mean people calling them out on their bigotry, as if that’s the greater horror then their actual bigotry.
I started the thread, in part, because we can’t use the word “racist” anywhere else on the Board. Certainly not as a descriptor for posters who repeatedly appear to view the world through a lens that is racist. CP fits that description. So do a few others.
It’s the Pit. People may also be using it in a more pejorative sense. That’s what happens when the only place you can reasonably apply a label in in the Pit.
The intention is not to drown CP out. The intention is to Pit CP for failing to see the obvious. Can he use that lovely, twisty, analytical mind of his to try and analyze the world in a non-racist way? Because that would be spiffy.
If he can’t, well, I would like to let him know that it bothers me. I find it offensive. The fact that he repeats it makes it an overwhelming effluvia of offensiveness, like an overflowing septic tank. It’s rancid. It seeps into your brain the way the stink pervades your clothes. After I wade through one of his threads I want some way to wash out the inside of my head.
It’s not science. It’s not “racial”. It’s racism. And if you find his logic compelling, then you need to analyze your worldview too.
I think I have a pretty good handle on the power of the word. Just look at what you wrote in its defense: that your grandparents said racist things. The implication is that they were formed in another time, and they were. One where it was not uncommon to see “Blacks Only” and “Whites Only” signs. So they’re racist views are may be excused as quaint. Now I have no problem using the word against statements that are clearly racist, in an ugly way, and deeming those that utter them racists, as they deserve the word and all the insulting power it heaps down upon them. But, to repeat myself, to take a statement that can be fairly characterized as being merely racial and to insist on characterizing it as racist is unhelpful in the extreme. The only rationale for doing so is that you WANT the cudgel. Otherwise, why not use racial where it is appropriate and reserve racist for the hateful, vile stuff.
I’ve asked this numerous times before and people don’t answer it. Instead, they argue for their right to use “racist”.
When they do so I can only conclude that there intent is not to have the discussion, but to end it. They’re less concerned in arguing back against a particular point of view than they are with making the point of view verboten.
Did you miss the part where I said that I said racist things in the past? In fact, most of the kids I grew up with, of any race, said racist things at some point. Most of us have fixed ourselves, for the most part, and recognize that those things we said were racist and we shouldn’t have said them. I’m in my mid-30s, by the way.
I still don’t understand the difference, and it’s never been adequately explained to me. I don’t know what “racial” means to you – to me, a “racial” statement might be something like “in America some people are black”, but I don’t get how it relates to this discussion, or excuses any of the assertions I have called racist. I don’t understand how “black people are inherently inferior in intelligence, on average, due to genetics” can be anything other than a racist assertion, no matter who says it, and no matter why they say it. Care to try and explain it again?
People haven’t succeeded in shutting down the debate, but they have tried. Hell, they’re still trying. There’s an ATMB thread right now where a couple posters have suggested banning topics like the one CP talks about.
One more thing: you are one stupid, hateful, close-minded bitch.
No one believes you. You’re just oddly present whenever a thread starts getting busy. It’s just amazing how many posts you can get into a thread that wasn’t really about you in the first place. Welcome to the party. You’ve self-selected a CP supporter. Or is it the other side? Funny how hard it is to tell with you.
Isn’t there someone discussing climate change somewhere?
Because in this case they are racist, it is indeed a very extreme form of ignorance. And their crank magnetism just shows where they are coming from. I already linked to Chen019 holocaust denial, one should not have to point out that from there to his “scientific racism” there is not much of a difference.
Chief Pedant comes more from the nativist side of things and a lot of his pseudo-science regarding climate change contrariarism comes from the attempts of climate change deniers to set a wedge issue with environmentalists and immigrant rights people.
It is really vile stuff, and the problem is that you are still insisting that all that is hunky dory.
Not really. But someone used a word earlier that I think might be valuable, “animus”. Racial simply means having to do with race. Racist contains animus, as well.
I do not see the claim that one race may be more intelligent than another to necessarily contain animus. I think it the same studies CP has cited, the Asians are supposedly smarter than Whites (me). My response? Interesting. Really, That’s it. It has no bearing on my life, on my psyche. I also know that even if that’s true, they the difference is tiny and that I can override it.
Whaat? Do you want to ban people from suggesting banning topics? Sounds like you’re the true banner of things!
Or maybe you’re just a whiny asshole who can’t stand being called out on his racist bullshit. Even if this board bans the topic completely, which I doubt, there’s still plenty of places on the internet for you racists to get your rocks off.
Nope. You’re a racist dickhead, bitch! Go fuck yourself.
I see such claims as inherently containing animus (that might have been me using that word, by the way) or bias, considering the evidence (or not-evidence) presented to support them so far. To me, such claims fall clearly within the category of “racist”.
I’m also a white guy. Such claims don’t affect me either, in general (though they do affect members of my immediate family). But that’s just me. Such claims have been used to justify incredible brutality and oppression, even into recent decades, against black people (among other groups). Repeating such claims is a very small thing that could be used, again as a very small part, to justify future brutality and oppression. It doesn’t affect me, but it may well affect others.
Further, such biased and animus-filled claims serve to excuse (whether intended or not) past perpetrators of brutality and oppression who relied on these justifications for their vile behavior.
Are you referring to the Eyferth study? Because if so, that was a rather small sample size, and had a presumably-nonrepresentative sample of fathers (since they were overwhelmingly U.S. soldiers.)
And even without these issues, where’s the kind of rigorous, broad-based study that makes people so certain that there’s no-or-negligible genetic factors of intelligence unequally distributed along racial lines? This study says nothing about the average intelligence of, e.g., mixed-race Jewish kids.
I’ve read the thread and I’m not seeing anything other than requests along this line. Oh, and can we please use the word “racist”. No banning. No shutting down discussion.
Not directed at me, but you are scum. You are lower than the stain my dog leaves after scooting his ass across the floor. If more brain could suddenly ooze from the ruptured anal fistula of a lowland gorilla, you’d scrape it up and congratulate yourself on the upgrade. And you’d still need autocorrect to spell your name.
Racist not racial. Practice. You’ll get there if you try, you maggot-infested dipshit.